Erin Patterson’s murder case expands with court release of earlier alleged poisoning attempts evidence. Pic: Theguardian
mushroom murder Erin Patterson and alleged attempted poisoning husband
Court documents and witness statements show that between late 2021 and 2022 Simon Patterson experienced repeated severe illnesses after eating food prepared by Erin Patterson.
According to testimony aired once the suppression order was lifted, those incidents included episodes of collapse, acute gastrointestinal distress and one period that required emergency surgery.
Police notes say Simon kept detailed records of symptoms and treatments and reported to investigators that one episode left him temporarily unable to walk.
Medical records cited in the material describe symptoms clinicians said could be consistent with ingestion of toxic substances.
Prosecutors have said those records formed part of a broader investigation into earlier alleged poisonings, though some related attempted-murder charges were dropped ahead of the main murder trial.
In July 2025 a jury found Erin Patterson guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after a lunch in July 2023, when relatives who ate a beef Wellington later died from poisoning associated with Amanita phalloides, commonly known as death cap mushrooms.
The jury was not shown the full scope of the earlier allegations. Prosecutors said they had to balance which evidence to present to avoid prejudicing the jury on the central facts of the fatal lunch.
mushroom murder Erin Patterson — jury was not privy to prior poisoning claims
The newly available files include witness statements in which Simon Patterson and others describe separate meals — a bolognese pasta, a chicken korma curry and a vegetable wrap — after which he became unwell.
Medical experts who later reviewed summaries of his treatment told police the pattern of illness warranted further inquiry.
That material, which circulated in court documents after the suppression order expired, is consistent with the assertion that investigators considered previous incidents possibly linked to deliberate contamination.
Defence counsel previously argued that reference to earlier allegations risked unfair prejudice and sought to keep the material from jurors.
Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale rejected an application to maintain secrecy once media interest intensified, concluding the public interest and Patterson’s appeal rights weighed in favour of disclosure.
The judge’s decision allowed publication of the previously restricted testimony and police notes.
Erin Patterson maintains she is innocent of deliberately poisoning anyone. During the trial her legal team said the deaths were the result of a tragic mistake: mushrooms foraged and used in the meal, the defence said, were mistakenly identified and not intentionally substituted.
Prosecutors told the court they had assembled evidence showing deliberate contamination and pointed to patterns of behaviour and contemporaneous records in their case to argue intent.
Independent toxicology reports and coronial findings cited at trial established the presence of amatoxins consistent with death cap ingestion in the victims.
Those findings formed the technical foundation for the murder convictions returned by the jury after deliberation in July 2025. Sentencing is scheduled to be heard later this month, and legal observers say the newly released material could factor into any defence submissions at that hearing or in possible appeals.
Legal analysts say there is an enduring tension in criminal proceedings between the jury’s right to consider relevant background evidence and the need to prevent evidence from creating unfair prejudice.
In this case, the prosecution’s decision on which allegations to present shaped the trial record; the material now public paints a broader picture that some experts say supports the prosecution’s narrative of an extended pattern of alleged behaviour, while others caution against drawing conclusions from allegations that were not tested before a jury.
Police and prosecutors have declined to comment beyond court filings. The broader community response has been marked by concern about both the cruelty of the offences and the legal choices made during the prosecution.
Commentators and family members have described the case as one that raises difficult questions about evidence management, suppression orders and the balance between fair trial rights and open justice.
Medical specialists who spoke to investigators after the events said the clinical presentation in the fatal cases was consistent with amatoxin poisoning, which typically produces severe liver damage and can be fatal without prompt treatment.
Death cap mushrooms are known to contain potent toxins that can survive cooking and are lethal in small quantities; their presence in a prepared meal was central to the forensic case presented at trial.
With sentencing imminent, defence lawyers have signalled they will argue for mitigation and stress the disputed nature of some of the newly public allegations.
Prosecutors have indicated they will seek a custodial sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences and the impact on the victims’ families.
The court timetable allows for appeals after sentencing; any appeal would require fresh legal argument on whether evidence decisions at trial were appropriate.
The release of the previously suppressed documents has prompted renewed public debate about how courts handle evidence that could both inform and potentially prejudice juries.
For now, the facts established at trial — that three relatives died after eating a meal contaminated by deadly mushrooms and that a fourth guest was seriously ill but survived — remain central to the criminal convictions returned by the jury.
Also Read: Col Joye, Australian Rock Pioneer, Dies Aged 89
As the matter moves to the sentencing stage, the legal and medical details disclosed in the newly available records will shape how courts and commentators assess the full sequence of events and the weight of the evidence presented in this high-profile case.
A separate review of earlier investigative steps, including the decision to charge and later drop attempted-poisoning counts, may be scrutinised should defence counsel pursue appeals in the weeks ahead.
For readers seeking the original reporting that first outlined the suppressed material, contemporary court reporting summarises the newly released testimony and police notes.
