Erin Patterson Mushroom Trial Day 36: Key Points and Updates

Justice Christopher Beale began delivering his instructions to the jurors before they retire to consider their verdicts later this week. He said the jurors were the 'judges of the facts' in the case. The jury should cast aside prejudices and sympathies while deliberating the verdict, Beale said. 'The fact Patterson told lies must not cause you to be prejudiced against her,' he said. Beale said Patterson’s trial had garnered 'unprecedented media attention' and a lot of public comment. 'If any of that has reached your eyes or ears or does so in the coming days ... you must be particularly careful not to let it influence you in any way,' he said. If the jury accepts Patterson was of good character they can use it to assess her credibility. Beale outlined alleged prior inconsistent statements by witnesses. He said jurors could accept the earlier statement made by a witness or use the earlier statement to assess the reliability of a witness.

Before the jury leaves the room, Beale says: 'you don’t need to bring your toothbrush tomorrow,' an indication that they will not be sequestered to consider their verdict until at least Thursday. Beale will continue his instructions to the jury from 10.30am tomorrow.

Judge outlines other evidence in case relating to death cap mushrooms. Beale says jurors should consider Sorell’s evidence in conjunction with other evidence in the trial. He says the prosecution relies on Sorrell’s evidence, in combination with other evidence, to infer that Patterson sourced death caps from Loch on 28 April to 2023. The court previously heard that retired pharmacist Christine Mckenzie posted a reported sighting of death cap mushrooms on the citizen science website iNaturalist on 18 April 2023. Beale outlines the other evidence the prosecution uses to make this inference: Patterson’s familiarity with the iNaturalist website and alleged visit to it on May 2022 to search a world map of death cap mushrooms. Patterson purchasing a dehydrator on the same day as the alleged visit. Patterson photographing wild mushrooms in that dehydrator soon after this date. Dr Thomas May, a mycologist, said the photograph of wild mushrooms was consistent with death cap mushrooms. Beale says the defence argues, that in Sorell’s opinion, the phone records are also consistent with Patterson not visiting Loch or Outtrim.

Beale outlines ‘limitations’ to telecommunications analysis. Beale turns to the expert evidence of telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell and digital forensics expert Shamen Fox-Henry, from Victoria police’s cybercrime unit. He says Sorell agreed there were 'significant limitations' to his analysis. Sorell said his conclusions about a 'possible visit' to locations of death cap mushroom sightings did not equate to a definitive visit to a postcode, Beale says. Sorell said data showing a phone’s connection to a base station could not prove a phone was in a particular area without further information.

If the jury accepts a witness made an inconsistent statement they have two options: 1. They can use the prior statement as evidence in the case, even if it’s inconsistent with subsequent testimony. 2. They can use the statement to assess the reliability of the witness. 'It’s for you to determine whether or not to draw this conclusion from any inconsistencies you find,' he says. He says a witness who has made inconsistent statements has not necessarily lied.

According to the source: The Guardian.