The lawyer of Erin Patterson compares her murder process with the Olympic high jump – as the jury is told about her religious beliefs

There in Patterson is a godly mother who had every reason to have her lunch guests alive, has heard a jury.

On Thursday, the lawyer of Patterson, Colin Mandy, compared the process of high jumping, while he finally completed his defense against the jury, who had been on the trial for eight long weeks.

Patterterson, 50, did not guilty of the murders of Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson.

After consuming mushrooms from Death Cap -Champignons, they died in beef Wellingtons during lunch in her Leongatha house on July 29, 2023.

Only pastor Ian Wilkinson survived lunch, with an indictment of attempted murder also hanging over Patterson’s head.

Mandy insisted on the jury not to believe that his client had not been a legitimate Christian.

“Erin Patterterson was not a atheist,” he said.

The suggestion was made at the start of the process when a witness who had been to a Facebook group with Patterson claimed that she had told them she was one.

The jury heard that Patterson had been an atheist when she met Simon, but converted to Christianity as a result of his influence.

Mr Mandy said that members of a smaller chat group that was Patterterson did not ask any questions about her religious beliefs by the persecution.

‘What can be in the religious beliefs, and that is an example that we say about choosing and choosing the evidence that suits them and ignores the others.

“A misleading choice, we say, evidence that she has two faces and constructs a theory around it and ignores the overwhelming weight of the other evidence that points in the opposite direction.”

Mr. Mandy had been critical of the conclusion of the jury of Kroon.

He told the jury that the persecution had a ‘high bar’ to jump to establish Patterson was guilty of murder.

“A test like this sometimes looks like a match – of course, one side against the other, as if we are competing against each other like a boxing match or a football match or netball – or whatever it is,” said Mandy.

“The truth is that it looks more like the high jump. This is important. Only the persecution needs to be over the bar.

‘Defense does not have to do anything. Defense does not have to jump any bar. Erin Patterterson does not have to jump at all. ‘

Mr. Mandy said that if the jury thought his client might be ‘deliberately poisoning the meal, it should not find her guilty.

“If you think she probably poisoned the meal deliberately, you shouldn’t find her guilty,” he went on.

‘If you think it is possible that she was planning to kill or cause really serious injury to Don or Gail or Heather, you should not find her guilty.

“If you think she might mean those things, then you shouldn’t find her guilty.”

“If you think she probably meant those things, you shouldn’t find her guilty.”

‘And if you think it is possible that it was planning to kill Ian, you should not find her guilty. Maybe she intended to kill Ian: not guilty. ‘

Mr Mandy claimed to the jury that the ‘complicated’ and ‘ridiculous’ proposals by Dr. Rogers was sold during her closing address.

These include that Patterson would kill without any motive to do this and to lie about cancer to allow her guests to attend lunch.

He further rejected the perspective of the persecution that Patterterson believed that her lunch guests “would bring her secrets (about her medical problems) to the grave.”

Mr Mandy suggested that his client would not be in any way Had the crime committed knowing that it would be among the attention of researchers.

The jury heard that Patterson should be praised to choose to enter the witness cabinet and be personally rejected with Dr. Rogers.

“When she chose to do it, she made that decision as an innocent person,” said Mr. Mandy.

Mr Mandy said that Patterterson had carefully answered questions, “even pedantic,” he said.

“You would not have had the impression that she was trying to charm or convince you,” said Mr. Mandy.

“She went on with the job she had.”

He explained that his client had told lies after lunch, dumped her dehydrator and had swept her cell phone into pure panic.

Sweeping her phone, Mr Mandy told the jury, had been a ‘stupid thing’.

“There are all kinds of reasons why an innocent person can deal with that kind of behavior,” he said.

“Step in the witness box and told you that she did those things because she panicked when she was confronted with the terrible opportunity, the terrible realization, that her actions had caused the disease of the people she loved.”

Mr. Mandy said she told the truth, even when it was ‘deeply embarrassing’ and admitted that she told the lies.

He stated that his client came from extensive cross -hearing ‘intact’.

“Her account remained coherent and consistent day after day,” he said.

Mr. Mandy insisted that his client is and had always been harmless of the charges.

“Our entry is that persecution of the persecution cannot come over that high bar of reasonable doubt,” he said.