Erin Patterson claims she ate only half of a beef Wellington laced with death cap mushrooms at her deadly lunch.
Patterson made the claim to hospital staff and a child protection officer in the days following the lunch that claimed the lives of her in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson.
The jury has already heard Gail Patterson ate just half of her pastie-sized beef Wellington, with her husband finishing off the rest.
Unlike Patterson, the portion was enough to make Gail violently ill within hours and eventually killed her.
On Friday, Dr Dimitri Gerostamoulos, head of forensic science at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, suggested Patterson’s portion should have caused an ‘adverse outcome’ for her.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to killing her three lunch guests and the attempted murder of Pastor Ian Wilkinson – the lone survivor of the deadly lunch.
Mr Wilkinson was seated in the court on Friday after completing his evidence in the first days of the trial.
Crown prosecutor Sarah Lenthall asked Dr Gerostamoulos what his expectations were for someone with no pre-existing health conditions eating the same meal that killed another person.
‘Yes, there would be likely that there would be some adverse outcomes for that person who survived, the severity of which may vary depending on some of the factors that I’ve previously spoken about today,’ he said.
Dr Gerostamoulos said there was a recent case in Victoria where two people consumed the same meal where one died but the other survived.
‘The other one was significantly ill for a period of time and ended up in ICU,’ he said.
‘So it is possible but it will depend on how much is eaten, the person’s response to that amount of toxin as well.’
The jury heard a person’s weight could be a factor in how ingesting death cap mushrooms would affect their ‘toxic response’.
Dr Gerostamoulos agreed multiple factors including weight, age, health status and how much of a meal containing death caps consumed would vary from person to person.
He agreed that even if a person ate the same meal as someone else which contained death caps, it was possible one person’s toxicity levels would be different to the other’s.
The jury heard for the first time this week that Patterson claimed not to have eaten all of her beef Wellington.
Director of Infection Prevention and Public Health At Monash Health Rhonda Stuart said Patterson gave her the information when she was admitted into hospital.
‘I recall she said she ate about half of her meal,’ she said.
‘One of the relatives ate a meal and a half and the rest – and the other two ate most of theirs but there was some leftover and that’s what she said the kids had the following day, minus the mushroom paste that she’d scraped off.’
Child protection practitioner Katrina Cripps was also grilled on the subject by Patterson’s barrister Sophie Stafford.
Ms Cripps maintained Patterson had also told her she consumed just half of her beef Wellington, which was allegedly served on a different coloured plate than her guests.
The jury has heard from a series of medical practitioners throughout the first two weeks of the trial.
While Patterson did go to hospital two days after the lunch, Leongatha Hospital nurse Cindy Munro told the court she didn’t look overly sick to her when she presented back there the second time.
‘She didn’t look unwell like Heather and Ian. Ian was so unwell he could barely lift his head off the pillow,’ she told the jury.
‘Erin was sitting up in the trolley and she didn’t look unwell to me.’
Ms Cripps said Patterson told her she had found the recipe for her lunch from a RecipeTin Eats cookbook because she ‘wanted to do something new and special’ for lunch.
Ms Cripps said Patterson told her she bought chopped mushrooms from a local Woolworths and dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer.
Patterson said she used the dried mushrooms because she heard they would ‘add flavour’ to the beef Wellingtons.
The trial, which is being held at the Latrobe Valley Law Courts in Morwell, in Victoria’s Gippsland, suffered a surprise this week when a juror was unexpectedly dismissed.
Justice Christopher Beale told the jury he had been alerted to the fact that a male juror had been discussing the trial outside of court.
‘A few moments ago, I discharged juror 84,’ he said.
‘I did so because, as I explained to him, I received information that he had been discussing the case with family and friends, contrary to my instructions.’
He told the jury the information he received about the juror seemed ‘credible’ and therefore had no choice but to let him go.
Justice Beale said his swift action should act as a warning to the remaining jurors.
‘I want to remind you of my directions that you should only discuss the case with your fellow jurors in the privacy of the jury room (and) not discuss it with anyone else, it’s vital to the administration of justice,’ he said.
On Friday, before releasing the jury for the weekend, Justice Beale again reminded the jury of its responsibilities under the law.
‘I don’t want to sound like a broken record but only discuss the case with your fellow jurors in the privacy of the jury room, and don’t get into a discussion with anybody about the fact that juror 84 was discharged,’ he told the jury.
The trial continues.