It's been a while since we have updated you on the ins and outs of the ongoing saga of the Mushroom Cook.

But now at the end of November, there are a few interesting developments we can wrap up.

I'm Brooke Greebert Craig and this is the Mushroom Cook.

Hi, Laura, it's been a while since we've been on the mics.

It has been, but it's so good to be back.

Let's give a wrap up to our listeners as to everything that's happened over the last month and a half.

So the last time we were here, we really did break down those two appeals, So to remind our listeners, the prosecution is appealing Erin's sentence, which was a life sentence with a non parole period of thirty three years.

But on the other hand, Erin is appealing her conviction and now we know the reasons.

Why, and there's seven, aren't there.

Yes, there are seven, so we'll go through them now.

But overall, Erin wants a retrial, so she wants to do this all over again because she's says there were six substantial miscarriages of justice and then additionally she's saying that there was a fundamental irregularity with the jury.

So maybe let's start with that one, because it was at the top of her appeal documents.

She says this irregularity occurred while the jury were sequestered during that week of deliberations.

It came out after the trial that the hotel the jury members were staying at actually had a few other guests as well that were involved in the trial.

There was the informant, the lead investigator, Stephen Eppingstall, but there was also two members of the prosecution team, not the barristers, but other lawyers that work behind the scenes.

The court confirmed that this was the case, that the jury members were staying at the same hotel as these other individuals.

It was raised with the parties at the time, and just as Christopher Beal said that he was told there had been no interaction between them and the jury.

But Aaron says, the simple fact this occurred has fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of her convictions and an order for a retrial, because she says justice cannot only be done, but it must be seen to be done.

And there was another ground about her cross examination.

There was and this one is quite interesting, as our listeners will remember, Erin elected to give evidence in her own trial, and she spent many days in the witness box.

She was cross examined by Crown Prosecutor Nnette Rodgers for five days, and now she says that was actually unfair and oppressive and as a result it has led to one of those things we were talking about before, a substantial miscarriage of justice.

It will be intriguing to see how this plays out in any potential appeal hearing, because Erin knew when she chose to give evidence that she would be cross examined, and she would be cross examined at length.

It's not something she can say that she didn't see coming.

Another ground that does revolve around doctor Rogers is about her closing address.

Aaron says, despite doctor Rogers opening the case for the prosecution on the basis that there was no evidence of motive, she ended up changing tact and Aaron says that by the time the closing address came round, doctor Rogers was implying that there was in fact a motive for murder.

Aaron says that doctor Rogers was implying a motive by mentioning the child support.

Dispute, and also just the general tensions between Erin and the wider Patterson family.

Sticking on the same topic, Aaron says the closing address in and of itself also caused a substantial miscarriage of justice, but she doesn't specifically elaborate why, and I will just say that the appeal paperwork that we were given by the court is very brief.

There are other appeal documents that would need to be filed by her team, but what is provided to us is just the simple notice that outlines those seven grounds in very brief terms.

Three or relate to the evidence.

That's right.

So one of the grounds relates specifically to the cell tower evidence and the evidence stemming from the Ironaturalists website, specifically those sightings in Locke and Outram.

Erin says both the cell tower evidence and the Iroe Naturalist evidence never should have made its way into her trial.

She says it simply wasn't relevant, or that the strength of this evidence was outweighed by the unfair prejudice it brought.

Another tranche of evidence that Aaron took issue with was the Facebook evidence, specifically the evidence from her Facebook friends and the messages that came along with it.

Yes, there were some pretty salacious comments that Aaron made to her Facebook friends about Donningale and Simon TiO.

Yes, and that included the infamous f them quote that did get mentioned quite a lot throughout the trial and was one of those things that did get raised in the closing address by Dr Rogers that Erin is saying was I'm play lying a motive.

And the final ground, which probably is the one that I'd say is the most confusing, relates to a ruling that Justice Bill made that certain photos and videos of mushrooms found on an SD card were inadmissible during the prosecution case.

Erin says that they should have been admissible to help explain that, though, I'll just provide a little bit of context, because I don't think we touched on it in any of our episodes after the verdict.

But there were many points during the trial where the jury had to leave the courtroom because there were legal arguments playing out before Justice Biel.

One of these arguments came towards the end of the prosecution case, where Erin's defense barrister Colin Mandy, was pushing for photos of foraged mushrooms that were found on an SD card to be included in the prosecution case when the prosecution actually had no plans to include them themselves.

This was put to Justice Biel, and he ended up ruling that these photos shouldn't be included in the prosecution case because he didn't deem them to be relevant enough because the metadata on the photos suggested that they were taken years before the lunch had taken place.

But I remember at the time there being quite a lot of discussion amongst US journalists that the whole reason why mister Mandy was fighting so hard for these photos to be part of the prosecution case, so potentially he didn't actually have to call Erin as a witness, because our listeners will remember that within only a day of Erin giving evidence, she was speaking about how she had foraged before and how it was something she was quite passionate about.

But it may have been the case that if these photos actually formed part of the prosecution case, she never would have needed to take the stand at all.

Yes, it's a bit complex, but Erin is essentially saying that these photos should have been a part of the prosecution case.

So, Laura, what have we now learned about the prosecution's appeal.

So, unlike Erin, the prosecution only have two grounds of appeal.

They've kept it pretty simple.

Their main one is that Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate.

They say that it was inappropriate for Justice Beieal to fix a non parole period, and that the non parole period in and of itself is also manifestly inadequate.

To translate that, they're essentially saying that they believe Erin should be re sentenced to life without parole.

That was the argument they took to the pre sentenced hearing, where Crown Prosecutor Jane Warren said to Justice Biel that the crimes Erin committed were so horrific, so cruel, and so callous that she was not deserving of mercy.

But ultimately we know that when sentencing Erin, Justice Biale said he believed there was a substantial chance she would be held in solitary confinement for years, if not decades, given her notoriety.

He said that this was a very important and weighty consideration, and he said as a result he would be fixing a non parole period.

But that conclusion that Justice Bill made that he believed there was a substantial chance she would be held in solitary confinement for years is to come.

That forms the other half of the prosecution's appeal.

Their second ground is that he was wrong to make that conclusion.

They say that such a finding was not open on the evidence, and to quote them, they said that that finding actually infected his decision to fix a non parole period.

So this is something they'll be asking the Court of Appeal to reconsider and it will then be up to them whether Erin is re sentenced or whether they deem that the sentence should stand.

So when will all of this play out?

Then we don't have a date yet, but it's not uncommon for appeals to take months to put together.

There obviously already has been paperwork filed, but it doesn't mean that there aren't other processes playing out in the background before we can actually get to the hearing before three Court of Appeal justices.

So all I can really say is stay tuned.

And there's an update with the Carl and Jackie O.

Potential contempt charges isn't there?

And potential is almost the key word because now we know that that's not happening.

Here's a clip of one of their segments that aired during the trial, getting around this peg, like I keep seeing I have a red head?

I mean does it do it?

Or not?

Yeah?

Like what is the jury is?

How strong is her case?

Not strong?

Not strong?

For Carl went on to say, come on by looking at it, wait until case too long.

These cords should be in and out, decided and.

Moved on one day.

You accused, right?

And what am I going to get accused of?

I can't even cook.

We have touched upon it in a previous episode.

But contempt pretty much protects and accused right to a fair trial by preventing us, the media, and others from publishing information that has a real and definite tendency to prejudice the trial.

So the Office of Public Prosecutions would have been listening to that clip themselves and considering whether or not what they said had a clear tendency to prejudice Aaron's trial.

But in that it was considered that the required elements of contempt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly there were no reasonable prospects of conviction for not only this incident, but actually two others.

Yes, that's correct.

The Muma mea out Loud podcast and a presentation titled the Psychology of Serial Killers will also not be prosecuted for contempt.

Yes, that presentation you mentioned was by doctor Rachel Toles and it was that show she hosted in Melbourne where we understand she told hundreds of people in the crowd that she believed Erin was guilty.

And that was again while the trial was being held.

Yes, and that's obviously a big no no.

And with mma Mer's podcasts, they discussed why they thought Erin was testifying, and they also discussed woman's method of poisoning.

And running a commentary during a trial.

Is, like you said, Brook, another no no, but clearly not enough to land them before the courts.

And I think that's all for the updates for now.

Yeah, pretty much, Brook, Now, Laura, will there be another update in this case before the end of the year.

I'd say it's unlikely, but I think we've come to realize with this case that we really never know.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

We really just have to watch this space.

You're right about that.

Now.

We just wanted to thank all of our listeners for tuning into the Mushroom cook throughout this year.

It's been a massive journey, but we appreciate you tuning in.

Until next time, Brook, see ya.