June 30, 2025 • 14 mins
The fate of accused triple murderer Erin Patterson now rests in the hands of twelve jurors. But before deliberations could commence, there was a ballot to bring the jury down to a dozen.
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):
After forty days, the jury in the trial of Aaron
Patterson was ready to deliberate. But before that could happen,
the Associate to Justice Christopher Bill how a box over
his head. He shuffled some papers inside, pulled out two
and read what was on them to the court. What
was on these papers were numbers.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Dura one oh five, Dura one oh six.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
These were the numbers of the two jurors who would
no longer be required. They handed in their court iPads
and left. And with that the jury of seven men
and five women retired to consider their verdicts, the fate
of Aaron Patterson in their hands. I'm Brooke Greebert Craig,
and this is the Mushroom Cook. It's the start of
(00:53):
week ten of Aaron Patterson's murder trial, and once again
I'm joined by my colleague, court reporter Laura Plaseller, and.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
We're coming to our listeners from our new podcast studio.
We had to shift Airbnbs, so we've set up in
a new place here, inter realgen So if we sound
a little bit different, that's why.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
It almost feels strange after forty episodes to be in
a new place. But here we are and let's get started.
So listeners would have heard at the start of the
episode about the ballot process where fourteen jurors got cut
to twelve, but we'll speak more on that a bit later.
First up today, Justice Bill continued his charge to the
(01:33):
jury and returned to the topic of credit lies alleged
by the prosecution last week. He explained to the jury
that credit lies can only be used to assess and
accuse credibility and cannot be used as evidence they committed
the offenses.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Our listeners may remember that Justice Beal said last week
that there were four credit lies alleged by the prosecution.
The first was erin lying to police about being very
very helpful during the Department of Health investigation, and today
he touched on the remaining three. He said the prosecution
also alleged that Aaron lied about the reason she invited
(02:10):
her guests to the lunch, lied about what she said
at the lunch about ovarian cancer, and lied about planning
to undergo gastric bypass surgery at the Enrich Clinic in Melbourne.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Justice Bill then moved on to how the jury can
use the alleged credit lies if they find them to
be lies. He said, they can be used to determine
whether the other things Aaron said to other witnesses and
during her testimony were true. He warned the jury not
to reason that simply because a person is shown to
have told lies, they must be guilty. After this, Justice
(02:45):
Bill moved on to circumstantial or indirect evidence versus direct evidence.
He said it was not safe in a criminal trial
for a jury to engage in guesswork.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
He returned to the analogy used by the prosecution in
its close address in relation to thinking about the evidence
as puzzle pieces, but this was something that defense barrister
Colin Mandy took some issue with in his own closing address,
so before reiterating the analogy, he actually said it was
at the risk of upsetting mister Mandy, which prompted some
(03:16):
laughs around the courtroom. This is more of what he said.
These are his words, but not his voice.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
While one piece may not be very helpful by itself,
when all the pieces are put together, the picture may
become clear. However, when putting all the pieces together, you
must take care not to jump to conclusions.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Justice Bill then reminded the jurors that they must be
satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,
but he added that it was almost impossible to prove
anything with absolute certainty, and that was not what the
prosecution were being required to do.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt
or an unrealistic possible. You cannot be satisfied that the
accused is guilty of an offense if you have a
reasonable doubt about whether she is guilty of the offense.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Justice Spill then went on to speak about motive. He
reminded the jury that the prosecution does not need to
prove motive, only the elements of murder and attempted murder,
but he added that did not mean a lack of
evidence of motive is irrelevant. Here's what he said.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
It is a relevant consideration which you must take into
account in the accused's favor when weighing all the evidence
in this case. Moreover, if you find the accused had
good reasons not to kill or attempt to kill her
lunch guests, in short, she had a motive not to
commit the alleged offenses, that is a significant consideration.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Justice Spill said to find Erring guilty of murder, her
conduct must have been conscious, voluntary, and deliberate.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
When running through the elements of murder, he started with
consciousness and said that this element excludes the acts of
an unconscious person, for example, someone who was sleepwalking. He
then moved on to voluntariness. He said this excluded conduct
where someone was not in control of their own actions.
Turning to deliberateness, he said this element means that the
(05:16):
accused conduct cannot be an accident. It was at this
point that he reminded the jury that the defense claim
that this was the element that had not been satisfied.
They say that Aaron added the death cut mushrooms into
the meal by accident.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Turning to the final element, which was intention, Justice spil
said the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that at
the time Aaron served up Beef Wellington's she intended to
kill her guests or cause them really serious injury.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
The prosecution contends that you should infer from the evidence
that Aaron Patterson had the appropriate state of minds at
the relevant time.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
He reminded the jury that this was also an element
that the defense says has not been so satisfied. They
say that Aaron did not have an intention to kill,
but rather she actually had a motive to keep these
people in her life. Justice Bill explained that a person's
intention can be inferred from what they said and what
they did, as well as what they failed to say
(06:16):
and failed to do. He told the jury that they
can consider Erin's actions both before, at the time of
and after the lunch, but he said if they had
any doubts, the benefit of those doubts must be given
to the accused. I will note at this point Brook
that the jury was not instructed by Justice Biale to
consider the alternate charge of manslaughder, meaning that in this
(06:40):
case they will only be able to return a guilty
or not guilty verdict in relation to the charge of
murder and attempted murder.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
On that topic of attempted murder, Justice Spiel said the
alleged conduct must have been more than merely preparatory immediately
and not remotely connected with Ian Wilkinson's illness, and then
must been an intention to kill.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Justice phil said it was not in dispute that Ian
came very close to dying, and that Aaron's conduct in
serving him a poisoned beef Wellington was more than merely
preparatory and not remotely connected to causing his illness. He
added that for an attempted murder charge, the intention, unlike murder,
is nothing less than an intention to kill. Intent to
(07:23):
cause really serious injury is not enough, he explained.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Justice Bill then turned to summarizing the issues in the
case and the related evidence. He said the first issue
related to whether Aaron had good reasons to not kill
her lunch guests in.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
A similar fashion to what he did last week. Justice
Bill took the jury back to the evidence. He reminded
them of the Facebook messages Aaron sent her online friends
about her in laws in December twenty twenty two. As
I'm sure our listeners remember, these messages included the phrases
this family, I swear to God and at LA least
(08:00):
I know they are a lost cause. Turning to the
prosecution argument, Justice Bill said that Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers
argued that sometimes the internal motivations for murders are only
known to the murderer themselves. Using her words, he told
the jury, you don't have to know why a person
does something in order to know they did it. On
(08:22):
the other hand, Justice Bill said the defense questioned why
Aaron would want to kill her in laws, giving they
were her children's only grandparents.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
He said.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
They also questioned why Aaron would commit murder when she
was in a good place at the time in July
twenty twenty three and would have surely known that suspicion
would fall on her as the cook of the meal.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Justice Bill said the second issue related to Aaron's tendency
to forage for mushrooms, referring the jury to the directions
he gave them on this topic last week. He then
moved on to the third issue, related to why Aaron
cooked individual beef Wellington's. Here reminded the Jews that Aaron
said she used a best selling recipe Tin Eats cookbook
(09:05):
that called for a beef wellington log, but he.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Told the jury that Aaron testified that she deviated from
this recipe because she could not find a beef tenderloin
or a log in her local area. Turning to the arguments,
he said the prosecution claimed that Aaron cooked individual beef
Wellington's because it was critical for her to maintain control
over the meal and to make sure she did not
consume a serve laced with death caps. He said. The
(09:30):
prosecution also questioned why she would deviate from a recipe
she had never cooked before. He then flagged that the
defense did not discuss this topic in its closing address.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Justice Bill then turned to the fourth issue, related to
whether Aaron served the lunch on different colored plates. He
once again returned to Ian Wilkinson's evidence about the colored plates,
where Ian told the jury that the guests ate from
larger gray plates while Aaron herself ate from a smaller
orange tan plate.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Justice Beale, so the prosecution argued that Ian was a
compelling and reliable witness who had no doubt about what
he had seen, he said. The prosecution also argued that
Heather backed up Ian's claim when she told Simon that
she remembered Erin serving the meal on different colored plates.
On the other hand, Justice Bill said that the defense
(10:21):
argued that it would have been smarter for Erin if
she was planning to commit a murder to mark the
pastry of the non poisonous beef Wellington before putting them
all in the oven. Justice Bill added that the defense
also said that on her evidence, Erin didn't own any
gray plates and also said she didn't own a matching
set of plates.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Justice Bill then spoke about the fifth issue, related to
whether Aaron allocated the plates.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
He said the prosecution argued that she allocated her own
plate by picking it up and carrying it to the
table on Ian's evidence, but the defense argued that without
being told, Gail and Heather picked up two plates EA
and carried them to the table in accordance with Aaron's testimony.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
He said the sixth and final issue related to whether
Aaron engaged in incriminating conduct, referring the jury to the
directions he gave them on this topic last week. Soon after,
Justice Bilm moved onto the final topic of his charge,
the verdict. He told the jurors their decision must be unanimous.
(11:24):
He said, all twelve jurors must agree on each of
the four separate charges that Aaron is guilty or not guilty.
Justice Bill then said, the jury will be sequestered to
a hotel.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
While you are sequestered, locked up. You'll deliberate Mondays to
Saturdays here at the court in the privacy of the
jury room. You will not deliberate on Sundays, but you'll
still be sequested. You don't get to go home on Sundays.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Justice Bill explained that once they reach their verdicts, they
can push a buzzer in the jury room and all
the parties, include the prosecution and defense, will be notified
to return to court.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
It was then time for the ballot. As our listeners
will remember, there were fifteen jurors at the start of
the trial. Then one got dismissed, so fourteen jurors came
into court today. That that was cut to twelve because
in trials only twelve jurors decide the fate of the accused.
Before the two jurors were balloted off, Justice Bill thanked them.
(12:25):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Can I say a very warm thank you to those
two people who will be balloted off. I don't know
if you'll feel relieved or frustrated, but be assured you
have made an important contribution to the administration of justice
through your service.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
As our listeners heard at the top of the episode,
the associate to Justice Beal then rose to his feet
with that box with everyone's number inside before he called
out for during number one hundred and five and number
one hundred and six. These were two male jurors. They
stood up made their way up out of the jury box,
handed in their jury iPads, and then they were escorted
(13:04):
out of the courtroom. The remainder of the jurors then
took an oath or an affirmation to not discuss the
case with anyone else. It was at this point that
they retired to consider their verdicts. So the ballot took
place at one pm. Justice Bill told the jury that
they had lunch waiting for them in the jury room.
After that the weight really began. Two hours went by
(13:25):
and by the time it got to four pm no
verdict had been reached. The jury were brought back into
the courtroom, where Justice Beal wished them a pleasant break
tonight after a long day. The juriors all brought their
luggage to court today and after Justice Beal bid them farewell.
They would have been busted to the local hotel where
they're staying at and will spend the night together, but
(13:47):
he gave them very strict instructions that they should not
be deliberating or discussing the case while they're at the hotel.
Those discussions are meant for the jury room. They will
returned to court tomorrow before ten thirty am to recommence
their deliberations.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
So now it's really just a waiting game, isn't it, Laura.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
It really is. We have no idea how long it
will take this jury to reach their
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Verdicts, and while we wait, we will flag that we
don't know when our next episode will be, So make
sure you follow the show wherever you are listening to
the podcast
After forty days, the jury in the trial of Aaron
Patterson was ready to deliberate. But before that could happen,
the Associate to Justice Christopher Bill how a box over
his head. He shuffled some papers inside, pulled out two
and read what was on them to the court. What
was on these papers were numbers.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Dura one oh five, Dura one oh six.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
These were the numbers of the two jurors who would
no longer be required. They handed in their court iPads
and left. And with that the jury of seven men
and five women retired to consider their verdicts, the fate
of Aaron Patterson in their hands. I'm Brooke Greebert Craig,
and this is the Mushroom Cook. It's the start of
(00:53):
week ten of Aaron Patterson's murder trial, and once again
I'm joined by my colleague, court reporter Laura Plaseller, and.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
We're coming to our listeners from our new podcast studio.
We had to shift Airbnbs, so we've set up in
a new place here, inter realgen So if we sound
a little bit different, that's why.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
It almost feels strange after forty episodes to be in
a new place. But here we are and let's get started.
So listeners would have heard at the start of the
episode about the ballot process where fourteen jurors got cut
to twelve, but we'll speak more on that a bit later.
First up today, Justice Bill continued his charge to the
(01:33):
jury and returned to the topic of credit lies alleged
by the prosecution last week. He explained to the jury
that credit lies can only be used to assess and
accuse credibility and cannot be used as evidence they committed
the offenses.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Our listeners may remember that Justice Beal said last week
that there were four credit lies alleged by the prosecution.
The first was erin lying to police about being very
very helpful during the Department of Health investigation, and today
he touched on the remaining three. He said the prosecution
also alleged that Aaron lied about the reason she invited
(02:10):
her guests to the lunch, lied about what she said
at the lunch about ovarian cancer, and lied about planning
to undergo gastric bypass surgery at the Enrich Clinic in Melbourne.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Justice Bill then moved on to how the jury can
use the alleged credit lies if they find them to
be lies. He said, they can be used to determine
whether the other things Aaron said to other witnesses and
during her testimony were true. He warned the jury not
to reason that simply because a person is shown to
have told lies, they must be guilty. After this, Justice
(02:45):
Bill moved on to circumstantial or indirect evidence versus direct evidence.
He said it was not safe in a criminal trial
for a jury to engage in guesswork.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
He returned to the analogy used by the prosecution in
its close address in relation to thinking about the evidence
as puzzle pieces, but this was something that defense barrister
Colin Mandy took some issue with in his own closing address,
so before reiterating the analogy, he actually said it was
at the risk of upsetting mister Mandy, which prompted some
(03:16):
laughs around the courtroom. This is more of what he said.
These are his words, but not his voice.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
While one piece may not be very helpful by itself,
when all the pieces are put together, the picture may
become clear. However, when putting all the pieces together, you
must take care not to jump to conclusions.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Justice Bill then reminded the jurors that they must be
satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,
but he added that it was almost impossible to prove
anything with absolute certainty, and that was not what the
prosecution were being required to do.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt
or an unrealistic possible. You cannot be satisfied that the
accused is guilty of an offense if you have a
reasonable doubt about whether she is guilty of the offense.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Justice Spill then went on to speak about motive. He
reminded the jury that the prosecution does not need to
prove motive, only the elements of murder and attempted murder,
but he added that did not mean a lack of
evidence of motive is irrelevant. Here's what he said.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
It is a relevant consideration which you must take into
account in the accused's favor when weighing all the evidence
in this case. Moreover, if you find the accused had
good reasons not to kill or attempt to kill her
lunch guests, in short, she had a motive not to
commit the alleged offenses, that is a significant consideration.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Justice Spill said to find Erring guilty of murder, her
conduct must have been conscious, voluntary, and deliberate.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
When running through the elements of murder, he started with
consciousness and said that this element excludes the acts of
an unconscious person, for example, someone who was sleepwalking. He
then moved on to voluntariness. He said this excluded conduct
where someone was not in control of their own actions.
Turning to deliberateness, he said this element means that the
(05:16):
accused conduct cannot be an accident. It was at this
point that he reminded the jury that the defense claim
that this was the element that had not been satisfied.
They say that Aaron added the death cut mushrooms into
the meal by accident.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Turning to the final element, which was intention, Justice spil
said the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that at
the time Aaron served up Beef Wellington's she intended to
kill her guests or cause them really serious injury.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
The prosecution contends that you should infer from the evidence
that Aaron Patterson had the appropriate state of minds at
the relevant time.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
He reminded the jury that this was also an element
that the defense says has not been so satisfied. They
say that Aaron did not have an intention to kill,
but rather she actually had a motive to keep these
people in her life. Justice Bill explained that a person's
intention can be inferred from what they said and what
they did, as well as what they failed to say
(06:16):
and failed to do. He told the jury that they
can consider Erin's actions both before, at the time of
and after the lunch, but he said if they had
any doubts, the benefit of those doubts must be given
to the accused. I will note at this point Brook
that the jury was not instructed by Justice Biale to
consider the alternate charge of manslaughder, meaning that in this
(06:40):
case they will only be able to return a guilty
or not guilty verdict in relation to the charge of
murder and attempted murder.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
On that topic of attempted murder, Justice Spiel said the
alleged conduct must have been more than merely preparatory immediately
and not remotely connected with Ian Wilkinson's illness, and then
must been an intention to kill.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Justice phil said it was not in dispute that Ian
came very close to dying, and that Aaron's conduct in
serving him a poisoned beef Wellington was more than merely
preparatory and not remotely connected to causing his illness. He
added that for an attempted murder charge, the intention, unlike murder,
is nothing less than an intention to kill. Intent to
(07:23):
cause really serious injury is not enough, he explained.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Justice Bill then turned to summarizing the issues in the
case and the related evidence. He said the first issue
related to whether Aaron had good reasons to not kill
her lunch guests in.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
A similar fashion to what he did last week. Justice
Bill took the jury back to the evidence. He reminded
them of the Facebook messages Aaron sent her online friends
about her in laws in December twenty twenty two. As
I'm sure our listeners remember, these messages included the phrases
this family, I swear to God and at LA least
(08:00):
I know they are a lost cause. Turning to the
prosecution argument, Justice Bill said that Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers
argued that sometimes the internal motivations for murders are only
known to the murderer themselves. Using her words, he told
the jury, you don't have to know why a person
does something in order to know they did it. On
(08:22):
the other hand, Justice Bill said the defense questioned why
Aaron would want to kill her in laws, giving they
were her children's only grandparents.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
He said.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
They also questioned why Aaron would commit murder when she
was in a good place at the time in July
twenty twenty three and would have surely known that suspicion
would fall on her as the cook of the meal.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Justice Bill said the second issue related to Aaron's tendency
to forage for mushrooms, referring the jury to the directions
he gave them on this topic last week. He then
moved on to the third issue, related to why Aaron
cooked individual beef Wellington's. Here reminded the Jews that Aaron
said she used a best selling recipe Tin Eats cookbook
(09:05):
that called for a beef wellington log, but he.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Told the jury that Aaron testified that she deviated from
this recipe because she could not find a beef tenderloin
or a log in her local area. Turning to the arguments,
he said the prosecution claimed that Aaron cooked individual beef
Wellington's because it was critical for her to maintain control
over the meal and to make sure she did not
consume a serve laced with death caps. He said. The
(09:30):
prosecution also questioned why she would deviate from a recipe
she had never cooked before. He then flagged that the
defense did not discuss this topic in its closing address.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Justice Bill then turned to the fourth issue, related to
whether Aaron served the lunch on different colored plates. He
once again returned to Ian Wilkinson's evidence about the colored plates,
where Ian told the jury that the guests ate from
larger gray plates while Aaron herself ate from a smaller
orange tan plate.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Justice Beale, so the prosecution argued that Ian was a
compelling and reliable witness who had no doubt about what
he had seen, he said. The prosecution also argued that
Heather backed up Ian's claim when she told Simon that
she remembered Erin serving the meal on different colored plates.
On the other hand, Justice Bill said that the defense
(10:21):
argued that it would have been smarter for Erin if
she was planning to commit a murder to mark the
pastry of the non poisonous beef Wellington before putting them
all in the oven. Justice Bill added that the defense
also said that on her evidence, Erin didn't own any
gray plates and also said she didn't own a matching
set of plates.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Justice Bill then spoke about the fifth issue, related to
whether Aaron allocated the plates.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
He said the prosecution argued that she allocated her own
plate by picking it up and carrying it to the
table on Ian's evidence, but the defense argued that without
being told, Gail and Heather picked up two plates EA
and carried them to the table in accordance with Aaron's testimony.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
He said the sixth and final issue related to whether
Aaron engaged in incriminating conduct, referring the jury to the
directions he gave them on this topic last week. Soon after,
Justice Bilm moved onto the final topic of his charge,
the verdict. He told the jurors their decision must be unanimous.
(11:24):
He said, all twelve jurors must agree on each of
the four separate charges that Aaron is guilty or not guilty.
Justice Bill then said, the jury will be sequestered to
a hotel.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
While you are sequestered, locked up. You'll deliberate Mondays to
Saturdays here at the court in the privacy of the
jury room. You will not deliberate on Sundays, but you'll
still be sequested. You don't get to go home on Sundays.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Justice Bill explained that once they reach their verdicts, they
can push a buzzer in the jury room and all
the parties, include the prosecution and defense, will be notified
to return to court.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
It was then time for the ballot. As our listeners
will remember, there were fifteen jurors at the start of
the trial. Then one got dismissed, so fourteen jurors came
into court today. That that was cut to twelve because
in trials only twelve jurors decide the fate of the accused.
Before the two jurors were balloted off, Justice Bill thanked them.
(12:25):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Can I say a very warm thank you to those
two people who will be balloted off. I don't know
if you'll feel relieved or frustrated, but be assured you
have made an important contribution to the administration of justice
through your service.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
As our listeners heard at the top of the episode,
the associate to Justice Beal then rose to his feet
with that box with everyone's number inside before he called
out for during number one hundred and five and number
one hundred and six. These were two male jurors. They
stood up made their way up out of the jury box,
handed in their jury iPads, and then they were escorted
(13:04):
out of the courtroom. The remainder of the jurors then
took an oath or an affirmation to not discuss the
case with anyone else. It was at this point that
they retired to consider their verdicts. So the ballot took
place at one pm. Justice Bill told the jury that
they had lunch waiting for them in the jury room.
After that the weight really began. Two hours went by
(13:25):
and by the time it got to four pm no
verdict had been reached. The jury were brought back into
the courtroom, where Justice Beal wished them a pleasant break
tonight after a long day. The juriors all brought their
luggage to court today and after Justice Beal bid them farewell.
They would have been busted to the local hotel where
they're staying at and will spend the night together, but
(13:47):
he gave them very strict instructions that they should not
be deliberating or discussing the case while they're at the hotel.
Those discussions are meant for the jury room. They will
returned to court tomorrow before ten thirty am to recommence
their deliberations.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
So now it's really just a waiting game, isn't it, Laura.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
It really is. We have no idea how long it
will take this jury to reach their
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Verdicts, and while we wait, we will flag that we
don't know when our next episode will be, So make
sure you follow the show wherever you are listening to
the podcast
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.