Speaker 1: Even if you think the conduct makes her look guilty,
Speaker 1: it does not necessarily mean that the accused is guilty.
Speaker 2: Lies one of the central themes in the trial of
Speaker 2: Aaron Pattison what lies did she tell and who did
Speaker 2: she tell them to? Aaron admits to telling some lies,
Speaker 2: but the prosecution alleges she told many more. Today, Justice
Speaker 2: Christopher Bill took the jury through what they should consider
Speaker 2: and what they should not consider when grappling with Aaron's
Speaker 2: alleged lies. During deliberations next week, I'm Brook Greebt Craig,
Speaker 2: and this is the mushroom Cook. It's day thirty nine
Speaker 2: and the end of week nine of Aaron Patterson's murder trial.
Speaker 2: And I'm here with court reporter Laura Colsseller.
Speaker 3: Hey Brook, and I will say, in the words of
Speaker 3: Justice Bill, that he udded today. Thank God it's Friday.
Speaker 2: That definitely made me and the jury laugh. Justice Bill
Speaker 2: continued his charge today and finished making his way through
Speaker 2: the list of alleged incriminating conduct after touching upon the lies.
Speaker 2: Aaron admits to telling police about never having foraged from
Speaker 2: mushrooms and never having owned a dehydrator. He turned to
Speaker 2: a lie. She does not admit her alleged lie about
Speaker 2: being unwell in the days after the lunch, just.
Speaker 3: Like he has over the last few days. He summarized
Speaker 3: the evidence of doctors and nurses from both Lee and
Speaker 3: Gatha Hospital and Monash Medical Center, as all of some
Speaker 3: of the other medical witnesses in this case, such as
Speaker 3: intensive care specialist Andrew Burston and forensic toxicologist Demitri Gurista Mulis.
Speaker 3: He reminded them that Erin testified that in the hours
Speaker 3: after the lunch, she binge ate a cake that Gail
Speaker 3: had brought and forced herself to vomit. He then said
Speaker 3: that she told the jury she experienced frequent diarrhea later
Speaker 3: that night on July twenty nine, that continued into the
Speaker 3: following day. Justice Bill told the jury that she said
Speaker 3: she took a modium before or she drove her son
Speaker 3: to his flying lesson in ti Ubp but ended up
Speaker 3: having to pull over on the side of the road
Speaker 3: to go to the toilet in the bushes. She said
Speaker 3: she later stopped at a service station and briefly entered
Speaker 3: a toilet to throw her soil tissues away. He also
Speaker 3: reminded the jury that Erin said she drove herself to
Speaker 3: Lee and Gatha Hospital on July thirty one because her
Speaker 3: diary was continuing and she wanted to see if they
Speaker 3: could give her some fluids.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill turned to the arguments by the prosecution. He
Speaker 2: said the prosecution claimed that Aaron was not suffering at
Speaker 2: all and was feigning deathcat mushroom poisoning because she knew
Speaker 2: remaining healthy would give her away. He said the prosecution
Speaker 2: also argued that if Aaron had pulled over to go
Speaker 2: to the toilet in the bushes, her son would have
Speaker 2: remembered such an emergency stop. He added that the prosecution
Speaker 2: also questioned why she left hospital after only five minutes
Speaker 2: if she was truly unwell.
Speaker 3: Justice Biale said that the defense argued that the prosecution
Speaker 3: had unfairly not called an expert witness to testify specifically
Speaker 3: about the symptoms of death cap mushroom poisoning. He said
Speaker 3: that the defense, though, had pointed to a research article
Speaker 3: referred to during the testimony of doctor Girista Mullis that
Speaker 3: said Grade one death cap mushroom poisoning did comprise gastro
Speaker 3: like symptoms. Justice Biale said that the defense also argued
Speaker 3: that if Erin was lying, about vomiting after the lunch,
Speaker 3: she would have told the jury that she threw off
Speaker 3: immediately and could see Beef Wellington in her vomit. He
Speaker 3: added that the defense suggested that if Erin was also
Speaker 3: lying about being unwell, she would not have discharged herself
Speaker 3: against medical advice, but would have instead told doctors to
Speaker 3: pump her full of drugs to make her story more believable.
Speaker 2: Finally, Justice Bill then gave his directions about the topic
Speaker 2: of incriminating conduct. He said there were two ways the
Speaker 2: jue could use the alleged lies if they found them
Speaker 2: to be lies. Here's what he said about the first way.
Speaker 2: These are his words, but not his voice.
Speaker 1: The law says that you may use the accused lies
Speaker 1: to help you assess her credibility. If you find that
Speaker 1: an accused lied about something, you can use that fact
Speaker 1: to help you decide whether or not you believe the
Speaker 1: other things that the accused has said, whether those are
Speaker 1: things she said to the witnesses in the case or
Speaker 1: to you in her testimony. That is not to say
Speaker 1: just because you find that the accused lied about one matter,
Speaker 1: you must also find that she's been lying about everything else.
Speaker 1: But you can use the fact that she lied. If
Speaker 1: you find that she did, to help you determine the
Speaker 1: truthfulness of the other things that she has said.
Speaker 3: But Justice Beer warned the jury to not reason that
Speaker 3: simply because a person has lied, they must be guilty.
Speaker 3: He then turned to the second way the jury could
Speaker 3: use the alleged lies if they found them to be lie.
Speaker 1: The second way in which you may be able to
Speaker 1: use one of the alleged lies which the prosecution relies
Speaker 1: on as incriminating conduct, is as evidence that Aaron Patterson
Speaker 1: committed the charged offenses, in other words, as implied admissions
Speaker 1: of guilt. You may only use evidence that Aaron Patterson
Speaker 1: lied in this way if you find that she did
Speaker 1: tell a deliberate untruth and that the only reasonable explanation
Speaker 1: for doing so is that she believed she had committed
Speaker 1: the charged offenses.
Speaker 3: Justice Beale also gave the jury another warning. He said
Speaker 3: that if they find that Erin lied because she knew
Speaker 3: she had committed the offenses charged, they still must consider
Speaker 3: the rest of the evidence to decide whether the prosecution
Speaker 3: has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He also told
Speaker 3: the jury that the other alleged incriminating conduct that wasn't
Speaker 3: lies could also be used as implied admissions of guilt.
Speaker 3: He then broke down all of the conduct into two sections,
Speaker 3: the conduct erin admits and the conduct she does not admit.
Speaker 3: When it came to the conduct she admits, Justice Beal
Speaker 3: reminded the jury that she accepts that she dumped her dehydrator,
Speaker 3: that she left hospital after only five minutes, that she
Speaker 3: factory reset phone B, and that she told lies in
Speaker 3: her record of interview. When it came to assessing this conduct,
Speaker 3: he said, the jury must remember that Aaron told them
Speaker 3: that she panicked, that she had a history of hating hospitals,
Speaker 3: and that she was using phone B because phone A
Speaker 3: was damaged.
Speaker 1: In summary, there are all sorts of reasons why a
Speaker 1: person might behave in a way that makes the person
Speaker 1: look guilty the accused, and yet not be guilty.
Speaker 3: When it came to the conduct she does not admit,
Speaker 3: Justice Beal reminded the jury that Aaron denies lying about
Speaker 3: using the dried mushrooms in the beef Wellington, lying about
Speaker 3: feeding the leftovers to her children, and lying about being unwell,
Speaker 3: as well as other allegations put forward by the prosecution.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill told the jury that if they find that
Speaker 2: Aaron did engage in any of this conduct, they must
Speaker 2: consider whether she may have done so because she feared
Speaker 2: being wrongly blamed for a deliberate poisoning or losing the
Speaker 2: custody of her children. He then turned to the topic
Speaker 2: of credit lies. He told the jury that the law
Speaker 2: draws a distinction between lies that formed part of incriminating conduct,
Speaker 2: which we have just been talking about, and credit lies.
Speaker 2: Here's what he said.
Speaker 1: Credit lies, on the other hand, may only be used
Speaker 1: for that first purpose in assessing credit of the accused.
Speaker 1: If you were to find that the accused had told
Speaker 1: any other lies other than those lies that I've been
Speaker 1: talking about for the last month, whether to persons involved
Speaker 1: in this case or to you in her testimony, you
Speaker 1: may use those lies in assessing her credibility, but only
Speaker 1: for that purpose.
Speaker 3: Justice Bial flagged that there were four credit lies alleged
Speaker 3: by the prosecution. The first, he said, was that Erin
Speaker 3: lied to police about being very very helpful during the
Speaker 3: Department of Health investigation. Those are the words she told
Speaker 3: police during her record of interview. Justice Beale reminded the
Speaker 3: jury that the prosecution argued that Erin had not been
Speaker 3: very very helpful and knew she hadn't been because she
Speaker 3: had not told Senior Public Health Adviser Sally Anne Atkinson
Speaker 3: that foraged mushrooms may have accidentally ended up in the
Speaker 3: beef Wellington meal.
Speaker 2: Justice Bill said he would summarize the defense's argument on
Speaker 2: this on Monday. He said he still has a bit
Speaker 2: to go with his charge, but he has broken the
Speaker 2: back of it.
Speaker 3: He told the jury he expected to finish the remainder
Speaker 3: of his charge on Monday, before two jurors would be
Speaker 3: balloted off and deliberations could begin. But before the jury
Speaker 3: left for the day, he instructed them to not let
Speaker 3: anybody get in their ear over the weekend and recommended
Speaker 3: a media blackout. He then offered some words of encouragement
Speaker 3: before they walked out the door. He said they had
Speaker 3: been doing a great job and that they should keep going.
Speaker 2: Now, just a little note for our listeners, because we
Speaker 2: are nearing the end of the trial, we won't have
Speaker 2: a subscriber episode on Sunday, but rest assured there will
Speaker 2: be more to come, but for now, go to the
Speaker 2: mushroomcook dot com dot au for more