The accused, Australian woman Erin Patterson, is being cross-examined by the prosecution in a triple-murder trial
Three people died after eating a beef Wellington lunch at Ms Patterson's 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 prosecution showed Ms Patterson a photo from her phone, suggesting it showed her calculating a lethal dose of death cap mushrooms, which 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"
Ms Patterson denied telling her lunch guests she had cancer, contradicting evidence from Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch
Watch: Three things you need to know about Australia's mushroom murder trial
This live coverage is ending now, but you can read our full story on the day in court here.
We'll be back with more updates tomorrow – when the cross examination of the accused is expected to continue.
In case you missed this earlier, the trial will not be ending this week, which had been the time frame.
Earlier today, Judge Christopher Bealeset out a rough timeline for the 14-member jury – who were expecting the trial to last around six weeks.
But this is already week six, and he warns them there's still a way to go.
"I’m not going to put a figure on how much time is left to run in this trial but let me just summarise for you," he said.
Ms Patterson will most likely be in the witness box until early next week, followed by a few days of legal discussion and the possibility of "more evidence".
The prosecution and defence will give their closing addresses and then, Justice Beale said, he'll deliver final directions which "takes quite a bit of time".
Then the jury will deliberate – and he said he can't put an exact date on this.
He reminded the jury they should take all the time they need.
He joked that next week is a shorter one as there's a public holiday on Monday – "some good news" – to much laughter from the jury .
Lana Lam
Live digital reporter
For the fourth day in a row, Erin Patterson gave evidence in her triple murder case.
Here's what we heard:
As questioning continues about financial disagreements, in particular in relation to school fee payments, the accused, Erin Patterson, is asked what she meant by a message in which she suggested her estranged husband Simon Patterson "do the right thing by" his children.
She says she is struggling to express what she meant by that. Then she says there was "difficulty" in the relationship between Simon Patterson and their son.
A moment later, the judge suggests that court finish early, partly owing to someone in the court room having a cough, which the judge suggests might distract Dr Rogers.
Cross-examination is likely to continue tomorrow. In the meantime, we will be re-capping the key developments from the day, so stay tuned.
Dr Rogers is talking about disagreements between Ms Patterson and her estranged husband Simon over child payments and school fees.
She is referring to messages sent to Don and Gail Patterson, asking if Erin Patterson at one point let Don and Gail know that school fees were in dispute, Dr Rogers asks.
Erin Patterson she agrees that she said in a messge to Don and Gail that Simon's refusing to pay school fees was a "punishment" for Erin Patterson claiming child .
She says she did this because she felt that if Don and Gail knew how Simon was behaving, they might encourage him to "change his behaviour".
Ms Patterson is now being asked about her husband's tax status, specifically, when he changed his marital status to "single" on his tax return.
Ms Patterson says she was not upset by this, as it meant she was able to access child payments she could not receive previously.
Dr Rogers says: "I suggest that you never thought you would have to for this lie about having cancer because you thought the lunch guests would die."
"Your lie would never be found out."
"That's not true," says Erin Patterson.
Simon Atkinson
reporting from Morwell
Prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers is drilling down into what Erin Patterson did or did not say to her guests at lunch about her health.
"I didn’t think I was that specific," Patterson says when asked if she told her in laws and the Wilkinsons she expected to have chemotherapy for cancer.
"I might have said it. I’m not sure."
It is alleged she used the fake cancer diagnosis as an excuse to get people to her house for the meal – though Patterson is adamant she never claimed to have had a diagnosis.
Dr Rogers takes Ms Patterson back to parts of her testimony earlier this week. She quotes Ms Patterson:
"I'm not proud of this, but I led them to believe I might be needing some treatment in regards to [ovarian cancer] in the next few weeks or months."
Ms Patterson agrees she said this.
Katy Watson
reporting from Morwell
The first few days Erin Patterson was in the witness box, she was being questioned by her lawyer – given time to explain what happened at that meal in 2023 and in the days afterwards.
But that has dramatically changed today.
The prosecutor Nanette Rogers is firing questions at Ms Patterson rapidly, switching between bits of evidence and making accusations that she deliberately poisoned her relatives and lied about health concerns to lure them to her lunch of death-cap-mushroom-laced beef Wellington.
Erin Patterson is denying all accusations – on occasion she asks the prosecutor to repeat the question and takes her times before replying.
Helen Sullivan
Live editor
Questioning is now turning to what Ms Patterson said at the lunch.
"Did you tell people at the lunch you had cancer">Dr Rogers again asks whether Ms Patterson told her lunch guests she had cancer, and she again denies this.
James Chater
Live reporter
The prosecution is reading a message from Ms Patterson sent to Gail Patterson, her mother-in-law, in response to a text asking how a biopsy appointment had gone.
In it, Ms Patterson says there is a "bit to digest" from the appointment, which Ms Patterson has acknowledged was a lie. There was no appointment, and no medical information to digest.
"I might talk about it with you both when I see you in person," the message to Gail continued.
Dr Rogers asks: "In this message you purported to carry on the fiction that you had a very serious illness">The prosecution continues that soon after this message was sent, Ms Patterson invited the family to the fatal lunch.
Ms Patterson is answering questions about what the prosecution calls her "so-called cancer diagnosis".
She has previously agreed that she lied about having cancer.
The prosecution is saying that research Ms Patterson conducted on ovarian and brain cancer would have allowed her to "tell a more convincing lie about having cancer".
“I mean, theoretically that’s true, but that’s not what I did,” she replies. She said she'd researched those conditions because she thought she may have them.
When Ms Patterson invited her guests to lunch, the prosecution says, she "pretended" she had "a legitimate reason to speak with them".
"I didn’t give them any reason when I invited them, I just invited them," Ms Patterson said.
The court has previously heard the guests believed they were invited to her house to discuss a health issue.
James Chater
Live reporter
This emoji chat follows questions about whether Ms Patterson said on a Facebook group that she was an atheist. Ms Patterson denied doing this, and has told the court she is a Christian.
The prosecution is alleging that, when using the emojis in these messages, Ms Patterson was reacting to advice from her in-laws to pray.
"I suggest that you were mocking their advice to you," the prosecution says. "Part of your mockery was the religious component of the advice."
Ms Patterson denies the accusation, saying she was "not mocking" the suggestion of praying, she was just "frustrated" it was being offered as the only solution to the issues being discussed.
Helen Sullivan
Live editor
Today has involved in-depth discussions of food dehydrators, kitchen scales, and now... emojis.
Dr Rogers accuses Ms Patterson of using "eye-roll" emojis in response to suggestions from Don Patterson that the family pray. Dr Rogers says that Ms Patterson used eye-roll emojis with messages she sent to a Facebook group of friends about Don's suggestions.
She shows Ms Patterson the emojis in question, and Ms Patterson argues that the emoji in at least one of the messages is a face with a straight line for a mouth – but not an eye-rolling emoji.
She's asked to explain what she meant when using them. Dr Rogers then suggests Ms Patterson was responding with mockery, by using the emojis.
Ms Patterson replies that she was frustrated, not mocking.
We've hearing a bit of a back and forth about what "mushrooming" means.
The court has heard a doctor asked Ms Patterson if she had been mushrooming in the days after the lunch, but Ms Patterson says she doesn't recall that and also isn't precisely sure what the doctor would have meant by that question.
What do you think mushrooming means, the prosecution asks her.
You might use it in regard to foraging, but might also use it in regard to "other uses of mushrooms that are not eating", says Ms Patterson.
Court proceedings have resumed with the accused, Erin Patterson, still on the stand.
This afternoon, she'll face more question from the prosecution, led by Nannette Rogers SC.
Here's a reminder of who attended the fatal lunch, who died afterwards, and how they are related to Erin Patterson.
Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson are the deceased. Ian Wilkinson attended the lunch, but survived after being in an induced coma for weeks.
Helen Sullivan
Live editor
Fifteen jurors - three more than usual - were selected for the trial, which began about six weeks ago. But a male juror was discharged after the judge found there was a "reasonable possibility" he had discussed the case with family and friends. There are now 14 jurors.
But only 12 will deliberate over the verdict. After the court has heard all the evidence, that dozen will be randomly selected and the other two people sent home.
At the opening of the trial back at the end of April, Justice Christopher Beale explained that when the jurors start their deliberations, they will be sequestered to protect the jury "from any interference or outside pressure" and to "safeguard the integrity of their verdicts".
This means that once the jury has heard the closing speeches and final directions from Justice Beale, they will be bussed to a hotel at an undisclosed location, where they will stay overnight, before being bussed back to the court the next morning to continue deliberations.
At the moment, the jury is able to go home at the end of each day in court.
Justice Beale has also told the jury that their verdicts must be unanimous, meaning all 12 jurors must agree on the same conclusion.
Our correspondent Katy Watson has been following the case since it started, here's the key things you need to know in under 90 seconds.
Watch: Three things you need to know about Australia's mushroom murder trial
James Chater
Live reporter
Court has now adjourned for lunch, so let's take a look back at what we heard this morning:
First, Ms Patterson faced more questions from her defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC:
Almost without pause, the prosecution, led by Nanette Rogers SC, then began their cross examination: