Nanette Rogers, SC, has shown Erin Patterson records of phone activity on August 3 and August 4, 2023, which Patterson agreed indicated that she continued to use phone A on those days.
“It does show use, yes,” Patterson said.
The prosecutor then took Patterson to the records for August 5, 2023, which she said showed that Patterson was still using phone A on that date. The jury heard that was the day police executed a search warrant at 11.40am at Patterson’s Leongatha home.
Erin Patterson in August last year.Credit: Chris Hopkins
Patterson said she had “no idea” whether she had used data on that day.
“At an unknown time between 12.01pm and 1.45pm the number ending in 783 lost connection with the network,” Rogers said.
Rogers said it was an agreed fact in the trial that the loss of connection could be caused by the SIM card being removed from the handset, the battery being removed without turning off the device, and the handset being damaged.
Rogers: I suggest that you removed the SIM from phone A between 12.01pm and 1.45pm [on August 5, 2023].
Patterson: Disagree.
Rogers: I suggest that you had physical possession of this phone when you did that.
Patterson: Disagree.
Rogers: I suggest you removed the SIM card when you were afforded privacy [by police to contact a lawyer].
Patterson: That happened at 2pm.
Rogers: I suggest that your claim that the black item on the window seal is phone A is simply nonsense.
Patterson: Disagree.
Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, arrives at court on Thursday.Credit: Jason South
Rogers suggested to Patterson that she told the police on August 5, 2023, that her phone number ended in 835, the phone number linked to phone B. And that she lied about that being her usual number.
Patterson agreed the number ending in 835 was linked to phone B but she said she wasn’t asked by police if that was her usual phone number.
“Your usual phone number was the one ending in 783,” Rogers said.
“It was until that day, yeah. Or the day before,” Patterson responded.
Rogers said Patterson had only used that phone number to make three phone calls since resetting the device on August 2, 2023, to which Patterson responded: “I don’t know how many it was.”
“Those three phone calls occurred around 2pm on August 5 [2023] when you were given privacy to contact a lawyer,” Rogers said.
Rogers suggested to Patterson that she was happy to provide the device to the police and tell them this number was her regular number because she knew there was no data on the phone.
“I did it because they asked for my phone and I gave it to them,” Patterson said.
Rogers then took Patterson to records showing a series of factory resets on phone B, including one on August 2, 2023, the day after she was discharged from Monash Medical Centre with her children.
The records showed a second factory reset on August 5, 2023, at 1.20pm.
Patterson agreed she had carried out the reset while police were at her house to execute a search warrant, but denied it was while she was given privacy at 2pm to make arrangements via the phone.
Asked by Rogers about a final factory reset of the device the following day – August 6, 2023 – Patterson agreed she had carried it out herself, remotely.
Rogers suggested she had carried out the three factory resets on phone B following the lunch to conceal the true contents of phone B, and to pass off the device as her usual mobile phone without police realising.
“Disagree,” Patterson said.
Rogers suggested phone B was an attempt by Patterson to hide the contents of her usual mobile phone – phone A – and said the mother of two had deliberately concealed that phone from the police because she knew the data on the device would incriminate her.
“Disagree,” Patterson said.
Read the full article here
