The trial of Aaron Patterson is done and dusted.

Every day we brought you into the courtroom and dissected what the jury heard, but there was plenty that went on behind the scenes.

Now we can lift the lid.

I'm Brooke greeb At Craig and this is the mushroom cook.

Hi, Laura, We're back for another episode.

Yes, let's get into it so our listeners may remember that there were sometimes during the trial where the jury had to leave the courtroom.

There were discussions taking place in their absence, and that meant that we couldn't report on them because essentially that would defeat the purpose of them leaving the room in the first place.

But now that the trial is over, we can lift the lid on those discussions and bring those moments to our listeners.

Yes, and the first moment came very early on during the trial.

Aaron's estranged husband, Simon Patterson, was giving evidence and he revealed in the first ten seconds of his testimony he was still married to her.

Later that day, Justice Christopher Bill had a small but important question.

Here's his exchange with Simon.

These are their words, but not their voices.

There is a matter I need to raise with you.

In the absence of the jury.

I made certain assumptions, and I just want to confirm that those assumptions are correct.

The spouse of an accused person has a right to object to giving evidence.

I've assumed that from the history of this matter, you've been informed of that right.

No, I didn't know.

I couldn't.

I didn't know I had the right to object.

But I don't object.

I'm happy to proceed giving evidence.

I'm willing to give evidence.

I think if I'd been offered that before, I still would have said the same thing.

I'm quite comfortable about that.

And this was quite a shocking moment, and I remember it quite vividly.

Brooke.

We were sitting in the overflow room and this discussion was playing out between Justice Bill and Simon, and there was maybe a moment there where we all thought there was about to be a mis trial.

Because if Simon said to Justice bil that he didn't want to continue giving evidence, he had already been on the stand by that stage for a few hours and that jury had heard what he had to say, so he would have had to have left the witness box.

Justice Bier would have had to have told the jury that they were no longer required, and they probably would have impaneled a whole new jury to start things all over again.

And I think in this moment, we were actually sitting next to each other and you actually grabbed my hand, and we were all waiting in anticipation for Simon's response because he took a few moments to actually think about what he was going to reply, So we were really on the edge of our seats.

Yeah, and it's hard to know exactly what happened here.

We can maybe assume that someone in the prosecution team should have had that discussion with him, But at the same time, this was a trial that centered around the murders of his parents and his aunt and the attempted murder of his uncle, so you can see why they probably safely assumed that he would want to give evidence, and I guess in the end that they were correct with that assumption.

Okay, let's move on.

Yes, So, as we've touched upon previously, Brook, the media are subject to some really strict rules when it comes to reporting on a trial, and the main rule at play here is called sub judacy contempt.

So this is all about protecting an accused right to a fair trial, So we can only publish what's heard by the jury and we can't provide any commentary on the case.

But several media outlets landed themselves in hot water for breaching this rule.

Yes, and this included controversial shock jocks kyl and Jackie oh So.

On their breakfast show on June sixteen, they discussed the trial weeks before Aaron was found guilty of triple murder and attempted murder.

So we obtained audio of that show before it was taken down by their publisher Arn take a listen as to what they said.

Getting around keep seeing I have a red head.

I mean, does do it or not?

Yeah?

Like, what is the point to the jury?

Question?

Is how strong is her case?

Not strong?

Not strong?

Carl went on to say, come on.

Looking at it, wait until case too long.

These courts should be in and out, decided and.

Moved on.

One day.

Accused, right, and what am I going to get accused of?

I can't even cook toast.

Hours later, Justice Beale raised this matter with the prosecution and defense teams in the absence of the jury.

Here is what he said.

I encourage all commentators to engage their brains before they open their mouths, as they may otherwise land themselves and their organizations in hot water.

I will be referring this morning's matter to the Office of Public Prosecution for contempt proceedings.

Our media unit will continue to closely monitor all media in relation to commentary on this case, whether the commentary be shock jocks, so called influences, social media commentators, or legacy media.

So I'm sure our listeners probably agree with us, but Kyle's comments were very shocking and quite brazen.

Yeah, I agree.

And Kyle and JACKIEO recently started broadcasting in Melbourne, which meant that there was a potential chance that jurors on their way to court that morning would have been tuning into the show and could have heard what they said.

And I think from the perspective of the journalists who were in court covering the case day in, day out, it was quite disappointing to hear this being said, considering Kyle and JACKIEO or any of their staff were not in court at the time and covering the trial religiously like we were.

And this was particularly disappointing because they weren't the only ones.

So a few days earlier, on June five, The popular Muma Mia out Loud podcast also landed itself in hot water for publishing an episode that's speculated about Aaron's decision to testify in her own trial.

We don't have the audio of this podcast.

They took it down very swiftly, but some of the things they told their listeners was that it was rare for a defendant to take the stand, that when you put yourself on the stand, that a poor performance or ap peering nervous can really harm your case, and that when you get cross examined, it puts you in a very, very vulnerable position.

They also went on to speak about alleged female perpetrators and this whole idea of how interesting it was that women choose poison as a murder weapon.

And obviously all of that is fine to talk about now that the verdict has been handed down, but when they released this episode, it was during that period where we were under those strict regulations exactly.

Justice Beale brought this up with the parties and he said he would also consider proceedings against Muma Mea for subjudacy contempt.

He didn't go as far to say he would refer them, but said he would consider it at a more convenient time.

He told the court that the discussion they had on that podcast was full of highly prejudicial expressions of opinion.

So, Laura, what could actually happen to some of these publishers.

It's a bit unclear right now, because contemp proceedings can be initiated against individuals, but it also can be initiated against their employers.

So in the case of kyl and Jackie O, while it is possible that Kyle and Jackie O themselves could be hauled before court and brought before a judge or a magistrate, it's also possible that it might have to be their employers that end up potentially taking the fall for what they did.

But it wasn't only media outlets falling foul of the law, Rightbrook.

Yes, that's right.

So earlier on in the trial and the absence of the jury, Justice Bill came into the court room and said, do you want me to ask the juris if anybody attended a show in Melbourne on the weekend.

He didn't provide any context as to what show this really was, But I had previously spoke to a member of the public who had been attending the trial.

Every single day, and she attended a show on the weekend that was called The Psychology of serial Killers.

And I kind of put two and two together and realized that Justice bill was talking about this show in particular.

So, as it says in the title of this show, this event was all about serial killers.

It was hosted by a clinical psychologist and criminal expert, and her name is doctor Rachel Toles.

And during this show she spoke about Aaron Patterson and even plastered her face on a massive scream among notorious serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Damer.

We understand that doctor Toles told the crowd of hundreds that she believed Aaron was guilty, and obviously this is a big no no.

Yeah.

I remember that moment.

We were again sitting in the overflow room.

I remember a lot of the other court reporters not quite knowing what Justice Biel was speaking about.

But you looked at me and you quickly sent me information about the show, and we realized what was going on.

So after he brought up this show, there were some discussions between the prosecution and the defense and Justice Spiel about what should happen, and Justice Spiel asked, like you said Brooke whether he should ask the jurors if they attended a show in Melbourne.

At first, the defense really didn't want Justice Biele to touch this with a ten foot poll.

They didn't want him to even go there and bring up this show, but it was decided that something should be done.

Justice Biele said to the parties, I don't think ignorance is bliss in this situation, and it's better to know than not know.

I think we have previously mentioned Justice Biel's tip staff, Stuart Hastings before.

He is like the manager of the courtroom that makes sure everything runs smoothly.

Justice Beiel asked mister Hastings to go into the jury room to ask them whether any of them attended event in Melbourne.

So remember this was quite funny at the time because essentially mister Hastings was a covert spy going into the jury room to do some sleuthing.

So he's gone in.

I think it only took him about a minute until he returned.

And once again in that moment, we were all on the edge of our seats.

Yes, we don't know what the jurors do on the weekend, while they do all live in the Gippsland area.

Melbourne isn't too far away, so he's come back into the room and he started by saying there was one person who attended an event in Melbourne and he kind of paused, and I do wonder if this was for a dramatic effect, and then he said and that was the.

Soccer and we all breathed a sigh of relief.

Yes, for sure.

So it remains to be seen whether or not the Carl and Jackie Oh Show, the Muma mea Out Loud podcast or Doctor Toles will face any contempt proceedings for the things they said during the trial.

But I'll definitely be keeping a close eye on this because some of them may end up facing court.

And the Supreme Court came back with some numbers this week.

They actually confirmed that the trial was the biggest matter media wise that they had managed in recent history.

Yeah.

I don't know if this would have come as a shock to many people, but it was great that they actually confirmed that.

They said more than two hundred and fifty journalists and media outlets were signed up to receive updates on the trial, and this included fifteen international media outlets, nine authors, seven podcasts, seven documentary crews and one television drama series that's huge.

Yes, And there's so much content that is yet to be produced.

So while some documentaries are close to airing, we know others may be in production for quite a while to come.

Will you be watching any of them when they come out, Brook.

Oh, definitely.

I think it would be super interesting to see how other organizations tell the story.

Yeah, for sure.

And the Supreme Court said that for the most part, they were overall pleas by how everyone behaved when it came to covering this trial, but they said it was concerning to see some media outlets and commentators attempting to cover the case despite having no direct contact with the trial and no real understanding of their legal responsibilities.

They confirmed that sixteen directions were given to remove content and this included against four individuals on social media, and that was mostly for breaches of sub judacy contempt.

So it'll be interesting to see how all of that plays out.

But for now, for us, we'll be taking a break from daily podcasting, but there will come a point where we'll be back for as we've flagged previously, Erin's pre sentence hearing and then after that Justice Biel will sentence Erin for triple murder and attempted murder.

But the next show we have will be mid next week Andrew Rule from our sister podcast Life and Crimes will present a program on women who poison and I just wanted to take this opportunity to say a big thanks to all our listeners.

We really appreciate the support of The Mushroom Cook.

We read all of the comments and we really appreciate all the feedback that we have received over the last eleven weeks.

And while we're on the topic of thank yous, we also want to say a massive thank you to all of our colleagues and friends who have helped us produce The Mushroom Cook.

From those who lended their voices to bring the courtroom drama to life, to our lawyers at Thompson Gear who made sure they stayed awake to listen to our episodes before they went live.

And to our editors, chiefs of staff and colleagues who have supported us throughout this whole process.

And thanks so much Laura for being a big part of season two of The Mushroom Cook.

I think our listeners have really appreciated your skills and expertise.

Oh, thank you so much, Brook, that's really sweet and I also want to say thank you to you as well.

You have dedicated many hours to this podcast and we all appreciate your efforts very much.

Thanks Laura and until next time see you then, thanks again for listening.

This is a herald some production for True Crime Australia.

It's presented and rewarded by Brook Greebert Craig, Laura Placella and Anthony Dowsley.

Our executive producer is Jordie Atkinson.

The Mushroom Cook is produced, written and edited by John ty Burton