terribly concerned with the formal mechanics of tender, they're concerned with the content of the evidence."Addressing the right to silence, he says it isn't a right to not be bound by the rules of evidence."[Patterson] had a forensic choice to make," he says."She clearly wanted to rely on having an innocent tendency to foraging."He says if she wanted to use the photos as defence, it only makes sense that it was introduced to the court through her.We're back to why the SD card photos of mushrooms were relevant to the trial.Mr McWilliams says the photos alone did not prove that Patterson regularly picked and ate wild mushrooms."The significant probative value .. He argued:"Does it not make it more likely that someone would forage mushrooms, that is pick and eat them, if there is evidence that they have at least been picked and that there is an interest in those mushrooms at the time that they were picked …"On the 29th of May last year, trial judge Christopher Beale ruled the photos inadmissible, saying they were irrelevant due to the amount of time between when they were taken and the fatal 2023 lunch.But Justice Beale reversed course a few days later, ruling on June 2 that the evidence was relevant, but only to support the possibility of a tendency — that Patterson had a habit of foraging for mushrooms.Patterson's appeal lawyers say that, as a result of the change in ruling, defence lawyers could not tender the photos as evidence through the police informant.They say her defence lawyers were "left with no choice" but to call Patterson herself to give evidence on the photos and defend herself."An accused's right to silence is fundamental