1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,520 Speaker 1: It's been a while since we have updated you on 2 00:00:02,560 --> 00:00:05,160 Speaker 1: the ins and outs of the ongoing saga of the 3 00:00:05,240 --> 00:00:08,600 Speaker 1: Mushroom Cook. But now at the end of November, there 4 00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:12,200 Speaker 1: are a few interesting developments we can wrap up. I'm 5 00:00:12,200 --> 00:00:20,959 Speaker 1: Brooke Greebert Craig and this is the Mushroom Cook. Hi, Laura, 6 00:00:21,079 --> 00:00:23,000 Speaker 1: it's been a while since we've been on the mics. 7 00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:24,919 Speaker 2: It has been, but it's so good to be back. 8 00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:27,280 Speaker 1: Let's give a wrap up to our listeners as to 9 00:00:27,320 --> 00:00:29,760 Speaker 1: everything that's happened over the last month and a half. 10 00:00:29,840 --> 00:00:32,240 Speaker 2: So the last time we were here, we really did 11 00:00:32,240 --> 00:00:36,120 Speaker 2: break down those two appeals, So to remind our listeners, 12 00:00:36,159 --> 00:00:39,840 Speaker 2: the prosecution is appealing Erin's sentence, which was a life 13 00:00:39,880 --> 00:00:42,800 Speaker 2: sentence with a non parole period of thirty three years. 14 00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:46,040 Speaker 2: But on the other hand, Erin is appealing her conviction 15 00:00:46,360 --> 00:00:48,600 Speaker 2: and now we know the reasons. 16 00:00:48,240 --> 00:00:50,360 Speaker 1: Why, and there's seven, aren't there. 17 00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:53,600 Speaker 2: Yes, there are seven, so we'll go through them now. 18 00:00:54,240 --> 00:00:57,880 Speaker 2: But overall, Erin wants a retrial, so she wants to 19 00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:00,760 Speaker 2: do this all over again because she's says there were 20 00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:06,480 Speaker 2: six substantial miscarriages of justice and then additionally she's saying 21 00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:10,240 Speaker 2: that there was a fundamental irregularity with the jury. So 22 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:12,040 Speaker 2: maybe let's start with that one, because it was at 23 00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:15,640 Speaker 2: the top of her appeal documents. She says this irregularity 24 00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:20,280 Speaker 2: occurred while the jury were sequestered during that week of deliberations. 25 00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:23,240 Speaker 2: It came out after the trial that the hotel the 26 00:01:23,319 --> 00:01:26,600 Speaker 2: jury members were staying at actually had a few other 27 00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:29,880 Speaker 2: guests as well that were involved in the trial. There 28 00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:34,080 Speaker 2: was the informant, the lead investigator, Stephen Eppingstall, but there 29 00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:38,480 Speaker 2: was also two members of the prosecution team, not the barristers, 30 00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:41,840 Speaker 2: but other lawyers that work behind the scenes. The court 31 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:44,400 Speaker 2: confirmed that this was the case, that the jury members 32 00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:47,560 Speaker 2: were staying at the same hotel as these other individuals. 33 00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:50,960 Speaker 2: It was raised with the parties at the time, and 34 00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:53,840 Speaker 2: just as Christopher Beal said that he was told there 35 00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:58,200 Speaker 2: had been no interaction between them and the jury. But 36 00:01:58,280 --> 00:02:02,520 Speaker 2: Aaron says, the simple fact this occurred has fatally undermined 37 00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:06,120 Speaker 2: the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of 38 00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:09,240 Speaker 2: her convictions and an order for a retrial, because she 39 00:02:09,360 --> 00:02:12,160 Speaker 2: says justice cannot only be done, but it must be 40 00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:13,160 Speaker 2: seen to be done. 41 00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:16,440 Speaker 1: And there was another ground about her cross examination. 42 00:02:17,560 --> 00:02:21,040 Speaker 2: There was and this one is quite interesting, as our 43 00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:24,520 Speaker 2: listeners will remember, Erin elected to give evidence in her 44 00:02:24,520 --> 00:02:28,400 Speaker 2: own trial, and she spent many days in the witness box. 45 00:02:29,000 --> 00:02:33,040 Speaker 2: She was cross examined by Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers for 46 00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:37,040 Speaker 2: five days, and now she says that was actually unfair 47 00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:40,040 Speaker 2: and oppressive and as a result it has led to 48 00:02:40,080 --> 00:02:42,440 Speaker 2: one of those things we were talking about before, a 49 00:02:42,560 --> 00:02:46,519 Speaker 2: substantial miscarriage of justice. It will be intriguing to see 50 00:02:46,560 --> 00:02:50,480 Speaker 2: how this plays out in any potential appeal hearing, because 51 00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:53,520 Speaker 2: Erin knew when she chose to give evidence that she 52 00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:56,320 Speaker 2: would be cross examined, and she would be cross examined 53 00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,200 Speaker 2: at length. It's not something she can say that she 54 00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:03,440 Speaker 2: didn't see coming. Another ground that does revolve around doctor 55 00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:08,640 Speaker 2: Rogers is about her closing address. Aaron says, despite doctor 56 00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:11,720 Speaker 2: Rogers opening the case for the prosecution on the basis 57 00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:14,960 Speaker 2: that there was no evidence of motive, she ended up 58 00:03:15,040 --> 00:03:17,000 Speaker 2: changing tact and Aaron says that by the time the 59 00:03:17,040 --> 00:03:21,119 Speaker 2: closing address came round, doctor Rogers was implying that there 60 00:03:21,320 --> 00:03:23,080 Speaker 2: was in fact a motive for murder. 61 00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:26,639 Speaker 1: Aaron says that doctor Rogers was implying a motive by 62 00:03:26,680 --> 00:03:28,360 Speaker 1: mentioning the child support. 63 00:03:27,960 --> 00:03:31,480 Speaker 2: Dispute, and also just the general tensions between Erin and 64 00:03:31,520 --> 00:03:35,320 Speaker 2: the wider Patterson family. Sticking on the same topic, Aaron 65 00:03:35,400 --> 00:03:38,840 Speaker 2: says the closing address in and of itself also caused 66 00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:42,920 Speaker 2: a substantial miscarriage of justice, but she doesn't specifically elaborate why, 67 00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:45,560 Speaker 2: and I will just say that the appeal paperwork that 68 00:03:45,920 --> 00:03:49,400 Speaker 2: we were given by the court is very brief. There 69 00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:51,880 Speaker 2: are other appeal documents that would need to be filed 70 00:03:51,920 --> 00:03:54,720 Speaker 2: by her team, but what is provided to us is 71 00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:58,080 Speaker 2: just the simple notice that outlines those seven grounds in 72 00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:00,000 Speaker 2: very brief terms. 73 00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:02,040 Speaker 1: Three or relate to the evidence. 74 00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:06,480 Speaker 2: That's right. So one of the grounds relates specifically to 75 00:04:06,600 --> 00:04:10,360 Speaker 2: the cell tower evidence and the evidence stemming from the 76 00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:15,800 Speaker 2: Ironaturalists website, specifically those sightings in Locke and Outram. Erin 77 00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:18,680 Speaker 2: says both the cell tower evidence and the Iroe Naturalist 78 00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:21,920 Speaker 2: evidence never should have made its way into her trial. 79 00:04:22,880 --> 00:04:26,080 Speaker 2: She says it simply wasn't relevant, or that the strength 80 00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:29,640 Speaker 2: of this evidence was outweighed by the unfair prejudice it brought. 81 00:04:30,440 --> 00:04:33,479 Speaker 2: Another tranche of evidence that Aaron took issue with was 82 00:04:33,560 --> 00:04:38,040 Speaker 2: the Facebook evidence, specifically the evidence from her Facebook friends 83 00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:40,360 Speaker 2: and the messages that came along with it. 84 00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:44,000 Speaker 1: Yes, there were some pretty salacious comments that Aaron made 85 00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:47,200 Speaker 1: to her Facebook friends about Donningale and Simon TiO. 86 00:04:47,960 --> 00:04:51,039 Speaker 2: Yes, and that included the infamous f them quote that 87 00:04:51,560 --> 00:04:54,080 Speaker 2: did get mentioned quite a lot throughout the trial and 88 00:04:54,279 --> 00:04:56,359 Speaker 2: was one of those things that did get raised in 89 00:04:56,400 --> 00:04:59,600 Speaker 2: the closing address by Dr Rogers that Erin is saying 90 00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:02,520 Speaker 2: was I'm play lying a motive. And the final ground, 91 00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:04,599 Speaker 2: which probably is the one that I'd say is the 92 00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:08,520 Speaker 2: most confusing, relates to a ruling that Justice Bill made 93 00:05:08,800 --> 00:05:12,960 Speaker 2: that certain photos and videos of mushrooms found on an 94 00:05:13,120 --> 00:05:18,640 Speaker 2: SD card were inadmissible during the prosecution case. Erin says 95 00:05:18,760 --> 00:05:22,279 Speaker 2: that they should have been admissible to help explain that, though, 96 00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:24,480 Speaker 2: I'll just provide a little bit of context, because I 97 00:05:24,520 --> 00:05:26,160 Speaker 2: don't think we touched on it in any of our 98 00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:29,800 Speaker 2: episodes after the verdict. But there were many points during 99 00:05:29,839 --> 00:05:32,440 Speaker 2: the trial where the jury had to leave the courtroom 100 00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:36,320 Speaker 2: because there were legal arguments playing out before Justice Biel. 101 00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:39,919 Speaker 2: One of these arguments came towards the end of the 102 00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:45,000 Speaker 2: prosecution case, where Erin's defense barrister Colin Mandy, was pushing 103 00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:47,640 Speaker 2: for photos of foraged mushrooms that were found on an 104 00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:51,479 Speaker 2: SD card to be included in the prosecution case when 105 00:05:51,480 --> 00:05:54,720 Speaker 2: the prosecution actually had no plans to include them themselves. 106 00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:57,520 Speaker 2: This was put to Justice Biel, and he ended up 107 00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:01,200 Speaker 2: ruling that these photos shouldn't be included in the prosecution 108 00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:03,640 Speaker 2: case because he didn't deem them to be relevant enough 109 00:06:04,440 --> 00:06:07,240 Speaker 2: because the metadata on the photos suggested that they were 110 00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:10,080 Speaker 2: taken years before the lunch had taken place. But I 111 00:06:10,080 --> 00:06:11,760 Speaker 2: remember at the time there being quite a lot of 112 00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:15,279 Speaker 2: discussion amongst US journalists that the whole reason why mister 113 00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:17,960 Speaker 2: Mandy was fighting so hard for these photos to be 114 00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:21,680 Speaker 2: part of the prosecution case, so potentially he didn't actually 115 00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:24,680 Speaker 2: have to call Erin as a witness, because our listeners 116 00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:28,120 Speaker 2: will remember that within only a day of Erin giving evidence, 117 00:06:28,200 --> 00:06:30,680 Speaker 2: she was speaking about how she had foraged before and 118 00:06:30,720 --> 00:06:33,039 Speaker 2: how it was something she was quite passionate about. But 119 00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:35,120 Speaker 2: it may have been the case that if these photos 120 00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:38,160 Speaker 2: actually formed part of the prosecution case, she never would 121 00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:39,400 Speaker 2: have needed to take the stand at all. 122 00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:43,200 Speaker 1: Yes, it's a bit complex, but Erin is essentially saying 123 00:06:43,240 --> 00:06:45,640 Speaker 1: that these photos should have been a part of the 124 00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:49,359 Speaker 1: prosecution case. So, Laura, what have we now learned about 125 00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:50,640 Speaker 1: the prosecution's appeal. 126 00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:55,040 Speaker 2: So, unlike Erin, the prosecution only have two grounds of appeal. 127 00:06:55,120 --> 00:06:58,640 Speaker 2: They've kept it pretty simple. Their main one is that 128 00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:02,680 Speaker 2: Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate. They say that it was 129 00:07:02,680 --> 00:07:05,520 Speaker 2: inappropriate for Justice Beieal to fix a non parole period, 130 00:07:06,120 --> 00:07:08,440 Speaker 2: and that the non parole period in and of itself 131 00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:12,840 Speaker 2: is also manifestly inadequate. To translate that, they're essentially saying 132 00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:16,920 Speaker 2: that they believe Erin should be re sentenced to life 133 00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:20,760 Speaker 2: without parole. That was the argument they took to the 134 00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:23,920 Speaker 2: pre sentenced hearing, where Crown Prosecutor Jane Warren said to 135 00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:27,800 Speaker 2: Justice Biel that the crimes Erin committed were so horrific, 136 00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:31,440 Speaker 2: so cruel, and so callous that she was not deserving 137 00:07:31,560 --> 00:07:35,560 Speaker 2: of mercy. But ultimately we know that when sentencing Erin, 138 00:07:36,280 --> 00:07:39,400 Speaker 2: Justice Biale said he believed there was a substantial chance 139 00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:42,960 Speaker 2: she would be held in solitary confinement for years, if 140 00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:46,240 Speaker 2: not decades, given her notoriety. He said that this was 141 00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:50,200 Speaker 2: a very important and weighty consideration, and he said as 142 00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:52,960 Speaker 2: a result he would be fixing a non parole period. 143 00:07:53,480 --> 00:07:56,120 Speaker 2: But that conclusion that Justice Bill made that he believed 144 00:07:56,120 --> 00:07:58,840 Speaker 2: there was a substantial chance she would be held in 145 00:07:58,880 --> 00:08:02,000 Speaker 2: solitary confinement for years is to come. That forms the 146 00:08:02,040 --> 00:08:06,600 Speaker 2: other half of the prosecution's appeal. Their second ground is 147 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:10,440 Speaker 2: that he was wrong to make that conclusion. They say 148 00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:12,880 Speaker 2: that such a finding was not open on the evidence, 149 00:08:13,560 --> 00:08:16,240 Speaker 2: and to quote them, they said that that finding actually 150 00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:20,320 Speaker 2: infected his decision to fix a non parole period. So 151 00:08:20,400 --> 00:08:22,400 Speaker 2: this is something they'll be asking the Court of Appeal 152 00:08:22,480 --> 00:08:25,040 Speaker 2: to reconsider and it will then be up to them 153 00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:27,800 Speaker 2: whether Erin is re sentenced or whether they deem that 154 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:29,040 Speaker 2: the sentence should stand. 155 00:08:29,640 --> 00:08:31,440 Speaker 1: So when will all of this play out? 156 00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:34,360 Speaker 2: Then we don't have a date yet, but it's not 157 00:08:34,440 --> 00:08:37,480 Speaker 2: uncommon for appeals to take months to put together. There 158 00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:40,520 Speaker 2: obviously already has been paperwork filed, but it doesn't mean 159 00:08:40,520 --> 00:08:43,160 Speaker 2: that there aren't other processes playing out in the background 160 00:08:43,600 --> 00:08:47,040 Speaker 2: before we can actually get to the hearing before three 161 00:08:47,160 --> 00:08:49,760 Speaker 2: Court of Appeal justices. So all I can really say 162 00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:50,840 Speaker 2: is stay tuned. 163 00:08:51,000 --> 00:08:53,360 Speaker 1: And there's an update with the Carl and Jackie O. 164 00:08:53,559 --> 00:08:56,000 Speaker 1: Potential contempt charges isn't there? 165 00:08:56,400 --> 00:08:58,960 Speaker 2: And potential is almost the key word because now we 166 00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:01,319 Speaker 2: know that that's not happening. Here's a clip of one 167 00:09:01,320 --> 00:09:06,240 Speaker 2: of their segments that aired during the trial, getting around 168 00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:09,120 Speaker 2: this peg, like I keep seeing I have a red head? 169 00:09:11,160 --> 00:09:13,000 Speaker 1: I mean does it do it? 170 00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:19,240 Speaker 2: Or not? Yeah? Like what is the jury is? How 171 00:09:19,280 --> 00:09:20,360 Speaker 2: strong is her case? 172 00:09:21,040 --> 00:09:24,640 Speaker 1: Not strong? Not strong? For Carl went on to say, 173 00:09:25,080 --> 00:09:32,800 Speaker 1: come on by looking at it, wait until case too long. 174 00:09:33,200 --> 00:09:35,320 Speaker 2: These cords should be in and out, decided and. 175 00:09:35,240 --> 00:09:37,800 Speaker 1: Moved on one day. 176 00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:39,480 Speaker 2: You accused, right? 177 00:09:39,960 --> 00:09:42,920 Speaker 1: And what am I going to get accused of? I 178 00:09:42,960 --> 00:09:43,640 Speaker 1: can't even cook. 179 00:09:45,360 --> 00:09:47,760 Speaker 2: We have touched upon it in a previous episode. But 180 00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:51,040 Speaker 2: contempt pretty much protects and accused right to a fair 181 00:09:51,080 --> 00:09:55,319 Speaker 2: trial by preventing us, the media, and others from publishing 182 00:09:55,320 --> 00:09:59,480 Speaker 2: information that has a real and definite tendency to prejudice 183 00:09:59,480 --> 00:10:02,840 Speaker 2: the trial. So the Office of Public Prosecutions would have 184 00:10:02,920 --> 00:10:07,040 Speaker 2: been listening to that clip themselves and considering whether or 185 00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:10,559 Speaker 2: not what they said had a clear tendency to prejudice 186 00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:13,280 Speaker 2: Aaron's trial. But in that it was considered that the 187 00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:17,319 Speaker 2: required elements of contempt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, 188 00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:21,760 Speaker 2: and accordingly there were no reasonable prospects of conviction for 189 00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:24,240 Speaker 2: not only this incident, but actually two others. 190 00:10:24,840 --> 00:10:28,560 Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. The Muma mea out Loud podcast and 191 00:10:29,080 --> 00:10:33,800 Speaker 1: a presentation titled the Psychology of Serial Killers will also 192 00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:35,760 Speaker 1: not be prosecuted for contempt. 193 00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:39,640 Speaker 2: Yes, that presentation you mentioned was by doctor Rachel Toles 194 00:10:40,240 --> 00:10:43,640 Speaker 2: and it was that show she hosted in Melbourne where 195 00:10:43,800 --> 00:10:46,640 Speaker 2: we understand she told hundreds of people in the crowd 196 00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:49,880 Speaker 2: that she believed Erin was guilty. And that was again 197 00:10:50,040 --> 00:10:51,400 Speaker 2: while the trial was being held. 198 00:10:51,720 --> 00:10:53,800 Speaker 1: Yes, and that's obviously a big no no. And with 199 00:10:53,880 --> 00:10:58,359 Speaker 1: mma Mer's podcasts, they discussed why they thought Erin was testifying, 200 00:10:58,720 --> 00:11:02,480 Speaker 1: and they also discussed woman's method of poisoning. 201 00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:05,040 Speaker 2: And running a commentary during a trial. Is, like you said, Brook, 202 00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:07,280 Speaker 2: another no no, but clearly not enough to land them 203 00:11:07,280 --> 00:11:07,960 Speaker 2: before the courts. 204 00:11:08,080 --> 00:11:10,280 Speaker 1: And I think that's all for the updates for now. Yeah, 205 00:11:10,320 --> 00:11:13,120 Speaker 1: pretty much, Brook, Now, Laura, will there be another update 206 00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:14,839 Speaker 1: in this case before the end of the year. 207 00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:17,920 Speaker 2: I'd say it's unlikely, but I think we've come to 208 00:11:17,920 --> 00:11:20,560 Speaker 2: realize with this case that we really never know. I've 209 00:11:20,559 --> 00:11:22,920 Speaker 2: said it before, but I'll say it again. We really 210 00:11:22,960 --> 00:11:24,000 Speaker 2: just have to watch this space. 211 00:11:24,520 --> 00:11:26,720 Speaker 1: You're right about that. Now. We just wanted to thank 212 00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:29,640 Speaker 1: all of our listeners for tuning into the Mushroom cook 213 00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:33,240 Speaker 1: throughout this year. It's been a massive journey, but we 214 00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:35,120 Speaker 1: appreciate you tuning in. 215 00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:46,320 Speaker 2: Until next time, Brook, see ya.