A woman in Australia has been convicted of fatally poisoning three of her former in-laws and attempting to kill a fourth after serving them a mushroom-laced meal, concluding a high-profile court case that has captured national attention.

Erin Patterson, 50, now faces the possibility of spending the rest of her life behind bars. A panel of 12 jurors, who spent a week reviewing the evidence under court-ordered isolation from media coverage, delivered the verdict on Monday. Her sentencing date has yet to be announced.

The case centers around a meal Patterson hosted nearly two years ago in the small community of Leongatha, where she prepared beef Wellington and invited several members of her estranged husband’s family to lunch.

Although her husband, Simon Patterson, declined the invitation, his parents Gail and Don Patterson, along with Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson and Heather’s husband Ian Wilkinson, attended.

Three of the four guests died within days, showing symptoms aligned with toxic mushroom exposure. Ian Wilkinson became critically ill but survived and later gave testimony during the proceedings.

During the two-month trial, over 50 individuals gave testimony. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers did not provide jurors with a concrete reason behind Patterson’s actions, but she introduced material suggesting a troubled relationship between Patterson and her husband, including disagreements over parenting costs.

Despite the absence of a stated motive, Rogers insisted that Patterson’s guilt was made evident by numerous attempts to mislead including telling falsehoods about having cancer to justify hosting the lunch, pretending to fall ill herself, and taking steps to cover her involvement afterward.

Following the incident, Patterson allegedly got rid of a food dehydrator she used to dry mushrooms and initially misled investigators about its disposal. She also repeatedly reset her phone to factory settings, according to witness testimony.

“She, alone, chose what to cook, obtained the ingredients and prepared the meal,” Ms. Rogers told jurors in her closing arguments. “That choice to make individual portions allowed her complete control over the ingredients in each individual parcel.”

No response had been issued by Patterson’s legal team as of Monday afternoon regarding the jury’s decision.

Taking the stand in her own defense, Patterson insisted that the tragedy was accidental. She claimed she may have unknowingly combined wild mushrooms she had once gathered with store-bought varieties, unaware of their toxicity.

She also stated she had eaten the same food personalized servings of beef Wellington but later indulged in cake and vomited, a detail her defense argued might explain her survival. Her disposal of the dehydrator and initial dishonesty about it, she said, were due to fear and panic after her guests became sick.

One detail that stood out to the jury came from Ian Wilkinson, the only surviving guest, who pointed out that Patterson’s serving plate looked different in size and color from those used by the others.

The deeply unsettling nature of the incident set against the backdrop of a peaceful town, involving a familiar home-cooked dish and a seemingly ordinary murder amplified public interest far beyond typical criminal trials.

Daily conversation across the country reflected intense speculation and fascination with the story, from the meal’s details to the investigation’s digital trail.

Podcasts dedicated to breaking down each day of the court proceedings attracted millions of listeners, and public curiosity about the case eclipsed that of nearly any recent criminal trial in Australia.

The United States has deported eight foreign nationals to South Sudan after a prolonged legal battle and logistical delays, in a case that highlights growing tensions over international deportation policies and migrant rights. The group, which includes men convicted of serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault, and robbery, had either completed or were nearing the end of their prison sentences in the U.S.

Despite only one of the eight being a South Sudanese national, all were deported to South Sudan due to complications with repatriation. The remaining individuals hail from Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and Mexico. According to U.S. officials, their home countries refused to accept their return, prompting the U.S. to turn to third-country deportation.

The move follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a lower court’s ruling which had required due process for migrants deported to third countries. The decision effectively clears the path for the U.S. to continue removing foreign nationals regardless of nationality to countries willing to receive them.

This case also revives elements of the Trump administration’s controversial deportation strategy, which sought agreements with nations such as Rwanda, Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and Moldova to accept non-citizen deportees from the United States.

Initially, the men had been rerouted to Djibouti before their final transfer to South Sudan. The U.S. had previously revoked visas for several South Sudanese nationals after the East African nation refused to cooperate with U.S. deportation demands. With this latest deportation, South Sudan appears to have relented under diplomatic pressure.

The case is already drawing scrutiny from human rights advocates and legal experts concerned about the precedent it sets for due process and the ethics of third-country deportations. Critics argue that deporting individuals to nations they have no ties to can place them in grave danger and violates fundamental principles of international law.

As the U.S. continues to grapple with immigration policy, enforcement, and the fallout from diplomatic standoffs with non-cooperative home countries, the question of where and how non-citizen offenders are deported remains a controversial and evolving issue.

US President Donald Trump has issued a strong warning nations aligning themselves with BRICS in ways that contradict American interests could soon face an added 10% tariff.

“Any country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,” Trump wrote on social media.

Trump has maintained a longstanding opposition to BRICS, a geopolitical bloc that includes major players such as China, Russia, and India.

While the US had initially provided a deadline of July 9 for countries to finalize trade deals, officials now say duties will be enforced starting August 1. Trump stated he would notify countries in writing of the new rates should no agreements be reached before the deadline.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking on Monday, suggested that the final days before the cut-off would be packed with negotiations.

“We’ve had a lot of people change their tune in terms of negotiations. So my mailbox was full last night with a lot of new offers, a lot of new proposals,” he said.

To date, the US has completed formal trade deals with the United Kingdom and Vietnam, and reached a partial agreement with China.

Still, ongoing talks between the US and the UK have yet to resolve disputes over American tariffs on British steel.

Since returning to the presidency in 2025, Trump has introduced multiple waves of import duties, arguing these measures will revitalize domestic manufacturing and safeguard employment.

Back in April, during what he dubbed “Liberation Day”, Trump revealed a series of aggressive tariff hikes, some as high as 50% targeting a wide range of foreign products. However, he quickly paused the most severe measures to allow three months for dialogue, with July 9 as the final date for compromise.

In the meantime, most imports into the US have been subject to a flat 10% charge.

Talks between the US and the European Union remain active, with EU officials pushing to extend the temporary 10% rate beyond the July deadline.

Other discussions are underway aimed at lowering a 25% duty on European automotive goods and a 50% surcharge on metal products entering the US market.

A spokesperson noted that President Trump and the head of the European Commission had a “good exchange” during recent talks. It comes weeks after Trump warned that failure to reach an accord could lead to a 50% levy on EU exports.

Just last week, the President also indicated that Japan may be hit with a 30% to 35% tariff if no trade pact is sealed by the upcoming Wednesday deadline.

When asked if tariff changes would happen on July 9 or August 1, Trump said: “They’re going to be tariffs, the tariffs are going to be tariffs.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick later clarified that the measures would begin taking effect on the first day of August.

Trump further announced that between 10 and 15 official notifications would be sent out Monday, informing nations of the potential new tariff rates in the absence of finalized deals.

Bessent described the letters as “just ‘thank you for wanting to trade with the United States of America. We welcome you as a trading partner, and here’s the rate, unless you want to come back and try to negotiate’.”

In 2023, BRICS welcomed new members expanding its circle beyond Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to now include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Ethiopia, and Indonesia.

Together, these nations account for over half of the global population and were originally brought together to challenge Western dominance in global affairs, including economic and financial systems.

Last year, Trump had threatened tariffs of up to 100% on BRICS states if they moved forward with launching a new joint currency intended to compete with the US dollar.

Trump’s most recent warning came after BRICS finance ministers publicly condemned US tariffs and proposed overhauls to international institutions such as the IMF, while raising concerns about how currencies are valued worldwide.

Following a summit in Rio de Janeiro, the finance ministers released a joint statement accusing protectionist tariffs of destabilizing global markets and creating “uncertainty into international economic and trade activities”.

Andrew Wilson, a senior trade official from a global business chamber, noted the difficulty many countries would face in cutting economic ties with China.

He said: “Shifting away from China…in a number of sectors is far more difficult to achieve in the world in practice.

“You look at the dominance China has in a number of sectors – EVs, batteries [and] particularly rare earths and magnets, there are no viable alternatives to China production.”

Summary of U.S. Trade Deals as of July 7:

United Kingdom: US agreed to slash duties on UK car imports from 27.5% to 10%, covering up to 100,000 vehicles annually. Tariffs on aerospace parts were also removed. In return, the UK scrapped duties on US ethanol and beef.

Vietnam: Goods sent from Vietnam to the US will face a 20% import tax. American products entering Vietnam will be exempt from tariffs. However, items routed through Vietnam from third countries and sold in the US will be taxed at 40%.

China (Partial Deal): Import taxes on select Chinese goods were cut from 145% to 30%, while Chinese duties on American items dropped from 125% to 10%. China also lifted several non-tariff measures, including export restrictions on key minerals.

For centuries, the United States political landscape has been dominated by two major parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. While smaller parties like the Libertarians and the Greens have made attempts to disrupt the duopoly, they’ve struggled to gain lasting traction on the national stage.

The Republican Party, currently in control of the executive branch under President Donald Trump, has recently seen internal tension as figures like Elon Musk challenge its direction and priorities.

What Is Elon Musk’s America Party About?

Elon Musk, billionaire entrepreneur and former government official, announced the formation of a new political force, the America Party. His aim, as he described in a public post, is to “give you back your freedom.” The announcement comes just days after President Trump signed a controversial tax-and-spending bill into law, one Musk claims will drive the country toward bankruptcy.

With the slogan of restoring individual liberties and reducing what he calls “government waste,” the America Party appears to be anchored in fiscal conservatism, innovation-driven policy, and a sharp rejection of traditional political structures. It’s a populist push, but from the perspective of someone deeply embedded in both technological progress and capital markets.

Who Is Musk Bringing Into The America Party?

While Musk hasn’t released a full roster of names backing the party, early indicators suggest he is rallying a blend of private-sector elites, technocrats, and former government reformers. His call for a new movement was supported by a strong response on his platform, X, where followers voted 2 to 1 in favor of creating a third party.

Several former allies from his time heading the Department of Government Efficiency may join the effort, alongside investors, tech innovators, and policy critics opposed to heavy federal spending. However, his announcement has already raised alarm among investors, with some requesting clarification on how his political ambitions may impact his leadership roles in his companies.

What Are Musk’s Chances With The America Party?

Musk’s entry into politics beyond advisory and funding roles is unprecedented and risky. On one hand, he commands massive influence through his companies, social media reach, and personal wealth. His ability to self-finance a political movement gives him advantages many other independent challengers lack.

However, the road to building a competitive political party in the U.S. is steep. Structural barriers, like ballot access laws, donor networks tied to the two major parties, and the winner-takes-all voting system, make it difficult for third parties to succeed at the national level. Moreover, Musk’s friction with Trump could fracture the conservative base, potentially weakening the Republican grip on upcoming congressional elections.

Still, with a growing number of Americans expressing disillusionment with traditional party politics, Musk’s America Party may find momentum among voters craving disruption. Time will tell if it gains real traction or simply makes a splash before fading out.