Court has finished for the day.

Follow along next week for more updates.

As the closing arguments drew to an end, Justice Christopher Beale urged the jury to “maintain an open mind”.

“You have heard the closing arguments, but you have not heard my charge,” Justice Beale said.

Justice Beale said he will be giving the jury further instructions about the legal principles they have to apply during deliberations.

“It is

“Enjoy your long weekend.”

As Mandy closed his address to the jury, he emphasised the burden of proof that must be proved by the prosecution is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

He said if the jury think “it is possible” or “probable” that Patterson was guilty then she still must find her not guilty.

“If you think maybe she intended those things, you must find her not guilty,” Mandy said.

“If you think she probably (intended those things), you must find her not guilty.

“If you think at the end of your deliberations, that it is a possibility it was an accident - a reasonable possibility - you must find her not guilty.

“Our submission is that the prosecution can’t get over that high bar of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

“And when you consider the actual evidence, your verdict on those charges should be ‘not guilty’.

Mandy has claimed the prosecution is trying to force the evidence to match their narrative.

He circled back to an analogy senior prosecutor Nanette Rogers included in her address, in which she referred to the case as a jigsaw puzzle to be pieced together.

“You can’t force jigsaw puzzle pieces together,” Mandy said.

“Prosecutors can, as we’ve seen in our learned friends address, force the evidence to fit their theory.”

Mandy said while missing puzzle pieces may only leave an incomplete picture, missing evidence holds more weight.

“If you pick and choose, if you rely on misleading questions… if you use hindsight to reconstruct a theory, if you work backwards… Then you can manufacture a picture.

“That is what happened here,” Mandy said.

Mandy has taken the jury to propositions from the prosecution, which he labelled ‘’convoluted” and “absurd”.

They include:

• That Patterson would commit murder without any motive
• That Patterson would lie about cancer to get her lunch guests to attend
• That Patterson did not expect to account for her cancer lie because she thought her guests would die
• That Patterson would have committed the crime knowing she would fall under investigation.

Mandy said the defence has identified why they reject the allegations during its closing address.

Mandy has told the jury Patterson “didn’t have to” give testimony on the stand., but chose to.

“And when she made that decision, she did so as an innocent person,” Mandy said.

“(And) you would not have had the impression that she was trying to charm you or persuade you. She was just trying to answer the questions.”

Mandy said Patterson admitted to the jury that she lied and opened herself up to intense “scrutiny” as she underwent six days of questioning.

He said there were two key considerations they should make regarding her evidence.

“First, if you think her evidence is true, you must find her not guilty of all of the charges,” Mandy said.

“Secondly, if you don’t know if her evidence is true, but think it might be, you must find there is reasonable doubt. “

Mandy said if there are details the jury deem not true, they should put them aside and still consider the balance of the remaining evidence.

“Even if you don’t believe her about crucial things - that still doesn’t mean you should find her guilty,” he said.

Mandy has told the jury they must be “extremely careful” when assessing testimony from telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell.

Mandy said there was no evidence Patterson saw the death cap mushroom posts on iNaturalist in autumn 2023.

He said there should be reasonable doubt that she saw those posts then travelled to Loch and Outtrim.

Mandy said Sorell gave “frank” assertions about the limitations of his evidence and his analysis did not include considerations of the travel times from Patterson’s home to Loch or Outtrim.

Mandy has told the jury there are “all sort of reasons” a person may engage in behaviours that may regarded as “incriminating conduct”, which do not necessarily mean they are guilty.

“And you now have those reasons,” Mandy said.

“Erin got into the witness box and told you.

“She panicked at the realisation her actions had caused the illnesses of those she loved.”

Mandy noted as an example Patterson dumping the dehydrator after being released from hospital.

He urged the jury not to “jump” to conclusions without weighing up the possibility.

He said Justice Beale would give further information about considerations for incriminating conduct during his charge to the jury.

Mandy has suggested to the jury that the allegation Patterson changed her mobile phone to frustrate the police investigation is convoluted.

“Why would she go to all of the effort of setting up phone B to give as a dummy phone?” Mandy said.

“That was at a time she had no idea there was going to be a search warrant at her house.”

Mandy said it would have been easy to presume that police would have realised when they checked phone B that it had nothing on it, and officers would then pull phone records.

Mandy said if Patterson had wanted to intentionally conceal her mobile phone (phone A), she would have done something “far easier”.

“If the intent was to conceal the contents of phone A, why wouldn’t she just factory reset it? Hand it over to police?” Mandy said.

“If the purpose was to conceal phone A, why would she continue to use it?”

Mandy suggested that if Patterson had been planning the murders since April, as alleged by the prosecution, she would have destroyed it much earlier.

He said the fact she continued to use the sim card ending in 783 after the police search is more consistent with her account that she was in the process of changing phones.

“Our account, we submit to you, is what fits the evidence the best.

“If she had successfully hid phone A from investigators, why didn’t she wait until the next day to put that sim card into another phone?

“Wouldn’t she of returned home and put the sim card into that phone (phone A)?

“The stupid thing she did was reset phone B a few times.

“Consistent with someone who panicked. Because there was nothing to be achieved by factory resetting phone B.”

Mandy then directed the jury back to photos of Patterson’s home during the police search.

He reiterated there were items pictured on a shelf that the defence suggest were Patterson’s devices that were missed by detectives collecting evidence.

Mandy has referred the jury to previous testimony from Simon Patterson.

In his evidence, Simon said he told Patterson his mum and dad were in hospital then Patterson responded, saying she had diarrhoea.

Mandy said the prosecution only asked Simon “three questions” to obtain that evidence, from which they formed the allegation Patterson didn’t ask more about Don and Gail’s condition and only spoke about her own symptoms.

Mandy noted Tanya Patterson gave evidence Patterson asked her how Don and Gail were going and said Simon would not tell her.

Mandy said by that stage, Patterson would have sense she was being blamed for what had happened.

“She was being isolated more than ever before, she was being kept out of the loop,” Mandy said.

“People act differently under stress. Some people may ask more questions... Others may shrink away, horrified at the situation before them, saying nothing, hoping everything works out.

“Because at that time, all four lunch guests were getting the best possible treatment, and nothing Erin said would make any difference at all.”