Global News Post Fastest Global News Portal
Related Articles
Patterson intentionally sought out demise caps, prosecutor says
Rogers says Patterson intentionally sought out demise cap mushrooms.
“She knew exactly what she was looking for and she targeted her search accordingly,” she says.
Rogers says the defence will almost certainly argue that Patterson had a excellent courting along with her lunch visitors. She reminds the jury that they don’t want to know why anyone did one thing to grasp that they did it.
Rogers tells the jury to not change into distracted via the problem of a loss of reason.
“The question is not why she did this. The question you have to determine is has the prosecution determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused did this deliberately?,” she says.
Key occasions
Prosecutor says Patterson idea ‘she would break out with those crimes’
Rogers says the jury might marvel why Patterson shared footage of her dehydrator along with her on-line pal if she deliberate to make use of it to dehydrate demise cap mushrooms.
“It’s certainly easy to identify where she went wrong when you look back,” she says.
But she says the jury must ensure that their evaluation is in accordance with the proof of this situation.
“I suggest to you, the accused did think she would get away with these crimes and she never suspected doctors would so quickly assume death cap mushrooms were involved,” Rogers says.
‘What would you do?,’ prosecutor asks jury
Rogers asks the jury to consider what they might do in the event that they had been in Patterson’s place.
“If you were told the meal you had served and cooked your family possibly had death cap mushrooms, what would you do?” she asks.
Rogers says they wouldn’t pass into self preservation mode, be reluctant to obtain scientific remedy or take 2.5 hours to “eventually agree” to get their youngsters medically assessed.
“You would do everything you could to help the people you love. You would tell the treating medical practitioners every skerrick of information,” she says.
Rogers rebuffs blameless explanations
Rogers says the defence will almost certainly argue there are blameless explanations of Patterson’s movements like discharging herself from the clinic inside of mins of arriving, being reluctant to get her youngsters medically examined and dumping the dehydrator.
Rogers performs the jury CCTV photos of scientific body of workers looking to prevent Patterson from discharging herself from Leongtha clinic on 31 July 2023.
She says Patterson advised police she had to depart the clinic to organise issues for her youngsters and animals. But Rogers says she had already dropped her youngsters on the bus prevent for varsity.
She says there have been different ways she will have controlled her youngsters and animals given she were warned she can have ingested a deadly toxin.
Rogers says the jury must reject tips via the defence that Patterson dumped the dehydrator as a result of she panicked
“Panic does not explain the extensive and prolonged efforts that the accused went to in order to cover up what she had done,” she says.
Patterson endured to lie even if the lives of her lunch visitors had been at stake, Rogers says.
Rogers says what Patterson “outwardly” portrayed didn’t all the time align along with her “true feelings”.
She says Simon gave proof that once he advised her his mother and father had been in clinic the day after the lunch Patterson by no means requested about them.
If Patterson beloved her in-laws she would have instantly requested about their welfare, Rogers says.
Relationship with in-laws no longer all the time ‘harmonious’
Rogers turns to Patterson’s courting along with her parents-in-law.
She says Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon Patterson, advised the jury Patterson looked as if it would love his mother and father.
“On the surface it seemed that way, even to the family members themselves,” Rogers says.
But she says the jury has heard proof Patterson’s courting along with her in-laws, Don and Gail, was once no longer all the time “harmonious”.
She reminds the jury about proof referring to Patterson and Simon’s dispute over kid beef up bills. She says Simon and Patterson’s son described his mother and father’ courting as detrimental earlier than the lunch.
Rogers says Patterson expressed her actual emotions about her mother and father in-law and the wider circle of relatives along with her on-line pals.
She says in messages from December 2022, noticed via the jury, Patterson referred to as her parents-in-law a “lost cause”.
Patterson intentionally sought out demise caps, prosecutor says
Rogers says Patterson intentionally sought out demise cap mushrooms.
“She knew exactly what she was looking for and she targeted her search accordingly,” she says.
Rogers says the defence will almost certainly argue that Patterson had a excellent courting along with her lunch visitors. She reminds the jury that they don’t want to know why anyone did one thing to grasp that they did it.
Rogers tells the jury to not change into distracted via the problem of a loss of reason.
“The question is not why she did this. The question you have to determine is has the prosecution determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused did this deliberately?,” she says.
‘Was the accused truly a mushroom forager?’
Rogers says she expects the defence will argue the jury can not exclude the likelihood that Patterson “innocently” foraged for wild mushrooms and unintentionally picked demise cap mushrooms.
“Was the accused really a mushroom forager between 2020 and 2023 as she claimed to you?,” Rogers asks rhetorically.
She says the one proof about this “comes from her own evidence”.
“None of the immediate family members you heard from in this trial … knew the accused to pick or eat wild mushrooms.”
Rogers says Patterson’s two youngsters had been ignorant of her foraging in spite of residing along with her all through this era.
“The accused never discussed foraging for mushrooms with her online friends … even though they discussed absolutely everything.”
Patterson gave police ‘dummy telephone’ and lied about quantity, Rogers says
Rogers reminds the jury concerning the proof about 4 manufacturing unit resets performed on Phone B.
She says Phone B, which Patterson passed to police, was once a “dummy phone”, with the sim card best inserted into it two days earlier than police searched her house
“This was not her usual phone number,” she says.
“We say she lied about her phone number in the police interview.”
Rogers says the a couple of manufacturing unit resets, delivering a “dummy” telephone and claiming she had a distinct telephone quantity was once “designed to frustrate the police investigation of this matter”.
“It was all done so police would never see the contents of the accused’s mobile phone,” she says.
Rogers says the one cheap cause of this misleading content material is that Patterson knew the contents on telephone A would implicate her within the deaths of the lunch bet.
“This is another example of incriminating conduct,” Rogers says.
Patterson’s cellphones
Rogers turns to proof about Patterson’s cellphones.
She says Patterson had a metamorphosis in handset originally of February. She endured to make use of this telephone – Phone A – till after the lunch.
“This is what the prosecution says is the accused’s usual mobile phone,” Rogers says.
She says Phone A was once nonetheless in use as much as and whilst police had been looking Patterson’s space on 5 August 2023.
Rogers reminds the jury the agreed proven fact that at an unknown time between 12.01pm and 1.45pm on at the present time Patterson’s authentic telephone quantity – in the past used for Phone A – “lost connection with the network”.
Rogers says this may well be because of:
A. The sim card being got rid of
B. The battery being got rid of with out the handset being off
C. The handset being broken
Rogers says for any of those 3 issues to happen anyone – “and we say the accused” – should were dealing with the cell phone.
She reminds the jury that to at the present time police have by no means situated Phone A.
‘She sought after to cover the proof,’ prosecutor says
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC is continuous to ship her final deal with.
She says the day after Patterson was once discharged from Monash clinic in August 2023 she drove to an area tip, Koonwarra Transfer Station And Landfill, and dumped the meals dehydrator as a result of she “knew it would incriminate her”.
She says the one explanation why Patterson did this was once to hide up the fatal meal.
“She wanted to hide the evidence,” Rogers says.
“This is another example of incriminating conduct.
“She knew that keeping it would be far too risky.”
Rogers says that if police had no longer came upon the transaction from the top then Patterson’s disposal of the dehydrator shouldn’t have come to mild.
“Erin Patterson certainly wasn’t telling anybody about it,” she says.
Rogers says Patterson lied to police when requested if she owned a dehydrator within the formal interview.
The jurors have returned to the courtroom room in Morwell.
What the jury heard the day before today
Here’s a recap of the what jury heard on Monday:
-
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC advised the jury Erin Patterson made “four calculated deceptions”. She mentioned those had been fabricating a most cancers declare as a explanation why to host the lunch, secreting a deadly dose of poison within the pork wellingtons, her makes an attempt to fake she was once additionally unwell, and a sustained cover-up to “conceal the truth” after the lunch.
-
Patterson didn’t assume she could be puzzled about her most cancers declare as a result of she believed her “lie would die with them [her lunch guests]”, Rogers mentioned.
-
Rogers advised the jury to reject Patterson’s proof that there have been no gray plates she served the meat wellingtons on. She mentioned Ian Wilkinson, the only surviving lunch visitor, was once a “compelling witness” and recalled 4 gray plates. He mentioned Patterson ate off an orange-tan colored plate.
-
Not one scientific skilled who noticed Patterson mentioned she seemed in poor health, Rogers advised the jury.
-
Patterson’s preliminary reluctance to have her youngsters medically examined, after she advised scientific body of workers she fed them leftovers of the deadly meal, was once as a result of she knew that they had no longer fed on demise cap mushrooms, Rogers mentioned.
Good morning
Welcome to day 33 of Erin Patterson’s triple homicide trial.
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC will proceed handing over her final deal with to jurors this morning. Patterson’s defence attorney, Colin Mandy SC, will then deal with the jury.
We’re anticipating the trial to renew from 10.30am.
Patterson, 50, faces 3 fees of homicide and one fee of tried homicide in the case of a pork wellington lunch she served at her space in Leongatha, in regional Victoria, on 29 July 2023.
She is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and her estranged husband’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson. The tried homicide fee pertains to Heather’s husband, Ian.
She has pleaded no longer responsible to the fees.
The prosecution alleges Patterson intentionally poisoned her lunch visitors with “murderous intent”, however her attorneys say the poisoning was once a sad twist of fate.
