July 11, 2025 • 14 mins
In the absence of the jury, many discussions took place. But with the trial over, we can lift the lid on the revelations we could not report and the rulebreakers that have landed themselves in hot water as we reflect on the past 11 weeks.
The Mushroom Cook team is Brooke Grebert-Craig, Laura Placella, Anthony Dowsley, Jordy Atkinson and Jonty Burton
The Mushroom Cook is a Herald Sun production for True Crime Australia.
Go to themushroomcook.com.au for news, features, previous episodes and more
Subscribers get our bonus Sunday shows with crime reporter Anthony Dowsley. CrimeX subscribers: find this episode in your podcast feed
Subscribers to the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail, Adelaide Advertiser or News regional titles can listen through the App.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The trial of Aaron Patterson is done and dusted. Every
day we brought you into the courtroom and dissected what
the jury heard, but there was plenty that went on
behind the scenes. Now we can lift the lid. I'm
Brooke greeb At Craig and this is the mushroom cook. Hi, Laura,
(00:21):
We're back for another episode.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yes, let's get into it so our listeners may remember
that there were sometimes during the trial where the jury
had to leave the courtroom. There were discussions taking place
in their absence, and that meant that we couldn't report
on them because essentially that would defeat the purpose of
them leaving the room in the first place. But now
that the trial is over, we can lift the lid
(00:43):
on those discussions and bring those moments to our listeners.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yes, and the first moment came very early on during
the trial. Aaron's estranged husband, Simon Patterson, was giving evidence
and he revealed in the first ten seconds of his
testimony he was still married to her. Later that day,
Justice Christopher Bill had a small but important question. Here's
(01:08):
his exchange with Simon. These are their words, but not
their voices.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
There is a matter I need to raise with you.
In the absence of the jury. I made certain assumptions,
and I just want to confirm that those assumptions are correct.
The spouse of an accused person has a right to
object to giving evidence. I've assumed that from the history
of this matter, you've been informed of that right. No,
I didn't know. I couldn't.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I didn't know I had the right to object.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
But I don't object.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
I'm happy to proceed giving evidence. I'm willing to give evidence.
I think if I'd been offered that before, I still
would have said the same thing. I'm quite comfortable about that.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
And this was quite a shocking moment, and I remember
it quite vividly. Brooke. We were sitting in the overflow
room and this discussion was playing out between Justice Bill
and Simon, and there was maybe a moment there where
we all thought there was about to be a mis trial.
Because if Simon said to Justice bil that he didn't
want to continue giving evidence, he had already been on
(02:06):
the stand by that stage for a few hours and
that jury had heard what he had to say, so
he would have had to have left the witness box.
Justice Bier would have had to have told the jury
that they were no longer required, and they probably would
have impaneled a whole new jury to start things all
over again.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
And I think in this moment, we were actually sitting
next to each other and you actually grabbed my hand,
and we were all waiting in anticipation for Simon's response
because he took a few moments to actually think about
what he was going to reply, So we were really
on the edge of our seats.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Yeah, and it's hard to know exactly what happened here.
We can maybe assume that someone in the prosecution team
should have had that discussion with him, But at the
same time, this was a trial that centered around the
murders of his parents and his aunt and the attempted
murder of his uncle, so you can see why they
probably safely assumed that he would want to give evidence,
(03:01):
and I guess in the end that they were correct
with that assumption.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Okay, let's move on.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yes, So, as we've touched upon previously, Brook, the media
are subject to some really strict rules when it comes
to reporting on a trial, and the main rule at
play here is called sub judacy contempt. So this is
all about protecting an accused right to a fair trial,
So we can only publish what's heard by the jury
and we can't provide any commentary on the case. But
(03:28):
several media outlets landed themselves in hot water for breaching
this rule.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Yes, and this included controversial shock jocks kyl and Jackie
oh So. On their breakfast show on June sixteen, they
discussed the trial weeks before Aaron was found guilty of
triple murder and attempted murder. So we obtained audio of
that show before it was taken down by their publisher
(03:53):
Arn take a listen as to what they said.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Getting around keep seeing I have a red head. I mean,
does do it or not?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Like, what is the point to the jury?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Question? Is how strong is her case?
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Not strong? Not strong?
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Carl went on to say, come on.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Looking at it, wait until case too long.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
These courts should be in and out, decided and.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Moved on.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
One day.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Accused, right, and what am I going to get accused of?
Speaker 1 (04:35):
I can't even cook toast.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Hours later, Justice Beale raised this matter with the prosecution
and defense teams in the absence of the jury. Here
is what he said.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
I encourage all commentators to engage their brains before they
open their mouths, as they may otherwise land themselves and
their organizations in hot water. I will be referring this
morning's matter to the Office of Public Prosecution for contempt proceedings.
Our media unit will continue to closely monitor all media
in relation to commentary on this case, whether the commentary
(05:10):
be shock jocks, so called influences, social media commentators, or
legacy media.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
So I'm sure our listeners probably agree with us, but
Kyle's comments were very shocking and quite brazen.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Yeah, I agree. And Kyle and JACKIEO recently started broadcasting
in Melbourne, which meant that there was a potential chance
that jurors on their way to court that morning would
have been tuning into the show and could have heard
what they said.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
And I think from the perspective of the journalists who
were in court covering the case day in, day out,
it was quite disappointing to hear this being said, considering
Kyle and JACKIEO or any of their staff were not
in court at the time and covering the trial religiously
like we were.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
And this was particularly disappointing because they weren't the only ones.
So a few days earlier, on June five, The popular
Muma Mia out Loud podcast also landed itself in hot
water for publishing an episode that's speculated about Aaron's decision
to testify in her own trial. We don't have the
audio of this podcast. They took it down very swiftly,
(06:12):
but some of the things they told their listeners was
that it was rare for a defendant to take the stand,
that when you put yourself on the stand, that a
poor performance or ap peering nervous can really harm your case,
and that when you get cross examined, it puts you
in a very, very vulnerable position. They also went on
to speak about alleged female perpetrators and this whole idea
(06:33):
of how interesting it was that women choose poison as
a murder weapon.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
And obviously all of that is fine to talk about
now that the verdict has been handed down, but when
they released this episode, it was during that period where
we were under those strict regulations exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Justice Beale brought this up with the parties and he
said he would also consider proceedings against Muma Mea for
subjudacy contempt. He didn't go as far to say he
would refer them, but said he would consider it at
a more convenient time. He told the court that the
discussion they had on that podcast was full of highly
prejudicial expressions of opinion.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
So, Laura, what could actually happen to some of these publishers.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It's a bit unclear right now, because contemp proceedings can
be initiated against individuals, but it also can be initiated
against their employers. So in the case of kyl and
Jackie O, while it is possible that Kyle and Jackie
O themselves could be hauled before court and brought before
a judge or a magistrate, it's also possible that it
might have to be their employers that end up potentially
(07:34):
taking the fall for what they did. But it wasn't
only media outlets falling foul of the law, Rightbrook.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Yes, that's right. So earlier on in the trial and
the absence of the jury, Justice Bill came into the
court room and said, do you want me to ask
the juris if anybody attended a show in Melbourne on
the weekend. He didn't provide any context as to what
show this really was, But I had previously spoke to
(08:00):
a member of the public who had been attending the trial.
Every single day, and she attended a show on the
weekend that was called The Psychology of serial Killers. And
I kind of put two and two together and realized
that Justice bill was talking about this show in particular. So,
as it says in the title of this show, this
(08:22):
event was all about serial killers. It was hosted by
a clinical psychologist and criminal expert, and her name is
doctor Rachel Toles. And during this show she spoke about
Aaron Patterson and even plastered her face on a massive
scream among notorious serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Damer.
(08:45):
We understand that doctor Toles told the crowd of hundreds
that she believed Aaron was guilty, and obviously this is
a big no no.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I remember that moment. We were again sitting in the
overflow room. I remember a lot of the other court
reporters not quite knowing what Justice Biel was speaking about.
But you looked at me and you quickly sent me
information about the show, and we realized what was going on.
So after he brought up this show, there were some
discussions between the prosecution and the defense and Justice Spiel
(09:17):
about what should happen, and Justice Spiel asked, like you
said Brooke whether he should ask the jurors if they
attended a show in Melbourne. At first, the defense really
didn't want Justice Biele to touch this with a ten
foot poll. They didn't want him to even go there
and bring up this show, but it was decided that
something should be done. Justice Biele said to the parties,
(09:38):
I don't think ignorance is bliss in this situation, and
it's better to know than not know. I think we
have previously mentioned Justice Biel's tip staff, Stuart Hastings before.
He is like the manager of the courtroom that makes
sure everything runs smoothly. Justice Beiel asked mister Hastings to
go into the jury room to ask them whether any
(09:59):
of them attended event in Melbourne. So remember this was
quite funny at the time because essentially mister Hastings was
a covert spy going into the jury room to do
some sleuthing. So he's gone in. I think it only
took him about a minute until he returned.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
And once again in that moment, we were all on
the edge of our seats.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Yes, we don't know what the jurors do on the weekend,
while they do all live in the Gippsland area. Melbourne
isn't too far away, so he's come back into the
room and he started by saying there was one person
who attended an event in Melbourne and he kind of paused,
and I do wonder if this was for a dramatic effect,
and then he said and that was the.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Soccer and we all breathed a sigh of relief.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Yes, for sure. So it remains to be seen whether
or not the Carl and Jackie Oh Show, the Muma
mea Out Loud podcast or Doctor Toles will face any
contempt proceedings for the things they said during the trial.
But I'll definitely be keeping a close eye on this
because some of them may end up facing court.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
And the Supreme Court came back with some numbers this week.
They actually confirmed that the trial was the biggest matter
media wise that they had managed in recent history.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yeah. I don't know if this would have come as
a shock to many people, but it was great that
they actually confirmed that. They said more than two hundred
and fifty journalists and media outlets were signed up to
receive updates on the trial, and this included fifteen international
media outlets, nine authors, seven podcasts, seven documentary crews and
(11:34):
one television drama series that's huge. Yes, And there's so
much content that is yet to be produced. So while
some documentaries are close to airing, we know others may
be in production for quite a while to come. Will
you be watching any of them when they come out, Brook.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Oh, definitely. I think it would be super interesting to
see how other organizations tell the story.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, for sure. And the Supreme Court said that for
the most part, they were overall pleas by how everyone
behaved when it came to covering this trial, but they
said it was concerning to see some media outlets and
commentators attempting to cover the case despite having no direct
contact with the trial and no real understanding of their
legal responsibilities. They confirmed that sixteen directions were given to
(12:19):
remove content and this included against four individuals on social media,
and that was mostly for breaches of sub judacy contempt.
So it'll be interesting to see how all of that
plays out. But for now, for us, we'll be taking
a break from daily podcasting, but there will come a
point where we'll be back for as we've flagged previously,
Erin's pre sentence hearing and then after that Justice Biel
(12:43):
will sentence Erin for triple murder and attempted murder.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
But the next show we have will be mid next
week Andrew Rule from our sister podcast Life and Crimes
will present a program on women who poison and I
just wanted to take this opportunity to say a big
thanks to all our listeners. We really appreciate the support
of The Mushroom Cook. We read all of the comments
and we really appreciate all the feedback that we have
(13:09):
received over the last eleven weeks.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And while we're on the topic of thank yous, we
also want to say a massive thank you to all
of our colleagues and friends who have helped us produce
The Mushroom Cook. From those who lended their voices to
bring the courtroom drama to life, to our lawyers at
Thompson Gear who made sure they stayed awake to listen
to our episodes before they went live. And to our editors,
chiefs of staff and colleagues who have supported us throughout
(13:34):
this whole process.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
And thanks so much Laura for being a big part
of season two of The Mushroom Cook. I think our
listeners have really appreciated your skills and expertise.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Oh, thank you so much, Brook, that's really sweet and
I also want to say thank you to you as well.
You have dedicated many hours to this podcast and we
all appreciate your efforts very much.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Thanks Laura and until next time see you then, thanks
again for listening. This is a herald some production for
True Crime Australia. It's presented and rewarded by Brook Greebert Craig,
Laura Placella and Anthony Dowsley. Our executive producer is Jordie Atkinson.
The Mushroom Cook is produced, written and edited by John
(14:15):
ty Burton
The trial of Aaron Patterson is done and dusted. Every
day we brought you into the courtroom and dissected what
the jury heard, but there was plenty that went on
behind the scenes. Now we can lift the lid. I'm
Brooke greeb At Craig and this is the mushroom cook. Hi, Laura,
(00:21):
We're back for another episode.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yes, let's get into it so our listeners may remember
that there were sometimes during the trial where the jury
had to leave the courtroom. There were discussions taking place
in their absence, and that meant that we couldn't report
on them because essentially that would defeat the purpose of
them leaving the room in the first place. But now
that the trial is over, we can lift the lid
(00:43):
on those discussions and bring those moments to our listeners.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yes, and the first moment came very early on during
the trial. Aaron's estranged husband, Simon Patterson, was giving evidence
and he revealed in the first ten seconds of his
testimony he was still married to her. Later that day,
Justice Christopher Bill had a small but important question. Here's
(01:08):
his exchange with Simon. These are their words, but not
their voices.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
There is a matter I need to raise with you.
In the absence of the jury. I made certain assumptions,
and I just want to confirm that those assumptions are correct.
The spouse of an accused person has a right to
object to giving evidence. I've assumed that from the history
of this matter, you've been informed of that right. No,
I didn't know. I couldn't.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I didn't know I had the right to object.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
But I don't object.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
I'm happy to proceed giving evidence. I'm willing to give evidence.
I think if I'd been offered that before, I still
would have said the same thing. I'm quite comfortable about that.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
And this was quite a shocking moment, and I remember
it quite vividly. Brooke. We were sitting in the overflow
room and this discussion was playing out between Justice Bill
and Simon, and there was maybe a moment there where
we all thought there was about to be a mis trial.
Because if Simon said to Justice bil that he didn't
want to continue giving evidence, he had already been on
(02:06):
the stand by that stage for a few hours and
that jury had heard what he had to say, so
he would have had to have left the witness box.
Justice Bier would have had to have told the jury
that they were no longer required, and they probably would
have impaneled a whole new jury to start things all
over again.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
And I think in this moment, we were actually sitting
next to each other and you actually grabbed my hand,
and we were all waiting in anticipation for Simon's response
because he took a few moments to actually think about
what he was going to reply, So we were really
on the edge of our seats.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Yeah, and it's hard to know exactly what happened here.
We can maybe assume that someone in the prosecution team
should have had that discussion with him, But at the
same time, this was a trial that centered around the
murders of his parents and his aunt and the attempted
murder of his uncle, so you can see why they
probably safely assumed that he would want to give evidence,
(03:01):
and I guess in the end that they were correct
with that assumption.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Okay, let's move on.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yes, So, as we've touched upon previously, Brook, the media
are subject to some really strict rules when it comes
to reporting on a trial, and the main rule at
play here is called sub judacy contempt. So this is
all about protecting an accused right to a fair trial,
So we can only publish what's heard by the jury
and we can't provide any commentary on the case. But
(03:28):
several media outlets landed themselves in hot water for breaching
this rule.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Yes, and this included controversial shock jocks kyl and Jackie
oh So. On their breakfast show on June sixteen, they
discussed the trial weeks before Aaron was found guilty of
triple murder and attempted murder. So we obtained audio of
that show before it was taken down by their publisher
(03:53):
Arn take a listen as to what they said.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Getting around keep seeing I have a red head. I mean,
does do it or not?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Like, what is the point to the jury?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Question? Is how strong is her case?
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Not strong? Not strong?
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Carl went on to say, come on.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Looking at it, wait until case too long.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
These courts should be in and out, decided and.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Moved on.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
One day.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Accused, right, and what am I going to get accused of?
Speaker 1 (04:35):
I can't even cook toast.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Hours later, Justice Beale raised this matter with the prosecution
and defense teams in the absence of the jury. Here
is what he said.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
I encourage all commentators to engage their brains before they
open their mouths, as they may otherwise land themselves and
their organizations in hot water. I will be referring this
morning's matter to the Office of Public Prosecution for contempt proceedings.
Our media unit will continue to closely monitor all media
in relation to commentary on this case, whether the commentary
(05:10):
be shock jocks, so called influences, social media commentators, or
legacy media.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
So I'm sure our listeners probably agree with us, but
Kyle's comments were very shocking and quite brazen.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Yeah, I agree. And Kyle and JACKIEO recently started broadcasting
in Melbourne, which meant that there was a potential chance
that jurors on their way to court that morning would
have been tuning into the show and could have heard
what they said.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
And I think from the perspective of the journalists who
were in court covering the case day in, day out,
it was quite disappointing to hear this being said, considering
Kyle and JACKIEO or any of their staff were not
in court at the time and covering the trial religiously
like we were.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
And this was particularly disappointing because they weren't the only ones.
So a few days earlier, on June five, The popular
Muma Mia out Loud podcast also landed itself in hot
water for publishing an episode that's speculated about Aaron's decision
to testify in her own trial. We don't have the
audio of this podcast. They took it down very swiftly,
(06:12):
but some of the things they told their listeners was
that it was rare for a defendant to take the stand,
that when you put yourself on the stand, that a
poor performance or ap peering nervous can really harm your case,
and that when you get cross examined, it puts you
in a very, very vulnerable position. They also went on
to speak about alleged female perpetrators and this whole idea
(06:33):
of how interesting it was that women choose poison as
a murder weapon.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
And obviously all of that is fine to talk about
now that the verdict has been handed down, but when
they released this episode, it was during that period where
we were under those strict regulations exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Justice Beale brought this up with the parties and he
said he would also consider proceedings against Muma Mea for
subjudacy contempt. He didn't go as far to say he
would refer them, but said he would consider it at
a more convenient time. He told the court that the
discussion they had on that podcast was full of highly
prejudicial expressions of opinion.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
So, Laura, what could actually happen to some of these publishers.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It's a bit unclear right now, because contemp proceedings can
be initiated against individuals, but it also can be initiated
against their employers. So in the case of kyl and
Jackie O, while it is possible that Kyle and Jackie
O themselves could be hauled before court and brought before
a judge or a magistrate, it's also possible that it
might have to be their employers that end up potentially
(07:34):
taking the fall for what they did. But it wasn't
only media outlets falling foul of the law, Rightbrook.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Yes, that's right. So earlier on in the trial and
the absence of the jury, Justice Bill came into the
court room and said, do you want me to ask
the juris if anybody attended a show in Melbourne on
the weekend. He didn't provide any context as to what
show this really was, But I had previously spoke to
(08:00):
a member of the public who had been attending the trial.
Every single day, and she attended a show on the
weekend that was called The Psychology of serial Killers. And
I kind of put two and two together and realized
that Justice bill was talking about this show in particular. So,
as it says in the title of this show, this
(08:22):
event was all about serial killers. It was hosted by
a clinical psychologist and criminal expert, and her name is
doctor Rachel Toles. And during this show she spoke about
Aaron Patterson and even plastered her face on a massive
scream among notorious serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Damer.
(08:45):
We understand that doctor Toles told the crowd of hundreds
that she believed Aaron was guilty, and obviously this is
a big no no.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I remember that moment. We were again sitting in the
overflow room. I remember a lot of the other court
reporters not quite knowing what Justice Biel was speaking about.
But you looked at me and you quickly sent me
information about the show, and we realized what was going on.
So after he brought up this show, there were some
discussions between the prosecution and the defense and Justice Spiel
(09:17):
about what should happen, and Justice Spiel asked, like you
said Brooke whether he should ask the jurors if they
attended a show in Melbourne. At first, the defense really
didn't want Justice Biele to touch this with a ten
foot poll. They didn't want him to even go there
and bring up this show, but it was decided that
something should be done. Justice Biele said to the parties,
(09:38):
I don't think ignorance is bliss in this situation, and
it's better to know than not know. I think we
have previously mentioned Justice Biel's tip staff, Stuart Hastings before.
He is like the manager of the courtroom that makes
sure everything runs smoothly. Justice Beiel asked mister Hastings to
go into the jury room to ask them whether any
(09:59):
of them attended event in Melbourne. So remember this was
quite funny at the time because essentially mister Hastings was
a covert spy going into the jury room to do
some sleuthing. So he's gone in. I think it only
took him about a minute until he returned.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
And once again in that moment, we were all on
the edge of our seats.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Yes, we don't know what the jurors do on the weekend,
while they do all live in the Gippsland area. Melbourne
isn't too far away, so he's come back into the
room and he started by saying there was one person
who attended an event in Melbourne and he kind of paused,
and I do wonder if this was for a dramatic effect,
and then he said and that was the.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Soccer and we all breathed a sigh of relief.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Yes, for sure. So it remains to be seen whether
or not the Carl and Jackie Oh Show, the Muma
mea Out Loud podcast or Doctor Toles will face any
contempt proceedings for the things they said during the trial.
But I'll definitely be keeping a close eye on this
because some of them may end up facing court.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
And the Supreme Court came back with some numbers this week.
They actually confirmed that the trial was the biggest matter
media wise that they had managed in recent history.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yeah. I don't know if this would have come as
a shock to many people, but it was great that
they actually confirmed that. They said more than two hundred
and fifty journalists and media outlets were signed up to
receive updates on the trial, and this included fifteen international
media outlets, nine authors, seven podcasts, seven documentary crews and
(11:34):
one television drama series that's huge. Yes, And there's so
much content that is yet to be produced. So while
some documentaries are close to airing, we know others may
be in production for quite a while to come. Will
you be watching any of them when they come out, Brook.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Oh, definitely. I think it would be super interesting to
see how other organizations tell the story.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, for sure. And the Supreme Court said that for
the most part, they were overall pleas by how everyone
behaved when it came to covering this trial, but they
said it was concerning to see some media outlets and
commentators attempting to cover the case despite having no direct
contact with the trial and no real understanding of their
legal responsibilities. They confirmed that sixteen directions were given to
(12:19):
remove content and this included against four individuals on social media,
and that was mostly for breaches of sub judacy contempt.
So it'll be interesting to see how all of that
plays out. But for now, for us, we'll be taking
a break from daily podcasting, but there will come a
point where we'll be back for as we've flagged previously,
Erin's pre sentence hearing and then after that Justice Biel
(12:43):
will sentence Erin for triple murder and attempted murder.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
But the next show we have will be mid next
week Andrew Rule from our sister podcast Life and Crimes
will present a program on women who poison and I
just wanted to take this opportunity to say a big
thanks to all our listeners. We really appreciate the support
of The Mushroom Cook. We read all of the comments
and we really appreciate all the feedback that we have
(13:09):
received over the last eleven weeks.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And while we're on the topic of thank yous, we
also want to say a massive thank you to all
of our colleagues and friends who have helped us produce
The Mushroom Cook. From those who lended their voices to
bring the courtroom drama to life, to our lawyers at
Thompson Gear who made sure they stayed awake to listen
to our episodes before they went live. And to our editors,
chiefs of staff and colleagues who have supported us throughout
(13:34):
this whole process.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
And thanks so much Laura for being a big part
of season two of The Mushroom Cook. I think our
listeners have really appreciated your skills and expertise.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Oh, thank you so much, Brook, that's really sweet and
I also want to say thank you to you as well.
You have dedicated many hours to this podcast and we
all appreciate your efforts very much.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Thanks Laura and until next time see you then, thanks
again for listening. This is a herald some production for
True Crime Australia. It's presented and rewarded by Brook Greebert Craig,
Laura Placella and Anthony Dowsley. Our executive producer is Jordie Atkinson.
The Mushroom Cook is produced, written and edited by John
(14:15):
ty Burton
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.