11.41am
In her closing address, Rogers said that version of events was the result of the fact that “at some point it dawned on her that the Asian grocery store [version of events] did not add up”.
“She had to come up with something new,” Rogers said.
The prosecutor told jurors they should simply disregard the claim that the poisoning was a horrible accident, and said Patterson was trying to make her story fit the evidence police had complied.
“You really would have to take her at her word. For reasons I will get to later, you simply cannot do that,” Rogers said.
She said that based on the evidence, the jury should conclude that Patterson deliberately sought out and picked death cap mushrooms.
“The second argument we anticipate the defence will make is that the accused had no motive to target the lunch guests and had a positive relationship with them, particularly Don and Gail,” Rogers said, in reference to Patterson’s in-laws.
“We don’t say that the evidence demonstrates any particular motive. You’ll remember from the checklist of elements for the offences on the indictment ... motive is not an element of the crime of murder or the crime of attempted murder.”
People did “different things for different reasons”, Rogers said.
“Sometimes the reason is obvious. At other times the internal motivations are only known by the person themselves. You don’t need to know why a person did something in order to [find] that they did it,” she said.
The question the jury needed to determine was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson did what she did deliberately, the prosecutor said.
www.theage.com.au
Disregard accused’s claim the poisoning was an accident: prosecutor
By
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, has told the jury the Crown expected that one of the arguments Erin Patterson’s defence lawyers would make would be that the accused woman had accidentally foraged death cap mushrooms.In her closing address, Rogers said that version of events was the result of the fact that “at some point it dawned on her that the Asian grocery store [version of events] did not add up”.
“She had to come up with something new,” Rogers said.
The prosecutor told jurors they should simply disregard the claim that the poisoning was a horrible accident, and said Patterson was trying to make her story fit the evidence police had complied.
“You really would have to take her at her word. For reasons I will get to later, you simply cannot do that,” Rogers said.
She said that based on the evidence, the jury should conclude that Patterson deliberately sought out and picked death cap mushrooms.
“The second argument we anticipate the defence will make is that the accused had no motive to target the lunch guests and had a positive relationship with them, particularly Don and Gail,” Rogers said, in reference to Patterson’s in-laws.
“We don’t say that the evidence demonstrates any particular motive. You’ll remember from the checklist of elements for the offences on the indictment ... motive is not an element of the crime of murder or the crime of attempted murder.”
People did “different things for different reasons”, Rogers said.
“Sometimes the reason is obvious. At other times the internal motivations are only known by the person themselves. You don’t need to know why a person did something in order to [find] that they did it,” she said.
The question the jury needed to determine was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson did what she did deliberately, the prosecutor said.
Erin Patterson murder trial LIVE updates: Accused lied to authorities and in witness box, prosecutor says; defence counsel begins addressing jury
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, says the Crown has proven its case against accused killer Erin Patterson beyond reasonable doubt. Now, the defence barrister is addressing the jury.
