Mushroom Killer's Lawyers Say Hotel Mix-Up Hurt Her Trial

A woman in Australia named Erin Patterson is trying to get her murder conviction overturned. Patterson, who is 51 years old, was found guilty of killing three members of her former husband's family. She did this by feeding them a meal that contained deadly mushrooms called death caps. On Wednesday, her lawyers went before a special appeals court in the state of Victoria to argue that her trial was not fair.

Patterson's lawyers raised seven different reasons why they believe the trial was unfair. The biggest complaint was about where the jurors stayed during the trial. The case was heard in a town called Morwell, and the jurors ended up staying in the same hotel as some police and prosecutors. Her lawyer Richard Edney called this a 'catastrophic' mistake. He said it could have quietly and unknowingly influenced the jurors, even without anyone meaning for that to happen.

The prosecutor, Brendan Kissane, pushed back strongly against this argument. He said there was no proof that jurors ever actually talked to or mixed with the police or prosecution staff. Kissane pointed out that the jurors stayed on a separate floor and even had their own separate dining room. Special court officers, called jury-keepers, were also there to make sure no one spoke to the jurors improperly. Kissane did admit, however, that the trial judge would never have allowed the arrangement if he had known about it ahead of time — but he said it happened by accident.

The second big argument from Patterson's lawyers was about two types of evidence used against her at trial. The first was data from cell phone towers showing her phone had been in areas near where death-cap mushrooms were spotted. The second was posts on a nature website called iNaturalist, where people had reported seeing those deadly mushrooms in nearby towns. Patterson's lawyers said this evidence was too guesswork-based and should not have been allowed. The prosecution argued the evidence, when looked at together with everything else, showed she had the chance to pick those mushrooms before the deadly lunch.

Another disagreement was about photos and videos found on a memory card at Patterson's home. The pictures showed mushrooms, and her lawyers said this was proof she had picked mushrooms before as a normal hobby — not just to harm someone. The trial judge had refused to let jurors see this evidence, and her lawyers say that was a serious mistake. They argued this ruling even forced Patterson to take the stand and explain old mushroom photos herself, which they said hurt her right to stay silent.

Patterson's lawyers also attacked the way prosecutors questioned her during the trial. They said the questioning was unfair and too aggressive. They were also unhappy with the prosecutor's final speech to the jury, saying she 'cherry-picked' evidence and got some facts wrong. The defense team listed 35 specific complaints about that closing speech. They also claimed that prosecutors secretly introduced the idea of a motive — a reason for the crime — even though they had said earlier they didn't need to prove one.

Finally, the lawyers challenged the use of messages and posts from Patterson's Facebook account. They argued that this social media evidence was not truly relevant to the charges and may have unfairly made the jury think badly of her. The appeals court hearing is set to continue on Thursday, when more arguments may be heard from both sides.