Colin Mandy, SC, the defense lawyer for Erin Patterson, has presented a multi-faceted argument aimed at establishing his client’s innocence and challenging the prosecution’s narrative. His defense hinges on several key points:
1. Mushroom Foraging as a Hobby, Not Malice: Mandy emphasized that Erin Patterson’s interest in wild mushrooms was a genuine hobby that blossomed during the COVID-19 lockdown. He presented photos from an old SD card and testimony from Patterson’s son to demonstrate her long-standing interest in foraging. He argued that while death cap mushrooms are notorious, a casual interest in fungi does not equate to an intent to poison. He also highlighted that Patterson herself consumed some of the meal and fell ill, which would be inconsistent with someone who knowingly poisoned others.
2. Strong Family Bonds and Lack of Motive: Mandy painted a picture of deep affection within the Patterson family, even after Erin and Simon’s separation. He cited Simon Patterson’s testimony that his parents loved Erin, and Erin loved them, and that she was particularly close to Don. He stressed that their separation was respectful, with assets split amicably, suggesting a lack of animosity that would preclude a motive for murder.
3. Challenging the Prosecution’s Narrative of Deception: Mandy directly addressed the prosecution’s claims of Patterson’s shifting stories and evasiveness. He argued that her inability to recall specific details about mushroom purchases could be attributed to stress and trauma, not deliberate deception. He also questioned how Erin Patterson could have known her in-laws were in a coma when doctors and family members were limiting medical updates, suggesting that the prosecution’s assertion of her knowledge was based on false clarity and hindsight reasoning.
4. Caution Against Hindsight Reasoning: A significant part of Mandy’s closing argument was a caution against the “seductive trap” of hindsight reasoning. He argued that the prosecution was attempting to shift the burden of proof onto the defense by asking the jury to imagine what they would do in a similar situation. Mandy asserted that hindsight creates a “false clarity” about ambiguous situations and that a person’s behavior or personality does not determine guilt. He emphasized that nothing Patterson did after the lunch changed her intent when she served the meal, and that she is not on trial for being a liar. He concluded by reminding the jury that suspicion is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt and urged them to consider the possibility of an accidental contamination.
Its the cover up
However, what Colin Mandy’s defence might be missing, much like the famous adage attributed to Nixon, is that sometimes it’s the cover-up that becomes the crime, not just the alleged act itself. While Mandy meticulously dismantles the prosecution’s claims of intent and direct evidence, the actions taken by Erin Patterson *after* the tragic lunch – such as the factory reset of her phone and the disposal of the dehydrator – could be interpreted by some as attempts to conceal information, regardless of her initial intent. In the court of public opinion, and potentially for the jury, these actions, even if born of panic as the defence suggests, might cast a shadow of suspicion that even the most eloquent legal arguments struggle to dispel.