June 19, 2025 • 14 mins
Today, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC made his final bid to the jury in the triple-murder trial of his client Erin Patterson and described one of the 'golden rules' that protects us all: beyond reasonable doubt.
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):
A trial like this sometimes seems like a competition naturally,
one side against another, like we're competing against each other,
like a boxing match or a football match, or netball
or whatever it is. The truth is more like the
high jump, more like the high jump. This is important.
Only the prosecution has to get over the bar. Defense
(00:20):
doesn't have to do anything. Defense doesn't have to jump
any bar. Aaron Patterson doesn't have to jump any bar
at all. The prosecution has to clear the bar. And
that's the highest bar known to the law. And that's
where you are now.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
To stick with Colin Mandy's sporting analogies, it was the
final siren on the defense's argument on the innocence of
Aaron Patterson. Today, her barrister talked to the jury for
the whole day, telling them that probably and maybe are
not enough to convict his clients.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
You are at innocent with Aaron Patterson. That's your starting point.
The starting point is innocence. She is assumed innocent of
these charges. She doesn't have to prove her innocence to
you because she is innocent, and it is for the
prosecution to disprove her account of accidental poisoning beyond reasonable
doubt before you can move from that position, before you
(01:15):
can find her guilty of anything.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
He talked about her testimony Asian gross, Aaron's phones, and
what he said were ridiculous propositions put forward by the prosecution.
It was a big day and we'll break it all
down for you. I'm Brook Greebit Craig, and this is
the Mushroom Cook. It's stayed thirty five of Aaron Patterson's
(01:40):
murder trial, and I'm here with my colleague, court reporter
Laura Possella.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
After three days, we've arrived at the end of mister
Mandy's closing address.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yes we have.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
So the jurors are done hearing from witnesses, they're done
hearing from barristers, and next week, in the ninth week
of this trial, they'll hear from Justice Christopher Bale. But
more about that later today. Mister Mandy picked up where
he left off yesterday with the day after the lunch.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yes, he started with the evidence that Aaron was drinking
coffee on July thirty, and that's the day after that
deadly meal.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
This evidence came from Erin's son, who told an investigator
that that morning when he woke up and came into
the kitchen, he saw his mum drinking coffee, but when
she was giving evidence, Erin said that she was actually
drinking tea. Mister Mandy said today, though, that it was
perfectly reasonable for him to assume she was drinking coffee
that morning, considering most days he would wake up to
(02:39):
see her doing that.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Now, moving on to Aaron driving her son to a
flying lesson that afternoon, mister Mandy told the jury the
prosecution's case was that Erin was faking being ill, but
he disputed this, saying why would she go on this
journey If she was faking being unwell, she would go
to bed.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Alistairs may remember that it was on this journey to
Tiab that Erin said she had to pull over on
the side of the road to go to the toilet
in a bush because she was experiencing diarrhea. She said.
When they later stopped at a service station, she went
into the toilet to dispose of the tissues she had
used to clean herself up. CCTV footage shows that she
(03:19):
only spent nine seconds in the toilet. In its closing
address earlier this week, the prosecution argued that if Erin
really did have diarrhea that day, she would have spent
more time in there, at the very least to wash
her hands. But today mister Mandy made a point of
saying that the prosecution didn't even ask her in cross
examination what she was doing in those nine seconds while
(03:40):
she was in the toilet.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Now moving on to Erin leaving Lean at the hospital
after five minutes on July thirty one, Mister Mandy said
she left because she was not prepared for what she
walked into. These are his words, but not his voice.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
An extremely intensive five minute interaction where she was told
that she would be admitted and transferred to a different
hospital in Melbourne. Doctor Foote told her that that's what
needed to happen, so she was not refusing treatment. She
was saying there were things she needed to do before
she could be admitted and transferred. She had diarrhea, she
was dehydrated, but she was still functioning, and she was
(04:19):
plainly struggling to process what she was being told and
her mind turned to the practical considerations.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Mister Mandy then took the jury to Erin's second presentation
to hospital about an hour and a half later. He
reiterated again that on the prosecution case Erin was faking illness,
but he said his client was reluctant to receive treatment
that day because of her history of hating hospitals and
discharging herself against medical advice. He told the jury that
(04:47):
what she did that day was actually not consistent at
all with what a person faking illness would do. In
another theatrical moment from mister Mandy, he raised his arms
and said the following.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
The allegation is that she was reluctant to be admitted
to be hooked up to medications because she was pretending
to be sick. But that's a contradictory argument. Count possibly
makes sense if you're pretending to be sick, if you
got to be saying to the medical staff, hook me up,
pump me full of drugs, I am very, very sick.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Please.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Now moving on to the Asian grocer, mister Mandy said
it would have been remarkable if Aaron gave everyone the
exact same account as to what happened.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
The jury has previously heard that in the week after
the lunch there was a medical investigation, a health investigation,
a child protection investigation, and a police investigation all under
way at the same time. Mister Mandy explained that there
were many people asking Aaron many questions about where the
mushrooms in the beef Wellingtons had come from. In a
(05:51):
previous episode, we ran through all the varying accounts Aaron
gave about the location of the Asian grocer. Today, mister
Mandy explained where those accounts did vary.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Imagine that if they all agreed exactly that she used
the same words and said the same exactly the same things,
it would be firstly totally unrealistic and the prosecution would
probably argue in those circumstances that it was very suspicious
that someone had such a well scripted account of what
was going on.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Mister Mandy then reminded the jury that during the Department
of Health's investigation, an environmental health officer was never asked
to check any Asian grosses England Waverley. This was despite
Senior Public Health Advisor Sally Ane Atkinson telling the court
that she remembered telling this employee to check that suburb.
Mister Mandy said today that one of these two witnesses
(06:42):
must have been honestly mistaken.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Mister Mandy then went on to speak about Phone A
and Phone B as another reminder for our listeners. Phone
A was Erin's usual phone, which the prosecution alleged she
concealed from police, while Phone B was the dummy phone
she set up to hand to police.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
But mister Mandy questioned today why Erin would go to
the effort of setting up Phone B just to hand
it to police as a dummy phone. He said, as
soon as investigators looked at the phone, they would have
realized it was not her usual phone. He reminded the
jury of her evidence that she set up Phone B
because Phonne A was damaged and she wanted to change devices.
(07:24):
This is what he said about the allegation from the
prosecution that Erin concealed Phone A.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
If the intent was to conceal the existence of Phone A,
why continue using it? Better yet, why not get rid
of it at a much earlier stage. She had the
opportunity to dispose of it after she got home from hospital,
why not take her to the tip. If she had
planned the cold calculated murders that the Crown says she committed,
deliberate murders, the Crown says she's planning at least from
(07:51):
twenty eight April and had incriminating searches on her phone.
This would have been part of the plan. Surely it
would have been destroyed.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
He said. The fact Aaron continued to use phone A
after the lunch was more consistent with her account, telling
the jury that the prosecution were only alleging she concealed
Phone A to explain why certain evidence in the case
did not exist. He did admit that factory resetting phone
B was a stupid thing that his client did, but
he said it remained consistent with her panic state of mind.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
His honor will direct you, as a matter of law,
that the law recognizes that there might be all sorts
of reasons why a person engages in conduct that to
everyone else in the outside world may make them look guilty.
There are all sorts of reasons why an innocent person
can engage in that type of conduct, like dumping the
(08:44):
dehydrator and lying. And you now have those reasons. Aaron
got into the witness box and told you she did
those things because she panicked when confronted with the terrible possibility,
terrible realization that her actions had caused the illnesses of
people that she loved. It doesn't excuse what she did,
not making an excuse about it. You can't jump from
(09:07):
there to what the crown wants you to conclude from
those items of evidence.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Mister Mandy then turned to discussing Aaron as a witness.
He reiterated that she did not have to give evidence.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
She subjected herself to lengthy cross examination and our submission
to you and you would probably agree that the way
she answered questions was careful, even pedantic, and you might
think that's a very sensible way of approaching things. If
you are going to be cross examined for six days,
it is difficult to imagine a situation where you would
be placing yourself under such an incredible amount of scrutiny.
(09:43):
But she still made the decision. She didn't have to
do that, and when she chose to do it, she
made that decision as an innocent person, because that's what
she is right now and has been throughout the trial.
Presumed innocent of all the charges.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Mister Mandy said she to the truth even when it
was deeply embarrassing, and had to admit she told lies.
He declared that his client came out of the extensive
cross examination unscathed.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Her account remained coherent and consistent. Day after day, even
when challenged rapid fire from multiple angles repeatedly. So the
significance of her evidence is this that his Honor will
give you a direction of law about the conclusions that
you might reach from erin giving evidence. First, if you
think her evidence was true, you must find her not
(10:34):
guilty of all of the charges. Second, if you're not
sure whether her evidence was true, but think it might be,
then you will have a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's
case and you would find her not guilty of all
the charges. Third, if that's not enough that you preferred
the prosecution case to her evidence, balancing those two things, nah,
(10:54):
prosecution a little bit better than aaron, that's not sufficient,
because that would be finding that the prosecution case is
preferable to the defense case. And it's not a question
in this case. I'll come back to this in a minute,
not a question of balancing two things.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
It was at this point that mister Mandy took the
jury to the convoluted and ridiculous propositions he said were
made by the prosecution that we flagged at the top
of the episode. He said that there were at least
four telling the jury that it was ridiculous that Aaron
would commit murder without any motive to do so, Ridiculous
that she would use cancer as a lie to get
(11:31):
her guests to attend her lunch, ridiculous that she expected
the guests to take her secrets about her medical issues
to the grave with them, and ridiculous that she would
push ahead with her plan despite knowing she would be
in the spotlight as the cook. He then borrowed a
metaphor used by Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers in her closing
address earlier this week. She referred to the case as
(11:52):
a jigsaw puzzle that they must piece together. But mister
Mandy said today, to force the evidence to fit the
image which on the puzzle box was like working backwards
from a place of assumed guilt.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
You can't force jigsaw puzzle pieces together when puzzle pieces
don't fit naturally. When you are making the picture, You've
got the wrong picture, the wrong piece in the wrong spot.
It is not fitting naturally into that gap.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
As he approached the end of his closing address, he
told the juris they could not decide the case by
asking themselves whose case is better.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
It was at this point that he mentioned the sporting
analogy you heard At the top of the episode, he
spoke to the jury about the legal principles our criminal
justice system relies on, including the standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. He said these principles of a criminal trial
were like the Golden rules which protect us all from
being wrongfully convicted. He then launched in to his final
(12:50):
statement to the jury.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
If you think that it's possible that Erin deliberately poisoned
the meal, you must find her not guilty. If you
think that maybe Erin deliberately poison the meal, you must
find her not guilty. If you think that she probably
deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty.
If you think that it's possible that she intended to
(13:12):
kill or cause really serious injury to Don or Gail
or Heather, you must find her not guilty. If you
think maybe she intended those things, you must find her
not guilty. If you think probably she intended those things,
you must find her not guilty. And if you think
that it's possible Aarin intended to kill Anne, you have
(13:33):
to find her not guilty. Maybe she intended to kill Anne,
not guilty, Probably not guilty. If you think at the
end of your deliberations, taking into account the arguments that
we've made that it is a possibility that this was
an accident, a reasonable possibility, you must find her not guilty.
(13:54):
And if you think that it is a reasonable possibility
that her evidence was true, you must find her not guilty.
And our submission to you is the prosecution can't get
over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
And with that, mister Mandy was done. So after eight
weeks and more than fifty witnesses, the jury has now
been sent out to rest before Justice Bill delivers his charge.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
And you mentioned the word rest their book, and that's
because the jury have a long weekend. They won't be
required to come back until early next week. So Justice
Bill told them to actually think about it like a
second Easter. I think they were very relieved to have
some time off before they begin their deliberations next week.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
You're right about that, Laura, But in the meantime, go
to the mushroomcook dot com dot au for more
A trial like this sometimes seems like a competition naturally,
one side against another, like we're competing against each other,
like a boxing match or a football match, or netball
or whatever it is. The truth is more like the
high jump, more like the high jump. This is important.
Only the prosecution has to get over the bar. Defense
(00:20):
doesn't have to do anything. Defense doesn't have to jump
any bar. Aaron Patterson doesn't have to jump any bar
at all. The prosecution has to clear the bar. And
that's the highest bar known to the law. And that's
where you are now.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
To stick with Colin Mandy's sporting analogies, it was the
final siren on the defense's argument on the innocence of
Aaron Patterson. Today, her barrister talked to the jury for
the whole day, telling them that probably and maybe are
not enough to convict his clients.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
You are at innocent with Aaron Patterson. That's your starting point.
The starting point is innocence. She is assumed innocent of
these charges. She doesn't have to prove her innocence to
you because she is innocent, and it is for the
prosecution to disprove her account of accidental poisoning beyond reasonable
doubt before you can move from that position, before you
(01:15):
can find her guilty of anything.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
He talked about her testimony Asian gross, Aaron's phones, and
what he said were ridiculous propositions put forward by the prosecution.
It was a big day and we'll break it all
down for you. I'm Brook Greebit Craig, and this is
the Mushroom Cook. It's stayed thirty five of Aaron Patterson's
(01:40):
murder trial, and I'm here with my colleague, court reporter
Laura Possella.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
After three days, we've arrived at the end of mister
Mandy's closing address.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yes we have.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
So the jurors are done hearing from witnesses, they're done
hearing from barristers, and next week, in the ninth week
of this trial, they'll hear from Justice Christopher Bale. But
more about that later today. Mister Mandy picked up where
he left off yesterday with the day after the lunch.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yes, he started with the evidence that Aaron was drinking
coffee on July thirty, and that's the day after that
deadly meal.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
This evidence came from Erin's son, who told an investigator
that that morning when he woke up and came into
the kitchen, he saw his mum drinking coffee, but when
she was giving evidence, Erin said that she was actually
drinking tea. Mister Mandy said today, though, that it was
perfectly reasonable for him to assume she was drinking coffee
that morning, considering most days he would wake up to
(02:39):
see her doing that.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Now, moving on to Aaron driving her son to a
flying lesson that afternoon, mister Mandy told the jury the
prosecution's case was that Erin was faking being ill, but
he disputed this, saying why would she go on this
journey If she was faking being unwell, she would go
to bed.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Alistairs may remember that it was on this journey to
Tiab that Erin said she had to pull over on
the side of the road to go to the toilet
in a bush because she was experiencing diarrhea. She said.
When they later stopped at a service station, she went
into the toilet to dispose of the tissues she had
used to clean herself up. CCTV footage shows that she
(03:19):
only spent nine seconds in the toilet. In its closing
address earlier this week, the prosecution argued that if Erin
really did have diarrhea that day, she would have spent
more time in there, at the very least to wash
her hands. But today mister Mandy made a point of
saying that the prosecution didn't even ask her in cross
examination what she was doing in those nine seconds while
(03:40):
she was in the toilet.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Now moving on to Erin leaving Lean at the hospital
after five minutes on July thirty one, Mister Mandy said
she left because she was not prepared for what she
walked into. These are his words, but not his voice.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
An extremely intensive five minute interaction where she was told
that she would be admitted and transferred to a different
hospital in Melbourne. Doctor Foote told her that that's what
needed to happen, so she was not refusing treatment. She
was saying there were things she needed to do before
she could be admitted and transferred. She had diarrhea, she
was dehydrated, but she was still functioning, and she was
(04:19):
plainly struggling to process what she was being told and
her mind turned to the practical considerations.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Mister Mandy then took the jury to Erin's second presentation
to hospital about an hour and a half later. He
reiterated again that on the prosecution case Erin was faking illness,
but he said his client was reluctant to receive treatment
that day because of her history of hating hospitals and
discharging herself against medical advice. He told the jury that
(04:47):
what she did that day was actually not consistent at
all with what a person faking illness would do. In
another theatrical moment from mister Mandy, he raised his arms
and said the following.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
The allegation is that she was reluctant to be admitted
to be hooked up to medications because she was pretending
to be sick. But that's a contradictory argument. Count possibly
makes sense if you're pretending to be sick, if you
got to be saying to the medical staff, hook me up,
pump me full of drugs, I am very, very sick.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Please.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Now moving on to the Asian grocer, mister Mandy said
it would have been remarkable if Aaron gave everyone the
exact same account as to what happened.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
The jury has previously heard that in the week after
the lunch there was a medical investigation, a health investigation,
a child protection investigation, and a police investigation all under
way at the same time. Mister Mandy explained that there
were many people asking Aaron many questions about where the
mushrooms in the beef Wellingtons had come from. In a
(05:51):
previous episode, we ran through all the varying accounts Aaron
gave about the location of the Asian grocer. Today, mister
Mandy explained where those accounts did vary.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Imagine that if they all agreed exactly that she used
the same words and said the same exactly the same things,
it would be firstly totally unrealistic and the prosecution would
probably argue in those circumstances that it was very suspicious
that someone had such a well scripted account of what
was going on.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Mister Mandy then reminded the jury that during the Department
of Health's investigation, an environmental health officer was never asked
to check any Asian grosses England Waverley. This was despite
Senior Public Health Advisor Sally Ane Atkinson telling the court
that she remembered telling this employee to check that suburb.
Mister Mandy said today that one of these two witnesses
(06:42):
must have been honestly mistaken.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Mister Mandy then went on to speak about Phone A
and Phone B as another reminder for our listeners. Phone
A was Erin's usual phone, which the prosecution alleged she
concealed from police, while Phone B was the dummy phone
she set up to hand to police.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
But mister Mandy questioned today why Erin would go to
the effort of setting up Phone B just to hand
it to police as a dummy phone. He said, as
soon as investigators looked at the phone, they would have
realized it was not her usual phone. He reminded the
jury of her evidence that she set up Phone B
because Phonne A was damaged and she wanted to change devices.
(07:24):
This is what he said about the allegation from the
prosecution that Erin concealed Phone A.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
If the intent was to conceal the existence of Phone A,
why continue using it? Better yet, why not get rid
of it at a much earlier stage. She had the
opportunity to dispose of it after she got home from hospital,
why not take her to the tip. If she had
planned the cold calculated murders that the Crown says she committed,
deliberate murders, the Crown says she's planning at least from
(07:51):
twenty eight April and had incriminating searches on her phone.
This would have been part of the plan. Surely it
would have been destroyed.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
He said. The fact Aaron continued to use phone A
after the lunch was more consistent with her account, telling
the jury that the prosecution were only alleging she concealed
Phone A to explain why certain evidence in the case
did not exist. He did admit that factory resetting phone
B was a stupid thing that his client did, but
he said it remained consistent with her panic state of mind.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
His honor will direct you, as a matter of law,
that the law recognizes that there might be all sorts
of reasons why a person engages in conduct that to
everyone else in the outside world may make them look guilty.
There are all sorts of reasons why an innocent person
can engage in that type of conduct, like dumping the
(08:44):
dehydrator and lying. And you now have those reasons. Aaron
got into the witness box and told you she did
those things because she panicked when confronted with the terrible possibility,
terrible realization that her actions had caused the illnesses of
people that she loved. It doesn't excuse what she did,
not making an excuse about it. You can't jump from
(09:07):
there to what the crown wants you to conclude from
those items of evidence.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Mister Mandy then turned to discussing Aaron as a witness.
He reiterated that she did not have to give evidence.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
She subjected herself to lengthy cross examination and our submission
to you and you would probably agree that the way
she answered questions was careful, even pedantic, and you might
think that's a very sensible way of approaching things. If
you are going to be cross examined for six days,
it is difficult to imagine a situation where you would
be placing yourself under such an incredible amount of scrutiny.
(09:43):
But she still made the decision. She didn't have to
do that, and when she chose to do it, she
made that decision as an innocent person, because that's what
she is right now and has been throughout the trial.
Presumed innocent of all the charges.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Mister Mandy said she to the truth even when it
was deeply embarrassing, and had to admit she told lies.
He declared that his client came out of the extensive
cross examination unscathed.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Her account remained coherent and consistent. Day after day, even
when challenged rapid fire from multiple angles repeatedly. So the
significance of her evidence is this that his Honor will
give you a direction of law about the conclusions that
you might reach from erin giving evidence. First, if you
think her evidence was true, you must find her not
(10:34):
guilty of all of the charges. Second, if you're not
sure whether her evidence was true, but think it might be,
then you will have a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's
case and you would find her not guilty of all
the charges. Third, if that's not enough that you preferred
the prosecution case to her evidence, balancing those two things, nah,
(10:54):
prosecution a little bit better than aaron, that's not sufficient,
because that would be finding that the prosecution case is
preferable to the defense case. And it's not a question
in this case. I'll come back to this in a minute,
not a question of balancing two things.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
It was at this point that mister Mandy took the
jury to the convoluted and ridiculous propositions he said were
made by the prosecution that we flagged at the top
of the episode. He said that there were at least
four telling the jury that it was ridiculous that Aaron
would commit murder without any motive to do so, Ridiculous
that she would use cancer as a lie to get
(11:31):
her guests to attend her lunch, ridiculous that she expected
the guests to take her secrets about her medical issues
to the grave with them, and ridiculous that she would
push ahead with her plan despite knowing she would be
in the spotlight as the cook. He then borrowed a
metaphor used by Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers in her closing
address earlier this week. She referred to the case as
(11:52):
a jigsaw puzzle that they must piece together. But mister
Mandy said today, to force the evidence to fit the
image which on the puzzle box was like working backwards
from a place of assumed guilt.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
You can't force jigsaw puzzle pieces together when puzzle pieces
don't fit naturally. When you are making the picture, You've
got the wrong picture, the wrong piece in the wrong spot.
It is not fitting naturally into that gap.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
As he approached the end of his closing address, he
told the juris they could not decide the case by
asking themselves whose case is better.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
It was at this point that he mentioned the sporting
analogy you heard At the top of the episode, he
spoke to the jury about the legal principles our criminal
justice system relies on, including the standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. He said these principles of a criminal trial
were like the Golden rules which protect us all from
being wrongfully convicted. He then launched in to his final
(12:50):
statement to the jury.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
If you think that it's possible that Erin deliberately poisoned
the meal, you must find her not guilty. If you
think that maybe Erin deliberately poison the meal, you must
find her not guilty. If you think that she probably
deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty.
If you think that it's possible that she intended to
(13:12):
kill or cause really serious injury to Don or Gail
or Heather, you must find her not guilty. If you
think maybe she intended those things, you must find her
not guilty. If you think probably she intended those things,
you must find her not guilty. And if you think
that it's possible Aarin intended to kill Anne, you have
(13:33):
to find her not guilty. Maybe she intended to kill Anne,
not guilty, Probably not guilty. If you think at the
end of your deliberations, taking into account the arguments that
we've made that it is a possibility that this was
an accident, a reasonable possibility, you must find her not guilty.
(13:54):
And if you think that it is a reasonable possibility
that her evidence was true, you must find her not guilty.
And our submission to you is the prosecution can't get
over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
And with that, mister Mandy was done. So after eight
weeks and more than fifty witnesses, the jury has now
been sent out to rest before Justice Bill delivers his charge.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
And you mentioned the word rest their book, and that's
because the jury have a long weekend. They won't be
required to come back until early next week. So Justice
Bill told them to actually think about it like a
second Easter. I think they were very relieved to have
some time off before they begin their deliberations next week.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
You're right about that, Laura, But in the meantime, go
to the mushroomcook dot com dot au for more
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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