June 8, 2025

Unraveling the Mushrioom Trial: Erin Patterson's Courthouse Drama

Unraveling the Mushrioom Trial: Erin Patterson's Courthouse Drama
The player is loading ...
Unraveling the Mushrioom Trial: Erin Patterson's Courthouse Drama

This episode is from Friday's transcript from the Erin Patterson murder trial, focusing on the prosecutor's examination of Erin's Facebook messages and her account of inviting Simon and his parents to the fatal lunch.

• Lisa hosts with guest Louise
• Erin's Facebook messages allegedly reveal frustrations with ex-husband Simon and his parents
• Messages include phrases like "I'm sick of this shit" and "f them" which Erin claims were just venting
• A Witness testified that Erin had portrayed Simon as a poor father and complained about him to online friends
• Did Erin mention "important medical news" when inviting Simon to lunch
• Simon's text declining the invitation and Erin's response urging him to reconsider become key evidence
• The prosecution suggests Erin deliberately kept her children away from the lunch where mushrooms were served
• Testimony examines what the prosecution claims as a deteriorating relationship between Erin, Simon, and his parents in months before the incident

Thanks for listening. For more information, visit my website. Make sure you subscribe to my newsletter on www.mushroommurdertrial.com , it's jam-packed with news about the trial. Plus I'm on Instagram at Erin underscore pod. You can find me on Facebook. Just search the podcast, the mushroom Murder Trial podcast. I also will put links in the show notes to those social media accounts.

And if you were feeling like rewarding me for the thousands of hours I’ve spent on this work, I have a buy me a coffee membership which allows you to pay $5 as a thanks and I get a coffee. This goes towards the editing, studio hire, liability \insurance, equipment, sound and voiceovers. Plus there’s exclusive membership material on the site, just for you.




Instagram @Erin_Podcast
Twitter @lisapodcasts
Mushroom Murder Trial Website Facebook page

Erin Patterson Mushrooms

.

Erin Patterson Mushrooms

Here it is in summary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00:00 - Introduction to The Mushroom Murder Trial

01:36 - Erin's Facebook Messages About Simon

05:35 - Examining Family Relationship Dynamics

11:10 - Exploring Erin's Messages About Her In-laws

14:52 - Friends' Testimonies About Simon

18:13 - The Lunch Invitation Controversy

28:50 - Podcast Wrap-up and Thank You

WEBVTT

00:00:00.761 --> 00:00:04.411
Hello and welcome to the Mushroom Murder Trial podcast.

00:00:04.411 --> 00:00:08.321
My name is Lisa and I have a very special guest today.

00:00:08.321 --> 00:00:13.151
She is Lake Macquarie's number one Real Housewives of Sydney.

00:00:13.151 --> 00:00:15.646
Podcaster, louise, how are you?

00:00:16.181 --> 00:00:18.349
I'm great Lisa, Lovely to be here.

00:00:18.820 --> 00:00:19.443
Lovely to be here.

00:00:19.443 --> 00:00:24.567
I've actually forgotten the name of what our podcast was when we were doing that the Real Housewives of Sydney Snark.

00:00:24.567 --> 00:00:25.268
Yes.

00:00:26.260 --> 00:00:30.411
We really need to revisit Season 2 because it's a bit juicy.

00:00:31.079 --> 00:00:35.652
Yeah, we might have to after this and after you finish your 1,000 jobs that you've got.

00:00:36.021 --> 00:00:38.146
Well, that's true, I mean, I do love a project.

00:00:40.201 --> 00:00:41.064
And here's one for you.

00:00:41.064 --> 00:00:42.448
On a Sunday morning.

00:00:43.301 --> 00:00:46.607
Yes, I know, only for you would I work on Sundays.

00:00:49.500 --> 00:00:54.969
But and also it's a long weekend too, so thank you, and thank you for everyone for listening today.

00:00:54.969 --> 00:00:57.186
We're delighted to have you here.

00:00:57.186 --> 00:01:04.414
We are going to read part of Friday's transcript in the Erin Patterson case.

00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:13.953
I'm obviously the prosecutor, right, and you are Erin, yeah, and you pitched it to me like it's the role of a lifetime.

00:01:14.400 --> 00:01:16.403
Well, mine is also the role of a lifetime.

00:01:16.403 --> 00:01:21.281
This Dr Rogers is so smart, she seriously doesn't miss a thing.

00:01:21.281 --> 00:01:26.653
But also Mr Mandy Erin's barrister he doesn't miss a thing either.

00:01:26.653 --> 00:01:28.603
There's some very smart people in that room.

00:01:28.804 --> 00:01:31.150
Yeah, great, Okay.

00:01:31.150 --> 00:01:32.612
Well, I'm excited to get into it.

00:01:32.900 --> 00:01:33.582
Shall we go.

00:01:33.724 --> 00:01:35.180
We shall Okay.

00:01:36.281 --> 00:01:45.132
On page six, there's a message that you sent on Facebook Messenger dated the 7th of December 2022 at 11.20.

00:01:45.733 --> 00:01:46.134
Correct.

00:01:47.055 --> 00:01:52.370
Page seven Quote Simon wants to walk away from his responsibilities too.

00:01:52.370 --> 00:01:53.825
Well, that's his choice.

00:01:53.825 --> 00:02:03.512
Maybe it's easier if he's not involved in even paying their school fees, means I can choose their school all by myself and I don't have to refer to him.

00:02:03.512 --> 00:02:08.623
If he wants them to go to school, then he can help pay for it.

00:02:08.623 --> 00:02:13.481
If he doesn't want to help pay for it, then I don't have to send him there, do I?

00:02:13.481 --> 00:02:18.834
So maybe it just means I have even more freedom about my choices?

00:02:18.834 --> 00:02:21.044
A blessing in disguise.

00:02:21.044 --> 00:02:26.013
So you agree that you sent the message on the 7th of December?

00:02:26.473 --> 00:02:26.794
I did.

00:02:27.599 --> 00:02:28.966
To your online friends.

00:02:29.187 --> 00:02:29.487
I did.

00:02:30.319 --> 00:02:35.592
Do you still say that you consulted Simon before moving the children to their new school?

00:02:37.181 --> 00:02:40.611
Again, it matters what you mean by consult.

00:02:40.611 --> 00:02:51.225
Did you mean I asked his permission, or do you mean did I tell him Advise, tell, I did advise, I did tell.

00:02:52.187 --> 00:02:57.030
Yes, so you still say in your position that you did tell him in March.

00:02:57.310 --> 00:02:57.629
I did.

00:02:58.189 --> 00:02:59.531
And I suggest that you didn't.

00:02:59.531 --> 00:03:01.252
But you disagree with that.

00:03:01.731 --> 00:03:02.633
I do disagree.

00:03:02.633 --> 00:03:10.377
In fact he went on the enrolment forms and the school fees forms for before that term started.

00:03:15.460 --> 00:03:19.332
Is it your evidence that there was a change in their relationship with Simon after the disputes about the child support and the school fees?

00:03:19.332 --> 00:03:20.965
Yes, there was.

00:03:20.965 --> 00:03:37.009
Tanya Patterson has given evidence that in the year leading up to the July 2023 lunch, she noticed that the relationship between the two of you had deteriorated a bit and you both no longer interacted as much together.

00:03:37.009 --> 00:03:38.185
Would you agree with that?

00:03:39.961 --> 00:03:49.627
I agree she said that, but then I remember she also said that there was possibly only the last six months from January 23, and I agree with that.

00:03:50.429 --> 00:04:01.102
Tanya also said and Simon didn't go on the Christmas holiday that year to New Zealand with you and the children and he didn't, did he, that's correct, he did not come.

00:04:01.102 --> 00:04:05.592
And was that because the relationship between you and Simon had altered?

00:04:07.001 --> 00:04:08.768
Um, I don't think I could.

00:04:08.768 --> 00:04:12.201
He didn't want to go to New Zealand, that wasn't.

00:04:12.201 --> 00:04:15.508
He went to Brisbane to visit friends.

00:04:16.360 --> 00:04:23.249
Matthew Patterson gave evidence that in recent years before the lunch you didn't participate a lot in family functions.

00:04:23.249 --> 00:04:25.127
You heard him give that evidence.

00:04:25.779 --> 00:04:29.408
Yeah, yeah, I did hear him say that.

00:04:29.408 --> 00:04:30.831
Yes, and do you?

00:04:30.870 --> 00:04:31.612
agree with that.

00:04:31.959 --> 00:04:32.261
No.

00:04:32.942 --> 00:04:36.853
Is it your evidence that you did participate a lot in family functions?

00:04:36.853 --> 00:04:39.206
Yeah, in the recent years.

00:04:39.247 --> 00:04:48.139
before the lunch so up until the first half of 2023, I don't believe there was a change in my participation.

00:04:48.139 --> 00:04:58.389
I think there was a change in family events through some of that time because there was a lot of covid lockdowns in 21 which affected how many gatherings there were.

00:04:58.389 --> 00:05:04.165
But other than that, if there was a gathering and I was invited, I went, went.

00:05:04.307 --> 00:05:13.709
So you say Matthew Patterson is incorrect when he says that in recent years before the lunch you didn't participate a lot in family functions?

00:05:14.742 --> 00:05:16.648
I think he's wrong about that timeframe.

00:05:16.709 --> 00:05:25.552
yes, he also gave evidence that the conversations between you and Simon were less casual than they had been previously.

00:05:25.552 --> 00:05:27.968
This is before the lunch.

00:05:28.939 --> 00:05:32.529
Yeah, that's true for that last six months.

00:05:32.630 --> 00:05:45.505
yes, Okay, so one of the children gave evidence through a recorded statement and evidence that, while you remain married to each other, the interactions between you both before the lunch were very negative.

00:05:45.987 --> 00:05:46.867
He did say that.

00:05:47.889 --> 00:05:50.774
Yes, do you agree with that observation of your son?

00:05:53.043 --> 00:05:58.944
I think our interactions were strained, yes, strained, yeah, they were.

00:05:59.807 --> 00:06:00.670
Not very negative.

00:06:01.762 --> 00:06:04.490
It depends what they mean by negative.

00:06:04.490 --> 00:06:11.189
But I mean I think we have already agreed several times that our relationship changed in that last six months.

00:06:11.189 --> 00:06:13.500
I think everybody has agreed with that.

00:06:14.382 --> 00:06:25.153
I want to ask you some questions now about your account of your relationship with Simon and his parents, and I want to take you to Exhibit 54, page 3.

00:06:25.153 --> 00:06:27.125
Do you need to read it?

00:06:28.901 --> 00:06:29.865
I know what it says.

00:06:30.607 --> 00:06:31.730
If that, answers your question.

00:06:31.730 --> 00:06:42.112
This is a message from you you sent on Facebook Messenger on 6 December 2022 at 10.19am.

00:06:42.112 --> 00:06:47.951
Yes, you recount that in that message about Simon's dad, Don, contacting you.

00:06:47.951 --> 00:06:53.862
Yes, and then at the end of the message you say quote this family.

00:06:53.862 --> 00:06:55.468
I swear to fucking God.

00:06:56.341 --> 00:06:57.206
I did write that.

00:06:58.019 --> 00:07:01.689
This expressed your true feelings about Don and Gail Patterson, didn't it?

00:07:02.130 --> 00:07:02.312
No.

00:07:03.521 --> 00:07:09.184
I suggest that you are wrong about that, Uh no, I'm not wrong.

00:07:09.184 --> 00:07:12.392
Go to page four, please, of the same exhibit.

00:07:12.392 --> 00:07:15.408
The top message is from you to your Facebook friends.

00:07:15.408 --> 00:07:22.286
It is Quote I said to him about 50 times yesterday I didn't want them to adjudicate.

00:07:22.286 --> 00:07:26.173
Now that's a reference to Don, correct.

00:07:26.939 --> 00:07:27.783
Yeah, it is.

00:07:28.699 --> 00:07:32.670
Quote no body bloody listens to me.

00:07:32.670 --> 00:07:34.605
At least I know they're a lost cause.

00:07:35.608 --> 00:07:36.430
I did write that.

00:07:37.339 --> 00:07:40.327
You sent it at 10.27am.

00:07:41.211 --> 00:07:41.451
Yes.

00:07:42.680 --> 00:07:48.600
And again I suggest it expressed how you truly felt about Don and Gail that they were a lost cause.

00:07:48.600 --> 00:07:53.627
No Agree or disagree, disagree.

00:07:53.627 --> 00:08:03.543
The next message below that, 6-12-22 at 10-38 am, sent by you on Facebook Messenger.

00:08:03.543 --> 00:08:05.725
Correct the first line.

00:08:05.725 --> 00:08:11.091
I wonder if they've got any capacity for self-reflection at all.

00:08:11.091 --> 00:08:12.713
You sent that.

00:08:13.675 --> 00:08:15.526
I did, I sent the whole message.

00:08:16.841 --> 00:08:19.249
Do you need to read the rest of the message?

00:08:19.790 --> 00:08:20.011
No.

00:08:20.819 --> 00:08:24.091
Do you agree that you are critical of Simon Patterson in that message?

00:08:24.839 --> 00:08:25.884
Yes, I was.

00:08:26.961 --> 00:08:31.653
Do you agree that you were sheeting some of his behaviour back to his parents?

00:08:32.721 --> 00:08:34.528
It does look like I did that, yes.

00:08:35.740 --> 00:08:37.587
Well, you did do it, didn't you?

00:08:37.587 --> 00:08:39.445
I was doing it.

00:08:39.445 --> 00:08:41.706
There's nothing seeming about it.

00:08:42.741 --> 00:08:43.907
I was doing that, yes.

00:08:44.600 --> 00:08:45.966
Page five, the same exhibit.

00:08:45.966 --> 00:08:47.764
Do you need to read that?

00:08:48.447 --> 00:08:48.668
No.

00:08:49.259 --> 00:08:59.711
It reads in part Don rang me last night to say he thought there was a solution to all of this if Simon and I get together and try and talk and pray together.

00:08:59.711 --> 00:09:05.692
And there are two emojis which you dispute are eye-rolling emojis.

00:09:06.092 --> 00:09:06.373
I do.

00:09:07.801 --> 00:09:12.528
Now we're in court and this is Lisa here discussing emojis and the meanings of emojis.

00:09:13.640 --> 00:09:15.227
I know the emoji she's talking about.

00:09:16.030 --> 00:09:18.136
So anyway, Louise, I was just saying that.

00:09:18.136 --> 00:09:20.875
How many times do you think emojis come up these days?

00:09:23.370 --> 00:09:25.337
Well, I don't know.

00:09:25.337 --> 00:09:31.001
I mean, and you know, they can be interpreted lots of different ways, can't they?

00:09:31.350 --> 00:09:35.860
Well, and there's so many emojis in the world, so many Different ones.

00:09:35.860 --> 00:09:38.517
Absolutely Depends what keyboard you're using, what phone, what device 100%.

00:09:38.517 --> 00:09:39.902
So that's just Lisa and Louise giving our opinion on emojis.

00:09:39.902 --> 00:09:41.730
Absolutely Depends what keyboard you're using, what phone, what device A hundred percent.

00:09:41.730 --> 00:09:45.360
So that's just Lisa and Louise giving our opinion on emojis.

00:09:45.360 --> 00:09:45.620
Yeah.

00:09:45.931 --> 00:09:47.397
Are you actually cooking eggplant?

00:09:53.230 --> 00:09:56.538
Oh, my goodness Right, keep it serious, keep it serious.

00:09:56.538 --> 00:10:05.600
We're in court, we're in court, and there are two emojis which you dispute are eye-rolling emojis.

00:10:06.041 --> 00:10:06.402
I do.

00:10:07.082 --> 00:10:07.604
Correct.

00:10:08.085 --> 00:10:08.485
Correct.

00:10:09.070 --> 00:10:18.958
A little further down, you said Don messaged to say he and Gail don't want to get involved in the financial things, but just, we will pray for the kids.

00:10:18.958 --> 00:10:25.914
Again, there's an emoji that you say is not an eye-rolling emoji, correct.

00:10:25.914 --> 00:10:34.500
Further down, that's when Don said they tried to talk to him that is Simon but he refused to talk about it.

00:10:34.500 --> 00:10:38.230
So they're staying out of it but want us to pray together.

00:10:38.230 --> 00:10:40.096
I'm sick of this shit.

00:10:40.096 --> 00:10:41.750
I want nothing to do with them.

00:10:41.750 --> 00:10:42.732
Correct.

00:10:43.514 --> 00:10:44.316
I did write that.

00:10:45.057 --> 00:10:55.534
I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing, but it seems they're concerned about not wanting to feel uncomfortable and not wanting to get involved in their son's personal matters.

00:10:55.534 --> 00:10:57.458
Are overriding that, so fuck them.

00:10:58.341 --> 00:10:59.202
I did write that.

00:11:00.052 --> 00:11:01.760
You wrote that I did.

00:11:01.760 --> 00:11:06.359
That's what you thought about, gail, and Don correct, fuck them.

00:11:07.302 --> 00:11:10.029
I wrote that and I was venting and I was frustrated.

00:11:10.029 --> 00:11:13.576
But I regret writing it and I'm ashamed that I wrote that.

00:11:14.600 --> 00:11:18.514
I suggest these were your true feelings about how you thought of Gail and Don.

00:11:18.955 --> 00:11:19.716
I disagree.

00:11:20.298 --> 00:11:21.220
And you weren't venting.

00:11:21.861 --> 00:11:22.562
I was venting.

00:11:23.610 --> 00:11:35.293
And that these feelings, these true feelings that you had persisted through to July 2023, correct, incorrect and early August no Same exhibit.

00:11:35.293 --> 00:11:37.500
Exhibit F, page 6.

00:11:37.500 --> 00:11:40.158
Oh sorry, exhibit 54.

00:11:40.158 --> 00:11:42.421
You're right, page 6.

00:11:42.421 --> 00:11:43.126
Oh sorry, exhibit 54.

00:11:43.126 --> 00:11:43.570
You're right, page 6.

00:11:43.570 --> 00:11:45.176
This is a message from you.

00:11:45.176 --> 00:11:45.977
It is.

00:11:46.990 --> 00:11:52.423
Dated the 7th of December 2022 at 11.20am it is.

00:11:52.423 --> 00:12:00.957
His parents sent me a message yesterday afternoon and Simon sent me one last night, but I've read neither and I don't think I will.

00:12:00.957 --> 00:12:02.596
I don't want to hear it.

00:12:02.596 --> 00:12:12.958
Simon's will just be horrible and be gaslighting and abusive and it will ruin my day, and his parents' message will be more weasel words about not getting involved.

00:12:12.958 --> 00:12:15.703
You wrote those words, I did.

00:12:15.703 --> 00:12:18.455
I suggest again that you were angry.

00:12:18.455 --> 00:12:22.283
They did not take your side against Simon Patterson, correct or incorrect?

00:12:23.309 --> 00:12:26.581
No, I wasn't angry, but I was frustrated and hurt.

00:12:27.410 --> 00:12:30.860
So you were frustrated and hurt when you wrote the previous message of fuck them.

00:12:31.769 --> 00:12:32.793
Yeah, I was.

00:12:33.615 --> 00:12:34.157
Not angry.

00:12:34.860 --> 00:12:35.080
No.

00:12:35.789 --> 00:12:37.076
Tell you what YouTube is going to have.

00:12:37.076 --> 00:12:37.116
A.

00:12:37.116 --> 00:12:41.515
They're going to be not passing this on because you know how it doesn't like swearing.

00:12:41.515 --> 00:12:45.451
Yeah, I don't know, it's got some kind of profanity filler, so sorry.

00:12:45.451 --> 00:12:50.143
If you want to listen on YouTube you'll have to dig Right.

00:12:50.143 --> 00:12:51.917
Same exhibit, page eight.

00:12:51.917 --> 00:12:54.056
You can read that message.

00:12:54.056 --> 00:12:55.874
You can see it.

00:12:57.038 --> 00:13:00.357
Sorry, the water just got stuck in my throat.

00:13:00.357 --> 00:13:05.191
Do you want?

00:13:05.250 --> 00:13:06.113
me to read it out loud or just read it.

00:13:06.113 --> 00:13:08.317
No, I just want to make sure you know what I'm talking about.

00:13:08.818 --> 00:13:09.519
Yes, I do.

00:13:10.201 --> 00:13:13.414
Quote his mum was horrified that I had claimed child support.

00:13:13.414 --> 00:13:19.923
Yes, why isn't she horrified that her son is such a deadbeat that I had no choice but to claim?

00:13:19.923 --> 00:13:21.971
That's the message you sent.

00:13:22.573 --> 00:13:22.913
I did.

00:13:23.616 --> 00:13:34.541
I suggest you were unhappy with Gail's response about you claiming child support at this point I don't know if I was happy or unhappy.

00:13:34.980 --> 00:13:43.701
I mean, clearly I wasn't happy, but I don't think unhappy is the right way to put it either, but I was frustrated, I think.

00:13:44.822 --> 00:13:45.323
And hurt.

00:13:47.650 --> 00:13:50.038
I don't think hurt is reflected in this message.

00:13:50.038 --> 00:13:54.196
I was frustrated, I was hurt about a lot of things.

00:13:54.196 --> 00:13:55.177
Yeah, I was.

00:13:56.321 --> 00:13:57.043
I want to go.

00:13:57.043 --> 00:13:59.157
I've finished with that exhibit now.

00:13:59.157 --> 00:13:59.839
Thank you.

00:13:59.839 --> 00:14:03.100
I now want to go to your Facebook friend's evidence.

00:14:03.100 --> 00:14:06.740
Christine Hunt gave evidence and I'll break it down.

00:14:06.740 --> 00:14:11.100
She said that you painted Simon as a father who was coercive.

00:14:11.100 --> 00:14:12.956
You remember her saying that.

00:14:13.529 --> 00:14:14.495
Yeah, I do.

00:14:15.309 --> 00:14:16.797
Who disagreed with you a lot.

00:14:16.797 --> 00:14:18.514
You heard her say that.

00:14:18.514 --> 00:14:27.740
I did disagreed with you a lot you heard her say that I did and in particular around some following up of medical issues.

00:14:27.740 --> 00:14:28.442
If one of the kids was not.

00:14:28.442 --> 00:14:29.485
Well, yeah, she did say that.

00:14:29.485 --> 00:14:34.837
She said you never seemed happy with his follow-up and his commitment to what was happening.

00:14:35.720 --> 00:14:37.143
Yes, she did say that.

00:14:38.110 --> 00:14:42.941
Was what Christine Hunt gave evidence of, consistent with what you had told her about, simon.

00:14:43.942 --> 00:14:44.102
No.

00:14:45.230 --> 00:14:46.775
Okay, so I'll break it down then.

00:14:46.775 --> 00:14:52.982
Okay, First, her evidence was you painted Simon as a father who was coercive.

00:14:52.982 --> 00:14:56.999
Agree that you told Christine Hunt that or disagree.

00:14:57.561 --> 00:14:58.042
Disagree.

00:14:58.951 --> 00:15:11.633
She also said that you told her Simon disagreed with you a lot and in particular, around some following up medical issues if one of the child wasn't well, did you tell her that or not?

00:15:12.494 --> 00:15:12.774
No.

00:15:13.636 --> 00:15:20.354
Did you tell her that you were never happy, or seemed happy, with his follow-up and his commitment to what was happening?

00:15:21.836 --> 00:15:28.365
I'm not sure what she's referring to there Follow-up about what I don't know what she's talking about.

00:15:33.509 --> 00:15:34.990
Do you agree that you posted that Simon Patterson was not a good father?

00:15:35.010 --> 00:15:35.692
Posted where?

00:15:35.692 --> 00:15:37.373
Do you mean in the Facebook group?

00:15:37.373 --> 00:15:38.695
I was in with Christine.

00:15:39.655 --> 00:15:41.397
Yes, no, yes in with Christine.

00:15:41.417 --> 00:15:41.537
Yes, no.

00:15:42.498 --> 00:15:43.859
Yes, with Christine Hunt.

00:15:44.779 --> 00:15:45.020
No.

00:15:45.240 --> 00:15:45.660
I didn't.

00:15:45.660 --> 00:15:48.323
I want to go now to Daniela Barkley.

00:15:48.323 --> 00:15:58.710
Her evidence was I'll break it down as we go Sure, you posted this is her evidence you posted on the Facebook group that Simon wasn't a very nice person.

00:15:58.710 --> 00:16:02.250
You heard her give that evidence the Facebook group that Simon wasn't a very nice person.

00:16:02.894 --> 00:16:04.443
You heard her give that evidence.

00:16:04.443 --> 00:16:07.615
Can you just clarify for me?

00:16:07.615 --> 00:16:13.942
Did she say I posted that in a group or I said that in our private chat, Because that makes a difference as to whether I did it or not.

00:16:15.471 --> 00:16:17.971
Well, did you do it on both oh?

00:16:19.014 --> 00:16:22.890
I definitely discussed my relationship with Simon in the private group chat.

00:16:22.890 --> 00:16:26.437
I don't remember saying he wasn't a very nice person.

00:16:27.360 --> 00:16:29.691
Well, that was the evidence she gave in this trial.

00:16:29.691 --> 00:16:37.184
She did give that, yeah, so did you say it on a post that Daniela Barkley read.

00:16:38.111 --> 00:16:39.697
I don't know if I did or I didn't.

00:16:39.697 --> 00:16:40.740
I might have.

00:16:40.740 --> 00:16:43.837
I might have said that in a private group chat.

00:16:43.837 --> 00:16:44.760
I don't know.

00:16:45.590 --> 00:16:49.779
Daniela Barkley also gave evidence that you weren't happy with his cleanliness.

00:16:49.779 --> 00:16:51.062
That's true?

00:16:51.062 --> 00:17:00.419
You heard her say that, yes, and is that the truth that you told her or that you posted that?

00:17:01.250 --> 00:17:06.102
Yeah, it is true, because I had to spend two weeks cleaning his house at one point.

00:17:06.930 --> 00:17:13.618
Daniela Barclay also said that you didn't want the kids to sleep over there at night because you weren't happy with the way he lived.

00:17:13.618 --> 00:17:17.755
That's true yeah, so you told her that.

00:17:19.490 --> 00:17:23.201
I possibly or not told, but posted.

00:17:23.201 --> 00:17:27.660
I probably discussed that in the chat with those four or five women.

00:17:27.701 --> 00:17:31.519
yeah, Well, and Daniela Barclay was one of those women?

00:17:31.519 --> 00:17:31.980
Correct?

00:17:31.980 --> 00:17:33.292
She was.

00:17:33.292 --> 00:17:44.079
Yes, katrina Cripps' evidence was that you told her and Naomi Schroeder, on 1st of August 2023, that Simon had been mean to you, but never nasty.

00:17:44.079 --> 00:17:55.661
Yeah, I think I did say that yes, did you tell Katrina Cripps and Naomi Schroeder that Simon Patterson had become nasty towards you after you claimed child support?

00:17:55.661 --> 00:17:57.936
That was the evidence of Miss Crisp.

00:17:59.371 --> 00:18:01.396
Yeah, I did say that, yes.

00:18:02.140 --> 00:18:09.917
Yep, I'm moving to a different topic and this is about your lunch invitation to Simon Patterson.

00:18:09.917 --> 00:18:22.159
His evidence was that after the church service on the 16th of July 2023, you approached him while he was sitting down at the laptop sound mixing desk.

00:18:22.159 --> 00:18:24.037
So I'll ask you to break it down.

00:18:24.037 --> 00:18:27.057
So you agree, you approached him on the 16th of July.

00:18:27.057 --> 00:18:34.557
Yes, his evidence was that you said to him you had some important medical news that you wanted some advice on.

00:18:34.557 --> 00:18:36.355
He did say that.

00:18:36.355 --> 00:18:39.858
Did you say it to him?

00:18:39.858 --> 00:18:42.273
No, you disagree.

00:18:43.297 --> 00:18:43.998
I disagree.

00:18:44.759 --> 00:18:47.994
Simon's evidence was that you said you had some important medical news.

00:18:47.994 --> 00:18:49.598
You wanted some advice on.

00:18:49.598 --> 00:18:53.973
You dispute that quote, how to break it to the kids, that phrase.

00:18:53.973 --> 00:18:55.896
He did say that.

00:18:55.896 --> 00:18:58.701
Yes, you heard him give that evidence.

00:18:58.701 --> 00:19:01.424
Yes, Did you say that to him?

00:19:02.386 --> 00:19:02.988
I did not.

00:19:03.769 --> 00:19:05.992
A continuation of his evidence is.

00:19:05.992 --> 00:19:13.512
So you're inviting Don and Gail, mum and dad and Heather and Ian and him to the lunch to discuss that topic?

00:19:13.512 --> 00:19:15.536
You heard him give that evidence.

00:19:16.919 --> 00:19:20.104
What you just said, then are you saying that he said that.

00:19:20.565 --> 00:19:24.919
Yes, I'll read it again, but I'll do it again.

00:19:24.919 --> 00:19:29.940
Yes, please, if you're unclear, sorry, that's you.

00:19:30.079 --> 00:19:30.280
Yep.

00:19:30.280 --> 00:19:33.317
Sorry, I'm getting confused.

00:19:34.990 --> 00:19:36.413
I don't want you to be misled.

00:19:36.413 --> 00:19:39.619
Yeah, simon Patterson, yep, gave evidence.

00:19:39.619 --> 00:19:39.779
I'llled.

00:19:39.779 --> 00:19:41.423
Yeah, simon Patterson, yep, gave evidence.

00:19:41.423 --> 00:19:48.279
I'll recap Okay, that after the church service on the 16 July.

00:19:48.279 --> 00:19:53.539
Yeah, you approached him while he was at the sound mixing desk.

00:19:53.539 --> 00:19:57.194
Yes, you agreed that you did not do that.

00:19:57.194 --> 00:19:59.240
That's true.

00:19:59.240 --> 00:20:08.138
Yes, his evidence is that you said you had some important medical news, that you wanted some advice on how to break it to the kids.

00:20:08.138 --> 00:20:10.223
You disagree, I disagree.

00:20:10.223 --> 00:20:14.037
You say that that's not true, correct.

00:20:14.037 --> 00:20:17.943
You didn't say that at all to Simon Patterson.

00:20:17.943 --> 00:20:19.633
I did not say that.

00:20:19.633 --> 00:20:22.721
Simon Patterson's evidence.

00:20:22.721 --> 00:20:28.138
So you were inviting Don and Gail, mum and dad, and Heather and Ian and him to lunch.

00:20:28.138 --> 00:20:33.593
So this is recounting the conversation that he had with you.

00:20:33.593 --> 00:20:45.525
Yep, so you told him you're inviting Don, gail, mum and Dad, in other words, and Heather and Ian and Minimum to lunch to discuss the topic.

00:20:46.486 --> 00:20:50.817
Okay, no, that's not what I said to him.

00:20:52.030 --> 00:20:57.057
So did you tell him you were inviting his parents, heather and Ian, and him to lunch?

00:20:59.391 --> 00:21:05.133
I told him that I'd already invited Ian and Heather and Don and Gail, and I invited him as well.

00:21:05.292 --> 00:21:07.698
yes, but you dispute that.

00:21:07.698 --> 00:21:10.243
You said to Simon to discuss that topic.

00:21:10.243 --> 00:21:12.615
That is the important medical news.

00:21:12.615 --> 00:21:17.064
Yes, that you wanted advice on how to break it to the kids.

00:21:17.970 --> 00:21:18.371
Correct.

00:21:18.371 --> 00:21:23.202
That wasn't the purpose of the lunch or the purpose of the invitations.

00:21:24.211 --> 00:21:28.354
No, I'm not asking about the purpose of the lunch or the purpose of the invitation.

00:21:28.354 --> 00:21:29.996
I'm asking about the.

00:21:29.996 --> 00:21:32.746
Isn't that what that means?

00:21:33.788 --> 00:21:34.150
That's me.

00:21:34.150 --> 00:21:35.987
Oh sorry.

00:21:35.987 --> 00:21:37.847
Is that what that means?

00:21:37.847 --> 00:21:41.586
That you said I was inviting them to discuss the medical issues?

00:21:41.586 --> 00:21:43.606
That implies purpose.

00:21:44.681 --> 00:21:49.231
That you wanted advice on how to break that to the kid Correct.

00:21:50.280 --> 00:21:53.290
That wasn't the purpose of the lunch or the purpose of the invitations.

00:21:53.960 --> 00:21:55.910
No, I'm not asking about the purpose of lunch or the purpose of the invitations.

00:21:55.910 --> 00:21:57.720
No, I'm not asking about the purpose of lunch or the purpose of the invitations.

00:21:57.720 --> 00:22:01.130
I'm asking you about that word's unclear.

00:22:02.480 --> 00:22:08.130
Isn't that what that means, that you said I was inviting them to discuss the medical issues?

00:22:08.130 --> 00:22:10.288
That implies purpose, does it not?

00:22:10.288 --> 00:22:12.747
Unless I'm misunderstanding.

00:22:13.400 --> 00:22:25.790
Simon's evidence is that you said to him you're inviting his parents and Ian and Heather to lunch to discuss important medical news, that you wanted some advice on how to break that to the kids.

00:22:25.790 --> 00:22:28.946
Yes, that's what I'm asking you about.

00:22:29.941 --> 00:22:33.431
Yes, he did say that, but I did not say that to him.

00:22:34.220 --> 00:22:38.321
Did you ask if he'd be able to come on the 29th of July 2023?

00:22:38.321 --> 00:22:40.727
I did, so that's correct.

00:22:41.488 --> 00:22:43.811
Yeah, I did invite him to lunch.

00:22:44.133 --> 00:22:53.054
Yes, that's true, and that was Simon's evidence that you did say to him he would be able to come to lunch on the 29th.

00:22:53.054 --> 00:22:54.963
It is yes.

00:22:54.963 --> 00:22:59.342
He also said you were keen for the lunch not to be with the kids.

00:22:59.342 --> 00:23:02.086
You heard him say that.

00:23:02.507 --> 00:23:02.867
I did.

00:23:03.729 --> 00:23:05.512
Did you say that to Simon or not?

00:23:06.173 --> 00:23:06.694
I did not.

00:23:07.380 --> 00:23:12.406
Simon's evidence was that he said he would attend the lunch and you agreed.

00:23:12.866 --> 00:23:13.268
He did.

00:23:13.888 --> 00:23:18.474
Because that was your evidence in chief, wasn't it Correct?

00:23:18.474 --> 00:23:19.496
He did.

00:23:19.496 --> 00:23:23.570
You asked him if he'd come to lunch and he agreed that he would he did.

00:23:23.570 --> 00:23:26.007
This is on the 16th of July.

00:23:26.347 --> 00:23:26.568
Yep.

00:23:27.539 --> 00:23:31.910
Simon's evidence was that you'd already invited his parents, ian and Heather.

00:23:31.910 --> 00:23:35.744
Yes, and they were going to come.

00:23:35.744 --> 00:23:39.780
Yes, and you were inviting him as well, correct?

00:23:39.780 --> 00:23:45.713
That was his evidence, yep, so I want to make sure that I understand your evidence.

00:23:45.713 --> 00:23:56.872
On the 16th of July you invited Simon to lunch for the 29th of July I did, and you told him you'd already invited Don and Gail and Ian and Heather, correct?

00:23:56.872 --> 00:24:04.669
I suggest to you you thought Simon would be more likely to accept the invitation if he knew his parents and Ian and Heather were also attending.

00:24:04.669 --> 00:24:06.613
Agree or disagree?

00:24:06.613 --> 00:24:08.486
I would disagree with that.

00:24:08.486 --> 00:24:10.845
I suggest that you did.

00:24:10.845 --> 00:24:12.971
Forgive me if I'm suggesting this twice.

00:24:12.971 --> 00:24:22.630
You deny saying you told Simon you had some important medical news, that you wanted some advice on how to break that to the kids, correct?

00:24:22.630 --> 00:24:23.813
Correct?

00:24:23.813 --> 00:24:26.406
You flatly deny that, do you?

00:24:26.827 --> 00:24:27.450
I deny it.

00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:31.690
I suggest you told him you had a medical issue to encourage him to attend.

00:24:31.690 --> 00:24:33.053
Correct or incorrect?

00:24:34.080 --> 00:24:35.226
No incorrect.

00:24:35.740 --> 00:24:43.169
I suggest that this was also your excuse for while the children were not present at the lunch, and I assume you disagree with that.

00:24:44.311 --> 00:24:45.381
I do disagree with that.

00:24:46.021 --> 00:24:58.785
I suggest that, in fact, you did not want your children to be present for the lunch because you wanted to ensure that there was no way they could eat the meal that you were planning to serve to your guests on July 29.

00:24:59.506 --> 00:25:00.808
No, that's not true.

00:25:01.450 --> 00:25:03.354
Could I take you to exhibit two, please?

00:25:03.354 --> 00:25:05.625
Are you able to read the screen?

00:25:06.366 --> 00:25:07.369
I can thank you.

00:25:08.260 --> 00:25:10.788
The top message is from Simon Patterson to you.

00:25:10.788 --> 00:25:17.751
It is On the 28th of July 2023 at 6.54pm.

00:25:17.751 --> 00:25:21.768
Yes, Okay, we need a Simon voice now, don't we?

00:25:21.768 --> 00:25:26.087
We'll have to see if we can find someone to be Simon.

00:25:26.890 --> 00:25:27.330
Do you want me to?

00:25:28.901 --> 00:25:29.804
Drop it down a bit.

00:25:29.804 --> 00:25:34.891
Yeah, no, it's okay, I'll just do it in my best prosecutor voice.

00:25:34.891 --> 00:25:47.690
Sorry, I feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you Mum, dad, heather and Ian tomorrow, but I'm happy to talk about your health and implications of that at another time.

00:25:47.690 --> 00:25:51.230
If you'd like to discuss on the phone, just let me know.

00:25:52.240 --> 00:25:53.085
He did say that.

00:25:53.740 --> 00:26:05.704
I suggest that the words in his message I'm happy to talk about your health and the implications of that is a direct reference to you telling him on July 16 you had some important medical news.

00:26:05.704 --> 00:26:06.807
I disagree.

00:26:06.807 --> 00:26:08.990
You responded to that message.

00:26:08.990 --> 00:26:10.840
It's the blue message at the bottom.

00:26:10.840 --> 00:26:11.501
It is.

00:26:11.501 --> 00:26:15.588
You sent that the same evening 6.59pm.

00:26:15.588 --> 00:26:16.570
I did.

00:26:16.570 --> 00:26:18.314
That was your response.

00:26:18.314 --> 00:26:19.675
It was.

00:26:19.675 --> 00:26:24.467
Do you agree that you urged him to reconsider in your message to him?

00:26:24.467 --> 00:26:25.489
I did.

00:26:25.489 --> 00:26:26.851
Do you agree?

00:26:26.851 --> 00:26:27.952
You said that?

00:26:27.952 --> 00:26:28.493
Quote.

00:26:28.493 --> 00:26:30.282
Sorry, you told him.

00:26:30.282 --> 00:26:37.015
Quote may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time, correct?

00:26:37.681 --> 00:26:38.444
I did say that.

00:26:39.421 --> 00:26:46.127
I suggest that you wrote and used those words to make it seem like the medical issue was the reason, correct or incorrect?

00:26:47.501 --> 00:26:50.250
I don't understand the question, so I can't answer it.

00:26:50.839 --> 00:26:52.527
Okay, I'll start again.

00:26:52.527 --> 00:26:54.522
You can see in that message.

00:26:54.522 --> 00:26:57.609
Okay, you've read the message out and I'll please show.

00:26:58.491 --> 00:27:00.866
Sure, that's really disappointing.

00:27:00.866 --> 00:27:14.384
I've spent many hours this week preparing for 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.

00:27:14.384 --> 00:27:24.710
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.

00:27:24.710 --> 00:27:26.526
I hope you'll change your mind.

00:27:26.526 --> 00:27:30.210
Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at 12.30.

00:27:30.210 --> 00:27:31.605
I hope to see you there.

00:27:32.480 --> 00:27:32.842
All right.

00:27:32.842 --> 00:27:48.464
So in the second line you've written, which has been exhaustive in light of the issues I'm facing, yes, I suggest that you are in that, the use of that phrase purporting to refer to the medical issues you told him about on 16 July.

00:27:49.440 --> 00:27:50.586
Yeah, I did.

00:27:50.586 --> 00:27:56.252
I did tell him on the 16th of July that I wanted to discuss some medical stuff at the lunch.

00:27:56.252 --> 00:28:02.573
That is true, but I did not say to him serious, important medical news to break to the kids.

00:28:02.573 --> 00:28:06.128
That's the purpose and that's the purpose of the lunch.

00:28:07.160 --> 00:28:07.701
All right.

00:28:07.701 --> 00:28:20.041
So when I asked you a little earlier, did you say to him that you had important medical news, that you wanted some advice on what was it about that you disagreed important.

00:28:20.061 --> 00:28:25.491
That I said it was important and that I said I wanted advice on it, on how to break it to the kids.

00:28:26.880 --> 00:28:35.205
Okay, so on the 16th of July you agreed that you told Simon that you had some medical news that you wanted some advice on.

00:28:36.119 --> 00:28:38.829
No, I think I just disagreed with that.

00:28:39.680 --> 00:28:49.207
Now we have to stop here now because the Supreme Court owns the copyright to this transcript, so we don't want to violate fair use.

00:28:50.451 --> 00:28:50.730
Right.

00:28:51.039 --> 00:28:58.268
So, Louise, we have to thank you for being the first ever guest on the Mushroom Murder Trial podcast.

00:28:58.288 --> 00:28:59.392
I'm very honoured.

00:28:59.680 --> 00:29:01.488
I always drag you into my stuff, don't I?

00:29:01.680 --> 00:29:07.613
You do, but look I love it because it's just you know Never a dull moment, never a dull moment.

00:29:08.701 --> 00:29:10.448
So thank you everyone for listening.

00:29:10.448 --> 00:29:14.006
Make sure you go to my website, Sign up for the newsletter.

00:29:14.006 --> 00:29:20.180
It's free and I'm putting one out today and there'll be all sorts of interesting information.

00:29:20.180 --> 00:29:32.547
Also, if you'd like to buy me a coffee $5, but only if you can See I could actually buy Louise a coffee yeah, that'd be nice, but only if you can afford it.

00:29:32.547 --> 00:29:37.050
Otherwise, you just being here is incredible, amazing.

00:29:37.050 --> 00:29:38.685
We really appreciate it.

00:29:38.685 --> 00:29:43.792
And if you're in Australia, happy long weekend.

00:29:43.792 --> 00:29:46.826
And also the links to the show are in the show notes.

00:29:46.826 --> 00:29:51.586
All my socials Buy me a coffee Anything else, Louise?

00:29:52.380 --> 00:29:54.769
Well, I don't think so, just other than you're fabulous.

00:29:55.359 --> 00:29:56.304
So are you, babe.

00:29:56.845 --> 00:29:57.186
Love you.

00:29:57.548 --> 00:29:58.130
Love you too.

00:29:58.130 --> 00:30:01.670
All right, everyone, have a fabulous weekend.

00:30:01.670 --> 00:30:04.926
Enjoy your day off tomorrow, if you've got one, and we shall talk soon.

00:30:04.926 --> 00:30:06.410
Thanks, bye.