Speaker 1: Oh, it's always a bit of a heightened emotional experience
Speaker 1: to be in the room after a very long trial
Speaker 1: and a few days wait as the jury deliberates, and
Speaker 1: that was certainly true of the room in more Well.
Speaker 2: For the past ten weeks, Sarah Kreststein has been driving
Speaker 2: to Warwell in regional Victoria to sit in the courtroom
Speaker 2: as the triple murder trial of Aaron Patterson unfolded. Sarah's
Speaker 2: an award winning writer and a lawyer with a PhD insentency.
Speaker 2: She's spent hundreds of hours in courtrooms and so the
Speaker 2: very specific feeling of waiting for a verdict is something
Speaker 2: that she knows well. But despite all of that, she says,
Speaker 2: waiting for the Jewelry to head down their verdict yesterday
Speaker 2: was nerve wrecking.
Speaker 1: My hands always shake, my heart races because you just
Speaker 1: don't know how it's going to go. But you know
Speaker 1: that whatever it is, it's going to both be, you know,
Speaker 1: not enough for the people on one side and too
Speaker 1: much for people on the other side. And it's just
Speaker 1: the laws kind of attempt to bring certainty and conclusion
Speaker 1: to emotional experience that really can't be tied up. That
Speaker 1: neatly for the people who are directly involved.
Speaker 2: Aaron Patterson has been found guilty of murdering her ex
Speaker 2: husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his auntie Heather Wilkinson.
Speaker 2: She's also been found guilty of a teptic to murder
Speaker 2: Heather's husband Ian. I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to
Speaker 2: seven AM today doctor Sarah Christustine or the verdict, the
Speaker 2: sentence to come and the story that will forever shape
Speaker 2: the town of Morelwell, it's Tuesday, July eighth, So Sarah,
Speaker 2: you have just left the courtroom where the verdict was
Speaker 2: headed down in Aaron Patterson's trial. What was it like
Speaker 2: in the room as that happened.
Speaker 1: There was a long line of people waiting to get
Speaker 1: in in terms of the journals and the interested members
Speaker 1: of the public. People had been kind of perched outside
Speaker 1: of courtroom for the last seven days, well six days.
Speaker 1: The jury didn't sit on Sunday waiting for the email
Speaker 1: to go out that the jury had reached a verdict.
Speaker 1: So when that happened, everyone that could fit into the
Speaker 1: room and take a seat did, and then the tips
Speaker 1: kind of made a general announcement to everybody that regardless
Speaker 1: of the nature of the decision, that everyone was to
Speaker 1: keep respectful of the court and stay silent, and so
Speaker 1: that kind of had a solemn effect because there's a
Speaker 1: slight buzz of people with a lot of excess emotion
Speaker 1: whenever this happens. And then the jury came in and
Speaker 1: they were asked for their verdict, and yeah, we heard
Speaker 1: that she was guilty of all the charges against her.
Speaker 3: For the attempted murder child for pastor In Wilkinson. Aaron
Speaker 3: Patterson is guilty for the charge of murder for Heather Wilkinson.
Speaker 3: Aaron Patterson is guilty for the alleged murder of Goal
Speaker 3: Patterson guilty. And finally, Brett, we're just waiting for that
Speaker 3: last charge to come through for the alleged murder of
Speaker 3: Donald Patterson. Aaron Patterson is guilty of murder.
Speaker 2: What was Aaron Patterson's reaction as that verdict was read out.
Speaker 1: I was sitting directly in front of her, so I
Speaker 1: did look over a couple of times, and her face
Speaker 1: was impassive. She just kind of said very still. She
Speaker 1: was between two large male custody officers who were kind
Speaker 1: of bookending her. She looked very serious, like she was concentrating,
Speaker 1: but the word that occurred to me was kind of
Speaker 1: unperturbed and obviously working quite hard to maintain a side
Speaker 1: of you know, kind of detachment. But there wasn't anything
Speaker 1: that it was possible to read in her expression.
Speaker 2: And what about members of the Patterson family, So Erin's
Speaker 2: ex husband's family, they've been attending court for much of
Speaker 2: this trial, so were they there for the verdict?
Speaker 1: So yeah, over the ten weeks the family has been
Speaker 1: quite steadfastly present and that's what made it quite notable
Speaker 1: that they weren't there for the verdict. They have a
Speaker 1: spokesperson who has been dealing with the media, you know,
Speaker 1: over the last few months, and she was in the room.
Speaker 1: But Ian R. Wilkinson, who had attended after giving his evidence,
Speaker 1: and you know, members of the Patterson family who had
Speaker 1: been there all this time, were noticeably absent.
Speaker 2: And so directly after that verdict, the judge thanked the
Speaker 2: Jewry for the way that they have handled themselves throughout
Speaker 2: this trial. So tell me about what has been required
Speaker 2: of them.
Speaker 1: Well, it's comprised of members from the surrounding community. We're
Speaker 1: in more w Well in regional Victoria, and so you know,
Speaker 1: These are people that were selected for the fact that
Speaker 1: they come from the community in which the offending occurred,
Speaker 1: and for their impartiality in relation to the facts of
Speaker 1: the case. And they were quite attentive over ten weeks.
Speaker 1: It's really technical evidence. You know, you hear it's a
Speaker 1: triple murder trial and also an attempted murder trial. And
Speaker 1: you know, if you're not familiar with the nuts and
Speaker 1: bolts of how cases run forensically, that sounds like it
Speaker 1: would be quite an exciting, emotionally charged thing to be
Speaker 1: listening to. But the reality is a lot of the
Speaker 1: evidence is quite technical in nature. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff about how cell phone towers do and
Speaker 1: don't work, how internet search functions do and don't work,
Speaker 1: for hours and hours and days and days. So to
Speaker 1: have a jury that's quite attentive through all of that
Speaker 1: is noteworthy. And despite COVID or you know, colds or
Speaker 1: you know whatever, over ten weeks they were there. So
Speaker 1: they have been sequestered in their deliberations, which is quite unusual.
Speaker 1: It means they're not allowed to go home. They've been
Speaker 1: in a hotel all of this time. They can't read
Speaker 1: the news, they don't have free access to their phones.
Speaker 1: They have supervised calls to the people they need to
Speaker 1: ring so that they don't hear or say anything connected
Speaker 1: with the case. It's a big ask of people to
Speaker 1: take ten weeks out of their life to do this.
Speaker 2: It's a public service.
Speaker 1: And Justice Biel recognized that and also kind of the
Speaker 1: toll it's taken away from their daily life and all
Speaker 1: their other responsibilities by giving them a fifteen year dispensation
Speaker 1: from being called for jury service again. Now, if there's
Speaker 1: anyone there that really loves the experience, they can go
Speaker 1: and sit on another jury should they be called. But
Speaker 1: it kind of says you've done your duty and now
Speaker 1: you don't have to do this for another decade and
Speaker 1: a half.
Speaker 2: So we know the verdict, but what we don't know
Speaker 2: is how the jury reached that verdict.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, and so it's quite frustrating for legal scholars.
Speaker 1: A lot of our jury research about how the process
Speaker 1: does and doesn't work. Any feedback about how it could
Speaker 1: be improved comes from, i think largely from America. In Australia,
Speaker 1: we're not allowed to know and these people can never
Speaker 1: talk about what happened behind closed doors, how they reached
Speaker 1: the decision, how many were for or against, all of
Speaker 1: that remains unknown to protect the integrity of the process.
Speaker 2: And so those people who are on the jeury, presumably
Speaker 2: they now go back to their homes, go back to
Speaker 2: their lives. But this case, it will continue to define
Speaker 2: more well define the area for a long time. And
Speaker 2: in a small place like this, I think we can
Speaker 2: assume that there will be talk quite bit about the jewelry,
Speaker 2: about the case and about how people's minds were made up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's tricky, particularly in smaller communities to maintain anonivity,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot of safeguards around the process that
Speaker 1: kind of prevent them from speaking openly about it. So
Speaker 1: one hopes they would be observed. But I think it,
Speaker 1: you know, it does kind of now become part of
Speaker 1: the lore of the region, which is I guess inevitable
Speaker 1: when a whole town has been taken over by journals
Speaker 1: and lawyers for ten weeks and people coming in from
Speaker 1: kind of further afield to watch. It's not the end.
Speaker 1: I mean, today feels like a conclusion of sorts, but
Speaker 1: everyone will be back in a few weeks to diorize
Speaker 1: what needs to happen. For sentencing to occur, and then
Speaker 1: of course she has the ability to appeal either the
Speaker 1: verdict or the sentence, or both, depending on how her lawyers,
Speaker 1: you know, come down on that.
Speaker 2: After the break, When will Aaron Patterson be sentenced?
Speaker 1: Sarah?
Speaker 2: This trial it went on for much longer than most
Speaker 2: people would have anticipated, and right up until the very end,
Speaker 2: it wasn't really clear what witnesses the defense were going
Speaker 2: to bring forward, if any, and it certainly wasn't clear
Speaker 2: whether Aaron Pattison would give evidence. So when she did,
Speaker 2: how did that change the trial?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, there's a lot of speculation. The defense, as
Speaker 1: you say, is not required to lay out their strategy
Speaker 1: or their plan before it's time. They're not obligated to
Speaker 1: put their own case. They don't have to call any
Speaker 1: witnesses at all, they don't have to do anything. They're
Speaker 1: under no obligation to prove innocence. The Crown is required
Speaker 1: to prove her guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and it's not
Speaker 1: a positive obligation for the defense to do anything at all.
Speaker 1: But obviously, to Colin Mandy, her counsel, it made more
Speaker 1: sense to call Aaron to speak in her own defense
Speaker 1: than to not, and she was on the stand for
Speaker 1: a long time. It was tricky and confusing, which is
Speaker 1: perhaps its own wisdom, because on the one hand, she's
Speaker 1: both very articulately and she was calm for a lot
Speaker 1: of her evidence, and on the other hand, it was
Speaker 1: inevitable that we just heard again and again and again
Speaker 1: how many lies she had told about how many things.
Speaker 1: And there was a quite subtle and at times not
Speaker 1: so subtle reactivity to nanat Rogers, who was the Crown prosecutor,
Speaker 1: either aaron not understanding things or purporting not to understand things,
Speaker 1: or having issues with the way certain questions were phrased.
Speaker 1: It was hard to listen to that evidence being given
Speaker 1: by erin learning just how many lies she had told
Speaker 1: and come away thinking that her side of the story
Speaker 1: made sense. And then there were just gaps in the
Speaker 1: logic which also didn't make sense. But again, how a
Speaker 1: jury is going to understand someone and how they're going
Speaker 1: to understand that person's reliability or their veracity or credibility
Speaker 1: is a tricky thing to try to mind read. But
Speaker 1: they're really looking at someone's character in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that obviously didn't go in her favor.
Speaker 2: And throughout the trial, Aaron Patterson has been held in
Speaker 2: more well at the courthouse. What will happen to her now?
Speaker 1: So, yeah, she will be taken back in a prison
Speaker 1: van to I believe the women's prison in Melbourne. She
Speaker 1: will wait there until the sentencing hearings begin. Sentencing won't
Speaker 1: happen immediately. Both sides need time to get a lot
Speaker 1: of different reports, like psychological reports and other forms of information.
Speaker 1: And once that's all collected and the sentencing hearing will
Speaker 1: be schedules and then both parties have the chance to
Speaker 1: make submissions. They have different rules of evidence that apply
Speaker 1: to sentencing hearings, so things don't have to be proven
Speaker 1: beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously, they want to make sure that
Speaker 1: everything is as solid as possible. So they'll go off
Speaker 1: and do that over the next weeks or months, and
Speaker 1: she will be sentenced, I'm shore before the end of
Speaker 1: the year.
Speaker 2: And so when it comes to the sentencing, what kind
Speaker 2: of range should we be expecting because a triple murder
Speaker 2: as well as attempted murder, that kind of verdict is
Speaker 2: pretty rare.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you're looking at life as the maximum. But again,
Speaker 1: a whole number of considerations go into that. They'll be
Speaker 1: looking at things like levels of remorse or assistance to
Speaker 1: the authority, the fact that the victims here were vulnerable
Speaker 1: in that they were elderly, and also that trust was breached.
Speaker 1: They'll be looking at whether she had a prior history
Speaker 1: of criminality, So they'll be weighing up all of the
Speaker 1: factors and aggravation, and then in mitigation, they'll be looking
Speaker 1: at examples of similar instances of offending. And I don't
Speaker 1: think they have anything of this nature, which is part
Speaker 1: of what makes a case so compelling is it's uniqueness
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. But they'll be looking at
Speaker 1: other examples of murder to try to find out what
Speaker 1: the range is for a case like this.
Speaker 2: Sarah, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Now look, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: Also in the news today, the Northern Territory Coroner Elizabeth
Speaker 2: Armitage has delivered her findings in a long running inquest
Speaker 2: into the fatal shooting of nineteen year old Kumnji Walker
Speaker 2: during an arrest in Yundamu in twenty nineteen. Judge Armitage
Speaker 2: found former Constable Zachary Rolf, who fired the fatal shots,
Speaker 2: was racist and that she could not exclude the possibility
Speaker 2: that those attitudes were a contributing cause of Kumanjai's death.
Speaker 2: Her report contains thirty two recommendations, including that anti police
Speaker 2: engaged directly with the Yundubu leadership groups to develop mutual
Speaker 2: respect agreements, including when it would be appropriate for police
Speaker 2: not to carry firearms in the community. I'll have a
Speaker 2: full interview on that story tomorrow. On seventeen and nine,
Speaker 2: newspapers have reported that New South Wales police will drop
Speaker 2: some of the charges laid against former Green's candidate had
Speaker 2: A Thomas, after a review found officers incorrectly sought to
Speaker 2: use extraordinary emergency powers introduced to quell major riots. Thomas,
Speaker 2: who suffered a serious eye injury after police broke up
Speaker 2: an anti Israel protest, will face a more standard charge
Speaker 2: of failing to comply with a move on direction, along
Speaker 2: with the existing charge of hindering police. I'm Ruby Jones,
Speaker 2: See you tomorrow.