Speaker 1: After forty days, the jury in the trial of Aaron
Speaker 1: Patterson was ready to deliberate. But before that could happen,
Speaker 1: the Associate to Justice Christopher Bill how a box over
Speaker 1: his head. He shuffled some papers inside, pulled out two
Speaker 1: and read what was on them to the court. What
Speaker 1: was on these papers were numbers.
Speaker 2: Dura one oh five, Dura one oh six.
Speaker 1: These were the numbers of the two jurors who would
Speaker 1: no longer be required. They handed in their court iPads
Speaker 1: and left. And with that the jury of seven men
Speaker 1: and five women retired to consider their verdicts, the fate
Speaker 1: of Aaron Patterson in their hands. I'm Brooke Greebert Craig,
Speaker 1: and this is the Mushroom Cook. It's the start of
Speaker 1: week ten of Aaron Patterson's murder trial, and once again
Speaker 1: I'm joined by my colleague, court reporter Laura Plaseller, and.
Speaker 3: We're coming to our listeners from our new podcast studio.
Speaker 3: We had to shift Airbnbs, so we've set up in
Speaker 3: a new place here, inter realgen So if we sound
Speaker 3: a little bit different, that's why.
Speaker 1: It almost feels strange after forty episodes to be in
Speaker 1: a new place. But here we are and let's get started.
Speaker 1: So listeners would have heard at the start of the
Speaker 1: episode about the ballot process where fourteen jurors got cut
Speaker 1: to twelve, but we'll speak more on that a bit later.
Speaker 1: First up today, Justice Bill continued his charge to the
Speaker 1: jury and returned to the topic of credit lies alleged
Speaker 1: by the prosecution last week. He explained to the jury
Speaker 1: that credit lies can only be used to assess and
Speaker 1: accuse credibility and cannot be used as evidence they committed
Speaker 1: the offenses.
Speaker 3: Our listeners may remember that Justice Beal said last week
Speaker 3: that there were four credit lies alleged by the prosecution.
Speaker 3: The first was erin lying to police about being very
Speaker 3: very helpful during the Department of Health investigation, and today
Speaker 3: he touched on the remaining three. He said the prosecution
Speaker 3: also alleged that Aaron lied about the reason she invited
Speaker 3: her guests to the lunch, lied about what she said
Speaker 3: at the lunch about ovarian cancer, and lied about planning
Speaker 3: to undergo gastric bypass surgery at the Enrich Clinic in Melbourne.
Speaker 1: Justice Bill then moved on to how the jury can
Speaker 1: use the alleged credit lies if they find them to
Speaker 1: be lies. He said, they can be used to determine
Speaker 1: whether the other things Aaron said to other witnesses and
Speaker 1: during her testimony were true. He warned the jury not
Speaker 1: to reason that simply because a person is shown to
Speaker 1: have told lies, they must be guilty. After this, Justice
Speaker 1: Bill moved on to circumstantial or indirect evidence versus direct evidence.
Speaker 1: He said it was not safe in a criminal trial
Speaker 1: for a jury to engage in guesswork.
Speaker 3: He returned to the analogy used by the prosecution in
Speaker 3: its close address in relation to thinking about the evidence
Speaker 3: as puzzle pieces, but this was something that defense barrister
Speaker 3: Colin Mandy took some issue with in his own closing address,
Speaker 3: so before reiterating the analogy, he actually said it was
Speaker 3: at the risk of upsetting mister Mandy, which prompted some
Speaker 3: laughs around the courtroom. This is more of what he said.
Speaker 3: These are his words, but not his voice.
Speaker 2: While one piece may not be very helpful by itself,
Speaker 2: when all the pieces are put together, the picture may
Speaker 2: become clear. However, when putting all the pieces together, you
Speaker 2: must take care not to jump to conclusions.
Speaker 3: Justice Bill then reminded the jurors that they must be
Speaker 3: satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,
Speaker 3: but he added that it was almost impossible to prove
Speaker 3: anything with absolute certainty, and that was not what the
Speaker 3: prosecution were being required to do.
Speaker 2: A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt
Speaker 2: or an unrealistic possible. You cannot be satisfied that the
Speaker 2: accused is guilty of an offense if you have a
Speaker 2: reasonable doubt about whether she is guilty of the offense.
Speaker 1: Justice Spill then went on to speak about motive. He
Speaker 1: reminded the jury that the prosecution does not need to
Speaker 1: prove motive, only the elements of murder and attempted murder,
Speaker 1: but he added that did not mean a lack of
Speaker 1: evidence of motive is irrelevant. Here's what he said.
Speaker 2: It is a relevant consideration which you must take into
Speaker 2: account in the accused's favor when weighing all the evidence
Speaker 2: in this case. Moreover, if you find the accused had
Speaker 2: good reasons not to kill or attempt to kill her
Speaker 2: lunch guests, in short, she had a motive not to
Speaker 2: commit the alleged offenses, that is a significant consideration.
Speaker 1: Justice Spill said to find Erring guilty of murder, her
Speaker 1: conduct must have been conscious, voluntary, and deliberate.
Speaker 3: When running through the elements of murder, he started with
Speaker 3: consciousness and said that this element excludes the acts of
Speaker 3: an unconscious person, for example, someone who was sleepwalking. He
Speaker 3: then moved on to voluntariness. He said this excluded conduct
Speaker 3: where someone was not in control of their own actions.
Speaker 3: Turning to deliberateness, he said this element means that the
Speaker 3: accused conduct cannot be an accident. It was at this
Speaker 3: point that he reminded the jury that the defense claim
Speaker 3: that this was the element that had not been satisfied.
Speaker 3: They say that Aaron added the death cut mushrooms into
Speaker 3: the meal by accident.
Speaker 1: Turning to the final element, which was intention, Justice spil
Speaker 1: said the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that at
Speaker 1: the time Aaron served up Beef Wellington's she intended to
Speaker 1: kill her guests or cause them really serious injury.
Speaker 2: The prosecution contends that you should infer from the evidence
Speaker 2: that Aaron Patterson had the appropriate state of minds at
Speaker 2: the relevant time.
Speaker 3: He reminded the jury that this was also an element
Speaker 3: that the defense says has not been so satisfied. They
Speaker 3: say that Aaron did not have an intention to kill,
Speaker 3: but rather she actually had a motive to keep these
Speaker 3: people in her life. Justice Bill explained that a person's
Speaker 3: intention can be inferred from what they said and what
Speaker 3: they did, as well as what they failed to say
Speaker 3: and failed to do. He told the jury that they
Speaker 3: can consider Erin's actions both before, at the time of
Speaker 3: and after the lunch, but he said if they had
Speaker 3: any doubts, the benefit of those doubts must be given
Speaker 3: to the accused. I will note at this point Brook
Speaker 3: that the jury was not instructed by Justice Biale to
Speaker 3: consider the alternate charge of manslaughder, meaning that in this
Speaker 3: case they will only be able to return a guilty
Speaker 3: or not guilty verdict in relation to the charge of
Speaker 3: murder and attempted murder.
Speaker 1: On that topic of attempted murder, Justice Spiel said the
Speaker 1: alleged conduct must have been more than merely preparatory immediately
Speaker 1: and not remotely connected with Ian Wilkinson's illness, and then
Speaker 1: must been an intention to kill.
Speaker 3: Justice phil said it was not in dispute that Ian
Speaker 3: came very close to dying, and that Aaron's conduct in
Speaker 3: serving him a poisoned beef Wellington was more than merely
Speaker 3: preparatory and not remotely connected to causing his illness. He
Speaker 3: added that for an attempted murder charge, the intention, unlike murder,
Speaker 3: is nothing less than an intention to kill. Intent to
Speaker 3: cause really serious injury is not enough, he explained.
Speaker 1: Justice Bill then turned to summarizing the issues in the
Speaker 1: case and the related evidence. He said the first issue
Speaker 1: related to whether Aaron had good reasons to not kill
Speaker 1: her lunch guests in.
Speaker 3: A similar fashion to what he did last week. Justice
Speaker 3: Bill took the jury back to the evidence. He reminded
Speaker 3: them of the Facebook messages Aaron sent her online friends
Speaker 3: about her in laws in December twenty twenty two. As
Speaker 3: I'm sure our listeners remember, these messages included the phrases
Speaker 3: this family, I swear to God and at LA least
Speaker 3: I know they are a lost cause. Turning to the
Speaker 3: prosecution argument, Justice Bill said that Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers
Speaker 3: argued that sometimes the internal motivations for murders are only
Speaker 3: known to the murderer themselves. Using her words, he told
Speaker 3: the jury, you don't have to know why a person
Speaker 3: does something in order to know they did it. On
Speaker 3: the other hand, Justice Bill said the defense questioned why
Speaker 3: Aaron would want to kill her in laws, giving they
Speaker 3: were her children's only grandparents.
Speaker 2: He said.
Speaker 3: They also questioned why Aaron would commit murder when she
Speaker 3: was in a good place at the time in July
Speaker 3: twenty twenty three and would have surely known that suspicion
Speaker 3: would fall on her as the cook of the meal.
Speaker 1: Justice Bill said the second issue related to Aaron's tendency
Speaker 1: to forage for mushrooms, referring the jury to the directions
Speaker 1: he gave them on this topic last week. He then
Speaker 1: moved on to the third issue, related to why Aaron
Speaker 1: cooked individual beef Wellington's. Here reminded the Jews that Aaron
Speaker 1: said she used a best selling recipe Tin Eats cookbook
Speaker 1: that called for a beef wellington log, but he.
Speaker 3: Told the jury that Aaron testified that she deviated from
Speaker 3: this recipe because she could not find a beef tenderloin
Speaker 3: or a log in her local area. Turning to the arguments,
Speaker 3: he said the prosecution claimed that Aaron cooked individual beef
Speaker 3: Wellington's because it was critical for her to maintain control
Speaker 3: over the meal and to make sure she did not
Speaker 3: consume a serve laced with death caps. He said. The
Speaker 3: prosecution also questioned why she would deviate from a recipe
Speaker 3: she had never cooked before. He then flagged that the
Speaker 3: defense did not discuss this topic in its closing address.
Speaker 1: Justice Bill then turned to the fourth issue, related to
Speaker 1: whether Aaron served the lunch on different colored plates. He
Speaker 1: once again returned to Ian Wilkinson's evidence about the colored plates,
Speaker 1: where Ian told the jury that the guests ate from
Speaker 1: larger gray plates while Aaron herself ate from a smaller
Speaker 1: orange tan plate.
Speaker 3: Justice Beale, so the prosecution argued that Ian was a
Speaker 3: compelling and reliable witness who had no doubt about what
Speaker 3: he had seen, he said. The prosecution also argued that
Speaker 3: Heather backed up Ian's claim when she told Simon that
Speaker 3: she remembered Erin serving the meal on different colored plates.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, Justice Bill said that the defense
Speaker 3: argued that it would have been smarter for Erin if
Speaker 3: she was planning to commit a murder to mark the
Speaker 3: pastry of the non poisonous beef Wellington before putting them
Speaker 3: all in the oven. Justice Bill added that the defense
Speaker 3: also said that on her evidence, Erin didn't own any
Speaker 3: gray plates and also said she didn't own a matching
Speaker 3: set of plates.
Speaker 1: Justice Bill then spoke about the fifth issue, related to
Speaker 1: whether Aaron allocated the plates.
Speaker 3: He said the prosecution argued that she allocated her own
Speaker 3: plate by picking it up and carrying it to the
Speaker 3: table on Ian's evidence, but the defense argued that without
Speaker 3: being told, Gail and Heather picked up two plates EA
Speaker 3: and carried them to the table in accordance with Aaron's testimony.
Speaker 1: He said the sixth and final issue related to whether
Speaker 1: Aaron engaged in incriminating conduct, referring the jury to the
Speaker 1: directions he gave them on this topic last week. Soon after,
Speaker 1: Justice Bilm moved onto the final topic of his charge,
Speaker 1: the verdict. He told the jurors their decision must be unanimous.
Speaker 1: He said, all twelve jurors must agree on each of
Speaker 1: the four separate charges that Aaron is guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 1: Justice Bill then said, the jury will be sequestered to
Speaker 1: a hotel.
Speaker 2: While you are sequestered, locked up. You'll deliberate Mondays to
Speaker 2: Saturdays here at the court in the privacy of the
Speaker 2: jury room. You will not deliberate on Sundays, but you'll
Speaker 2: still be sequested. You don't get to go home on Sundays.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Justice Bill explained that once they reach their verdicts, they
Speaker 3: can push a buzzer in the jury room and all
Speaker 3: the parties, include the prosecution and defense, will be notified
Speaker 3: to return to court.
Speaker 1: It was then time for the ballot. As our listeners
Speaker 1: will remember, there were fifteen jurors at the start of
Speaker 1: the trial. Then one got dismissed, so fourteen jurors came
Speaker 1: into court today. That that was cut to twelve because
Speaker 1: in trials only twelve jurors decide the fate of the accused.
Speaker 1: Before the two jurors were balloted off, Justice Bill thanked them.
Speaker 1: Here's what he said.
Speaker 2: Can I say a very warm thank you to those
Speaker 2: two people who will be balloted off. I don't know
Speaker 2: if you'll feel relieved or frustrated, but be assured you
Speaker 2: have made an important contribution to the administration of justice
Speaker 2: through your service.
Speaker 3: As our listeners heard at the top of the episode,
Speaker 3: the associate to Justice Beal then rose to his feet
Speaker 3: with that box with everyone's number inside before he called
Speaker 3: out for during number one hundred and five and number
Speaker 3: one hundred and six. These were two male jurors. They
Speaker 3: stood up made their way up out of the jury box,
Speaker 3: handed in their jury iPads, and then they were escorted
Speaker 3: out of the courtroom. The remainder of the jurors then
Speaker 3: took an oath or an affirmation to not discuss the
Speaker 3: case with anyone else. It was at this point that
Speaker 3: they retired to consider their verdicts. So the ballot took
Speaker 3: place at one pm. Justice Bill told the jury that
Speaker 3: they had lunch waiting for them in the jury room.
Speaker 3: After that the weight really began. Two hours went by
Speaker 3: and by the time it got to four pm no
Speaker 3: verdict had been reached. The jury were brought back into
Speaker 3: the courtroom, where Justice Beal wished them a pleasant break
Speaker 3: tonight after a long day. The juriors all brought their
Speaker 3: luggage to court today and after Justice Beal bid them farewell.
Speaker 3: They would have been busted to the local hotel where
Speaker 3: they're staying at and will spend the night together, but
Speaker 3: he gave them very strict instructions that they should not
Speaker 3: be deliberating or discussing the case while they're at the hotel.
Speaker 3: Those discussions are meant for the jury room. They will
Speaker 3: returned to court tomorrow before ten thirty am to recommence
Speaker 3: their deliberations.
Speaker 1: So now it's really just a waiting game, isn't it, Laura.
Speaker 3: It really is. We have no idea how long it
Speaker 3: will take this jury to reach their
Speaker 1: Verdicts, and while we wait, we will flag that we
Speaker 1: don't know when our next episode will be, So make
Speaker 1: sure you follow the show wherever you are listening to
Speaker 1: the podcast