Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Defence argues there is an ‘absence of motive’ in Erin Patterson’s murder trial as jury hears closing addresses

Mr Mandy has again told the jury about inconsistent evidence from Simon (pictured) regarding the health of his wife’s lunch guests.

The defence barrister questioned if Simon told Patterson everyone was unwell on the Sunday.

‘Did he tell her about all four, or just two?’ he said.

‘If only two were unwell it could have just been gastro.’

Mr Mandy said Simon claimed he told Patterson everyone was sick.

Mr Mandy said he asked Simon that question again and was told ‘I think that’s what I told her’.

Simon also then admitted it was possible he didn’t tell Patterson about all four guests being sick.

Mr Mandy said it’s an important issue and the jury should not find Simon said ‘it was all four’.

‘He only told me about Don and Gail,’ Mr Mandy reminded the jury what Patterson said.

‘Dr Rogers put Simon’s ‘four guests line’ to Patterson five times,’ Mr Mandy said

‘Without putting the full picture.’

The trial has concluded for the day and Daily Mail Australia’s live coverage will resume from 8am local time on Wednesday, June 18.

Mr Mandy said it was ‘likely’ Patterson had given consistent information to all who asked her questions at the time.

He then took the jury to the various locations Patterson gave for the Asian grocer.

‘People have different memories about events,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy also suggested people can be ‘honestly mistaken’.

Mr Mandy told the jury to consider how difficult it is for someone to remember precisely what they told everyone under similar circumstances as his client.

Mr Mandy said his client had the right to silence and sit in the dock and say nothing during this trial but Patterson was put under an ‘intense, surgical examination’ in the witness box.

‘Yet she decided to give evidence and give her account and subject herself to several days of cross examination by a very experienced barrister (pictured left),’ he said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson also admitted to the jury the lies she had told and again reminded the jury Patterson spoke to 21 people in 24 hours.

‘She was bombarded with questions about the meal,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘Her account was the same to those people.’

Mr Mandy has moved to the topic of the leftovers and what Patterson ate during the lunch.

The defence barrister said the prosecution had to prove there was one ‘unpoisoned parcel’ but no unpoisoned Wellington portion was found in the leftovers.

Mr Mandy said there was no evidence Patterson ate all her Wellington.

He also described the Crown’s case as a ‘charade’ regarding what was found in the bin.

Mr Mandy told the jury the prosecution claimed there were ‘clearly two halves’ found in the bin.

But he said there was no evidence to suggest there were two halves in the bin because no one was asked about it.

Mr Mandy also claimed the Crown said Patterson was ‘forced’ to tell authorities the leftovers were in the bin.

‘It’s obviously not true,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘Here’s the pin code for my gate, help yourself [is what Patterson told police].’

Mr Mandy said his client was co-operative about where the leftovers were.

‘Without hesitation,’ he said.

‘This suggests at that time Ms Patterson did not know there was poison in them.’

Mr Mandy said a guilty person would have already have thrown the leftovers out.

‘There had been two days to do all that instead of direct the police where (to find them),’ he said.

‘An innocent person would say “go grab them, help yourselves”, that’s what she did say.’

The defence has questioned why Patterson would post an image of her dehydrator ‘murder weapon’ to an online true crime group while again pointing out the lack of motive.

‘Not only is there no motive, there are very good reasons not to harm them,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said these were the only people she had in the world that supported her.

Mr Mandy said the purchase of the dehydrator was shared to a true crime group and he suggested that ‘to do so made no sense for someone supposedly planning a murder’.

Mr Mandy told the jury she posted the ‘murder weapon’ to a true crime group at a time the prosecution claimed she was planning to use it to kill her in laws.

‘The one thing you do if you’re planning a murder is to get rid of the murder weapon,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said the timing of the disposal of that dehydrator was ‘important’.

‘It speaks volumes about her frame of mind,’ he said.

‘It could only have been panic, not because she’s guilty, but that’s what people might think.’

Mr Mandy said Patterson would have known her guests would have ‘got sick very quickly and died’.

‘She pushed her hand regardless,’ Mr Mandy said the Crown (prosecutor Dr Rogers is pictured) had suggested.

‘She invited them all to her house so that everyone else knew they were coming to her house, it wasn’t a secret.

‘She decided to feed them all in her own house … and that prosecution theory doesn’t make any sense.’

Mr Mandy said she would never have bought the dehydrator in her own name with her own credit card from a local store, take photos of it, and take photos of mushrooms in it, share those photos online, and wait for ‘so long after the meal to get rid of the dehydrator’.

Mr Mandy said Patterson ‘panicked’.

Mr Mandy has outlined how it would be obvious a planned mass mushroom poisoning would come under intense scrutiny.

He said the Crown claimed the crime was a ‘carefully planned event’ which they suggested she’d planned for months.

‘An intelligent person carefully planning a crime would know if you poisoned people in your house, the meal would be under suspicion,’ Mr Mandy suggested.

‘It is inevitable the focus would be on the cook, very, very quickly.

‘Investigation was inevitable given how unwell these people were and that’s what happened.

Mr Mandy said the ‘cook would be under the spotlight’.

‘It’s obvious,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy asked if an absence of motive makes it more likely it was an accident, to which he said ‘it did’.

He said Patterson’s (legal team pictured) name remained on properties long after she and Simon separated, and she had a close relationship with Don and so did her son.

‘Erin had a motive to keep these people in her world,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said there was no doubt his client was devoted to her children and had no reason to take their grandparents away from them.

Mr Mandy said Patterson was financially well-off, had just had her home landscaped and was proud of it, and had planned to study and effectively had soul custody of the kids.

Patterson had a body-image issue but had planned to fix that, the jury was told.

‘All things considered she was in a good place,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘That is why she had no reason to kill her in-laws.’

Mr Mandy also said it was ‘inevitable’ the fatal lunch would ‘attract suspicion’.

The jury has been told Justice Christopher Beale won’t commence his instructions to the jury until Monday and it may still be going into Wednesday.

‘But with the wind in my back it may finish Tuesday afternoon,’ Justice Beale said.

Mr Mandy has resumed his closing.

Mr Mandy said the couple ‘were not warring’ after Patterson and her children returned from New Zealand.

‘There’s not hatred,’ Mr Mandy said.

Patterson also told Simon she took the children to the Hobbit set and they enjoyed it.

The couple also shared ‘normal communications’ about their kids which Mr Mandy described as ‘friendly banter’.

Mr Mandy said Simon later had a ‘pleasant exchange’ with Patterson about her fallen tree on December 18.

‘They’re back on an even keel,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said Simon was shown messages but the estranged husband said they weren’t the messages he claimed were ‘aggressive’.

Mr Mandy said that was because the messages weren’t ever ‘extremely aggressive’.

‘And then his memory became that it was at some other time,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said in Simon’s evidence he mentioned his son being tired and the messages related to that.

Mr Mandy also said there was nothing unusual about ‘spats between separated couples’.

‘It doesn’t provide any kind of motive for a person to murder his parents and his aunty,’ he said.

Mr Mandy has denied his client was aggressive while he detailed the messages during the December period which have been previously read to the court.

Mr Mandy said Simon (pictured) described a message as ‘extremely inflammatory’.

‘And Simon was asked about those messages and child support issues,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy also said Simon talked about sorting out financial issues and bringing in a mediator on December 9, 2022.

Mr Mandy said Simon said he felt he was ‘getting to resolve it’ and he thought Patterson was ‘extremely aggressive’.

The defence barrister said that aggressive message was in relation to the mediator around December 9.

Mr Mandy argued his client ‘wasn’t aggressive, just a bit upset’.

Mr Mandy has accused the prosecution of ‘scratching around’ for a motive while the trial was in process.

Mr Mandy said the Crown wanted to show there was some kind of difficulty with Patterson’s relationship with Simon which might have caused her to harm his parents.

Mr Mandy said that ‘flare up’ between Simon and his wife happened over a few days in December 2022.

‘It was a handful of days in December 2022,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said the period from December 5 to December 9 was the ‘relevant period’.

‘It was a brief spat about child support that the evidence says was resolved amicably,’ he said.

Mr Mandy has pondered if Patterson had anything to gain from intentionally killing her lunch guests.

‘Those kinds of issues are relevant to intention,’ he said.

Mr Mandy argued motive was ‘usually fundamental’ to proving intention.

He also said without a motive or reason then an intention to kill ‘is very unlikely’.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution needed to demonstrate a motive but they didn’t.

‘And if they don’t, you might think they fall short of proving intention,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said intention was the most important element of the charge of murder.

‘It’s very odd then in this case when the prosecution says they can’t come to you with a motive,’ he said.

Mr Mandy has asked the jury to consider why Patterson would want to kill her lunch guests.

He said ‘any thoughts of rights or wrongs’ wasn’t evidence and to ‘put all that aside’.

‘As a judge what’s in your heart has no relevance at all in considering the facts,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy urged the jury to rely on the evidence.

‘Why on earth would anyone want to kill these people?’ he asked.

‘Why would Erin Patterson want to kill them? Because of a brief period of tension in December of 2022?

‘Which had absolutely nothing to do with Ian and Heather (pictured).’

Mr Mandy said Patterson had ‘absolutely no reason at all’ to hurt Don and Gail either and there was ‘an absence of a motive’.

He suggested the Crown had tried to flesh out ‘some kind of reason’ for the crime.

Mr Mandy said an element of the crime was ‘intention’.

‘And they have to prove that’s what Erin Patterson meant to do,’ he said.

Mr Mandy then moved the topic to ’empathy and emotion’.

Mr Mandy told the jury to put aside any sympathy and approach the job rationally like ‘judges’.

He described the outcome of the lunch as a ‘terrible tragedy’.

Mr Mandy also described Mr Wilkinson (pictured) as a ‘kind and good person.’

‘And Don and Gail were kind to Patterson,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said he had ‘two reasons for mentioning that’.

‘As humans you’d feel empathy for them,’ He said.

‘As humans you might think whoever caused their deaths must be held to account.

‘Any desire for retribution must be put aside.

‘You’re judges… it would be quite wrong to think in that way.’

Mr Mandy accused the Crown again of presenting a ‘flawed case’ and said some of his own arguments might be ‘simple and obvious’.

‘But this is our last chance to speak to you on Erin Patterson’s behalf,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said he wouldn’t apologise for going through the case in detail.

‘We can’t chat to you about this,’ he said.

Mr Mandy (left) is continuing his closing address to the jury.

Mr Mandy said the Crown has access to experts, doctors and other witnesses ‘to answer their questions’.

The barrister said a question that needs to be answered is if death cap mushroom poisoning can affect people differently.

‘Can people share the same meal containing toxins and have different outcomes?’ Mr Mandy said.

‘[The] prosecution says it’s not possible.’

The jury heard the question has been looked at by experts across the globe but the Crown didn’t ask for an opinion themselves until after Mr Mandy asked someone himself.

Mr Mandy asked where was the expert who said Patterson should have been as sick as her guests.

‘Where is the expert who provides you with the answer to that question?’ Mr Mandy said.

‘Put all of the evidence to the accused, not just a piece of it,’ he said.

‘They should’ve called that evidence and they didn’t.’

Mr Mandy said Dr Veronica Foote didn’t mention being told by Ms Ashton about the kids eating leftovers.

‘Dr Foote said at 10.30am [during Patterson’s second visit to Leongatha Hospital] she first learnt about the kids possibly eating the mushrooms,’ Mr Mandy said.

He said both Dr Webster and Dr Foote were very concerned about the kids and had they known about it at 8.10am ‘what do you think Dr Webster would have done with that information?’.

Mr Mandy suggested he would have ‘fired into action’ to try and find the children.

Mr Mandy also suggested Ms Ashton did not tell the other doctors about the kids.

Mr Mandy said it was an example of an ‘honest mistake’ by a witness.

He also said the prosecution had a duty to present a fair case to the jury.

The trial is on a break and will resume at 2.15pm.

Mr Mandy pointed to evidence by Dr Chris Webster (pictured), describing him as a ‘confident witness’.

But Mr Mandy said Dr Webster gave a different answer to a question at the trial than what he had given during a pre-trial hearing.

Another example, Mr Mandy said, was nurse Kylie Ashton who said the first time the kids were mentioned was when Patterson arrived at Leongatha Hospital the first time.

Mr Mandy said Ms Ashton was mistaken but he told the jury Ms Ashton said she was right.

Mr Mandy (pictured with legal team) said the Crown ‘ignored the nuance about how human beings behave’.

He said Patterson’s claims had been consistent and given to lots of people who had been asking different questions.

Mr Mandy called on the jury to remember their own experiences in how people behave.

‘They respond to a specific question that’s asked,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy suggested people can tell a story differently at times and it was ordinary human behaviour.

The defence barrister also told the jury Patterson spoke to 21 different witnesses in 24 hours and each were asking her different things.

‘Time can also play a factor,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution had picked bits of evidence ‘they liked’ and glossed over other parts they didn’t like.

He told the jury the prosecution had ‘picked and chosen’ evidence and ‘constructed a case theory’.

‘Cherry picking convenient fragments,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson’s daughter claimed she went to the toilet ‘at least 10 times’.

‘That’s not a vague recollection,’ Mr Mandy said

‘Yet the prosecution says dismiss that because she doesn’t have any memory of going to Tyabb in the car.’

Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC (pictured) has begun his closing address to the jury.

‘Is there a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into this meal accidentally?’ Mr Mandy asked the jury.

Mr Mandy said if the jury accepted Patterson also did not intend to kill her guests, they should acquit her.

He also described the prosecution’s case as ‘flawed’.

Dr Rogers said the jury was ‘in the best possible position’ to determine the issues in this case which they should regard as a ‘jigsaw puzzle’.

‘And as the pieces were put together the picture starts to become clear,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt Patterson was guilty.

‘You must not feel sorry for the accused in the position she’s facing these criminal charges,’ she said.

‘You might not understand it.’

Dr Rogers argued there was no reasonable alternative than that Patterson deliberately killed her lunch guests.

‘She’s told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate her,’ she said.

Dr Rogers said Patterson’s ‘fifth deception’ was on the jury itself.

The prosecutor said Patterson constructed a narrative in the witness box.

Dr Rogers also pointed to the fact that she claimed even her own children were wrong.

Dr Rogers pointed out all the key elements she claimed pointed to Patterson’s guilt.

Dr Rogers said the jury should be satisfied Patterson intended to kill each of her lunch guests.

Dr Rogers reminded the jury it’s up to the prosecution to prove Patterson guilty but her evidence should be ‘rejected’.

‘The accused bears no onus to prove anything in this case that is up to the prosecution,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers reminded the jury the only evidence about picking and eating wild mushrooms between 2020 and 2023 came out of Patterson’s mouth.

However, Dr Rogers said there was other evidence which only came from Patterson’s mouth.

The jury heard this included Patterson’s evidence she was binge-eating and purging, eating a cake and vomiting, taking a bush poo on the way back from Tyabb, taking Imodium and saying Phone A broke.

‘You cannot accept the accused as a truthful, honest and trustworthy witness…,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘She has told too many lies and you should reject her evidence.’

Dr Rogers (pictured) alleged Patterson lied to police about being helpful to health officials and she lied to the jury about why she invited her guests to lunch.

The jury heard Patterson clearly spoke of a medical issue to her lunch guests.

Dr Rogers reminded the jury Patterson never had a diagnosis of cancer.

‘Perhaps the starkest lie is when the accused sat in the witness box and told you she was going to have gastric bypass surgery,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers reminded the jury when pressed, Patterson claimed to have an appointment at the ENRICH Clinic in September 2023.

‘This claim was investigated quickly,’ Dr Rogers said.

The clinic had never offered such surgery, the jury was told.

The prosecutor is now explaining to the jury the numerous alleged lies told by Patterson.

‘We say the accused has told numerous lies,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘She lied about cancer, but her evidence on the cancer lie changed during the trial.

‘She lied to close family members about an incredibly serious issue.

‘She lied about the dehydrator.

‘It was not a lie told in the heat of the moment.’

Dr Rogers said the lie was set in motion the moment she dumped the dehydrator.

‘It was a calculated and planned deception,’ she said.

Dr Rogers said Patterson lied about foraging for mushrooms and told variations of that lie to health officials.

‘Not in the heat of the moment, lies that were repeated over time,’ she said.

Dr Rogers said the jury should have no difficulty in concluding Patterson had deliberately killed and tried to kill her lunch guests.

The prosecutor pointed to photos of mushrooms Dr May said looked like death caps in Patterson’s possession.

Dr Rogers also applauded the police investigation into Patterson and the efforts investigators went to.

The jury heard police even checked what the Wilkinsons (Ian Wilkinson pictured centre) had eaten the night before the lunch from the local pub.

Dr Rogers said it was ‘easy to identify’ where Patterson went wrong looking back on it now.

‘I suggest to you that the accused did think she would get away with these crimes and never imagined the doctors would so quickly identify that death caps were involved,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said Patterson wiped her ‘dummy phone’ and continued to use Phone A despite claiming that phone ‘wasn’t cutting it anymore’.

‘She panicked because they were already onto it,’ Dr Rogers said.

Phone A had been used both before and after police attended the search, Dr Rogers again reminded the jury. Phone B, the device handed to police, was not her usual phone.

‘[The] 835 number was only ever used three times,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said the phone flow chart showed how ‘proficient’ Patterson was at changing phones.

She urged the jury to reject Patterson’s ‘lie’ about wiping her phone while in the police lock-up just to see if she could.

‘You should completely reject the suggestion police simply passed over Phone A,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers told the jury Patterson took the sim card out of Phone A and suggested the accused killer concealed it from police.

The prosecutor also said the jury should reject the defence notion an image of a possible black device depicted in a police search photo was Phone A not in its pink case, and investigators ‘overlooked’ the device during the August 5 search.

Dr Rogers told the jury to dismiss Patterson’s (pictured) claims she had a distrust of hospitals and medical professionals as she had been in regular contact with them.

Addressing a possible defence of ‘panic’, Dr Rogers said it did not explain why Patterson persisted with the ‘lies while lives were at stake’.

Dr Rogers said Patterson told her online friend the mushrooms had come from an Asian grocer and she fed her kids the leftovers.

‘This lie could not have possibly been due to panic,’ she said.

Dr Rogers asked the jury if they’d ‘go into self-preservation mode’ and ‘lie to health officials even though the truth might help those you claimed to love?’.

‘You would tell treating medical practitioners every skerrick of information,’ Dr Rogers suggested.

‘You would move mountains if you heard your kids had consumed death cap mushrooms.

‘Erin Patterson acted the way that she did because she knew what she had done.’

The jury was told the defence could suggest innocent explanations for ‘Patterson’s incriminating conduct’.

Dr Rogers said these explanations could be why she discharged herself from hospital or didn’t accept treatment, why she dumped the dehydrator, and the wiping of phones.

Dr Rogers, who commenced with explaining why the accused’s reasons for leaving hospital was a lie, again played to the jury CCTV of Patterson attempting to leave the hospital with a backpack.

Patterson told police she went to get a ‘couple of bags of saline’.

Dr Rogers said it was ‘nonsense’ that she didn’t expect to be admitted.

The prosecutor said there were other ways she could have managed the kids and animals given she’d been told she may have ingested poison.

Dr Rogers said the other times the jury has previously heard Patterson discharged herself from hospital were ‘nothing like this’.

In 2015, Patterson discharged herself after having a chicken curry and suffering the runs and vomiting, the jury heard.

‘This was a far cry from discharging yourself after being told you may have eaten death cap mushrooms,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said Simon claimed Patterson never asked him about the health of the other lunch guests.

‘It stood out to him,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers suggested if Patterson ‘loved them you’d expect her to inquire about them’.

‘Instead, she went on about her own symptoms,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘She never asked a question about Don and Gail (pictured).’

Dr Rogers told the jury Patterson expressed her true feelings about her in-laws to her online friends.

‘She described herself as an atheist to them,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said Patterson showed a ‘duplicitous life’ to the Patterson family.

Dr Rogers claimed Patterson mocked the Pattersons and their religious beliefs to her online friends.

The jury heard Patterson believed Simon’s family were difficult to deal with.

‘[In the messages Patterson was] calling the family a lost cause,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘I don’t need anything from any of those people [is what Patterson wrote in those messages].’

Dr Rogers also recalled Patterson’s eye rolling emojis about prayer: ‘This family I swear to f***ing God.’

Dr Rogers said Simon described Patterson’s messages to Don and Gail (pictured) regarding financial arrangements as ‘aggressive’.

‘They were so aggressive,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘Gail was not to read them anymore.’

The messages were sent in a group chat between Erin, Simon, Don and Gail.

Dr Rogers is now reminding the jury about Patterson’s relationship with her in-laws and Simon (pictured) and what she said about that relationship.

Dr Rogers said Patterson told police she loved Gail and Don.

‘On the surface, perhaps it seems that way, even to the family members themselves,’ Dr Rogers said.

The jury heard her actual relationship was not always harmonious.

Dr Rogers said Simon spoke of the change in his relationship with Patterson leading into the lunch.

The jury also heard Patterson told child welfare officer Ms Katrina Cripps ‘Simon had become nasty to her’.

‘She changed the kids’ school weeks before the lunch without telling Simon,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers also reminded the jury Simon didn’t attend the New Zealand Christmas holiday Patterson and her children went on in December 2022.

‘The decline in the relationship was certainly obvious to (their son),’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers (left) told the jury Patterson was not a ‘credible witness’ and her claims she accidentally put death caps in the Wellingtons should be rejected

The prosecutor told the jury just before the short break that the evidence indicating Patterson had an interest in foraging had only come from the accused herself.

‘We say you would not accept her account of this because she is not a credible witness,’ Dr Rogers said.

Justice Christopher Beale also told the jury he would be giving them more breaks during closings so they can ‘walk around a bit’.

Dr Rogers again reminded the jury ‘motive is not an element of the crime of murder’.

‘You don’t have to know why a person does something in order to know they did it,’ she said.

Dr Rogers said the question is not why the accused carried out the alleged crime.

‘Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the accused did this deliberately?’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers explained to the jury Patterson only had ‘one go at the cherry’ to explain her case.

The prosecutor is now going through the predicted arguments lead defence barrister Colin Mandy SC (pictured centre with legal team) might offer on behalf of his client.

Dr Rogers said the ‘key argument’ the defence has is that Patterson innocently foraged mushrooms.

She also said Patterson may argue she accidentally collected death caps, dehydrated them, put in a Tupperware container and unknowingly included them in the Wellingtons.

Dr Rogers said evidence indicating Patterson had an interest in foraging had only come from Patterson herself.

The prosecutor said no one else during the trial had ever seen or heard of this supposed interest and police found no books on foraging during their searches.

‘The accused never discussed foraging for mushrooms with her online friends…,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘Even though they discussed “absolutely everything”,’ Dr Rogers said

The jury was reminded Patterson denied using foraged mushrooms even on August 1.

‘The suggestion now that these mushrooms may have been accidentally foraged, we suggest is a very late change to the accused’s story,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘She had to come up with something new.’

Dr Rogers told the jury to dismiss this late foraging defence.

‘The only evidence you have about the accused having a habit of picking and eating mushrooms… comes from her own mouth,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said police were still able to pull some potential evidence from Phone A.

This included linking her to Loch on April 28, when it is alleged she was looking for death caps.

On May 22, Patterson also had Phone A, which connected to Loch, when the Crown alleges she was again looking for death caps.

Phone A also pinged at Outtrim on that same day when it is alleged she looked for death caps – one day after fungi expert Dr Tom May’s observation of death caps on the street.

Dr Rogers claimed Patterson used Phone A when she bought the dehydrator and went on the death cap mushroom hunt but told the jury police were never able to examine the device.

The prosecutor also asked the jury to dismiss any possible defence criticism of a lack of tech evidence.

‘Remember the police couldn’t interrogate the accused’s phone because of what we say she deliberately did,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers told the jury by 1.40am on August 6 – the day after the warrant – the Phone A SIM (783) went into a Nokia smart phone which was also never recovered by police either.

Dr Rogers said the 783 number was Patterson’s main phone but when police asked, Patterson gave them a number ending in 835.

‘We say she lied about her phone number in the police interview,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘This was not her usual phone number, it was not her true phone number.’

The jury heard Patterson continued to use that Phone A even after the police interview.

Dr Rogers said it was ‘designed to frustrate’ the police investigation.

‘And it was done so because the accused knew the information on Phone A would implicate in the deliberate poisoning of her lunch guests,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers argued Patterson (pictured) hadn’t lost Phone A and had it on her during the police search.

‘To this day police have never been able to recover phone A,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘Phone B – the dummy phone – was what police were provided.’

Dr Rogers said Phone B was a ‘dummy phone’ set up deliberately ‘to trick police’ and the device ‘contained nothing’.

‘Its contents were wiped,’ Dr Rogers said.

Phone B was wiped just after 11am on August 2 which was the day after Patterson left hospital and just before she dumped the dehydrator.

On August 3, SIM card 835 connected to Phone B.

On August 5, at 1.20pm, Phone B was wiped locally by Patterson.

‘This was during the execution of the search warrant,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers told the jury the phone had been wiped by someone holding the phone and urged them to accept the times indicated by police.

Dr Rogers said Patterson remotely factory reset the phone again after it was seized as evidence.

Dr Rogers also told the jury Patterson, who is today wearing a pink shirt, deliberately dumped her phone, known through the trial as ‘Phone A’.

The prosecutor said phone data records indicated Phone A was used during the police search on August 5 but the device has never been found.

Dr Rogers said Patterson also used Phone A while at hospital on July 31 and again the next day.

The jury was shown a CCTV still image which depicted Patterson at Leongatha Hospital carrying Phone A in a pink case.

Dr Rogers said Phone A was her primary device leading up to the lunch.

The jury heard when police requested Patterson hand over her phone they expected her usual phone but instead they were handed a ‘dummy phone’ known as ‘Phone B’.

Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers (left) has continued giving her closing address to the jury.

Dr Rogers is still talking about Patterson’s alleged ‘fourth deception’ and how the accused killer dumped her dehydrator at the Koonwarra Transfer Station tip shortly after getting out of hospital on August 2.

The prosecution suggested Patterson dumping the dehydrator just a few months after buying the appliance amounted to ‘incriminating conduct’.

Dr Rogers claimed Patterson dumped the dehydrator because she knew she used it to ‘prepare the deadly meal and wanted to hide the evidence’.

Dr Rogers said this was not ‘wild panic’ and asked the jury to completely reject the defence’s explanation it was.

The prosecution also said Patterson’s claims about Simon’s accusations where he asked her whether the dehydrator was the one which ‘poisoned my parents’ is ‘nonsense’.

Dr Rogers said Simon had denied that allegation during the trial.

Dr Rogers argued the only explanation for dumping the dehydrator was because she had dehydrated death caps in it.

‘Why hide it?’ Dr Rogers asked.

‘Because she knew it was incriminating… she tried to make it disappear.’

Dr Rogers said it was only because police found a bank record for the tip that anyone found the dehydrator.

The jury was reminded that Patterson said ‘blankly’ during her police interview on August 5 she knew nothing about owning a dehydrator.

The prosecution alleged Patterson deliberately foraged and prepared the lethal mushrooms, orchestrating a ‘sinister deception’ to kill her guests.

Dr Rogers claimed Patterson’s story about purchasing dried mushrooms from an Asian store had been thoroughly debunked.

The prosecutor said the jury could reject the ‘obvious and ridiculous lie’ that the Asian store-bought mushrooms was the source of the death caps.

‘It was a lie she told time and time again,’ she said.

Health investigations confirmed that all mushrooms in the inspected stores had been commercially produced, with no evidence of death caps or non-commercial suppliers.

The jury had previously heard from expert Dr Tom May (pictured), who testified that death caps, which do not grow in Asia and cannot be cultivated, could not have been sold in stores.

The absence of other poisoning cases further undermined Patterson’s claim, Dr Rogers argued, with no other reports of death cap poisonings ever reported in the areas where Patterson thinks she may have purchased them.

The prosecution further accused Patterson of sending health officials on a ‘wild goose chase’ by providing vague and inconsistent details about the alleged shop, mentioning suburbs like Oakleigh and Glen Waverley, but failing to pinpoint a location.

‘She was not forthcoming with the Department of Health because the story she was telling about the Asian grocer was not true,’ Dr Rogers said.

‘Every time she was pressed about the details, that lie became more and more apparent.’

The trial continues at 10.30am.

Patterson’s son said his mother was insistent they attend a flying lesson in Tyabb the Sunday afternoon after the lunch.

Dr Rogers said Patterson could have cancelled the lesson but didn’t.

The jury heard Patterson drove towards Tyabb for more than an hour before being told it was cancelled.

On the way back, Patterson claimed she had to go to the toilet in the bush but her son made no mention of it and if she had ‘that is something he would have recalled’.

The jury was then reminded Patterson was seen on CCTV at the Caldermeade BP where she made a nine-second visit to the toilet.

Dr Rogers said Patterson then ‘leisurely’ entered the BP and bought food.

‘There was nothing in her behaviour on the CCTV to indicate she was suffering from a serious illness let alone explosive diarrhoea,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said Patterson barely had any time to clean herself in the BP toilet and told the jury they could dismiss any notion it had anything to do with her supposed ‘bush poo’.

Patterson also claimed she took Imodium but never mentioned that to staff at the hospital.

Dr Rogers said Patterson would have told hospital staff if that was true and told the jury to reject that claim.

The prosecutor said Patterson did not have diarrhoea on the Sunday ‘at all’.

Dr Rogers also said Patterson’s daughter could not even recall going to Tyabb that day and called on the jury to treat her version of events ‘with some caution’.

Dr Rogers reminded the jury about all of the lies Patterson told about her cancer claims.

‘She was setting up a fiction that she was facing a serious health issue,’ Dr Rogers said.

The prosecutor also reminded the jury Patterson told the guests she had cancer but there was no record showing she ever did.

Dr Rogers said Patterson thought ‘the lie would die with them’.

‘That she counted on all her guests dying,’ Dr Rogers said.

Dr Rogers said ‘these were calculated, deliberate lies’ designed to get her guests to the lunch.

Pastor Ian Wilkinson (pictured) survived the lunch and gave evidence in court he, Don, Gail and his deceased wife Heather Wilkinson ate off large grey plates while Patterson ate from a smaller, different-coloured plate.

Dr Nanette Rogers SC (pictured) commenced her closing address yesterday morning by telling the jury there were ‘four deceptions’ to Patterson’s alleged crime.

The jury was told Patterson fabricated a cancer claim to lure her guests over for lunch.

Dr Rogers said Patterson ‘secreted’ lethal doses of poison into the Wellingtons.

The prosecutor added Patterson faked an illness after the lunch.

And finally, Dr Rogers said Patterson had a ‘sustained cover-up she embarked upon to conceal the truth’.

Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers commenced her closing address to the jury in the Erin Patterson murder trial yesterday morning.

Ms Rogers has indicated she will conclude her address today and then the defence will give its closing address.

This follows after Patterson entered the witness box for her eighth and final day in her own marathon murder trial last Thursday.

Patterson has been a big drawcard with dozens of members of the public braving the cold to queue up outside (pictured) the courthouse very early each morning to get a front row seat in the courtroom.

Patterson, 50, is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, after allegedly serving them a beef Wellington lunch made with death cap mushrooms.

Patterson is also accused of attempting to murder Heather’s husband, pastor Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch after spending several weeks in an intensive care unit.

The court heard Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon, was also invited to the gathering at her home in Leongatha, in Victoria’s Gippsland region, but didn’t attend.

Witnesses told the jury Patterson ate her serving from a smaller, differently-coloured plate than those of her guests, who ate off four grey plates.

Patterson told authorities she bought dried mushrooms from an unnamed Asian store in the Monash area of Melbourne, but health inspectors could find no evidence of this.