Speaker 1: Silence. All stand and remain standing. All persons having business
Speaker 1: before this honorable Court are commander to give their attendance,
Speaker 1: and they shall be heard. God save the King, be seated. Please.
Speaker 2: This is what the court has heard every sitting day.
Speaker 2: When Justice Christopher Bill first makes his entrance into the room,
Speaker 2: He's had a huge presence in this trial. Here's the umpire,
Speaker 2: but for the most part, the jurors haven't heard much
Speaker 2: from him since the first day back in April. Now,
Speaker 2: in the final days of the trial of Aaron Patterson,
Speaker 2: it is Justice Bill's time to direct the jury. Today
Speaker 2: he started to deliver his instructions and will break down
Speaker 2: what they all mean in this episode. I'm Brook Greywick
Speaker 2: Craig and this is the Mushroom Cook. It's day thirty
Speaker 2: six of Aaron Patterson's murder trial, and once again I'm
Speaker 2: joined by my colleague court reporter Laura Pusseller.
Speaker 3: The end is near, isn't it, Brooke.
Speaker 2: Yes, we've just hit week nine.
Speaker 3: It was meant to be a six week trial, so
Speaker 3: it's fair to say that this is dragged on for
Speaker 3: longer than any of us expected, and we still have
Speaker 3: a few more days to go. But we're nearly there.
Speaker 2: Yes, we are.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 2: As I said in the intro, today was all about
Speaker 2: Justice Bill's charge. Can you explain to our listeners what
Speaker 2: that is?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 3: The charge is the technical term for essentially the judge's instructions.
Speaker 3: So at the end of every trial, once the prosecution
Speaker 3: and defense have delivered their closing addresses, the attention then
Speaker 3: turns to the judge, who will explain the legal principles
Speaker 3: and summarize the evidence of the case before the jury
Speaker 3: begin their deliberations. It was a couple of weeks ago now,
Speaker 3: but we spoke about all the lessons the jurors have
Speaker 3: been given in the course of this trial. They've been
Speaker 3: given lessons on mushrooms, on phones, on even computers, and
Speaker 3: now it felt like today they were being given a
Speaker 3: lesson on the law. Justice Bill spent a large portion
Speaker 3: of today really explaining a lot of legal principles to them,
Speaker 3: and hopefully by the end of this episode, our listeners
Speaker 3: also feel like they've learnt something about our justice system,
Speaker 3: especially if they've never sat on a jury before.
Speaker 2: When Justice Bill entered the courtroom today, he told the
Speaker 2: jury he had prepared an eighty six page chronology to
Speaker 2: help them when they start their deliberations.
Speaker 3: Yes, this seemed like a very comprehensive document, and Justice
Speaker 3: Bill even told the jury that he had color coded
Speaker 3: it to make it easy for them to navigate. So essentially,
Speaker 3: the chronology covers all of the events relevant to the trial,
Speaker 3: starting way back in two thousand and seven, which was
Speaker 3: the year Erin married Simon, and then it ran all
Speaker 3: the way through to twenty twenty three, obviously the year
Speaker 3: of the lunch. He explained to the jury that this
Speaker 3: chronology included references to the evidence that the jury have
Speaker 3: heard in this case and reference to the exhibits as well,
Speaker 3: and it almost would function as an index for them
Speaker 3: when they're making their way through all of the evidence
Speaker 3: in this case.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill then went on to tell the jury that
Speaker 2: emotions such as prejudice and sympathy should not play a
Speaker 2: part in their decision.
Speaker 3: This was the first topic that Justice Bihl spoke to
Speaker 3: the jury about today. After running them through the chronology,
Speaker 3: he explained that they must decide the facts of the
Speaker 3: case and no one else. And this is when he
Speaker 3: started to talk about those two things you just mentioned
Speaker 3: brook prejudice and sympathy. He started with prejudice and said
Speaker 3: they should not let it enter their mind. Here is
Speaker 3: more of what he said about this. These are his words,
Speaker 3: it's not his voice.
Speaker 4: You should not, for example, be influenced by the mere
Speaker 4: fact that she cooked the fatal meal that caused the
Speaker 4: deaths of Gail, Heather and Don. The issue is not
Speaker 4: whether she is in some sense responsible for the tragic
Speaker 4: consequences of the lunch, but whether the prosecution has proved
Speaker 4: beyond a reasonable dab that she is criminally responsible.
Speaker 3: He also told the jury that they should not be
Speaker 3: prejudiced against Erin simply because she has admitted to telling
Speaker 3: lies and admitted to concealing evidence. He said, this is a.
Speaker 4: Court of law, not a court of morals.
Speaker 3: Turning to sympathy, he said they should not let it
Speaker 3: cloud their judgment, but he clarified that he wasn't asking
Speaker 3: them to be inhuman. None of us are robots. He said,
Speaker 3: while it was normal to feel for the Pattersons, given
Speaker 3: what has befallen their family, they must make sure to
Speaker 3: not let this feeling interfere with their deliberations.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill then spoke on the unprecedented media attention around
Speaker 2: the trial and how it has excited much public comment.
Speaker 2: Here's what he said.
Speaker 4: No one in the media, in the public, in your workplace,
Speaker 4: or in your homes has sat in that jury box
Speaker 4: throughout the trial, seeing and hearing all the witnesses, mostly
Speaker 4: in person. You and you alone are best placed to
Speaker 4: decide whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: He told them that if they had heard or seen
Speaker 2: any of the coverage, they must not let it influence
Speaker 2: them in any way. Here's more of what he said.
Speaker 4: An accused person has the right to remain silent. It's
Speaker 4: not for her to prove her innocence.
Speaker 3: He instructed the jury to assess her evidence in the
Speaker 3: exact same way they would assess any of the other
Speaker 3: witness's evidence. He said, after doing this, they would reach
Speaker 3: one of four conclusions. He said, if they think her
Speaker 3: evidence is true, they must find her not guilty. He said,
Speaker 3: if they were not sure if her evidence is true,
Speaker 3: but they think it might be, they would have reasonable
Speaker 3: doubt and they must find her not guilty. He then said,
Speaker 3: if they only prefer the prosecution case to her evidence,
Speaker 3: they must also find her not guilty. And finally, he said,
Speaker 3: if they don't think her evidence is true. They must
Speaker 3: then turn their minds to the execution case and whether
Speaker 3: they have proved their allegations beyond reasonable doubt before they
Speaker 3: would be able to find her guilty.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill then moved on to the evidence of Aaron's
Speaker 2: good character and how it can be used by the jury.
Speaker 2: He said the evidence shows she was a good daughter
Speaker 2: in law, a good in law to Simon's siblings, and
Speaker 2: a good mother to her two children.
Speaker 3: He reminded them that Erin had generously loaned up to
Speaker 3: four hundred thousand dollars to Simon's siblings and their partners,
Speaker 3: and he also brought the jury back to the evidence
Speaker 3: of Detective Leading Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall, who said Erin
Speaker 3: had no criminal history. Justice Bill told the jury that
Speaker 3: they could use evidence of good character when determining the
Speaker 3: likelihood that Erin committed the offenses as alleged, even though
Speaker 3: it went without saying. He reminded the jury that just
Speaker 3: because there was evidence of her good character, it didn't
Speaker 3: mean they must find her not guilty. He told them
Speaker 3: you should keep in mind a person who has previously
Speaker 3: been of good character can commit a crime for the
Speaker 3: first time.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill then started walking the jury through different types
Speaker 2: of evidence, and he started with tendency. He said that
Speaker 2: Aaron said she had a tendency to forage for mushrooms.
Speaker 3: He then started summarizing the evidence the jury have heard
Speaker 3: about Erin foraging for mushrooms, but he really made it
Speaker 3: clear to the jury that he could not possibly summarize
Speaker 3: every single piece of evidence that the jury have heard
Speaker 3: about this topic. He took them back to Erin's evidence
Speaker 3: and reminded them how she told them that she started
Speaker 3: foraging in twenty twenty during COVID lockdowns. He explained that
Speaker 3: she said she foraged in the curran Baro Botanic gardens
Speaker 3: in the nearby Leeanngatha rail trail and on her properties.
Speaker 3: He said she was mainly picking field mushrooms, but she
Speaker 3: was also confident enough to pick other interesting ones like
Speaker 3: slippery jacks and honey mushrooms. He reminded them that she
Speaker 3: said she bought a dehydrator in April twenty twenty three
Speaker 3: to preserve the mushrooms she was foraging, as well as
Speaker 3: other food. He also took them to her evidence that
Speaker 3: in around May and June twenty twenty three, she remembered
Speaker 3: putting mushrooms she had foraged into a container with other
Speaker 3: dried mushrooms. This was the container that she said she
Speaker 3: grabbed when she was cooking the mushroom duck cell for
Speaker 3: the beef Wellington, and said she tipped its contents into
Speaker 3: the paste because it was too bland. At the time,
Speaker 3: she said she believed it only contained dried mushrooms from
Speaker 3: an Asian grosser, but later she realized there was a
Speaker 3: possibility it contained foraged mushrooms as well.
Speaker 2: Laura, after this summary, did Justice Bill explain how the
Speaker 2: jury can then use this evidence?
Speaker 3: He did, and he told them that if they did
Speaker 3: find that Aaron had a tendency to pick and eat
Speaker 3: wild mushrooms, including putting them in the meals she served
Speaker 3: to others, including her children, or if they think it
Speaker 3: is a reasonable possibility that she had this tendency to
Speaker 3: do that, they may consider that it increases the possibility
Speaker 3: that the death cap ushrooms ended up in the beef
Speaker 3: Wellingtons accidentally rather than deliberately. He reminded them that the
Speaker 3: prosecution had argued that the only evidence that Erin foraged
Speaker 3: for edible mushrooms came out of her mouth, and that
Speaker 3: she was a self confessed liar and that they couldn't
Speaker 3: believe this claim. So this really is like a two
Speaker 3: step process. The first step for the jury is to
Speaker 3: actually decide whether or not they believe Erin had this
Speaker 3: tendency to forage for mushrooms and then eat them, and
Speaker 3: then after that consider whether it increases the possibility that
Speaker 3: this was an accident rather than a deliberate act.
Speaker 2: Now, let's move on to what Justice Bill said about
Speaker 2: hearsay evidence. Can you explain to our listeners what it is.
Speaker 3: Hearsay is a term that I think a lot of
Speaker 3: people bandy around, and today Justice Beer really nutted out
Speaker 3: what this means. And it really revolves around out of
Speaker 3: court statements that the jury are not hearing in testimony.
Speaker 3: And in this case, a lot of the heres statements
Speaker 3: stemmed from the remarks made by heather Don and Gale
Speaker 3: before they died. Sadly, since they did pass away, they're
Speaker 3: not able to give evidence in this case about what
Speaker 3: was said at the lunch and what they observed. But
Speaker 3: in the days before they passed, they had conversations with
Speaker 3: both Simon and Ian, who wore later asked questions at
Speaker 3: trial about these conversations to remind our listeners. Simon told
Speaker 3: the jury that he remembered Heather asking him the day
Speaker 3: after the lunch whether Erin was short of crockery because
Speaker 3: she noticed that she had eaten off a different plate
Speaker 3: at the lunch. Ian also recalled Heather making the same comment.
Speaker 3: Simon also testified about what his parents told him around
Speaker 3: the conversations at the lunch. He testified that they told
Speaker 3: him that Erin had told the guests at the lunch
Speaker 3: that she had been diagnosed with cancer. But Justice Beer
Speaker 3: warned the jury today that there was a need for
Speaker 3: caution when considering this evidence because it was hearsay. Simon
Speaker 3: and Ian are bringing these statements from the deceased into
Speaker 3: the courtroom. They didn't come from them themselves. Justice Biale said,
Speaker 3: while Simon and Ian might be truthful witnesses, errors can occur.
Speaker 3: They may have not accurately remembered what Heather, Don and
Speaker 3: Gale said to them, so the jury must take this
Speaker 3: unreliability into account.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill also spoke about expert evidence, and he provided
Speaker 2: an example from digital forensics expert Matthew Serell.
Speaker 3: He explained to the jury that usually witnesses aren't allowed
Speaker 3: to give their opinions in trials, but experts are the exception.
Speaker 3: He described doctor Cerell as an expert in his field,
Speaker 3: which is why he was handpicked to give evidence in
Speaker 3: this trial. Our listeners may remember that doctor Cerell gave
Speaker 3: a lot of evidence around Erin's phone records and the
Speaker 3: conclusions that could be drawn from them, but Justice Beial
Speaker 3: reminded the jury today that doctor Cerell said the conclusions
Speaker 3: had a lot of limits. Justice Bill said that doctor
Speaker 3: Cerel's evidence about Erin's possible visits to Locke and Outram
Speaker 3: were not evidence that she actually visited those postcodes. He
Speaker 3: said that the connections of phone may make to a
Speaker 3: base station can be consistent with and support a proposition,
Speaker 3: but doesn't demonstrate a proposition in and of itself.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill also went on to talk about prior inconsistent
Speaker 2: statements once again, Laura, can you explain to our listeners
Speaker 2: what this is?
Speaker 3: I really hope our listeners are following along with my explanations.
Speaker 3: It's been a long day, but I promise I'm trying
Speaker 3: my hardest. Justice Bill explained today that prior inconsistent statements
Speaker 3: refer to the statements that a witness made before the
Speaker 3: trial even started using Erin as an example. He told
Speaker 3: the jury that there were statements Erin made in the
Speaker 3: days after the lunch that appeared inconsistent with the statements
Speaker 3: she made in the witness box. In one example, Justice
Speaker 3: Beal took the jury to Erin's record of interview with
Speaker 3: Constable Eppingstall. He asked her whether she had ever foraged
Speaker 3: for mushrooms in the past, and she replied never. But
Speaker 3: Justice Biel then reminded the jury of the evidence Erin
Speaker 3: gave in the trial that we actually touched on earlier
Speaker 3: in the episode Brook, where Erin spoke at length about
Speaker 3: the fact she had forage for mushrooms for many years
Speaker 3: and this was something that she had become quite confident
Speaker 3: in doing. Justice Biel told the jury that they might
Speaker 3: be less willing to accept a witness's evidence if they
Speaker 3: did make an inconsistent statement.
Speaker 2: And Justice Bill will continue his charge tomorrow.
Speaker 3: He will, And just before the jury left for the day,
Speaker 3: he said to them that he would provide a little
Speaker 3: update on the trial, and he simply said, you don't
Speaker 3: need to bring your toothbrush tomorrow. He didn't say anything more.
Speaker 3: But what we can take away from that is that
Speaker 3: he is indicating that the jury will not be sequestered
Speaker 3: tomorrow in the afternoon, but.
Speaker 2: I think it's safe to say that that will be
Speaker 2: happening later this week. And when it happens, we'll tell
Speaker 2: you what sequestering means for this jury. But in the meantime,
Speaker 2: go to the mushroomcook dot com dot a U for
Speaker 2: more