The trial begins over the Australian woman accused of preparing a deadly mushroom

The Australian woman, who is accused of preparing deadly food with mushrooms, admits that she chooses wild funga, lies to the police and dispose of evidence, but will claim that the “tragedy” was a “terrible accident”.

The court of the Supreme Court over Erin Paterson, 50, began in a small Victorian city of Morvel on Wednesday and is expected to last six weeks.

She is accused of killing three relatives and for attempting to kill another when the case focuses on lunch at Velington at her house in July 2023.

Ms Paterson did not admit to guilty, and her defense team says she “panic” after the unintentional supply of the poison members she loved.

Three people were killed in the hospital on days after eating, including the former son-in-law Ms Paterson, the 70th Don Paterson, and the 70th Gayl Paterson, as well as his sister Gayla, Hiser Wilkinson, 66 years.

One guest of dinner – local pastor Jan Wilkinson – survived – after weeks of treatment at the hospital.

The fact that the beef lunch Velington, potatoes and green beans kept mushrooms for death and caused the guests’ illnesses, did not spread, the court heard.

“The main question is: it intends to kill or cause a very serious injury,” said Judge Christopher Bill.

Opening the lawsuit on Wednesday, the Nanette Rogers prosecutor said the case was “originally considered a massive event of food poisoning.”

But she claims that Ms Paterson “intentionally poisoned” her guests “with the slaughter intention, after inviting them to lunch” in the appearance of her cancer. “

D -Rgers said the juror would hear the evidence that Ms Paterson had gone to a place near her home in Leangat, where the death mushroom observations had entered the natural site.

And in the days after lunch, she took a number of steps to “hide” what she did, said the charge.

It would be evidence that she lied to the investigators about the mushroom source in the dish – saying they came from an Asian product to Melbourne, and she never recorded wild. And she made a trip to a local landfill to dispose of prosecutors with food dehydrors, they say she used to prepare toxic food.

“You may be interested:” What is the motive? “” D -r Rogers said to the jury: “You can still wonder at the end of this lawsuit.”

The prosecutor’s office does not offer a certain motive, she explained.

“You don’t have to be satisfied with what the motive was, or even what it was.”

The fact that the jury can expect that she heard, according to her, was the testimony of a number of witnesses, including: Mr. Wilkinson, the remote husband of Mrs. Paterson Simon Patterson, the medical staff who treated the lunch guests, and the police investigation.

However, the defense, opening their business, reminded the jury that they had not heard any real evidence and it had to open the mind.

Barrisister Colin Mandy says that if the charge tries to throw away Ms Paterson’s behavior after lunch as “charge”, the jury should consider how someone can respond in this situation.

“Can people say or do things that aren’t well thought out … and can make them bad?”

“The protection case is that it was panic because it was overflowing that these four people became so sick of the food that it gave them. Three people were killed.”

He said that Ms Paterson did not intentionally serve the poisoned food to her guests.

“She did not intend to cause anyone to harm on this day … What happened was a tragedy, a terrible accident.”