Michelle O'Byrne on Stateline
Photo shows Ukraine Drone Strike: Screengrab shows a small drone hovering above a truck's trailer with a plume of smoke in the background.
Has Video Duration: 1 minute 41 seconds .
1 m
41 s
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
15 hours ago
- ABC News
Michelle O'Byrne on Stateline
Photo shows Ukraine Drone Strike: Screengrab shows a small drone hovering above a truck's trailer with a plume of smoke in the background. Has Video Duration: 1 minute 41 seconds . 1 m 41 s
ABC News
17 hours ago
- ABC News
Professor Scolyer crosses the finish line for his 250th Parkrun
Photo shows Ukraine Drone Strike: Screengrab shows a small drone hovering above a truck's trailer with a plume of smoke in the background. Has Video Duration: 1 minute 41 seconds . 1 m 41 s
ABC News
20 hours ago
- ABC News
The moments from Erin Patterson's evidence that didn't make headlines
In a courtroom cross-examination, the questions largely flow one way. A lawyer for the defence or prosecution gets the chance to ask questions of the other side's witness, to test the evidence they have given to the court. It was a principle crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC was quick to highlight to accused killer Erin Patterson this week, as they locked horns over evidence drawn from a computer in Ms Patterson's home. Dr Rogers had put to Ms Patterson that she'd used her computer in May 2022 to visit iNaturalist website pages containing information about death cap mushrooms. The court was shown a log of individual URL visits prosecutors said were made on Ms Patterson's PC over a period of time. Dr Rogers's questioning turned to the "visit count" recorded in the log for one particular URL. Dr Rogers: You had visited this URL once before on this device, correct? Ms Patterson: Yes, correct, and I believe it was two seconds earlier. Dr Rogers: I suggest you're wrong about that; correct or incorrect? Ms Patterson: Ah, I'm correct. A short time later, the prosecutor indicated she would move on from the exhibit of URLs visited by the PC. Dr Rogers: Now I'm moving on to a different topic. Ms Patterson: Before you do, Dr Rogers, within this record is that second [website] visit … that I was talking about, 7:23:16, 7:23:18. Dr Rogers: Ms Patterson, I am the person who asks the questions. If there's something that needs to be clarified in re-examination, then your barrister will do so. Ms Patterson: No problem. In her evidence, Ms Patterson also told Dr Rogers she did not recall if it was her who was operating the computer when it visited the page. "Somebody did, and that somebody could have been me," she told the prosecutor. The exchange was not the only one where Ms Patterson pointed out details she believed to be incorrect. One example was when she was given a date in 2023 with the incorrect day of the week: Dr Rogers: [Mobile phone tower expert Matthew Sorrell's] evidence was: "On Monday, 28th of April 2023, the mobile service records for you indicate a possible visit to the Loch township." Ms Patterson: I'm really sorry, Dr Rogers, could you just repeat the date? ... I just lost focus. Dr Rogers: On Monday, 28 April … his evidence was: "The mobile service records for you indicate a possible visit to the Loch township." Ms Patterson: I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think the 28th of April was a Friday. The only reason I remember that, is [my daughter] had two ballets on the 29th and 30th of April and they were that weekend. Dr Rogers: Ok, I'll change it Ms Patterson: Ok. It was an exchange Dr Rogers did not forget, referencing it later that day as she sought to inject a moment of levity into the hours-long examination. Dr Rogers: I better check with you. Monday, 22 May, it's a Monday? Ms Patterson: I don't know about that one. Dr Rogers: It's a joke. It's a joke. I take out the 'Monday'. Throughout her cross-examination, Ms Patterson was focused on Dr Rogers, blinking rapidly and speaking with a level voice as she rejected the suggestion her actions after the lunch were those of a guilty woman covering her tracks. She repeatedly denied to the Supreme Court jury that she was guilty of the murder of three in-laws and the attempted murder of a fourth. She rotated through outfits which have been widely described in media reports and sketches: a paisley-coloured top, a dark-coloured top with white polka dots and a pink shirt. The 50-year-old kept her glasses in her hands during her hours on the stand, so they were ready if she was taken to one of the many trial exhibits on the computer monitor before her. Her questioner, Dr Rogers, kept a brisk pace as she sought to make the most of the opportunity to ask questions of the accused. At times, responses became more personal as Dr Rogers suggested the evidence of Ms Patterson strained credibility. When questioning turned to the Monday after the Saturday lunch, Ms Patterson was asked about her movements after she discharged herself from Leongatha Hospital against medical advice. The court heard she arrived about 8am that day but left about 10 minutes later, before returning after a roughly 90-minute absence. Ms Patterson told the jury she had needed that time to see to things like putting the lambs away to protect them from foxes and packing her daughter's ballet bag, before she could be admitted to hospital for full treatment. She told the court this week that after returning home she also laid down "for a while". Dr Rogers: How long did you lie down for? Ms Patterson: I don't know. Dr Rogers: That's untrue, isn't it? … It's untrue that you lay down? Ms Patterson: No. Dr Rogers: Surely that's the last thing you would do in these circumstances? Ms Patterson: It might be the last thing you'd do, but it was something I did. Dr Rogers: After you'd been told by medical staff that you had potentially ingested a life-threatening poison, isn't it the last thing that you would do, is to lie down in those circumstances? Ms Patterson: They didn't tell me it was life-threatening. By any measure, Ms Patterson's time in the witness box was a lengthy one, stretching over eight days of hearings. And in a case where the complex brief of evidence has ranged from computer and mobile phone data to the science of differentiating fungi, moments have often been needed by all of the parties conducting the trial to double-check the facts on record. But by the end of the week, the time for questioning Ms Patterson was over, and the evidence phase of the trial drew to a close. Now the prosecution and defence will trawl through the hours of transcripts and reams of documents as they prepare to deliver their final arguments in one of Australia's most closely watched trials in years.
