Australian woman Erin Patterson, is being cross-examined by the prosecution in her murder trial - three people died after eating a beef Wellington lunch at her house, while another became ill, but survived
The prosecution says Ms Patterson deliberately included poisonous mushrooms in a meal she served to guests – she denies this and her defence team says it was a "terrible accident"
The court has seen photos from Ms Patterson's phone, which the prosecution suggest show her calculating a lethal dose of death cap mushrooms - something Ms Patterson denied
Ms Patterson was also asked why in the days after the lunch she repeatedly lied to police about owning a food dehydrator, and said it was a "stupid knee-jerk reaction"
She also told the court her interactions with her husband were "strained", and that when her guests fell ill she became scared she might be to blame
Watch: Three things you need to know about Australia's mushroom murder trial
We're pausing our live coverage of the Erin Patterson trial now but you can follow the latest developments in our story here.
It's a public holiday on Monday which means court will be closed, but the trial proceedings will continue on Tuesday 10 June when the courts reopen at 10:30 local time.
We're expecting Erin Patterson will continue to be cross-examined as the trial enters its seventh week.
Following on from our re-cap on today's evidence, here's a look at what we heard from Ms Patterson earlier this week.
Monday
When she first took the stand, Ms Patterson spoke about marital problems with her estranged husband and how she felt she was being cut off from the wider Patterson family in the period before the fatal lunch.
She also spoke about the traumatic birth of her first child years earlier, saying she discharged herself from hospital early after an emergency caesarean against medical advice
Tuesday
We heard about Ms Patterson's love of mushrooms and how in early 2020, she started foraging for wild varieties as a hobby.
The accused said the mushrooms used in the beef Wellington meal were a mix of store-bought ones and some from a Melbourne grocer.
Wednesday
Ms Patterson claimed she only ate a small portion of her lunch and later threw up after binge-eating two-thirds of a cake.
She also itted that there was a possibility that foraged mushrooms stored in her pantry may have been added to the meal unintentionally and that she lied to her guests about having cancer in order to cover up her embarrassment over plans to get weight-loss surgery.
Thursday
The mother-of-two said she lied to police about foraging for mushrooms and having a dehydrator because she was scared she'd be blamed for the fatal meal.
She denied a picture showing what appears to be death cap mushrooms being weighed on a kitchen scale in her home was her researching the ideal dose to kill her guests.
Erin Patterson faced her second day of cross-examination today, with prosecutor Nanette Rogers quizzing the accused.
Here's what we heard:
And with that, court breaks up for the day.
This case is being heard in a small regional town, so many of the key court figures - like the lawyers and the judge - are travelling back and forth from Melbourne each week.
On Friday, the case is only heard for half a day to allow them time to head home for the weekend, and this one is a long one.
It's a public holiday in Victoria on Monday, so there'll be no court hearing then either.
We'll have a recap of the day for you very shortly.
The focus today also turned to the iNaturalist site, which has been discussed throughout the trial as it listed locations where death cap mushrooms could be found near Ms Patterson's home.
The prosecutor quizzes Ms Patterson about her use of the site using a particular search engine, and suggests the accused knew what she was looking for.
"I don't this," Ms Patterson says.
The court is shown various screenshots of the site with Ms Patterson repeatedly saying she can't specific interactions with the site.
Just before court ends for the day, the prosecutor asks if Ms Patterson had an interest in death cap mushrooms on 28 May 2022, referring to a particular screenshot.
"It depends what you mean by an interest," she replies.
Katy Watson
Reporting from Morwell
Here's a little more information about how the courthouse in town is dealing with the massive interest in this case.
The Latrobe Valley Law Courts are a small and unimposing modern building on the main road, and space inside courtroom 5 is very limited.
And because of that, seating has to be closely managed.
Only six journalists are allowed into the court each day – everyone else has to watch from an overflow room here or in Melbourne. There's a little more space reserved for of the public, but not much.
Image source, Getty ImagesWe're now turning to questions about Erin Patterson's internet use.
The prosecutor reminds her of evidence an online friend gave the court. That witness said Ms Patterson was “a bit of a super sleuth”.
"You are a good researcher">"I think anyone can do that," she replies.
Katy Watson
reporting from Morwell
On why she invited Heather and Ian Wilkinson as well as her in-laws, Ms Patterson says she wanted to say thank you to them for being good to her over the years.
"Heather helped me a lot when [my daughter] was little and I started taking her to playgroup... Heather would sit with me through those playgroup times and was really kind to me."
"I wanted to say thank you to her," Ms Patterson says, crying and taking a tissue from the side of the witness box.
Under questioning, Ms Patterson then confirms the exchanges with Mrs Wilkinson that she's talking about were several years before the lunch.
She also said she wanted to have a "stronger relationship" with the elderly couple.
Lana Lam
Live reporter
Rewinding a few minutes, the prosecution asked Ms Patterson about the significance of the lunch on 29 July 2023.
Nanette Rogers asked the accused if it was "unusual" for her to have people to her house for lunch.
"Yeah, that's probably true," Ms Patterson replies, saying that her relatives had been over "a couple of times before".
Asked specifically about the day of the fatal meal, the prosecution says: "This was a special meal that you had arranged?
"Correct, I wanted it to be special," Ms Patterson replies.
Tiffanie Turnbull
Live editor
Dr Rogers continues.
"You had two faces. A public face of appearing to have a good relationship with Don and Gail… agree or disagree">"I suggest your private face was the one you showed in your Facebook use… and how you truly felt about Don and Gail was how you expressed it [there]," the prosecutor says, referring to messages where Ms Patterson is critical of her estranged husband Simon's family.
"Incorrect," Ms Patterson replies, head shaking and voice faltering.
"And that is how you really felt about Simon Patterson... you did not regard him as being a decent human being at his core, correct or incorrect">Ms Patterson replies that she still believes he is a good person.
The prosecutor is once again pushing Ms Patterson on the nature of her relationship with her in-laws, Don and Gail, following some conflict between her and her estranged husband.
“I suggest that you didn’t love them... I suggest you were angry that they took Simon’s side," Nanette Rogers says.
"Incorrect."
Erin Patterson has just pulled up the prosecutor for referring to Simon Patterson as her ex-husband in a question.
She says she wouldn’t have referred to him as her ex, because he wasn’t "and still is not", she tells the court.
Lana Lam
Live reporter
The prosecution continues to question Ms Patterson about her immediate actions once she realised it was possible her foraged mushrooms may have accidentally made their way into the meal.
Here's the exchange:
"You never once told a medical professional that foraged mushrooms were involved or might be involved">"Correct."
Katy Watson
reporting from Morwell
Erin Patterson earlier this week said a confrontation with her estranged husband - in which she claims he asked if she'd used a food dehydrator to poison his parents - had made her reflect on what might have gone into that fatal meal.
It's an exchange that Simon Patterson denies, but Ms Patterson says she began to think there was a possibility foraged mushrooms she'd gathered and dried could have been accidentally included in the beef Wellingtons.
She itted being scared that she could be to blame for the illness of her family .
"You told police that you loved Don and Gail," prosecutor Nanette Rogers says.
"Surely if you had loved them, then you would have immediately notified the medical authorities about there being a possibility the foraged mushrooms had gone in the container with the Chinese mushrooms">Ms Patterson said she didn't tell doctors because the lunch guests were already getting treatment for death cap mushroom poisoning.
One of the messages read to the court this morning is Ms Patterson responding to a text from her estranged husband, in which he said he would not be attending the lunch. The accused replies saying she's disappointed, and hopes he changes his mind.
"I suggest you prepared a poisoned beef Wellington for him just in case he turned up," the prosecutor says.
"And when he didn’t turn up for lunch, at some point you threw it in the rubbish bin."
Erin Patterson says she did put the pastry and mushrooms in the bin, but denies once more the idea she was trying to poison anyone.
Ms Patterson is being quizzed on her claims that she needed to talk to Simon and her relatives about her health issues.
She has previously itted she misled them into believing she may need cancer treatment - but denies outright telling them she had a diagnosis. She told the jury she did so as a cover for weight-loss surgery she was planning to have but too embarrassed to disclose.
Dr Rogers suggests that's untrue, and Ms Patterson did not have any medical issues she needed to discuss with her relatives.
Ms Patterson stresses that she did, and said she had an appointment booked for early September at a clinic in Melbourne to discuss the gastric by surgery.
She says it wasn't for the actual surgery but for a "pre-surgery appointment".
Simon Atkinson
reporting from Morwell
Today the prosecutor has been asking Ms Patterson to read out in court some of the text, Signal and Facebook messages and posts she had written.
Ms Patterson picks up her glasses, puts them on, and looks at the screen in front of her.
She has just been asked to read out loud for the court the message she sent to Simon Patterson after he declined coming to the lunch at the centre of the trial.
The prosecutor is breaking down the content of that message – focussing on whether the wording was designed to convey that Ms Patterson had medical issues to discuss.
Ms Patterson answers that she did have medical issues to discuss, saying she was planning to have weight-loss surgery.
Lana Lam
Live reporter
The prosecution now asks Ms Patterson if she had painted Simon Patterson - her estranged husband - as a bad father, referring again to earlier evidence from the accused's Facebook friends.
Dr Rogers suggests that Ms Patterson's posts described Simon as "controlling" and "coercive", someone who she fought with a lot, and someone who failed to follow up on medical issues with the kids.
Ms Patterson rejects the claims.
She does it she shared posts about Simon's hygiene, claiming she had once spent two weeks cleaning his house.
Simon Atkinson
reporting from Morwell
Throughout this trial we’ve heard lots about what Erin Patterson is said to have written in Facebook groups and private online chats.
Some of it has been tendered to the court as evidence, in the form of screen grabs.
Other parts have come from testimony by some of those Facebook “friends” who – under oath – recounted things they said Ms Patterson told them.
Today Ms Patterson is disputing some of the latter, including testimony from one witness about alleged comments critical of her estranged husband Simon Patterson.
"I don’t saying he wasn’t a very nice person," Ms Patterson says.
We've also heard the prosecutor ask about evidence given by Matthew Patterson - the accused's brother-in-law - that in the years running up to the lunch, Erin Patterson didn’t attend family gatherings as much.
Ms Patterson disagrees with that, but says she partially agrees with her son who told police his parents interactions were "negative" in the months running up to the lunch.
“Our interactions were strained,” Ms Patterson says.