Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
High listeners. As we said in yesterday's episode, there was
no jury today in the trial of Aaron Patterson, so
there is nothing we can report. But as you may know,
we have been running subscriber episodes with my colleague Anthony Dowsley,
so we thought we'd give you a sneak peek at
Sunday show. The jury has heard all the evidence it
(00:22):
will hear in the trial of Aaron Patterson. Now it's
up to the prosecution and the defense to close their
argument to discuss another week with Aaron on the stand.
I'm joined by veteran crime reporter Anthony Dowsley. I'm Brook
Greebert Craig, and this is the Mushroom Cook. Welcome back,
(00:43):
dows I'm sure the listeners are very happy to hear
your voice for a second episode this week.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Brook, It's been a pleasure. We are entering the finish
line and all the evidence is done. Yes, we don't
have to hear any more evidence after this. We just
need to hear a few closing comments and the judge.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
So Aaron's cross examination finished this week. Can you talk
our listeners through what was said?
Speaker 2 (01:10):
So for anyone who needs any brushing up on the
legal system. Aaron goes through what they call her examination
in chief, which is her own embarrasster asking her questions,
and then you face the prosecutor. In this case, in
Nanetta Rogers' sc and doctor Rogers was obviously as the prosecutor,
(01:35):
asking tough questions surrounding all of the evidence regarding all
of the witnesses that were relevant. And during the cross
examination it became a little bit like Aaron Patterson versus
their testimony of other witnesses, including her son's testimony. On
one or two points, it was versus Ian Wilkinson's testimony
(02:00):
and others such as medical staff.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
So can you talk us through each one of those points?
Where did she say that these witnesses were mistaken? Let's
start with her son.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
There were two points to this. Her son had given
a record of interview with police in the weeks after
July twenty nine, twenty twenty three, so it was in August,
and he told police that his mother had drunk coffee
(02:33):
the morning after the lunch. That was one of the points.
Now Aaron Patterson says she had diarrhea on that day,
and diarrhea has become a large part of this case.
It has been mentioned probably more than any other case
in living memory. So Aaron Patterson says, no, no, no,
(02:53):
I didn't drink coffee that morning. I drank herbal tea,
because the suggestion is from then Rogers, you wouldn't drink
coffee if you had diarrhea. Now at Rogers has also
suggested that Aaron Patterson is lying about a pill she
took the morning after the lunch or the day after
(03:16):
the lunch. Aaron Patterson says she took emmodium to suppress
her the RUMs. She's also suggested she didn't do that,
but back to her son's evidence, her son said that
they didn't stop at any point on the Sunday after
the lunch when he was being driven to flying lessons.
(03:38):
He's a budding pilot. In Aaron Patterson's evidence, she said
in something most people probably wouldn't want to reveal about themselves,
a private moment where she says she stopped the car
on the way to Tyab with the flying lessons were
going to be taken and she had to go and
have a pooh in the bush. That's not in his
(03:59):
eviden but she says he's mistaken about that, So that's
the sun, the Sun versus Aaron Patterson both their versions
of events.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Now let's move on to Ian Wilkinson. What did Aaron
claim that he was mistaken about.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Colored plates? All the colors of those plates. Ian Wilkinson
was one of the first few witnesses in this case,
and he said that they all ate from gray plates,
largish ones, and that Aaron Patterson had a smaller tan
(04:36):
or orange plate that she ate from. Now, Aaron Patterson says, no,
Ian Wilkinson is incorrect, that she had different colored plates,
but they were red and black and she had some
white ones and disputed this sort of more simplistic gray
(04:58):
or tan plate scenario. So that's the second person she
said was incorrect in their evidence.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Now, let's move on to Aaron's estranged husband, Simon Patterson.
What did Aaron dispute about his testimony?
Speaker 2 (05:15):
So there is a version of events that Aaron Patterson
has discussed in her testimony, and that is about an
interaction over the dehydrator that she bought the year of
the lunch. Aaron Patterson says that her estranged husband, Simon,
had a conversation with her in Monish Hospital in Clayton,
(05:39):
and that he said or accused her of asking the
question is that the dehydrator that you used to poison
my parents. The prosecution have contested this. They say no
such discussion took place. The evidence that the courtroom has
(06:03):
heard is that after this discussion Aaron Patterson leaves the
hospital at some point and drives back to Lean Gatha,
gets the dehydrata and dumps it at the nearby tip.
So another point where it's erin versus.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
A witness, and Aaron Patterson also disputed some of the
medical experts testimonies.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Right, So we heard from doctors and nurses during this
trial and one of the points that was raised was
that the medical experts, so they told Aaron Patterson that
her life was at risk when she turned up at
Leangath Hospital on the Monday after the lunch. Aaron Patterson says, no,
(06:52):
I wasn't told that. So it's another point of evidence
where there's a dispute about the of events that they
are recalling.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Thanks for listening and if you want to hear the rest,
either become a crime ex subscriber in Apple podcasts or
go to the mushroomcook dot com dot auf more