The cross examination of Erin Patterson begins

Pop culture hot takes are everywhere, but only one podcast helps you figure out what they really mean.

Stop everything!

It's the place for you to unapologetically overthink pop culture.

With me, Beverly Wang, and me, Hannah Reese, find Stop Everything Now on the ABC Listen app: ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

The heat is on in the witness box.

I'm ABC Investigative Reporter Rachel Brown.

And I'm Stephen Stockwell.

It's Thursday, the 5th of June.

We've just finished day 26 of this trial.

Welcome to Mushroom Case Daily.

The small town mystery that's gripped the nation and made headlines around the world.

On the menu was Beef Wellington, a pastry filled with beef and a pate made of mushrooms.

At the heart of this case will be the jury's interpretation of Erin Patterson's intentions.

Erin Patterson has strongly maintained her innocence.

The tragedy once happened.

I love them.

For the last three days, Rach, we have heard from Erin as she has been questioned by her defence team.

Today

she has faced much more challenging questions under cross-examination from Dr.

Danette Rogers.

Now, before we get to the episode in chief, can you take us through an overview of the day?

Her defence barrister, Colin Mandy, S.C., wrapped things up for the defence case.

Then the prosecution began its cross-examination.

It took us back to that dehydrator that Erin Patterson dumped at the transfer station.

We moved on to where the prosecution alleges that Erin Patterson sourced the death cat mushrooms that's been at the centre of this fatal meal.

We learnt about cancer searches that Erin Patterson was doing using Dr.

Google.

We learnt about the cancer lie.

We moved on to emojis and we wrapped it up with a timeline for the jury about what's to expect here on in.

Thank you, Rach.

You have been hanging out in court a few days this week, actually.

You've been sitting in there as Aaron Patterson has been given evidence, kind of watching her from across the room.

You know, as I mentioned earlier in the app, we're now up to day three of her in the witness box.

How was she looking this morning?

What was the mood in the courtroom like?

I think she was expecting a tougher day today.

You know, she's been questioned by her own lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, up until this point, running her through those things.

And she would, I'm guessing, have a knowledge of what's to come with the prosecution.

It's kind of now we're into hostile territory.

So she had pretty much have to be braced for anything that could come her way.

Yeah, right.

What was she wearing today?

She was in a Paisley top that I've seen before, like a black base with Paisley and black pants and her hair out as usual.

And then she always has reading glasses close by if she needs to look at exhibits on the screen in front of her.

Yeah, right.

Okay.

And I mean, you know, first part of the day was the final questioning from the defence team.

So, I mean, what we've heard a lot in this trial and the way it has kind of worked is the prosecution has been calling witnesses.

They are the people that question them first.

And there is a cross-examination that the defense does.

Because Erin has been called by the defence.

They've kind of done the first round of questioning.

They've gone through, we've heard the last couple of days.

If you've missed any of that, jump into our episodes.

You'll get fully brought up to speed on what she was questioned on.

And then today from the defence with Erin seemed to be just kind of like initially clarifying a couple of points and then almost like running through like a list of dot points like yes or no questions almost right it was kind of like a laundry list that I think the defence team wants the jury to remember right you know the big points Colin Mandy SC started off going back to the dehydrator remember in his opening he said that people sometimes

in times that they're overwhelmed, they panic and do things that they perhaps aren't proud of later.

We've come back to this dehydrator today, which Erin Patterson admits she dumped on the Wednesday after the lunch on that Saturday.

So that was a lie.

She told police.

She's owned up to that.

She said, I lied about owning or not owning, as the case may be, a dehydrator.

That's the one they found at the tip.

She admitted to lying about.

foraging.

With the dehydrator, she said the mushrooms that I'd foraged were responsible for making people sick.

And she said, Gail and Heather had passed away.

You know, you remember that the police interviews on the Saturday?

Yeah, yeah.

Gail and Heather passed away on the Friday.

So she said she knew that when she gave her police statement and she said it was a stupid knee-jerk reaction to dig deeper and to keep lying.

She said, I was scared, but I shouldn't have done it.

And then Colin Mandy SC's laundry list starts of all the things that he, I think, wants the jury to take away.

So he puts to her things like, all six beef Wellingtons were the same.

She says, yes.

Each beef Wellington on each of the five plates were the same?

Yes.

Did you lie about purchasing dry mushrooms from an Asian grocery in April 2023?

No.

Did you pretend to be sick?

No.

Did you ever intentionally pick death cat mushrooms?

No.

Did you ever intentionally include them in the beef wellington you prepared?

No.

And then the last thing that he hit the jury with, he went through Don Patterson, Gail Patterson, Heather Wilkinson, Ian Wilkinson, and for each of those four people, he separately asked, did you intend to kill or seriously injure them or harm them?

And Erin Patterson said to all those four, no, I didn't, and seemed quite distraught by the end of it.

Her voice was kind of trailing off and became a whisper.

Yeah, it took like a little while for him to get through that list as he's going through, like, did you intentionally try to kill, you know, Don Patterson?

And he would ask that, and Erin would answer.

And then again, the same one at no.

And, you know, there's four people who were involved with this lunch so there's this question's being asked eight times two for each person and like you say like she was kind of getting more and more emotional as she kind of went through that list and this is precisely what the jury is going to have to decide for each of these four people four elements of murder yeah so there's a lot to digest

colin mandy went through that list um he finished the list and then he sat down he said that is it my and my evidence, my kind of like section of this is done.

And for some reason in my mind, I thought we would have, you know, we've had this morning.

It's quite an emotional moment that we've gone through just then.

It's kind of heavy.

In my mind, I'm expecting like a bit of a break.

Okay, cool.

Let's go take a moment.

Nanette Rogers, Dr.

Nanette Rogers, the prosecutor in this case, straight up at the little stand they've got on that bar table.

And she is immediately asking questions to Aaron Patterson.

Like, it couldn't have been.

She was up, wasn't it?

Like a coiled spring.

I don't even think Colin Mandy had finished sitting down yet.

It couldn't have been more than five seconds.

It was so quick, this transition.

And yeah, she really kind of got to work.

And like, these are quick, quite like quick fire questions, right?

Like, she is throwing stuff in there.

It's like, what happened to the dehydrator?

Is this your dehydrator?

Showing her pictures.

You know, did you visit Locke?

Did you visit Outram?

What about these kind of like death cat mushroom posts?

Yeah.

Are they your fingerprints on the dehydrator?

And Erin said, well,

if that's my dehydrator, like if that's the one that's in the bin.

And so we went through.

these one after the other.

And Dr.

Rogers says to Erin, I suggest that you saw Christine Mackenzie's post on iNaturalist on the 18th of April 2023 about death cat mushrooms in Locke and Erin said I disagree.

Dr.

Rogers continues, you then went to Locke on the 28th of April.

Erin says, well, I don't know if I did.

Dr.

Rogers says, Dr.

Rogers then shows Erin some images.

Now, you might remember these images.

Did they ring a bell today?

I'm very familiar with anything that Tom May is involved in.

So I recognise the images.

These are pictures of, you know, the dehydrator on Aaron Patterson's bench with trays of mushrooms in it, right?

These are the same photos.

These are ones?

Yep.

Funky Tom back in the frame.

Yep.

Literally.

He was asked to look when he was up giving evidence.

He was asked to look at these photos and he says the images were consistent with Amanita floides at a high level of confidence.

Right.

That's the scientist way of saying.

Like it.

Most likely.

Yeah.

Yep.

And we heard him give that evidence.

Now the same photographs have been shown shown to Erin Patterson, and she says, yes, that looks like it's my kitchen bench.

That looks like the background of my house.

And what the prosecution was trying to say is those were death cap mushrooms on those electronic scales.

Right, yep.

The same mushrooms that Tom May had said,

high chance they're death caps.

So Dr.

Rogers puts that to Erin Patterson and says, these mushroom images are the death cap mushrooms that you found on the 28th of April.

Erin Patterson says, I disagree.

Dr.

Rogers continues, you were weighing these death cat mushrooms so you could calculate the weight required for administration of fatal doses for one person and then for five people.

And she disagreed with those propositions as well.

So Erin Patterson's like, no, that's not, that wasn't it.

That's not what I was doing.

And one of the last questions she was putting this, you know, speedfire round was that she intended to serve Simon had he turned up one of those portions.

And Erin said, well, yeah, if he had have come, I would have given him one too.

And she said, not one with death cap mushrooms intentionally, if that was your question.

Yeah, yeah.

What did she say when she was asked?

I mean, did she give any clarification about where the mushrooms in those photos came from?

It was interesting.

I think I could be wrong, but I think it's the first time we've heard from the prosecution where Eida alleges she actually got them from.

the mushrooms that have been alleged to have been in the Beef Wellingtons.

So Dr.

Rogers is alleging that Erin got them from Locke after seeing that post from from Christine Mackenzie.

Erin Patterson disagreed, but she did admit to foraging in that time between April and the lunch in July.

And she was asked where she would forage and she said, oh, from my own property at Gibson Street, that's in Lee and Gather, Botanic Gardens at Curranborough, and the rail trail that runs out of Lee and Gather.

And she said, look.

that might and all have been after the 28th of April and that date's important stocky because that's when she buys the dehydrator.

Right.

Okay, yep.

But she said it was around that time.

time.

You were saying before, you know, this is the first time the prosecutions kind of said this is where she, well, where they kind of alleged she got the mushrooms from.

I mean, we saw all that kind of like the phone tarot evidence, the pictures of those, the posts.

I guess, I mean, maybe I'd just be making that assumption that was the point, but I guess it wasn't explicit, right?

Well, I don't recall it being put that bluntly.

Right.

Okay, good.

Yeah, it's good to kind of have that clarification.

It's one of those things, I mean, I think about a lot with this trial.

There's so much that we don't kind of get tied off as we go through.

Like, we're noticing this, I guess, less and less now.

We're hearing some of these things come back together.

And we can make

mental leaps ourselves, which isn't ideal.

So it's good when it's rounded up for us.

Yeah.

And I mean, again, just another quick clarification.

She has admitted at this point to foraging for mushrooms.

She has.

She says, yes, around that time I was foraging for mushrooms in those three places I just mentioned.

She has admitted to lying to police in the record of interview when she says that she hadn't foraged.

The other important thing in this space is that she was pressed a lot on what she told staff at the hospital,

Department of Health staff.

A lot of people put questions to her about forage mushrooms at that time

and this it and it may come down to semantics but the prosecution put to her look you had multiple opportunities to tell people at the hospital or the Department of Health that you were

you had foraged before.

And Erin's reply to most of those questions was that wasn't the context they were asking me.

They were asking me about ingredients in the meal, whether any forage mushrooms were in the meal.

And at that point, I didn't think there was.

Yeah, right.

Okay.

And something we spent a lot of time on this afternoon was this cancer lie.

Now we have heard this from a number of different people, particularly Ian Wilkinson,

who's the only surviving guest from the lunch, saying that Erin Patterson at the lunch told them that she had cancer and that that was, you know, she was at that lunch basically to ask for advice on how to break that news to the kids or that was the purpose for having these people around.

Basically, we heard more about that from Erin yesterday saying the reason that she was asking him about that was to cover for another medical procedure she was going to have, weight loss surgery, and she'd need help.

But today,

Dr.

Denette Rogers, the prosecutor, really, really spent hours questioning Erin Patterson on this lie, lots of different angles, and really kind of tried to drill into different points, who she told what, when, who she lied to, all of that.

And the various facets of that lie.

Yeah, Stocky, she began quite forcefully saying, all right, let's move to the so-called cancer lie.

And it's like, here we go.

You know, you could tell we're going to spend a lot of time on this.

Dr.

Rogers really wants to nail down what was going on, why people were told this.

So I want to start with talking about the screenshots.

We've heard of screenshots of searches that Erin Patterson was doing for ovarian cancer, brain cancer, what stages of those certain cancers, what symptoms you would have.

Yep, yep.

Now, it was put to her that she accessed these images around May 2023.

And Erin Patterson replied, Look, I remember that that was something that I was worried about at the end of 2021, maybe going into 22.

But she said, I don't think I did that in early 2023.

The reason they were putting this to her is because Dr.

Rogers proposed that that information would allow Erin to tell a more convincing lie about having cancer.

Right.

Okay.

And this is where the kind of the nuance and semantics got a bit confusing because Erin Patterson asked Dr.

Rogers, Are you asking me what I did or what's possible from those screenshots, hypothetically?

She said, Theoretically, that's true.

That would help build out someone's lie, but that's not what I was doing.

I was just googling these symptoms because back then I was worried I might have some of these conditions.

And she also

rejected the idea that she was coming up with this cancer lie as a legitimate reason to get people to this lunch.

I think the way that Nynette Rogers, Dr.

Nanette Rogers is kind of questioning Erin Patterson is getting like really specific about what people have, what evidence people have given and what was said at the lunch.

So Erin Patterson told the court that she'd initially thought she did have an issue with her elbow.

She said she'd had pain for a number of weeks.

She'd told Don and Gail what she was worried about.

Then she said it started to resolve and she was a bit sheepish about that, that she'd probably whinged a bit too much about it.

But she kept that story going because she said the care that she got from them was something that she wanted to continue.

She said, I felt a bit embarrassed that they made me feel loved and cared for in the way that they were asking after me.

So that story kind of...

perpetuated a little bit, but she admitted she'd never had a needle biopsy, never had an MRI.

But when

Ian and Heather and Don and Gail come to the lunch and the talk turns to cancer, as we spoke about yesterday.

I think one of Don's in-laws was diagnosed with something.

And then we talk about diagnosis.

Right.

And we start splitting these hairs about what was actually told.

So Ian Wilkinson in his testimony remembers something about a diagnosis, that she did have cancer, that she'd been diagnosed with cancer, that she was asking for advice on how to tell the children.

This is what Ian Wilkinson says, Aaron Patterson is saying at that lunch.

Correct.

Right.

Yeah.

And Erin Patterson told the court, well, no, I didn't tell people I had cancer.

I didn't say I'd received a diagnosis.

She said, I don't remember using those words, but she said I was trying to communicate that I was undergoing investigations around ovarian cancer and that I might need treatment in the future.

Right.

Okay.

Cool.

So subtle difference, but she remembers it very differently to how Ian Wilkinson remembers it.

Yeah.

Is this kind of how we can expect the questioning to continue?

Or will there be different arcs and different things that we'll see as the cross-examination of Aaron Patterson continues?

I think similar.

You know, we also saw it today with the child protection worker, Katrina Cripps.

Her talk with Aaron Patterson came up again and Dr.

Rogers was trying to ascertain, look, you know, you told her that this medical issue was

the reason for the lunch to discuss a medical issue.

And Erin Patterson said, look, I told her that we discussed it, but I never said it was the reason for the lunch.

Right.

So the jury's really going to have to dig in to the various sides of various stories.

Yeah.

Something we've spoken about in this podcast, kind of at length from a few weeks ago, were messages between Erin Patterson and some of her Facebook friends.

So these are messages that she has sent after basically kind of having a disagreement with the Patterson family.

She's been frustrated that they're not helping her kind of resolve an issue with her estranged husband, Simon.

It's about her in-laws.

And in these messages, there was some very strong language and also some emojis.

And at the time, we didn't know what the emojis were.

We couldn't kind of like dive into them in the way that was kind of, you know, satisfying to me.

But what we got today was a much better idea of what these were, including an interpretation from Erin Patterson.

Again, you're right.

This all comes down to interpretation.

So the emojis during the trial, we've learned at some points, you know, we've just heard the defense or prosecution use the word emoji and not actually tell us what it is.

People were straining to see in the overflow room, trying to get closer to the screen to work it out themselves.

It comes back to that time when there was

chat on the families' Facebook or Signal chat about child support payments.

Don and Gail didn't really want to interfere in or adjudicate, should I say.

Some of the Facebook friends that Erin had been writing to said that she kind of got a bit frustrated at the response of Don and Gail that, you know, then they won't adjudicate, but they'll pray for the children

to the emoji.

Yeah, and so this is it.

So Dr.

Danette Rogers today was reading through these messages, and there's a few points that she kind of landed on as she's reading through it.

So it's, I can't remember the exact wording of these messages, but it's, you know, oh, look, we've spoken to, you know, this is from Don and Gail.

Look, we've spoken to Simon.

We don't really get his side.

Well, you know, he won't tell us his side, so we can't adjudicate.

But why don't you know, we recommend that you pray for the children?

And, that you know erin's response that what is in the message after erin says the recommendation is to pray are these two what she described as eye rolling emojis yeah but after that more pop up that i think dr rogers was suggesting was the same emoji and erin and pattern said oh i'm not so sure that's an emoji with a straight line for the mouth

and where was nanette rogers going with this point?

What was she trying to make out of this?

Well, Dr.

Rogers, thinking it's an eye roll, says, I suggest you are mocking their advice to you, you know, and mocking the religious component of this conversation.

And she says, no, that's not true.

I wasn't mocking.

I was frustrated.

And so, I mean, what would you even call that emoji, Stocky, with

what was the, again, I'm not sure how you would describe it?

With the straight line from the mouth.

Two eyes, straight mouth through the middle.

That was, yeah, I'm not really sure how you would describe.

something like that.

Yeah, it's more ambiguous than the ones like the melt or

embarrassed and ones like that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I guess all of that in the context, so you've got the context of where this was coming from, where this emoji chat kind of arose from.

It's around this conversation that Dr.

Nanette Rogers is having with Erin Patterson, kind of questioning her Christianity.

Dr.

Rogers tried to say that she told one of the women on the Facebook chat that she was an atheist, which Erin Patterson today said, no, I never did that.

And she said,

this particular name was put to her.

Were you a close friend of hers?

And she said, nope.

Remember Remember that?

It was very blunt.

And she said, you know, this conversation, this chat had been going for four years with these women, but there were certain things that she wouldn't have told people like this woman in question.

Yeah.

Rachel, it's interesting looking at that difference, I think, between the way that Erin Patterson was questioned by her defence team and then again by the prosecution.

And I was interested, I wasn't in the room, you were in the room today, just at how that kind of process works, like what it's like for Erin in that space.

Like is she looking at her defence team for like clues, for a nod, like

how she should be approaching questions?

Or is she just sort of getting on with it?

How's it work?

I have noticed her looking quite intently at whoever's doing the talking at that time.

So when Justice Beale asks some questions, which he's quite good at, he likes filling the gaps for the jury if I think he's worried that something might have been...

stepped over too quickly.

She'll look very intently at him.

So whoever's talking, I haven't really seen her looking too much at her defence counsel.

I haven't seen them looking looking much at the jury.

They're looking at their notes.

I've only noticed that Colin Mandy S.C.

has jumped up a couple of times.

If the question seems to be bamboozling her, you know, there was a couple of questions today, double negatives.

And so she said, I don't really know how to answer that because it's a double negative.

Or if there were too many...

too many propositions in the one sentence.

So Dr.

Rogers was asked to break it down a couple of times.

So though at that point, he'll jump up for Erin to say, can you phrase this a bit differently?

And I noticed even Justice Beale, Turnitinet Rogers at one point, was like, Actually, no, that question, you can't ask it that way.

You've got to break that down.

There's like too many clauses.

Yeah, there's four questions in that one.

You've got to do it one at a time.

Speaking of Justice Beale, he continued his great relationship with the jury, updating them on how long we've got to go in this drive.

They loved him today because they get a public holiday, Stocky.

They all looked very happy.

That's on Monday.

So Monday, they get a day off.

Great.

Good news.

And what did he say about how much longer we've got to go in this trial?

Because we originally set down for a six-week trial.

Four to six.

We're in week six now, so I think it is clear that we're not going to be done by the end of tomorrow.

No.

What did he tell the jury?

It's likely Aaron Patterson will be in the witness box the rest of this week and probably into next week.

And as you know, they get a day off on Monday, so probably back in the witness box from Tuesday.

There'll be legal discussion between the parties that the jury won't hear.

Yep.

Then any more evidence, if there is any, which Justice Speal says, I don't know, I'm not, it's not availed, you know, suggests and there might be, but that's when it'll happen.

Okay, yep.

If it happens.

And then we will move into closings.

And that should probably take at least a day each for the prosecution and the defence.

Right.

And then the judge gives his charge to the jury, which is basically two days, he says, which he'll explain the principles of law, and then he'll summarise the evidence and the arguments.

And then that will probably take us into week nine.

Okay.

And then it's the jury's big job.

And he said, look, the boot's on the other foot for that.

None of you can tell me what you need to do in that time.

It's how long is a piece of string take all the time that you need.

Great.

Thank you, Rach.

Thank you, Justice Beale, for updating us on how long we can expect to be making Mushroom Case Daily from.

I'm sure all of the people emailing Mushroomcase Daily at abc.net.au appreciate the timeline.

There's a few questions about how long is this going to carry on for.

So there you go.

I also appreciated the timeline.

It was very nice.

But if you have been emailing, there is your answer.

Rachel, I'd love to jump into some questions that we have been sent to mushroomcase daily at abc.net.au.

I want to start with one from Kate in Canberra.

Kate says, hi, and thanks for the podcast.

Kate, it's our pleasure.

Thank you.

Kate's question is, when there is legal argument or discussion and the jury is let out of the room, does Erin stay in the court or is she let out as well?

Could this impact on how she's giving evidence?

No, so she stays in the court.

She's there for the whole time.

The jury is let out because we've spoken about this previously.

There are some things that both parties have to talk about, whether evidence should be admitted or not, or certain points of law should be used.

So they

don't get to hear that as to not taint

their mind before

the deliberation process.

But Erin does get to hear all that.

Great.

Thank you, Rach.

Thank you, Kate in Canberra.

I have another question here from Karina, the New South Wales South Coast.

Karina says, Hi, Rachel and Stephen.

Thanks for your excellent coverage of the trial.

Thank you, Karina.

Karina's question is: during witness questioning, especially fast-paced questioning, do lawyers refer to notes in hand?

How much is improvised and how much they look at their notes, if at all?

A lot of preparation goes into trials like this.

You know, we're into week six.

It's a lot of work.

I think both parties work very long nights.

I did notice a couple of times today, Dr.

Rogers in cross-examination, some of the things that she was putting to Erin Patterson, she had transcripts ready to go from what various people said in previous testimony.

But at times when the conversation veered off to something perhaps she wasn't expecting, she said, sorry, Your Honour, we'll have to come back to this so I can check some notes.

So I think it's quite a fluid process.

She also has people on her team that would be frantically looking things up if they feel like that's where the evidence is taking it.

Yeah, for context, Karina, there's, you know, it's not just Dr.

Nanette Rogers standing up there.

There's a couple of assisting solicitors that are just sitting next to her.

And then there's also some other kind of associates that are working with them kind of around the table.

Probably use the totally wrong word there.

Yeah, Jane Warren and Sarah Lenthal have been working with Dr.

Nanette Rogers.

Yeah, and there's some other people that sit around that table whose names I don't know, but whose faces I'm very familiar with.

Thank you, Karina.

Great question.

Thank you, Rach.

And finally, Rach, question here from Tanya.

Tanya says, I'm obsessed with the podcast.

Thank you, Tanya.

I wish the episodes were longer.

Well, look, it's, you know, a lot of work as it is.

Tanya wonders if the jury will be given any advice from the judge or legal experts before they make a decision about the verdict.

They will, and that's largely what I just said is part of the judge's charge.

They'll learn about the principles they should consider.

The judge will summarise the evidence and arguments for them.

He'll remind them that they are the judges of the facts.

So that's up to them.

He advises them on law and how to apply that law, but they are the judges of the facts.

Great.

Thank you, Rach.

Thank you, Tanya.

And thank you for listening.

If you've got a question you'd love us to answer, send us an email, mushroomcasedaily at abc.net.au.

We love hearing from you.

All your feedback, all your thoughts are so welcome and so helpful.

So we appreciate all of you getting in touch.

Please continue to do so.

That is all for today's EP.

Rach, what have we got coming up tomorrow?

Erin Patterson is back in the witness box for day two of her cross-examination under Dr.

Rogers.

Had a real moment the head day two.

I was like, wait, no, it's been three.

No, it's going to be four.

Of course, day two of cross-examination.

Thank you, Rach.

Thank you, Stuffy.

Be back in your feed then.

Mushroom Case Daily is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News.

It's presented by me, Rachel Brown, and producer Stephen Stockwell.

Our executive producer is Claire Rawlinson and huge thanks to our true crime colleagues, our commissioning executive producer Tim Roxburgh and our supervising supervising producer Yasmin Parry.

This episode was produced on the lands of the Gunai-Konai people.

Hello, I'm Manishkamatanda Dowdy, the presenter of Diddy on Trial from BBC Sounds.

Sean Diddy Combs is facing a fight for his freedom as his hugely anticipated trial starts for sex trafficking, racketeering with conspiracy and transportation for prostitution.

He denies all the charges.

I'll be bringing you every twist and turn from the courtroom with the BBC's correspondents and our expert guests.

So make sure you listen and subscribe wherever you get your BBC podcasts.