Speaker 1: In this case, the prosecution relies on certain alleged conduct
Speaker 1: by the accused as incriminating conduct, that is, as implied
Speaker 1: admissions of guilt.
Speaker 2: Guilt and innocence were at the heart of Justice Christopher
Speaker 2: Bill's words today as he continued his charge to the
Speaker 2: jury in the trial of Aaron Patterson, and for the
Speaker 2: first time, the jury heard a role call of the
Speaker 2: incriminating conduct allegedly committed by the accused. It was a
Speaker 2: short session today, but Justice Bill had a lot to say.
Speaker 2: I'm Brook Greebert Craig, and this is the mushroom cook.
Speaker 2: I'm hearing Morewell with my colleague court reporter Laura Plossella,
Speaker 2: and we just finished day thirty seven of the trial.
Speaker 3: Hey there, Brooke. I don't know if our listeners can
Speaker 3: hear this, but it has just started bucketing down in Morewell.
Speaker 3: I don't think we've heard rain this loud the entire
Speaker 3: time we've been here, but we will solder On.
Speaker 2: Yes we will. It's been freezing down here.
Speaker 3: I think today just fell shy of being the shortest
Speaker 3: day the jury have had in the trial. I think
Speaker 3: more than a month ago we had a day where
Speaker 3: we only heard forty minutes of evidence, and today the
Speaker 3: jury only heard around two hours of Justice Bill's charge.
Speaker 3: That was because the parties had some matters they had
Speaker 3: to work through this morning, so they were able to
Speaker 3: enjoy a lunch break and then come in to hear
Speaker 3: more from Justice Bill.
Speaker 2: Yes, and that was around two fifteen today, So Justice
Speaker 2: Bill spoke to the jury in depth about the topic
Speaker 2: of incriminating conduct. These are his words, but not his voice.
Speaker 1: In other words, prosecution argues that the only reasonable explanation
Speaker 1: of the conduct alleged is that the accused knew she
Speaker 1: was guilty of the offenses with which she's charged and
Speaker 1: engaged in the relevant conduct in an endeavor to conceal
Speaker 1: her guilt. The defense, on the other hand, argues that
Speaker 1: there are other reasonable, innocent explanations for the alleged conduct
Speaker 1: relied on by the prosecution.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill then went on to outline what the prosecution
Speaker 2: claims in the case.
Speaker 3: And this is where he made his way through that
Speaker 3: role call you mentioned at the top of the episode, Brook,
Speaker 3: and I'll run through it today just like he did.
Speaker 3: He pretty much put it together as a list. And
Speaker 3: while the jury have obviously heard evidence around all of
Speaker 3: these points and The prosecution referred to all of these
Speaker 3: points in their closing address. This was the first time,
Speaker 3: at least in my memory, that these points have been
Speaker 3: put to the jury one after the other. So again
Speaker 3: before I launch in, these are all of the allegations
Speaker 3: of incriminating conduct that the prosecution alleged were committed by
Speaker 3: Erin after the lunch. So they say she lied about
Speaker 3: being unwell and was faking deathcat mushroom poisoning. She lied
Speaker 3: about using dried mushrooms from an Asian grosser. She refused
Speaker 3: treatment on her first presentation to hospital and discharged herself
Speaker 3: against medical advice. She was reluctant to accept treatment on
Speaker 3: her second presentation to hospital. She was reluctant to obtain
Speaker 3: treatment for her children. She lied about feeding her children
Speaker 3: the leftovers of the beef Wellington with the mushrooms and
Speaker 3: pastry scraped off. She reset Phone B, a phone she
Speaker 3: handed to police multiple times. She disposed of her dehydrator
Speaker 3: at the local tip. She provided police phone B instead
Speaker 3: of phone A, her usual phone. She lied about her
Speaker 3: phone number ending in eight three five during her record
Speaker 3: of interview, and finally she lied about never having foraged
Speaker 3: for mushrooms and never having owned a dehydrator.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill then said that he would summarize the evidence
Speaker 2: relating to each allegation, and he started with Aaron refusing
Speaker 2: treatment on her first presentation to hospital and discharging herself
Speaker 2: against medical advice.
Speaker 3: He took them back to the evidence of doctor Chris Webster,
Speaker 3: doctor Fronica Foot, and nurse Kylie Ashton, among others. After
Speaker 3: he summarized the evidence, he then moved on to the
Speaker 3: arguments from the prosecution about this allegation. Here is what
Speaker 3: he said.
Speaker 1: The prosecution argued that the only reasonable explanation for her
Speaker 1: unwillingness to receive emergency treatment and her discharging herself against
Speaker 1: medical advice is that she knew she hadn't consumed death
Speaker 1: cap mushrooms because she had deliberately poisoned her guests with
Speaker 1: death cap mushrooms, making sure she did not also consume
Speaker 1: the toxins.
Speaker 3: He also took them to the arguments from the defense, and.
Speaker 1: In brief, the defense argued that a reasonable explanation for
Speaker 1: refusing to receive treatment was that she found it difficult
Speaker 1: to accept that she could have suffered death cap mushroom
Speaker 1: poisoning she wasn't informed to the full extent of the
Speaker 1: medical conditions of the lunch guests. She did not come
Speaker 1: prepared to be admitted overnight, but she was led to
Speaker 1: believe it involved transfer to a tertiary hospital, he added,
Speaker 1: and to assess this all in the context of her
Speaker 1: having a history of discharging herself against medical advice and
Speaker 1: second guessing medicos.
Speaker 3: Incriminating conduct was the last topic Justice Bihal spoke about
Speaker 3: today and was only able to make his way through
Speaker 3: the evidence of one of the eleven allegations. He will
Speaker 3: return to summarizing the rest tomorrow, but earlier Justice Bill
Speaker 3: returned to the topic of expert evidence, in particular the
Speaker 3: testimony of senior digital forensics officer Charman fox Henry from
Speaker 3: Victoria Police.
Speaker 2: And just to remind our listeners, mister fox Henry was
Speaker 2: one of the officers who examined devices seized from Aaron's home, just.
Speaker 3: As he did yesterday with digital forensics expert Matthew Cerell.
Speaker 3: Justice Beal reminded the jury of his qualifications and how
Speaker 3: long he had spent at Victoria Police. He told them
Speaker 3: that mister fox Henry moved across to the cyber crime
Speaker 3: squad in July twenty three, and did not have any
Speaker 3: of the qualificationations he now holds when he received the
Speaker 3: devices the next month. In a similar fashion to how
Speaker 3: he dealt with doctor Currel's evidence yesterday, Justice Beale summarized
Speaker 3: what mister fox Henry said about the cooler Master computer
Speaker 3: that was seized from Aaron's house, as well as a
Speaker 3: Samsung tablet and phone B. As part of his summary,
Speaker 3: Justice Beial also referred to Erin's evidence, where she said
Speaker 3: it was possible she may have used the cooler Master
Speaker 3: computer to visit the I Natchalist website on May twenty eight,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two, and how she admitted to factory resetting
Speaker 3: Phone B in a panic while police were searching her home.
Speaker 3: Justice Beale then turned to how the jury can use
Speaker 3: this expert evidence from mister fox Henry. This is what
Speaker 3: he said.
Speaker 1: The issues that his opinions bear upon include whether you
Speaker 1: can reasonably infer that on twenty eight May twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: the accused sought information on the I Naturalist website regarding
Speaker 1: the locations of deathcap mushrooms in victorm Arrea. For a
Speaker 1: second time, whether the accused access to Christine Mackenzie's post
Speaker 1: on I Naturalist of the Observation of deathcap Mushrooms in
Speaker 1: Locke Reserve on eighteen April twenty twenty three, whether she
Speaker 1: sourced death cap mushrooms in Locke on twenty eight April
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, whether she accessed doctor May's post on
Speaker 1: Iron Naturalist of the Observation of deathcap Mushrooms in Nielsen Street,
Speaker 1: Outrim on twenty one May twenty twenty three, whether she
Speaker 1: sourced or attempted to source deathcap mushrooms in Locke on
Speaker 1: twenty two May twenty twenty three, and whether she sourced
Speaker 1: or attempted to source deathcap mushrooms in Autrim on twenty
Speaker 1: two May twenty twenty three, and whether she deliberately and
Speaker 1: knowingly put death cap mushrooms into the beef. Wellington's served
Speaker 1: to the lunch guests on twenty nine July.
Speaker 3: But he also reminded the jury that there was no
Speaker 3: evidence in this case of erin seeing the posts by
Speaker 3: Miss mcken's and doctor May, So.
Speaker 2: After just two hours of being in court, the jury
Speaker 2: was done for the day.
Speaker 3: Before they left, Justice Biale told them that he wouldn't
Speaker 3: be completing his charge tomorrow. He then said, you can
Speaker 3: live in Hope, which prompted laughs from the jurors.
Speaker 2: So we'll be back tomorrow with more of Justice Bill's charge.
Speaker 2: Thanks brook In the meantime, go to the mushroomcook dot
Speaker 2: com dot au for more