Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, has resumed his closing address in courtroom four, surrounded by key figures connected to the case. Among those present are Ian Wilkinson, a survivor from the lunch incident, and his children, along with Colin Patterson, the brother of the deceased Don Patterson. Erin Patterson, the accused, is seated in the courtroom, observed in a paisley top and brown cardigan. Mandy’s address aims to clarify previously presented points, challenging the prosecution’s reliance on the testimony of an online acquaintance. He asserts that the perspectives of those who knew Erin for many years—her husband Simon and the Patterson family—should carry greater weight.
Mandy emphatically states that Erin Patterson is not an atheist, arguing that the prosecution has misrepresented her beliefs. He also addresses claims regarding Patterson’s preparation of a dish using dried mushrooms, stating that there is no concrete evidence she actually tasted the duxelles prepared for the lunch on July 29, 2023. Yet, he argues it is logical to assume she would have done so, as part of the cooking process. This establishes a narrative of normality and care regarding her actions surrounding the meal, aiming to portray the accused in a more favorable light.
Transitioning to the events following the meal, Mandy discusses the symptoms Erin claimed to have experienced, specifically focusing on her diarrhoea the morning after. He argues that this symptom aligns with a scenario where a minimal amount of poison was ingested, which complicates the timeline for symptom onset. He highlights the unpredictability of poisoning, emphasizing that establishing a precise timeline or cause can be difficult with such gradual health degradation. This evidence aims to create doubt about the prosecution’s narrative of Erin’s intent and actions.
Mandy then critiques the prosecution’s depiction of Erin’s behavior as observed by her son, emphasizing discrepancies in witness testimony. He reiterates that the young boy, when interviewed, did not claim his mother appeared sick, suggesting that the prosecution’s argument lacks a vital piece of evidence supporting the assertion that Erin was unwell or faking illness. By questioning the attentiveness of a 14-year-old boy regarding a parent’s distress, Mandy introduces reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s account.
Further, Mandy addresses Erin’s decision to travel to Tyabb for her son’s flying lesson after taking anti-diarrhea medication. He argues that if she were feigning illness, such a trip contradicts her supposed intentions. Failing to stop for food or make unnecessary bathroom breaks along the way, according to her son’s recollections, supports the defense’s narrative that Erin was indeed suffering and had valid reasons for her actions. This aspect of her behavior is crucial in illustrating her motive and mindset during the events in question.
Finally, Mandy closes by presenting a detailed analysis of Erin’s brief bathroom break at a Caldera BP station, arguing it was consistent with discarding rubbish rather than engaging in any suspicious or deceptive behavior. This portrayal is intended to dismantle the prosecution’s allegations, fortifying the defence’s position that there is insufficient evidence to prove Erin Patterson’s guilt convincingly. By consistently placing the burden of doubt back onto the prosecution, Mandy aims to persuade the jury toward a verdict of not guilty.
