November 28, 2025 • 11 mins
As the year draws to a close, the team explores the latest updates in the ongoing Mushroom Cook saga.
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
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):
It's been a while since we have updated you on
the ins and outs of the ongoing saga of the
Mushroom Cook. But now at the end of November, there
are a few interesting developments we can wrap up. I'm
Brooke Greebert Craig and this is the Mushroom Cook. Hi, Laura,
(00:21):
it's been a while since we've been on the mics.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
It has been, but it's so good to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Let's give a wrap up to our listeners as to
everything that's happened over the last month and a half.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
So the last time we were here, we really did
break down those two appeals, So to remind our listeners,
the prosecution is appealing Erin's sentence, which was a life
sentence with a non parole period of thirty three years.
But on the other hand, Erin is appealing her conviction
and now we know the reasons.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Why, and there's seven, aren't there.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Yes, there are seven, so we'll go through them now.
But overall, Erin wants a retrial, so she wants to
do this all over again because she's says there were
six substantial miscarriages of justice and then additionally she's saying
that there was a fundamental irregularity with the jury. So
maybe let's start with that one, because it was at
(01:12):
the top of her appeal documents. She says this irregularity
occurred while the jury were sequestered during that week of deliberations.
It came out after the trial that the hotel the
jury members were staying at actually had a few other
guests as well that were involved in the trial. There
was the informant, the lead investigator, Stephen Eppingstall, but there
(01:34):
was also two members of the prosecution team, not the barristers,
but other lawyers that work behind the scenes. The court
confirmed that this was the case, that the jury members
were staying at the same hotel as these other individuals.
It was raised with the parties at the time, and
just as Christopher Beal said that he was told there
had been no interaction between them and the jury. But
(01:58):
Aaron says, the simple fact this occurred has fatally undermined
the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of
her convictions and an order for a retrial, because she
says justice cannot only be done, but it must be
seen to be done.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
And there was another ground about her cross examination.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
There was and this one is quite interesting, as our
listeners will remember, Erin elected to give evidence in her
own trial, and she spent many days in the witness box.
She was cross examined by Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers for
five days, and now she says that was actually unfair
and oppressive and as a result it has led to
(02:40):
one of those things we were talking about before, a
substantial miscarriage of justice. It will be intriguing to see
how this plays out in any potential appeal hearing, because
Erin knew when she chose to give evidence that she
would be cross examined, and she would be cross examined
at length. It's not something she can say that she
didn't see coming. Another ground that does revolve around doctor
(03:03):
Rogers is about her closing address. Aaron says, despite doctor
Rogers opening the case for the prosecution on the basis
that there was no evidence of motive, she ended up
changing tact and Aaron says that by the time the
closing address came round, doctor Rogers was implying that there
was in fact a motive for murder.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Aaron says that doctor Rogers was implying a motive by
mentioning the child support.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Dispute, and also just the general tensions between Erin and
the wider Patterson family. Sticking on the same topic, Aaron
says the closing address in and of itself also caused
a substantial miscarriage of justice, but she doesn't specifically elaborate why,
and I will just say that the appeal paperwork that
we were given by the court is very brief. There
(03:49):
are other appeal documents that would need to be filed
by her team, but what is provided to us is
just the simple notice that outlines those seven grounds in
very brief terms.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Three or relate to the evidence.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
That's right. So one of the grounds relates specifically to
the cell tower evidence and the evidence stemming from the
Ironaturalists website, specifically those sightings in Locke and Outram. Erin
says both the cell tower evidence and the Iroe Naturalist
evidence never should have made its way into her trial.
She says it simply wasn't relevant, or that the strength
(04:26):
of this evidence was outweighed by the unfair prejudice it brought.
Another tranche of evidence that Aaron took issue with was
the Facebook evidence, specifically the evidence from her Facebook friends
and the messages that came along with it.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Yes, there were some pretty salacious comments that Aaron made
to her Facebook friends about Donningale and Simon TiO.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yes, and that included the infamous f them quote that
did get mentioned quite a lot throughout the trial and
was one of those things that did get raised in
the closing address by Dr Rogers that Erin is saying
was I'm play lying a motive. And the final ground,
which probably is the one that I'd say is the
most confusing, relates to a ruling that Justice Bill made
(05:08):
that certain photos and videos of mushrooms found on an
SD card were inadmissible during the prosecution case. Erin says
that they should have been admissible to help explain that, though,
I'll just provide a little bit of context, because I
don't think we touched on it in any of our
episodes after the verdict. But there were many points during
(05:29):
the trial where the jury had to leave the courtroom
because there were legal arguments playing out before Justice Biel.
One of these arguments came towards the end of the
prosecution case, where Erin's defense barrister Colin Mandy, was pushing
for photos of foraged mushrooms that were found on an
SD card to be included in the prosecution case when
(05:51):
the prosecution actually had no plans to include them themselves.
This was put to Justice Biel, and he ended up
ruling that these photos shouldn't be included in the prosecution
case because he didn't deem them to be relevant enough
because the metadata on the photos suggested that they were
taken years before the lunch had taken place. But I
remember at the time there being quite a lot of
(06:11):
discussion amongst US journalists that the whole reason why mister
Mandy was fighting so hard for these photos to be
part of the prosecution case, so potentially he didn't actually
have to call Erin as a witness, because our listeners
will remember that within only a day of Erin giving evidence,
she was speaking about how she had foraged before and
how it was something she was quite passionate about. But
(06:33):
it may have been the case that if these photos
actually formed part of the prosecution case, she never would
have needed to take the stand at all.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Yes, it's a bit complex, but Erin is essentially saying
that these photos should have been a part of the
prosecution case. So, Laura, what have we now learned about
the prosecution's appeal.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
So, unlike Erin, the prosecution only have two grounds of appeal.
They've kept it pretty simple. Their main one is that
Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate. They say that it was
inappropriate for Justice Beieal to fix a non parole period,
and that the non parole period in and of itself
is also manifestly inadequate. To translate that, they're essentially saying
(07:12):
that they believe Erin should be re sentenced to life
without parole. That was the argument they took to the
pre sentenced hearing, where Crown Prosecutor Jane Warren said to
Justice Biel that the crimes Erin committed were so horrific,
so cruel, and so callous that she was not deserving
of mercy. But ultimately we know that when sentencing Erin,
(07:36):
Justice Biale said he believed there was a substantial chance
she would be held in solitary confinement for years, if
not decades, given her notoriety. He said that this was
a very important and weighty consideration, and he said as
a result he would be fixing a non parole period.
But that conclusion that Justice Bill made that he believed
there was a substantial chance she would be held in
(07:58):
solitary confinement for years is to come. That forms the
other half of the prosecution's appeal. Their second ground is
that he was wrong to make that conclusion. They say
that such a finding was not open on the evidence,
and to quote them, they said that that finding actually
infected his decision to fix a non parole period. So
(08:20):
this is something they'll be asking the Court of Appeal
to reconsider and it will then be up to them
whether Erin is re sentenced or whether they deem that
the sentence should stand.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
So when will all of this play out?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Then we don't have a date yet, but it's not
uncommon for appeals to take months to put together. There
obviously already has been paperwork filed, but it doesn't mean
that there aren't other processes playing out in the background
before we can actually get to the hearing before three
Court of Appeal justices. So all I can really say
is stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
And there's an update with the Carl and Jackie O.
Potential contempt charges isn't there?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
And potential is almost the key word because now we
know that that's not happening. Here's a clip of one
of their segments that aired during the trial, getting around
this peg, like I keep seeing I have a red head?
Speaker 1 (09:11):
I mean does it do it?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Or not? Yeah? Like what is the jury is? How
strong is her case?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Not strong? Not strong? For Carl went on to say,
come on by looking at it, wait until case too long.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
These cords should be in and out, decided and.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Moved on one day.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
You accused, right?
Speaker 1 (09:39):
And what am I going to get accused of? I
can't even cook.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
We have touched upon it in a previous episode. But
contempt pretty much protects and accused right to a fair
trial by preventing us, the media, and others from publishing
information that has a real and definite tendency to prejudice
the trial. So the Office of Public Prosecutions would have
been listening to that clip themselves and considering whether or
(10:07):
not what they said had a clear tendency to prejudice
Aaron's trial. But in that it was considered that the
required elements of contempt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
and accordingly there were no reasonable prospects of conviction for
not only this incident, but actually two others.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Yes, that's correct. The Muma mea out Loud podcast and
a presentation titled the Psychology of Serial Killers will also
not be prosecuted for contempt.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Yes, that presentation you mentioned was by doctor Rachel Toles
and it was that show she hosted in Melbourne where
we understand she told hundreds of people in the crowd
that she believed Erin was guilty. And that was again
while the trial was being held.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Yes, and that's obviously a big no no. And with
mma Mer's podcasts, they discussed why they thought Erin was testifying,
and they also discussed woman's method of poisoning.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
And running a commentary during a trial. Is, like you said, Brook,
another no no, but clearly not enough to land them
before the courts.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
And I think that's all for the updates for now. Yeah,
pretty much, Brook, Now, Laura, will there be another update
in this case before the end of the year.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
I'd say it's unlikely, but I think we've come to
realize with this case that we really never know. I've
said it before, but I'll say it again. We really
just have to watch this space.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
You're right about that. Now. We just wanted to thank
all of our listeners for tuning into the Mushroom cook
throughout this year. It's been a massive journey, but we
appreciate you tuning in.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Until next time, Brook, see ya.
It's been a while since we have updated you on
the ins and outs of the ongoing saga of the
Mushroom Cook. But now at the end of November, there
are a few interesting developments we can wrap up. I'm
Brooke Greebert Craig and this is the Mushroom Cook. Hi, Laura,
(00:21):
it's been a while since we've been on the mics.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
It has been, but it's so good to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Let's give a wrap up to our listeners as to
everything that's happened over the last month and a half.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
So the last time we were here, we really did
break down those two appeals, So to remind our listeners,
the prosecution is appealing Erin's sentence, which was a life
sentence with a non parole period of thirty three years.
But on the other hand, Erin is appealing her conviction
and now we know the reasons.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Why, and there's seven, aren't there.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Yes, there are seven, so we'll go through them now.
But overall, Erin wants a retrial, so she wants to
do this all over again because she's says there were
six substantial miscarriages of justice and then additionally she's saying
that there was a fundamental irregularity with the jury. So
maybe let's start with that one, because it was at
(01:12):
the top of her appeal documents. She says this irregularity
occurred while the jury were sequestered during that week of deliberations.
It came out after the trial that the hotel the
jury members were staying at actually had a few other
guests as well that were involved in the trial. There
was the informant, the lead investigator, Stephen Eppingstall, but there
(01:34):
was also two members of the prosecution team, not the barristers,
but other lawyers that work behind the scenes. The court
confirmed that this was the case, that the jury members
were staying at the same hotel as these other individuals.
It was raised with the parties at the time, and
just as Christopher Beal said that he was told there
had been no interaction between them and the jury. But
(01:58):
Aaron says, the simple fact this occurred has fatally undermined
the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of
her convictions and an order for a retrial, because she
says justice cannot only be done, but it must be
seen to be done.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
And there was another ground about her cross examination.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
There was and this one is quite interesting, as our
listeners will remember, Erin elected to give evidence in her
own trial, and she spent many days in the witness box.
She was cross examined by Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers for
five days, and now she says that was actually unfair
and oppressive and as a result it has led to
(02:40):
one of those things we were talking about before, a
substantial miscarriage of justice. It will be intriguing to see
how this plays out in any potential appeal hearing, because
Erin knew when she chose to give evidence that she
would be cross examined, and she would be cross examined
at length. It's not something she can say that she
didn't see coming. Another ground that does revolve around doctor
(03:03):
Rogers is about her closing address. Aaron says, despite doctor
Rogers opening the case for the prosecution on the basis
that there was no evidence of motive, she ended up
changing tact and Aaron says that by the time the
closing address came round, doctor Rogers was implying that there
was in fact a motive for murder.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Aaron says that doctor Rogers was implying a motive by
mentioning the child support.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Dispute, and also just the general tensions between Erin and
the wider Patterson family. Sticking on the same topic, Aaron
says the closing address in and of itself also caused
a substantial miscarriage of justice, but she doesn't specifically elaborate why,
and I will just say that the appeal paperwork that
we were given by the court is very brief. There
(03:49):
are other appeal documents that would need to be filed
by her team, but what is provided to us is
just the simple notice that outlines those seven grounds in
very brief terms.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Three or relate to the evidence.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
That's right. So one of the grounds relates specifically to
the cell tower evidence and the evidence stemming from the
Ironaturalists website, specifically those sightings in Locke and Outram. Erin
says both the cell tower evidence and the Iroe Naturalist
evidence never should have made its way into her trial.
She says it simply wasn't relevant, or that the strength
(04:26):
of this evidence was outweighed by the unfair prejudice it brought.
Another tranche of evidence that Aaron took issue with was
the Facebook evidence, specifically the evidence from her Facebook friends
and the messages that came along with it.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Yes, there were some pretty salacious comments that Aaron made
to her Facebook friends about Donningale and Simon TiO.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yes, and that included the infamous f them quote that
did get mentioned quite a lot throughout the trial and
was one of those things that did get raised in
the closing address by Dr Rogers that Erin is saying
was I'm play lying a motive. And the final ground,
which probably is the one that I'd say is the
most confusing, relates to a ruling that Justice Bill made
(05:08):
that certain photos and videos of mushrooms found on an
SD card were inadmissible during the prosecution case. Erin says
that they should have been admissible to help explain that, though,
I'll just provide a little bit of context, because I
don't think we touched on it in any of our
episodes after the verdict. But there were many points during
(05:29):
the trial where the jury had to leave the courtroom
because there were legal arguments playing out before Justice Biel.
One of these arguments came towards the end of the
prosecution case, where Erin's defense barrister Colin Mandy, was pushing
for photos of foraged mushrooms that were found on an
SD card to be included in the prosecution case when
(05:51):
the prosecution actually had no plans to include them themselves.
This was put to Justice Biel, and he ended up
ruling that these photos shouldn't be included in the prosecution
case because he didn't deem them to be relevant enough
because the metadata on the photos suggested that they were
taken years before the lunch had taken place. But I
remember at the time there being quite a lot of
(06:11):
discussion amongst US journalists that the whole reason why mister
Mandy was fighting so hard for these photos to be
part of the prosecution case, so potentially he didn't actually
have to call Erin as a witness, because our listeners
will remember that within only a day of Erin giving evidence,
she was speaking about how she had foraged before and
how it was something she was quite passionate about. But
(06:33):
it may have been the case that if these photos
actually formed part of the prosecution case, she never would
have needed to take the stand at all.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Yes, it's a bit complex, but Erin is essentially saying
that these photos should have been a part of the
prosecution case. So, Laura, what have we now learned about
the prosecution's appeal.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
So, unlike Erin, the prosecution only have two grounds of appeal.
They've kept it pretty simple. Their main one is that
Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate. They say that it was
inappropriate for Justice Beieal to fix a non parole period,
and that the non parole period in and of itself
is also manifestly inadequate. To translate that, they're essentially saying
(07:12):
that they believe Erin should be re sentenced to life
without parole. That was the argument they took to the
pre sentenced hearing, where Crown Prosecutor Jane Warren said to
Justice Biel that the crimes Erin committed were so horrific,
so cruel, and so callous that she was not deserving
of mercy. But ultimately we know that when sentencing Erin,
(07:36):
Justice Biale said he believed there was a substantial chance
she would be held in solitary confinement for years, if
not decades, given her notoriety. He said that this was
a very important and weighty consideration, and he said as
a result he would be fixing a non parole period.
But that conclusion that Justice Bill made that he believed
there was a substantial chance she would be held in
(07:58):
solitary confinement for years is to come. That forms the
other half of the prosecution's appeal. Their second ground is
that he was wrong to make that conclusion. They say
that such a finding was not open on the evidence,
and to quote them, they said that that finding actually
infected his decision to fix a non parole period. So
(08:20):
this is something they'll be asking the Court of Appeal
to reconsider and it will then be up to them
whether Erin is re sentenced or whether they deem that
the sentence should stand.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
So when will all of this play out?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Then we don't have a date yet, but it's not
uncommon for appeals to take months to put together. There
obviously already has been paperwork filed, but it doesn't mean
that there aren't other processes playing out in the background
before we can actually get to the hearing before three
Court of Appeal justices. So all I can really say
is stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
And there's an update with the Carl and Jackie O.
Potential contempt charges isn't there?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
And potential is almost the key word because now we
know that that's not happening. Here's a clip of one
of their segments that aired during the trial, getting around
this peg, like I keep seeing I have a red head?
Speaker 1 (09:11):
I mean does it do it?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Or not? Yeah? Like what is the jury is? How
strong is her case?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Not strong? Not strong? For Carl went on to say,
come on by looking at it, wait until case too long.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
These cords should be in and out, decided and.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Moved on one day.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
You accused, right?
Speaker 1 (09:39):
And what am I going to get accused of? I
can't even cook.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
We have touched upon it in a previous episode. But
contempt pretty much protects and accused right to a fair
trial by preventing us, the media, and others from publishing
information that has a real and definite tendency to prejudice
the trial. So the Office of Public Prosecutions would have
been listening to that clip themselves and considering whether or
(10:07):
not what they said had a clear tendency to prejudice
Aaron's trial. But in that it was considered that the
required elements of contempt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
and accordingly there were no reasonable prospects of conviction for
not only this incident, but actually two others.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Yes, that's correct. The Muma mea out Loud podcast and
a presentation titled the Psychology of Serial Killers will also
not be prosecuted for contempt.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Yes, that presentation you mentioned was by doctor Rachel Toles
and it was that show she hosted in Melbourne where
we understand she told hundreds of people in the crowd
that she believed Erin was guilty. And that was again
while the trial was being held.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Yes, and that's obviously a big no no. And with
mma Mer's podcasts, they discussed why they thought Erin was testifying,
and they also discussed woman's method of poisoning.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
And running a commentary during a trial. Is, like you said, Brook,
another no no, but clearly not enough to land them
before the courts.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
And I think that's all for the updates for now. Yeah,
pretty much, Brook, Now, Laura, will there be another update
in this case before the end of the year.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
I'd say it's unlikely, but I think we've come to
realize with this case that we really never know. I've
said it before, but I'll say it again. We really
just have to watch this space.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
You're right about that. Now. We just wanted to thank
all of our listeners for tuning into the Mushroom cook
throughout this year. It's been a massive journey, but we
appreciate you tuning in.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Until next time, Brook, see ya.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Male Room with Dr. Jesse Mills
As Director of The Men’s Clinic at UCLA, Dr. Jesse Mills has spent his career helping men understand their bodies, their hormones, and their health. Now he’s bringing that expertise to The Male Room — a podcast where data-driven medicine meets common sense. Each episode separates fact from hype, science from snake oil, and gives men the tools to live longer, stronger, and happier lives. With candor, humor, and real-world experience from the exam room and the operating room, Dr. Mills breaks down the latest health headlines, dissects trends, and explains what actually works — and what doesn’t. Smart, straightforward, and entertaining, The Male Room is the show that helps men take charge of their health without the jargon.