UPDATE: Bodies Of Both Missing Canoeists Recovered In Copper Country

Thanks for joining us again today.

The jury has now been sent out to deliberate what has been a marathon of a trial.

We don’t know how long deliberations will take but our blog coverage on Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial will continue when the jury reach its verdict.

The ABC has been in court every day of the trial hearings, but our colleagues have been hosting a podcast since well before the Supreme Court convened in Morwell.

Here’s where you can access each episode:

The jury has been sent out to decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty or not guilty of the murders of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of Heather’s husband Ian.

Here’s everything you need to know about what happens next, and what the jury needs to consider when deciding its verdict.

The jury will deliberate every Monday to Saturday from 10:30am until 4:15pm until a verdict is reached.

They can return to the courtroom with any questions they may have during that process.

No-one knows how long it will take any jury to reach a verdict.

Justice Beale gives some final directions to the jury.

“We’ll bring you back into court if you haven’t reached a verdict close to 4:15pm and you’ll complete your work for the day,” he says.

They’ve also been provided an index of Justice Beale’s directions.

“A reminder that whatever verdict you reach in relation to any of these offences, it must be a unanimous verdict,” Justice Beale says.

After nine weeks of hearings, he then sends the jury out to begin its deliberations.

Justice Beale then gets the remaining jurors to take a separation oath or affirmation.

He says in the unlikely event the jurors are separated, this means they agree to not discuss with any person other than a member of the jury any matter relating to the trial or deliberations.

The jury panel members have returned and the ballot has begun.

One juror number is called out first and officially balloted off, before a second.

The numbers were picked out of a box at random before the two reserve jurors were walked out of the courtroom.

Justice Beale explains that two members of the jury panel will be balloted off so that the total number of jurors deciding the verdict will be 12.

He thanks panel members for their time during this lengthy trial.

“I don’t know whether you’ll feel relieved or frustrated, but be assured you have made an important contribution to the administration of justice by your presence on this jury,” the judg says.

“I think the community would be very grateful too.”

The judge reminds the panel that the members balloted off should not discuss any of the trial or anything that happened in the jury room during the trial with anyone, even though they are no longer part of the decision.

He says all jurors involved will be given a dispensation for the next 15 years, which means they won’t be called for jury duty during that period.

The jurors return to the jury room for a brief moment while Justice Beale has one final discussion with the prosecution and defence.

Jury members will be allowed to ask questions during their deliberations.

Justice Beale says there’s one thing that must not be in a question before the court: the verdict that jurors are considering at that stage.

For example, if seven people are leaning one way and five the other, the judge does not want to know about it.

“You should only discuss the case with each other and you should only do that when you are all together in the privacy of the jury room,” he says.

The judge turns now to the final part of his directions, which relate to arriving at a verdict.

Justice Beale directs the jury that its verdict must be unanimous in relation to each charge.

He tells the jury that this does not mean they must all reach their verdict the same way.

“No matter how you reach your verdict, you must all agree,” he says.

Once jury members have reached a unanimous verdict, they will push a buzzer and return to court.

The members will be sequestered as they deliberate Monday to Saturday, but they will not get to go home on Sunday.

Their deliberation will take place during court hours.

Justice Beale tells the jury there were 125 exhibits in the trial.

“That’s a lot of exhibits to get your head around,” he says.

He again reminds the jury not to make any assumptions about the importance of a disputed event if it’s not mentioned in a chronology they’ve been given.

“It’s been a long while since the prosecution and the defence finished their closing addresses so I just want to draw this part [of my directions] to a close by just reminding you of some themes just to stimulate your memory,” he says.

He says the prosecution case’s included that Erin Patterson prepared and served individual beef Wellingtons to control the ingredients, lied about having cancer to get her guests to attend the lunch, pretended to have death cap mushroom poisoning and pretended to be a forager for edible mushrooms.

The prosecution also alleges Ms Patterson told many lies, including about having diarrhoea and not owning a food dehydrator.

He says the defence case included whether there was a reasonable possibility that the death cap mushrooms were accidentally included in the meal, that the prosecution “cherry picked” its evidence, that the absence of motive made it more likely it was an accident and warnings about the danger of relying on “hindsight reasoning”.

Justice Beale says it was Ian Wilkinson’s evidence that Heather Wilkinson and Gail Patterson each took two plates to the table and that Erin took her own.

Mr Wilkinson agreed there was no direction on who should take which plate, and that Erin finished the gravy while the others took their plates, the judge says.

He says Erin agreed with that evidence.

He now turns to the accused’s evidence about the plates.

Justice Beale say Ms Patterson told the court she didn’t own any large grey plates and that Ian Wilkinson’s evidence was wrong.

He says she told the court she doesn’t own a matching plate set.

Justice Beale says the prosecution told the jury Ian Wilkinson was a compelling and reliable witness who had no doubt about what he’d seen, and that he wasn’t the only one to notice the different coloured plates.

He says the defence argued that the individual portions were all cooked on one baking tray and that the only way to control who was served the poisonous meal was to mark the pastry itself.

The judge returns now to Ian Wilkinson’s evidence about Erin Patterson serving herself lunch on a rust-coloured plate while the other guests ate from grey plates.

He then goes to evidence from Simon Patterson about Heather Wilkinson mentioning the colour of the plates when Simon saw Heather and Ian when they were unwell the next day.

Justice Beale says that under cross-examination, Simon said he was familar with Erin’s crockery and that she had a mismatch of plates.

He’s now going through what various witnesses told the court and police about plates found at Ms Patterson’s house.

Justice Beale says the RecipeTin Eats recipe Erin Patterson said she used for the lunch was for one large beef Wellington.

He goes back to Ms Patterson’s evidence about wanting to make something special for the lunch and shopping for the ingredients.

He recalls her evidence that she said she roughly followed the recipe but couldn’t find one large log of meat.

He reminds them of other ingredient substitutions and the reasons Ms Patterson gave about them.

During the trial, prosecutors argued Ms Patterson served individual beef Wellingtons to allow herself to control the ingredients in her own portion.

Justice Beale spends a bit more time addressing Erin Patterson’s feeling of being isolated from her in-laws.

He says the defence argued that the Patterson family were all good people and there was no reason for Erin to kill them.

Justice Beale says motive may be important but what the prosecution has to prove is intention.

He says the flare-ups between Erin and Simon Patterson over child support payments lasted only several days in 2022.

He says Simon referred to other inflammatory messages from Erin.

The defence has argued that police had access to Ms Patterson’s devices and would have found them.

He says people who are separated have minor disputes and the defence argued it does not prove a motive to kill one party’s parents and aunt and uncle.

Justice Beale says he’ll first address whether Ms Patterson had good reasons not to kill her lunch guests.

He says family members and friends, online friends and police gave evidence that she’d been a good mother, she had a strong bond with her in-laws, that Don and Gail Patterson were loving grandparents, and that Erin had no criminal history.

Then he reads out messages that were presented in the trial including that Ms Patterson wanted nothing to do with her in-laws and that the best thing she could do was to forget about the family.

He recalls evidence about Ms Patterson feeling isolated from the family in the time before the lunch.

He says the prosecution argued sometimes, internal motivation may only be known to the person themself.

The judge said the only thing the jury had to be satisfied of was whether she did or did not commit the crimes.

The jury is back, and Justice Beale starts on the final 36 pages of his directions.

The judge again reminds the jury that the fact he mentioned a piece of evidence in his directions does not mean it is more important than other evidence he did not refer to.

He says he’ll now talk about the ultimate issues of whether Erin Patterson deliberately included death cap mushrooms in the beef Wellingtons and whether she had the necessary state of mind to prove the charges.

Justice Beale now revisits evidence about Erin Patterson’s faecal sample given in hospital and whether the test conducted on it revealed death cap mushrooms in the matter.

He reminds the jury of evidence that there is no test that can detect amatoxins.

He then tells the jury that he’s nearing the end of his directions, saying he has reached page 329 of 365.

But first, he calls a break.

Justice Beale says what is in dispute is whether the serving of the poisonous meal was deliberate and whether it was done with murderous intent.

He goes on to explain that for the charge of attempted murder, they must be satisfied she intended to kill and that an intention to cause really serious injury was not applicable.