The pieces come together in the in Patterson -Puzzle

For seven weeks, the pieces of the Jigsaw were shaken before the jury in the Triple murder test of Erin in Patterson.

Dozens of witnesses were summoned and exhibitions varied from photos that reportedly showed the killer chapters that were dried out in the run -up to the murders, to the belts of data extracted from seized electronic devices.

In the eighth week of the process, the persecution and defense used those documents to collect and present two contrasting photos to the jury.

The prosecutor told the jury that the documents clicked in place to reveal Mrs Patterson as a murderer, who deliberately killed three family members and tried to kill a fourth.

The lunch she had organized in her regional Victorian house in 2023 was built on a series of deceptions, the persecution claimed.

The deadly, main prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said, was MS Pattersons Veter of the meals of Beef Wellington that she served to her family members.

“The sinister deception was to use a nourishing meal as a vehicle to deliver a fatal poison,” Dr. Rogers on the jury of the Supreme Court.

She invited the jury to consider the documents evidence around the “abnormalities” that Mrs Patterson made in the original recipe for Beef Wellington.

While the method in the mother of Two’s cookbook called for a block of meat, individual eye fillets were used.

Mrs Patterson told the court that was because individual eye fillets were the only ones they could find.

The public prosecutor suggested that this was a lie and the truth was much more calculated.

“That choice to make individual portions gave her complete control over the ingredients in each individual package,” said Dr. Rogers.

“She was able to share in the same meal, while she made sure that she did not consume beefton package she had peppered with mushrooms from Death Cap.”

Mrs. Patterson’s decision to dump her food dehydrator (later found to contain the Killetjapadenstoelresidu at the point and then lie to the police, was behavior that could be merged according to the prosecution to form burdensome behavior.

“If there was nothing taxing on the Dehydrator, why hide?” Dr. Rogers asked the jury rhetorically.

“She knew that in that device she had dried out the death fathoms and that she had deliberately done this, and she knew that it would be too risky.”

A crime ‘beyond’ understanding for the jury

The public prosecutor told the jury that the evidence that was made for them did not point to a “special motive” for the crime, but this was not a requirement for the charges of the murder.

“The question is not why she did this,” she said.

“The question you must determine is: has the prosecution proven without reasonable doubt that the suspect has deliberately done this?”

Although it was not a certain motive, the persecution placed more evidence for the jury to fill in his puzzle.

Facebook messages with friends showed Mrs. Patterson’s hostility to her Patterson in-laws and spot of their deeply held religious beliefs, Dr. Rogers.

“She presented a side while she expressed opposing beliefs to others.”

At the end of her address, the public prosecutor told the jury that the legal bar was “good and really met” because of the evidence of murder over reasonable doubt.

When all the evidence was combined, Dr. Rogers that the jury would be satisfied that the accused had deliberately sought the killed caps and had served them with malignant intention to her family members.

“One piece in itself or in itself cannot tell you much about what the photo is,” she said.

“But as you put more and more pieces together and look at it as a whole, the photo starts to become clear.”

She said that although jury members may have the feeling that the alleged murders were “too terrible, too cold and be over your understanding”, they had to stay focused on the evidence.

“Don’t let your emotional response determine your judgment, somehow,” said Dr. Rogers.

Defense tells the jury to reject ‘ridiculous’ theories about persecution

When Mrs. Patterson Colin Mandy SC’s defense rose, he told the jury that the absence of an alleged motive meant that the Jigsaw of the persecution was incomplete.

“Without a motive you guess about the most important element of the violation in this process and that is the intention,” said Mr Mandy.

He walked a few months before lunch through some of the tense communication between the accused and her alienated husband Simon Patterson.

But he said that the photo they painted was a fairly ordinary one of the two divorced people who manage the joint care for their young children.

“There is nothing unusual about it. In fact, exactly the opposite,” said Mr Mandy.

“In some cases it would be unusual if there wasn’t that kind of spit or disagreement or frustration.

He accused the persecution of placing the jury a series of “ridiculous, complicated propositions” that were not supported by the evidence.

He said that Mrs. Patterson’s simpler explanation of a terrible “accident” was a truthful that “undamaged” had arisen after days of cross -hearing.

“Her report remained coherent and consistent, day after day, even when it was challenged, fast fire, from several corners, repeatedly,” he said.

Under that explanation, a Tupperware container in the Leongatha -Pantry of Mrs. Patterson contained a mix of dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer and those she had arranged from the Gippland region.

In that mix, Mr. Mandy suggested, the Deputy Chapters were added to the lunch later.

“The prosecutor says she intentionally had them, the defense says she had them accidentally,” he said.

He told them that after lunch the actions of Mrs. Patterson were the panic of an innocent woman in the aftermath of a terrible accident.

“In the witness box and told you, she did those things because she panicked when she was confronted with the terrible opportunity, terrible realization, that her actions had caused the diseases of people she loved,” he said.

While closing, Mr Mandy told jury members that the persecution had tried to “force the evidence to fit their theory in a way that does not apply to Jigsaw puzzle”.

“Stretching interpretations, ignoring alternative explanations because they do not perfectly match the story,” he said.

“The lack of puzzle pieces in a puzzle puzzle can make the image incomplete, but there is lack of evidence is much more important.”

He reminded the jury that if they did not accept all the evidence of Mrs. Patterterson as truthfully, they had to put it aside and consider whether the evidence actually existed to prove murder and tried murder without reasonable doubt.

After both parties in a trial that had ended surprised observers around the world, the judge indicated that the most important part was for us.

Justice Christopher Beale will give his last instructions to the jury on Tuesday, of which he said it would break the legal principles at stake in the case.

Then it will fall for the jury to merge the puzzle itself.