June 24, 2025 • 14 mins
After weeks of testimonies, days of closing addresses and a long weekend, the jury in the trial of Erin Patterson today heard from the judge who has presided over the proceedings since the very start.
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 (00:02):
Silence. All stand and remain standing. All persons having business
before this honorable Court are commander to give their attendance,
and they shall be heard. God save the King, be seated. Please.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
This is what the court has heard every sitting day.
When Justice Christopher Bill first makes his entrance into the room,
He's had a huge presence in this trial. Here's the umpire,
but for the most part, the jurors haven't heard much
from him since the first day back in April. Now,
in the final days of the trial of Aaron Patterson,
(00:42):
it is Justice Bill's time to direct the jury. Today
he started to deliver his instructions and will break down
what they all mean in this episode. I'm Brook Greywick
Craig and this is the Mushroom Cook. It's day thirty
six of Aaron Patterson's murder trial, and once again I'm
(01:03):
joined by my colleague court reporter Laura Pusseller.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
The end is near, isn't it, Brooke.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yes, we've just hit week nine.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
It was meant to be a six week trial, so
it's fair to say that this is dragged on for
longer than any of us expected, and we still have
a few more days to go. But we're nearly there.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yes, we are.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
So.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
As I said in the intro, today was all about
Justice Bill's charge. Can you explain to our listeners what
that is?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
So?
Speaker 3 (01:30):
The charge is the technical term for essentially the judge's instructions.
So at the end of every trial, once the prosecution
and defense have delivered their closing addresses, the attention then
turns to the judge, who will explain the legal principles
and summarize the evidence of the case before the jury
begin their deliberations. It was a couple of weeks ago now,
(01:53):
but we spoke about all the lessons the jurors have
been given in the course of this trial. They've been
given lessons on mushrooms, on phones, on even computers, and
now it felt like today they were being given a
lesson on the law. Justice Bill spent a large portion
of today really explaining a lot of legal principles to them,
and hopefully by the end of this episode, our listeners
(02:15):
also feel like they've learnt something about our justice system,
especially if they've never sat on a jury before.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
When Justice Bill entered the courtroom today, he told the
jury he had prepared an eighty six page chronology to
help them when they start their deliberations.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Yes, this seemed like a very comprehensive document, and Justice
Bill even told the jury that he had color coded
it to make it easy for them to navigate. So essentially,
the chronology covers all of the events relevant to the trial,
starting way back in two thousand and seven, which was
the year Erin married Simon, and then it ran all
the way through to twenty twenty three, obviously the year
(02:52):
of the lunch. He explained to the jury that this
chronology included references to the evidence that the jury have
heard in this case and reference to the exhibits as well,
and it almost would function as an index for them
when they're making their way through all of the evidence
in this case.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Justice Bill then went on to tell the jury that
emotions such as prejudice and sympathy should not play a
part in their decision.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
This was the first topic that Justice Bihl spoke to
the jury about today. After running them through the chronology,
he explained that they must decide the facts of the
case and no one else. And this is when he
started to talk about those two things you just mentioned
brook prejudice and sympathy. He started with prejudice and said
they should not let it enter their mind. Here is
(03:37):
more of what he said about this. These are his words,
it's not his voice.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
You should not, for example, be influenced by the mere
fact that she cooked the fatal meal that caused the
deaths of Gail, Heather and Don. The issue is not
whether she is in some sense responsible for the tragic
consequences of the lunch, but whether the prosecution has proved
beyond a reasonable dab that she is criminally responsible.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
He also told the jury that they should not be
prejudiced against Erin simply because she has admitted to telling
lies and admitted to concealing evidence. He said, this is a.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Court of law, not a court of morals.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Turning to sympathy, he said they should not let it
cloud their judgment, but he clarified that he wasn't asking
them to be inhuman. None of us are robots. He said,
while it was normal to feel for the Pattersons, given
what has befallen their family, they must make sure to
not let this feeling interfere with their deliberations.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Justice Bill then spoke on the unprecedented media attention around
the trial and how it has excited much public comment.
Here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
No one in the media, in the public, in your workplace,
or in your homes has sat in that jury box
throughout the trial, seeing and hearing all the witnesses, mostly
in person. You and you alone are best placed to
decide whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
He told them that if they had heard or seen
any of the coverage, they must not let it influence
them in any way. Here's more of what he said.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
An accused person has the right to remain silent. It's
not for her to prove her innocence.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
He instructed the jury to assess her evidence in the
exact same way they would assess any of the other
witness's evidence. He said, after doing this, they would reach
one of four conclusions. He said, if they think her
evidence is true, they must find her not guilty. He said,
if they were not sure if her evidence is true,
but they think it might be, they would have reasonable
(05:44):
doubt and they must find her not guilty. He then said,
if they only prefer the prosecution case to her evidence,
they must also find her not guilty. And finally, he said,
if they don't think her evidence is true. They must
then turn their minds to the execution case and whether
they have proved their allegations beyond reasonable doubt before they
(06:05):
would be able to find her guilty.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Justice Bill then moved on to the evidence of Aaron's
good character and how it can be used by the jury.
He said the evidence shows she was a good daughter
in law, a good in law to Simon's siblings, and
a good mother to her two children.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
He reminded them that Erin had generously loaned up to
four hundred thousand dollars to Simon's siblings and their partners,
and he also brought the jury back to the evidence
of Detective Leading Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall, who said Erin
had no criminal history. Justice Bill told the jury that
they could use evidence of good character when determining the
(06:43):
likelihood that Erin committed the offenses as alleged, even though
it went without saying. He reminded the jury that just
because there was evidence of her good character, it didn't
mean they must find her not guilty. He told them
you should keep in mind a person who has previously
been of good character can commit a crime for the
first time.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Justice Bill then started walking the jury through different types
of evidence, and he started with tendency. He said that
Aaron said she had a tendency to forage for mushrooms.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
He then started summarizing the evidence the jury have heard
about Erin foraging for mushrooms, but he really made it
clear to the jury that he could not possibly summarize
every single piece of evidence that the jury have heard
about this topic. He took them back to Erin's evidence
and reminded them how she told them that she started
foraging in twenty twenty during COVID lockdowns. He explained that
(07:36):
she said she foraged in the curran Baro Botanic gardens
in the nearby Leeanngatha rail trail and on her properties.
He said she was mainly picking field mushrooms, but she
was also confident enough to pick other interesting ones like
slippery jacks and honey mushrooms. He reminded them that she
said she bought a dehydrator in April twenty twenty three
(07:58):
to preserve the mushrooms she was foraging, as well as
other food. He also took them to her evidence that
in around May and June twenty twenty three, she remembered
putting mushrooms she had foraged into a container with other
dried mushrooms. This was the container that she said she
grabbed when she was cooking the mushroom duck cell for
the beef Wellington, and said she tipped its contents into
(08:20):
the paste because it was too bland. At the time,
she said she believed it only contained dried mushrooms from
an Asian grosser, but later she realized there was a
possibility it contained foraged mushrooms as well.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Laura, after this summary, did Justice Bill explain how the
jury can then use this evidence?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
He did, and he told them that if they did
find that Aaron had a tendency to pick and eat
wild mushrooms, including putting them in the meals she served
to others, including her children, or if they think it
is a reasonable possibility that she had this tendency to
do that, they may consider that it increases the possibility
that the death cap ushrooms ended up in the beef
(09:01):
Wellingtons accidentally rather than deliberately. He reminded them that the
prosecution had argued that the only evidence that Erin foraged
for edible mushrooms came out of her mouth, and that
she was a self confessed liar and that they couldn't
believe this claim. So this really is like a two
step process. The first step for the jury is to
(09:23):
actually decide whether or not they believe Erin had this
tendency to forage for mushrooms and then eat them, and
then after that consider whether it increases the possibility that
this was an accident rather than a deliberate act.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Now, let's move on to what Justice Bill said about
hearsay evidence. Can you explain to our listeners what it is.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Hearsay is a term that I think a lot of
people bandy around, and today Justice Beer really nutted out
what this means. And it really revolves around out of
court statements that the jury are not hearing in testimony.
And in this case, a lot of the heres statements
stemmed from the remarks made by heather Don and Gale
(10:05):
before they died. Sadly, since they did pass away, they're
not able to give evidence in this case about what
was said at the lunch and what they observed. But
in the days before they passed, they had conversations with
both Simon and Ian, who wore later asked questions at
trial about these conversations to remind our listeners. Simon told
(10:26):
the jury that he remembered Heather asking him the day
after the lunch whether Erin was short of crockery because
she noticed that she had eaten off a different plate
at the lunch. Ian also recalled Heather making the same comment.
Simon also testified about what his parents told him around
the conversations at the lunch. He testified that they told
(10:49):
him that Erin had told the guests at the lunch
that she had been diagnosed with cancer. But Justice Beer
warned the jury today that there was a need for
caution when considering this evidence because it was hearsay. Simon
and Ian are bringing these statements from the deceased into
the courtroom. They didn't come from them themselves. Justice Biale said,
(11:09):
while Simon and Ian might be truthful witnesses, errors can occur.
They may have not accurately remembered what Heather, Don and
Gale said to them, so the jury must take this
unreliability into account.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Justice Bill also spoke about expert evidence, and he provided
an example from digital forensics expert Matthew Serell.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
He explained to the jury that usually witnesses aren't allowed
to give their opinions in trials, but experts are the exception.
He described doctor Cerell as an expert in his field,
which is why he was handpicked to give evidence in
this trial. Our listeners may remember that doctor Cerell gave
a lot of evidence around Erin's phone records and the
(11:52):
conclusions that could be drawn from them, but Justice Beial
reminded the jury today that doctor Cerell said the conclusions
had a lot of limits. Justice Bill said that doctor
Cerel's evidence about Erin's possible visits to Locke and Outram
were not evidence that she actually visited those postcodes. He
said that the connections of phone may make to a
(12:13):
base station can be consistent with and support a proposition,
but doesn't demonstrate a proposition in and of itself.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Justice Bill also went on to talk about prior inconsistent
statements once again, Laura, can you explain to our listeners
what this is?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
I really hope our listeners are following along with my explanations.
It's been a long day, but I promise I'm trying
my hardest. Justice Bill explained today that prior inconsistent statements
refer to the statements that a witness made before the
trial even started using Erin as an example. He told
the jury that there were statements Erin made in the
days after the lunch that appeared inconsistent with the statements
(12:54):
she made in the witness box. In one example, Justice
Beal took the jury to Erin's record of interview with
Constable Eppingstall. He asked her whether she had ever foraged
for mushrooms in the past, and she replied never. But
Justice Biel then reminded the jury of the evidence Erin
gave in the trial that we actually touched on earlier
in the episode Brook, where Erin spoke at length about
(13:16):
the fact she had forage for mushrooms for many years
and this was something that she had become quite confident
in doing. Justice Biel told the jury that they might
be less willing to accept a witness's evidence if they
did make an inconsistent statement.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
And Justice Bill will continue his charge tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
He will, And just before the jury left for the day,
he said to them that he would provide a little
update on the trial, and he simply said, you don't
need to bring your toothbrush tomorrow. He didn't say anything more.
But what we can take away from that is that
he is indicating that the jury will not be sequestered
tomorrow in the afternoon, but.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
I think it's safe to say that that will be
happening later this week. And when it happens, we'll tell
you what sequestering means for this jury. But in the meantime,
go to the mushroomcook dot com dot a U for
more
Silence. All stand and remain standing. All persons having business
before this honorable Court are commander to give their attendance,
and they shall be heard. God save the King, be seated. Please.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
This is what the court has heard every sitting day.
When Justice Christopher Bill first makes his entrance into the room,
He's had a huge presence in this trial. Here's the umpire,
but for the most part, the jurors haven't heard much
from him since the first day back in April. Now,
in the final days of the trial of Aaron Patterson,
(00:42):
it is Justice Bill's time to direct the jury. Today
he started to deliver his instructions and will break down
what they all mean in this episode. I'm Brook Greywick
Craig and this is the Mushroom Cook. It's day thirty
six of Aaron Patterson's murder trial, and once again I'm
(01:03):
joined by my colleague court reporter Laura Pusseller.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
The end is near, isn't it, Brooke.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yes, we've just hit week nine.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
It was meant to be a six week trial, so
it's fair to say that this is dragged on for
longer than any of us expected, and we still have
a few more days to go. But we're nearly there.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yes, we are.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
So.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
As I said in the intro, today was all about
Justice Bill's charge. Can you explain to our listeners what
that is?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
So?
Speaker 3 (01:30):
The charge is the technical term for essentially the judge's instructions.
So at the end of every trial, once the prosecution
and defense have delivered their closing addresses, the attention then
turns to the judge, who will explain the legal principles
and summarize the evidence of the case before the jury
begin their deliberations. It was a couple of weeks ago now,
(01:53):
but we spoke about all the lessons the jurors have
been given in the course of this trial. They've been
given lessons on mushrooms, on phones, on even computers, and
now it felt like today they were being given a
lesson on the law. Justice Bill spent a large portion
of today really explaining a lot of legal principles to them,
and hopefully by the end of this episode, our listeners
(02:15):
also feel like they've learnt something about our justice system,
especially if they've never sat on a jury before.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
When Justice Bill entered the courtroom today, he told the
jury he had prepared an eighty six page chronology to
help them when they start their deliberations.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Yes, this seemed like a very comprehensive document, and Justice
Bill even told the jury that he had color coded
it to make it easy for them to navigate. So essentially,
the chronology covers all of the events relevant to the trial,
starting way back in two thousand and seven, which was
the year Erin married Simon, and then it ran all
the way through to twenty twenty three, obviously the year
(02:52):
of the lunch. He explained to the jury that this
chronology included references to the evidence that the jury have
heard in this case and reference to the exhibits as well,
and it almost would function as an index for them
when they're making their way through all of the evidence
in this case.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Justice Bill then went on to tell the jury that
emotions such as prejudice and sympathy should not play a
part in their decision.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
This was the first topic that Justice Bihl spoke to
the jury about today. After running them through the chronology,
he explained that they must decide the facts of the
case and no one else. And this is when he
started to talk about those two things you just mentioned
brook prejudice and sympathy. He started with prejudice and said
they should not let it enter their mind. Here is
(03:37):
more of what he said about this. These are his words,
it's not his voice.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
You should not, for example, be influenced by the mere
fact that she cooked the fatal meal that caused the
deaths of Gail, Heather and Don. The issue is not
whether she is in some sense responsible for the tragic
consequences of the lunch, but whether the prosecution has proved
beyond a reasonable dab that she is criminally responsible.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
He also told the jury that they should not be
prejudiced against Erin simply because she has admitted to telling
lies and admitted to concealing evidence. He said, this is a.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Court of law, not a court of morals.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Turning to sympathy, he said they should not let it
cloud their judgment, but he clarified that he wasn't asking
them to be inhuman. None of us are robots. He said,
while it was normal to feel for the Pattersons, given
what has befallen their family, they must make sure to
not let this feeling interfere with their deliberations.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Justice Bill then spoke on the unprecedented media attention around
the trial and how it has excited much public comment.
Here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
No one in the media, in the public, in your workplace,
or in your homes has sat in that jury box
throughout the trial, seeing and hearing all the witnesses, mostly
in person. You and you alone are best placed to
decide whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
He told them that if they had heard or seen
any of the coverage, they must not let it influence
them in any way. Here's more of what he said.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
An accused person has the right to remain silent. It's
not for her to prove her innocence.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
He instructed the jury to assess her evidence in the
exact same way they would assess any of the other
witness's evidence. He said, after doing this, they would reach
one of four conclusions. He said, if they think her
evidence is true, they must find her not guilty. He said,
if they were not sure if her evidence is true,
but they think it might be, they would have reasonable
(05:44):
doubt and they must find her not guilty. He then said,
if they only prefer the prosecution case to her evidence,
they must also find her not guilty. And finally, he said,
if they don't think her evidence is true. They must
then turn their minds to the execution case and whether
they have proved their allegations beyond reasonable doubt before they
(06:05):
would be able to find her guilty.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Justice Bill then moved on to the evidence of Aaron's
good character and how it can be used by the jury.
He said the evidence shows she was a good daughter
in law, a good in law to Simon's siblings, and
a good mother to her two children.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
He reminded them that Erin had generously loaned up to
four hundred thousand dollars to Simon's siblings and their partners,
and he also brought the jury back to the evidence
of Detective Leading Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall, who said Erin
had no criminal history. Justice Bill told the jury that
they could use evidence of good character when determining the
(06:43):
likelihood that Erin committed the offenses as alleged, even though
it went without saying. He reminded the jury that just
because there was evidence of her good character, it didn't
mean they must find her not guilty. He told them
you should keep in mind a person who has previously
been of good character can commit a crime for the
first time.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Justice Bill then started walking the jury through different types
of evidence, and he started with tendency. He said that
Aaron said she had a tendency to forage for mushrooms.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
He then started summarizing the evidence the jury have heard
about Erin foraging for mushrooms, but he really made it
clear to the jury that he could not possibly summarize
every single piece of evidence that the jury have heard
about this topic. He took them back to Erin's evidence
and reminded them how she told them that she started
foraging in twenty twenty during COVID lockdowns. He explained that
(07:36):
she said she foraged in the curran Baro Botanic gardens
in the nearby Leeanngatha rail trail and on her properties.
He said she was mainly picking field mushrooms, but she
was also confident enough to pick other interesting ones like
slippery jacks and honey mushrooms. He reminded them that she
said she bought a dehydrator in April twenty twenty three
(07:58):
to preserve the mushrooms she was foraging, as well as
other food. He also took them to her evidence that
in around May and June twenty twenty three, she remembered
putting mushrooms she had foraged into a container with other
dried mushrooms. This was the container that she said she
grabbed when she was cooking the mushroom duck cell for
the beef Wellington, and said she tipped its contents into
(08:20):
the paste because it was too bland. At the time,
she said she believed it only contained dried mushrooms from
an Asian grosser, but later she realized there was a
possibility it contained foraged mushrooms as well.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Laura, after this summary, did Justice Bill explain how the
jury can then use this evidence?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
He did, and he told them that if they did
find that Aaron had a tendency to pick and eat
wild mushrooms, including putting them in the meals she served
to others, including her children, or if they think it
is a reasonable possibility that she had this tendency to
do that, they may consider that it increases the possibility
that the death cap ushrooms ended up in the beef
(09:01):
Wellingtons accidentally rather than deliberately. He reminded them that the
prosecution had argued that the only evidence that Erin foraged
for edible mushrooms came out of her mouth, and that
she was a self confessed liar and that they couldn't
believe this claim. So this really is like a two
step process. The first step for the jury is to
(09:23):
actually decide whether or not they believe Erin had this
tendency to forage for mushrooms and then eat them, and
then after that consider whether it increases the possibility that
this was an accident rather than a deliberate act.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Now, let's move on to what Justice Bill said about
hearsay evidence. Can you explain to our listeners what it is.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Hearsay is a term that I think a lot of
people bandy around, and today Justice Beer really nutted out
what this means. And it really revolves around out of
court statements that the jury are not hearing in testimony.
And in this case, a lot of the heres statements
stemmed from the remarks made by heather Don and Gale
(10:05):
before they died. Sadly, since they did pass away, they're
not able to give evidence in this case about what
was said at the lunch and what they observed. But
in the days before they passed, they had conversations with
both Simon and Ian, who wore later asked questions at
trial about these conversations to remind our listeners. Simon told
(10:26):
the jury that he remembered Heather asking him the day
after the lunch whether Erin was short of crockery because
she noticed that she had eaten off a different plate
at the lunch. Ian also recalled Heather making the same comment.
Simon also testified about what his parents told him around
the conversations at the lunch. He testified that they told
(10:49):
him that Erin had told the guests at the lunch
that she had been diagnosed with cancer. But Justice Beer
warned the jury today that there was a need for
caution when considering this evidence because it was hearsay. Simon
and Ian are bringing these statements from the deceased into
the courtroom. They didn't come from them themselves. Justice Biale said,
(11:09):
while Simon and Ian might be truthful witnesses, errors can occur.
They may have not accurately remembered what Heather, Don and
Gale said to them, so the jury must take this
unreliability into account.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Justice Bill also spoke about expert evidence, and he provided
an example from digital forensics expert Matthew Serell.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
He explained to the jury that usually witnesses aren't allowed
to give their opinions in trials, but experts are the exception.
He described doctor Cerell as an expert in his field,
which is why he was handpicked to give evidence in
this trial. Our listeners may remember that doctor Cerell gave
a lot of evidence around Erin's phone records and the
(11:52):
conclusions that could be drawn from them, but Justice Beial
reminded the jury today that doctor Cerell said the conclusions
had a lot of limits. Justice Bill said that doctor
Cerel's evidence about Erin's possible visits to Locke and Outram
were not evidence that she actually visited those postcodes. He
said that the connections of phone may make to a
(12:13):
base station can be consistent with and support a proposition,
but doesn't demonstrate a proposition in and of itself.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Justice Bill also went on to talk about prior inconsistent
statements once again, Laura, can you explain to our listeners
what this is?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
I really hope our listeners are following along with my explanations.
It's been a long day, but I promise I'm trying
my hardest. Justice Bill explained today that prior inconsistent statements
refer to the statements that a witness made before the
trial even started using Erin as an example. He told
the jury that there were statements Erin made in the
days after the lunch that appeared inconsistent with the statements
(12:54):
she made in the witness box. In one example, Justice
Beal took the jury to Erin's record of interview with
Constable Eppingstall. He asked her whether she had ever foraged
for mushrooms in the past, and she replied never. But
Justice Biel then reminded the jury of the evidence Erin
gave in the trial that we actually touched on earlier
in the episode Brook, where Erin spoke at length about
(13:16):
the fact she had forage for mushrooms for many years
and this was something that she had become quite confident
in doing. Justice Biel told the jury that they might
be less willing to accept a witness's evidence if they
did make an inconsistent statement.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
And Justice Bill will continue his charge tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
He will, And just before the jury left for the day,
he said to them that he would provide a little
update on the trial, and he simply said, you don't
need to bring your toothbrush tomorrow. He didn't say anything more.
But what we can take away from that is that
he is indicating that the jury will not be sequestered
tomorrow in the afternoon, but.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
I think it's safe to say that that will be
happening later this week. And when it happens, we'll tell
you what sequestering means for this jury. But in the meantime,
go to the mushroomcook dot com dot a U 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