Court has finished for the day.

Follow along next week for more updates.

The court previously heard analysis of Patterson’s computer found there were visits to the iNaturalist website in May 2022.

Rogers has suggested to Patterson that she navigated to the iNaturalist website intentionally.

Patterson said she did not remember even using it.

Rogers showed Patterson a screen shot of a world map of global observations of death cap mushrooms.

Patterson said she did not remember visiting the website, but it was possible.

Patterson: “I remember wanting to know if death caps grow in Gippslands and they do not, so it may have been this search.”

Rogers: “I suggest to you that this December 2024 world map looked pretty similar to the one you looked at in May 2022?”

Patterosn: “I can’t comment on that. I can’t remember this activity. And if I can’t remember this activity, I can’t remember what this website looked like.”

Patterson is being asked about her relationship with Heather and Ian Wilkinson.

The court heard Ian previously gave evidence that there was no “depth” to his relationship with Patterson and the Wilkinsons had never been to her house.

The court also heard Patterson’s son previously gave evidence that their relationship with the Wilkinsons was not negative, but wasn’t strong.

Rogers: “Why is it you invited Ian and Heather to the lunch?”

Patterson: “There were a few reasons. Ian had been my pastor for years and years and I would see and speak with Ian and Heather after church and I wanted to have a stronger relationship with them.

“When I had invited Don and Gail for lunch in June, Gail had said Heather would like to see my garden.

“I wanted to thank them for being good to me over the years.”

Rogers: “Was it unusual for you to invite people to your house for lunch?”

Patterson: “Yeah, that is possibly true.”

Rogers: “You wanted it to be special.”

Patterson: “Yes, I wanted it to be special.”

Rogers then read out Patterson’s statement to police about why she invited the Pattersons and Wilkinsons to lunch.

In her police interview, Patterson said they were her only support network after her parents died and that she loved them.

Rogers suggested Patterson had two-faces when it came to her relationship with her parents-in-law and that she felt upset they had sided with their son over the child support issues.

Rogers put it to Patterson that she had a “public face” of appearing to have a good relationship with Don and Gail.

Patterson: “I had a good relationship with Don and Gail.”

Rogers: “I put to you that you had a private face - which was what you expressed in your Facebook messages.”

Patterson: “Incorrect.”

Rogers: “And that is how you really felt about Simon. And you did not regard him as being a decent person at his core.”

Patterson: “I still believe that (he is).”

Rogers put to Patterson that when Simon informed her his parents were ill after the lunch, when they spoke on the phone on 31 July, that she never asked how they were going.

Patterson disagreed.

Patterson is being questioned about evidence previously tendered to court by a child protection worker.

The child protection worker told the court that Patterson said her former parents-in-law treated her like a daughter and that her parents had died several years beforehand.

The childcare worker said Patterson expressed that in recent times she was feeling isolate from the Patterson family and excluded from family events.

Patterson agreed those were details she would have said.

Patterson is being questioned about her relationship with Don and Gail

Rogers said Simon’s evidence was that his estranged wife got on well with his parents.

Patterson agreed that was a fair assessment.

Rogers said Simon had also told the court Patterson appeared to love his parents, and she loved them in return.

Patterson said that was the case and she still “loves them”.

Rogers then referred Patterson to testimony that Simon gave that there was a “lot of tension” between her and Don and Gail in late 2022.

Patterson: “I can’t comment on what they felt, but I didn’t feel any tension.”

Patterson then added that her later messages to Don and Gail about child support issues with Simon did cause tension.

Rogers told the court that Simon previously gave evidence that Patterson sent “aggressive” messages in the family group chat.

Rogers asked Patterson if she ever sent any aggressive messages in the family Signal group chat in 2022 or 2023.

Patterson disagreed.

Patterson is being questioned over testimony she gave during evidence in chief in which she told the jury that it wasn’t until she was in hospital that she begun to think there was possibly foraged mushrooms in the meal.

In the evidence, Patterson said the dehydrator was brought up in a conversation and he said “is that what you used to poison my parents”.

Patterson said she then panicked because child protection workers had become involved, so she dumped the dehydrator at the tip.

Rogers told the court on Friday that Simon gave evidence that he never made that statement to Patterson.

Rogers then put it to Patterson she gave evidence that she realised on 1 August that foraged mushrooms may have been in the tupperware and put in the beef wellington - which was two days after Simon had informed her his parents were sick.

Rogers said Patterson had also given evidence that she loved Don and Gail, and the mother-of-two agreed.

Rogers: “Surely if you loved them, you would have immediately have notified the authorities that the foraged mushrooms had gone in the container with the foraged mushrooms?”

Patterson: “Well I didn’t.”

Rogers: “No, you didn’t. Even though you already thought that (they might have been in the meal) by 1 August.”

Patterson: “I already knew they were getting treatment for death cap mushrooms.”

Rogers: “You never once told a medical professional that foraged mushrooms might be involved.”

Patterson: “That is correct.”

Rogers: “And you never told any one else, like Sally Ann Atkinson.”

Patterson: “Correct.”

Rogers then put it to Patterson that later on 1 August 2023, she was discharged from hospital then, according to her previous evidence, woke up the next morning at her home, drove her children to school, then disposed of the dehydrator.

Patterson agreed that was the case.

Rogers has questioned Patterson about the following message she sent him when he pulled out of the lunch:

“That’s really disappointing. I’ve spent many hours this week preparing lunch for tomorrow which has been exhausting in light of the issues I’m facing and spent a small fortune on beef eye fillet to make beef Wellingtons because I wanted it to be a special meal as I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time.”

“It’s important to me that you’re all there tomorrow and that I can have the conversations that I need to have. I hope you’ll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at 12.30. I hope to see you there.”

Rogers put it to Patterson that she included the line “may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time” to suggest she was sick.

Patterson said that was not the case, but agreed she had hoped her messages would lead to Simon attending the lunch.

Rogers: “That is also a reference to medical issues.”

Patterson: “Yes, I think I would agree with that.”

Rogers: “I suggest that on 16 July you lied to Simon, saying you had medical issues to discuss.”

Patterson: “No, that wasn’t a lie.”

Rogers noted Patterson also wrote: “It is important you are all there tomorrow and I can have the conversations I can all have.”

Rogers: “Is that a reference to the medical issues?”

Patterson: “Yes”

Rogers: “But you weren’t confronting any medical issues, were you?”

Patterson: “I think I was... I had gastric bypass surgery (coming up).”

Asked if she had the surgery booked, Patterson said she had a pre-surgery appointment booked with ENRICH clinic in Melbourne.

Rogers suggested to Patterson that she invited Simon to the lunch with the intention of giving him a beef wellington, which she threw in the bin when he didn’t come.

Patterson said she did not invite him over to poison him intentionally, but said she had thrown out the leftovers.

Rogers said Simon gave evidence that after the church service on 16 July 2023, Patterson approached him and said she had medical news to discuss and wanted some advice on how to break it to the kids.

Patterson said that was not true and she never said that.

Rogers: “So you told him that you were inviting Don, Gail, Heather and Ian and him to lunch to discuss medical news.”

Patterson: “No, that is not what I said to him. I told him I had already invited Heather and Ian.. That wasn’t the purpose of the lunch.”

Rogers said Simon also said Patterson said she was not keen for the kids to be at the lunch.

Patterson said she did not say that.

Rogers: “I suggest to you that you felt Simon would be more likely to accept the invitation if he knew his parents and Heather and Ian were attending?”

Patterson: “I would disagree.”

Rogers: “I suggest you told him you had a medical issue to encourage him to attend?”

Patterson: “No, incorrect.”

Rogers: “I suggest you did not want the kids to be present at the lunch so there was no way they could eat the lunch you were preparing for your guests on 29 July.”

Patterson: “No, that is not correct.”

Patterson has been asked about her message to Facebook friends saying “This family, I swear to f***ing God.”

Rogers put it to Patterson that the message expressed how she truly felt about Don and Gail.

Patterson disagreed.

Rogers then read another message in which Patterson described her former parents-in-law as “a lost cause” and suggested, again, that was an expression of Patterson’s true feelings.

Patterson disagreed.

Rogers read another line from the exchange, in which Patterson said: “I wonder if they have any capacity for self reflection.”

Rogers asked if Patterson agreed that she was critical of Simon in that passage, and she agreed that she was.

Rogers read a message in which Patterson wrote “f*** them” about Don and Gail.

Rogers: “I suggest these were your true feelings about how you felt about Don and Gail.”

Patterson: “I disagree.”

Patterson said she was not angry, but frustrated and hurt at the time, and now felt ashamed.

Rogers read a message Patterson sent to friends, which read:

“(Gail) was horrified I claimed child support. Why isn’t she concerned her son is such a dead beat.”

Rogers said Patterson’s Facebook friend, Christine Hunt, gave evidence that she painted Simon as coercive and disagreed with her a lot.

Patterson disagreed that she said that.

Rogers said Daniela Barkley gave evidence that Patterson had posted

Patterson: “I don’t remember saying he wasn’t a very nice person. I might have said that in the private chat group. I don’t know.”

Rogers said Barkley also gave evidence that Patterson was not happy with Simon’s cleanliness.

Patterson said that was true.

Rogers said Barkley also said Patterson had not wanted the children to sleep at his house at night.

Patterson said that was true, as she had at one point spent some time cleaning up his house.

Rogers put it to Patterson that she said to her Facebook friends that Simon was nasty and had also made a similar comment to a child protection worker.

Patterson said she believes she did in both instances.