From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Friday, June thirteen, twenty twenty five. Wife killer and child sex offender Christopher Michael Dawson has lost his bid to have the High Court of Australia reopen his case. Dawson, whose murder of wife Lynette Simms was the subject of The Australian's podcast The Teacher's Pet, failed to convince the justices of Australia's highest court he'd been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. You can read that story right
now at the Australian dot com au. And if you haven't listened to The Teacher's Pet or our companion podcast, The Teacher's Trial, find them now wherever you're listening. Accused mushroom murderer Aaron Patterson insists she did have an appointment for liposuction and that's why she needed to invite four elderly relatives to her house for a lunch without her
children being present. Today, the final moments of Aaron Patterson's time in the witness box giving evidence in her defense on charges of murdering three people and attempting to murder a fourth We've used voice actors throughout this episode to bring you the words spoken in court. On Thursday, June twelve, Colin Mandy sc representing Aaron Patterson, got his chance to re examine his client after several days of cross examination
by prosecutor Nanett Rodgers. Re examination is where a witness can be asked to clarify points that have arisen in cross examination. It's a chance to have the last word, and in this matter, Aaron Patterson was the defense's one and only witness. That means evidence in the case has concluded. Now the trial will move on to closing submissions by both Crown and defense, then summing up by the judge before the jury is sent out to consider its verdict.
Is Aaron Patterson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of murder and one of attempted murder of having deliberately poisoned her three elderly relatives with deathcap mushrooms? Or was it, as Mandy said in his defense, opening a tragedy and a terrible accident at the fatal lunch on July twenty nine, twenty twenty three, after serving her lunch guests beef Wellington, Aaron Patterson told them she was likely to eat surgery
in the future. The Crown says Patterson invented a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in order to justify inviting her husband, his parents, and his aunt and uncle to lunch at her home while excluding her children. Patterson, who's pleading not guilty to three counts of murder, says she did no such thing. She says that she did tell the lunch guests she was concerned about cancer, something she says she'd
been genuinely worried about in the past. But she says the real reason she was going to need surgery was that she had decided to do something about her weight and long term eating battles. That's something was gastric bypass surgery. That's what Patterson told the jury during her evidence in
examination in chief. Here's what she told the jury on June fourth, under questioning from her barrister, Colin Mandy sc Aaron Patterson, who had separated from the Patterson's son Simon, described exchanging messages with Gail Patterson about a lump on her arm shortly before the fatal lunch. Here's what Aaron Patterson's message said.
I had a needle biopsy taken out of the lump, and I'm returning for an MRI next week and will know more after the results of those two things.
In court, Mandy asked, had you been to an appointment?
No?
Had you had a needle biopsy taken off the lump?
No?
Were you returning for an MRI the next week?
No?
Were those lies?
Yes?
And why did you tell those lies?
So some weeks prior, I had been having an issue with my elbow with pain, and I thought there was a lump there, and I'd told Gail and Don about that when I saw them or spoke to them, and they'd trained quite a lot of care about that, which felt really nice. The issue started to resolve, and I felt like a bit embarrassed that I'd made such a big deal about it, and I didn't want their care of me to stop, so I just kept it going. I shouldn't have done it.
Patison sent another message suggesting they talk about it at the lunch.
I'd come to the conclusion that I wanted to do something for once and for all about my weight and my poor eating habits. So I was planning to have gastric bypass surgery and so I remember thinking I didn't want to tell anybody what I was going to have done.
I was really embarrassed about it. So I thought perhaps letting them believe I had some serious issue that needed treatment might mean they'd be able to help me with the logistics around the kids, and I wouldn't have to tell them the real reason.
During cross examination, prosecutor Nannett Rodgers was asking Patterson about conversations she'd had with her husband Simon about wanting to discuss medical issues at the lunch. Patterson was asked about a message she'd sent on the day before the lunch twenty eight July, to Simon when he said he wouldn't be able to attend.
Sorry, I feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, Mum, Dad, Heather and I and tomorrow, but I'm happy to talk about your health and implications of that another time.
If you'd like to discuss on my phone.
Just let me know. 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. I Phillip to make beef Wellington's 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 me that you're all there tomorrow and that I have the conversations I need to have. I hope you'll change your mind.
Your parents in Heather and Ian are coming at twelve thirty. I hope to see you there.
Here's what Nanette Rodgers asked on Friday, June sixth I.
Suggest that on the sixteenth of July twenty twenty three that you lied to Simon saying that you had some medical issues to discuss. Correct or incorrect?
No, that wasn't a lie.
You wrote quote it's important to me that you're all there tomorrow and that I can have the conversations that I need to have.
I did write that.
Is that a reference to the medical issues that you were confronting.
It's a reference to medical things, yes, But.
You weren't confronting any medical issues, were you correct?
Ah?
Yeah, No, I think I was.
Yeah, And what were they?
I was going to have surgery soon?
What surgery?
The gastric bypass surgery?
And had that appointment been booked in I.
Had an appointment for early September, Yes, with who, the Enriched Clinic in Melbourne.
And what was the date of the appointment.
I don't remember the exact date. I don't think it was. The appointment was not the surgery itself, but like a pre surgery appointment, if that makes sense.
But on Tuesday morning this week, when Patterson was being cross examined by Prosecutor Nannett Rodgers, she was presented with this statement from the Enriched Clinic.
The Enriched Clinic does not offer, and never has offered, pre surgery assessments relating to gastric bypass surgery. The Enriched Clinic only conducts examination relating to the skin and its appendages such as hair and nails.
The Enriched Clinic does not offer gastric bypass surgery or gastric sleeve surgery. Agree or disagree, I don't know. The Enriched Clinic does not conduct assessments relating to gastric bypass surgery or gastric sleeve surgery. Agree or disagree, I don't know.
But I'm a bit puzzled in what way well that was? I had an appointment with them, and that's what my memory is that the appointment was for. So that's why I'm puzzled.
Rogers put it to Patterson that the appointment she told the jury about had nothing to do with gastric bypass surgery. Patterson said, well, it would have been related to weight loss surgery. Perhaps it was a different procedure. I was doing through them, and I was looking into life per suction as well.
When you gave sworn evidence to this jury last Friday that you had a pre surgery appointment for gastric bypass surgery booked for early September with the Enriched Clinic in Melbourne, that was a lie. Agree or disagree?
No, it wasn't a lie. That's what my memory was.
On Thursday June twelve, Colin Mandy asked this in re examination.
Now, can I just confirm with you your interactions with the Enriched Clinic. On the nineteenth of April you made a voice call to the Enriched Clinic and then again you contacted the Enriched Clinic on the thirty first of May twenty twenty three. What did you know then when you made those phone calls or contacted the clinic on those days about the services that the Enriched Clinic offered I.
Was under the understanding that they offered treatments concerning weight loss, and I believed that to be surgeries like gastric bypass and other things like liposuction and anywhere in between.
Now, the records you saw yesterday confirmed that you had an appointment with Enrich on the thirteenth of September twenty twenty three, and you described that in your evidence as a pre surgery appointment, right, What did you mean by that?
So?
What I meant was so I hadn't actually had an in person consultation within Rich yet that was going to be my first one. And my understanding was that we would discuss my needs, what treatments they could offer, what would suit me, and schedule that in.
Did you ever have a consultation with him?
I never ended up having one, though I canceled that.
Mandy then tended a statement on the Enriched Clinic's website.
Enrich Clinic has moved to s the era as of January twenty twenty five. As of the thirtieth of June twenty twenty four, doctor Rich will not be offering liposuction as a treatment option to our patients.
And what was your understanding about what was being offered by Enriched Clinic as at July of twenty twenty three.
Well, I understood them to be offering liposuction, and I also believed they offered the full range of weight loss surgery treatments like the bypass and this leeve. I think there are two different types of things.
But why did you cancel the appointment?
It was a difficult time. Yeah, it was in a very difficult time.
And do you accept now from this material that you were mistaken about the fact that Enriched Clinic offered gastric bypass surgery?
Yes, I was obviously mistaken. Yeah.
Colin Mandy also took Erin Patterson to some questions about her children, and in answering, Patterson sounded emotional. In cross Examinationnnette Rodgers asked Patterson about why she attended Lean and Gath the hospital on Monday, July thirty one, two days after the lunch, but left against medical advice, telling doctors she had to go home and feed her animals and attend to things for her children. Rogers asked this.
You didn't need to go home and pack your daughter's ballet bag. Correct?
Incorrect?
Your daughter didn't even have bali on Mondays, did she she did.
She had a rehearsal that afternoon and Simon had to cancel it.
Where do you say the rehearsal was.
I don't remember where it was, but it was a rehearsal for an upcoming media concert. So there was some special extra lessons they had, and they had one on that Monday afternoon evening, and I'd ask Simon to ringle Suppelling studio and cancel it, which he told me to do, sorry, which he told me he did do.
Weren't her rehearsals held on weekends.
Some were, But somewhere on the Monday night afternoon, I can't remember what time it was.
On Thursday June twelve, Mandy took Patterson back to this, showing her a text message from Simon sent on the day in question, saying he'd left a message on Lisa Pellan's studio's phone.
What did you understand, Simon to be meaning by those messages?
So Lisa Pellin Studios was the name of my daughter's ballet studio. I understood that he was canceling her attendance that night, as I'd asked him to do.
Coming up the final propositions the Crown put to Aaron Patterson. In the final moments of a cross examination, Rogers put to Patterson these suggestions, leading off with why Patterson handed a phone to police that was not her primary device. Patterson has repeatedly said she changed devices after the lunch because she was concerned about the behavior of her husband, Simon, whom she says had accused her of poisoning his parents. She is agreed she handed police a phone known as
Phone B, but not Phone A, her primary device. She said she believed police didn't ask for Phone A. She also agreed she conducted three factory resets of Phone B, including once after it was in a detective's locker at one Thaggy police station. Here's how it went in cross examination.
I suggest to you that all of this conduct, the factory resetting of Phone B, handing it to police, and telling them your phone number ended in eight three five. This was all about hiding the contents of your usual mobile phone, Phone.
A, incorrect.
I suggest you deliberately concealed Phone A from police. Disagree, And you did so because you knew that the data on that device would incriminate you agree or disagree?
Disagree?
Now you'll be pleased to know I've got three final questions. I suggest that you deliberately source Deathcap mushrooms in twenty twenty three. Agree or disagree disagree. I suggest you deliberately included them in the beef wellingtons you served to Don Patterson, Gail Patterson, Ian Wilkinson and Heather Wilkinson Agree or disagree disagree, and you did so intending to kill them. Agree or disagree disagree? Thank you. I have no further questions.
The trial continues and you can follow our coverage live at the Australian dot com dot au