‘Scutter the Nutter': Lies that got Erin Patterson fired from air traffic control job
Patterson, 50, was found guilty by unanimous jury on Monday of murdering three members of her husband Simon Patterson's family and the attempted of a fourth with a beef wellington lunch on July 29, 2023.
Between February 2001 and November 2002, Patterson – whose maiden name was Scutter – worked in the Melbourne-based Southern Flight Information Region – where her training group secretly nicknamed her 'Scutter the Nutter', according to The Herald Sun.
'Something was not quite right, she was a bit strange,' a course mate recalled, adding that Patterson was also dubbed 'crazy Erin'.
'She would say some weird off the cuff things … she wasn't a nice person, she just wasn't someone you connected to.'
Another former colleague said Patterson's time at Airservices Australia ended on an awkward note, after management became suspicious she was leaving work early but claiming the time.
Those suspicions were confirmed when they checked CCTV from the car park. Patterson initially lied about clocking off early, the former colleague said, until management presented her with the time-stamped footage.
''Ah, you've got me there', was what she said (in response to the CCTV),' they said.
The same course mate described Patterson as 'manipulative' and 'aggressive in many ways'.
'She was a ritual, habitual and pathological liar, she would just say anything, just to get away with anything,' they said.
Despite this, they claimed a number of male staffers became quite 'smitten' with Patterson and pursued her romantically.
'She managed to get guys wrapped around her little finger,' they said.
Another former colleague, speaking to The Australian earlier this year, managed Patterson during her time at Airservices Australia.
The colleague said that Patterson had been counselled about her dishevelled presentation in the workplace, which included regularly wearing the same clothes to work.
Though she 'was good enough to do the job … there were issues with her', he said.
'She was colourful. Smart, very smart. Almost too smart. She was no dummy,' he added.
World stunned by verdict
The climax of Patterson's trial was watched around the world — as the jury found she murdered her husband's parents and aunt by lacing their beef wellington lunch with toxic mushrooms.
The keen home cook hosted an intimate meal in July 2023 that started with good-natured banter and earnest prayer — but ended with three guests dead.
Throughout a trial lasting more than two months, Patterson maintained the beef-and-pastry dish was accidentally poisoned with death cap mushrooms, the world's most-lethal fungus.
But a 12-person jury on Monday found the 50-year-old guilty of triple murder, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
She was also found guilty of attempting to murder a fourth guest who survived. 'I think it's very important that we remember that we've had three people that have died,' said Detective Inspector Dean Thomas after the verdict.
'I ask that we acknowledge those people and not forget them.' The trial has drawn podcasters, film crews and true crime fans to the rural town of Morwell, a sedate hamlet in the state of Victoria better known for prize-winning roses.
Newspapers from New York to New Delhi have followed every twist of what many now simply call the 'mushroom murders'.
'Delicious'
Family members of the victims declined to speak after the verdict, asking for privacy in a statement issued through police.
A lone friend of Patterson appeared overcome with emotion as she left the courthouse.
'I'm saddened. But it is what it is,' she told reporters.
On July 29, 2023, Patterson set the table for an intimate family meal at her tree-shaded country property.
Her lunch guests that afternoon were Don and Gail Patterson, the parents of her long-estranged husband Simon.
Places were also set for Simon's maternal aunt Heather Wilkinson and her husband Ian, a well-known pastor at the local Baptist church.
Husband Simon was urged to come but he declined because he felt 'uncomfortable'. In the background, Patterson's relationship with Simon was starting to turn sour.
The pair — still legally married — had been fighting over Simon's child support contributions.
Patterson forked out for expensive cuts of beef, which she slathered in a duxelles of minced mushrooms and wrapped in pastry to make individual parcels of beef Wellington.
Guests said grace before tucking in — and prayed once more after eating — with Heather later gushing about the 'delicious and beautiful' meal.
Death cap mushrooms are easily mistaken for other edible varieties, and reportedly possess a sweet taste that belies their potent toxicity.
'Not survivable'
The guests' blood was swiftly coursing with deadly amatoxin, a poison produced by the death cap mushrooms known to sprout under the oak trees of Victoria.
Don, Gail and Heather died of organ failure within a week.
Detectives soon found signs that Patterson had dished up the meal with murderous intent.
Patterson told her guests she had received a cancer diagnosis and needed advice on breaking the news to her children, prosecutors alleged.
But medical records showed Patterson received no such diagnosis. The prosecution said this was a lie cooked up to lure the diners to her table. She also lied about owning a food dehydrator which police later found dumped in a rubbish tip.
Forensic tests found the appliance contained traces of the fatal fungi. 'I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible,' Patterson told the trial.
A computer seized from her house had browsed a website pinpointing death cap mushrooms spotted a short drive from her house a year before the lunch, police said.
'Super sleuth'
Death caps are the most lethal mushrooms on the planet, responsible for some 90 per cent of all fatalities due to consuming toxic fungi.
Baptist preacher Ian Wilkinson was the only guest to survive, pulling through after weeks in hospital.
He told the court how guests' meals were served on four grey plates, while Patterson ate from a smaller orange dish.
But he could not explain why Patterson wanted him dead.
Patterson was a devoted mother-of-two with an active interest in her tight-knit community.
She was also a well-known true crime buff, joining a Facebook group to chew over details from infamous Australian murders.
Friend Christine Hunt told the jury Patterson had a reputation as 'a bit of a super sleuth'.
Patterson maintained through her lawyers it was nothing more than a 'terrible accident'.
'She didn't do it deliberately. She didn't do it intentionally,' defence lawyer Colin Mandy told the trial.
'She denies that she ever deliberately sought out death cap mushrooms.' Confronted with countless hours of intricate expert testimony, it took the jury a week to find Patterson guilty.
The court will soon set a date for a sentencing hearing that will determine how long Patterson spends in jail.
Her legal team has 28 days after sentencing to appeal both her criminal convictions and her sentence.
Patterson's lawyers have not yet indicated whether they will appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
39 minutes ago
- ABC News
Hannah McGuire murder accused Lachlan Young set to face a jury
A jury is expected to be empanelled today in the murder trial of the man accused of killing young Clunes woman Hannah McGuire. Lachlan Young faces one count of murder over the death of Ms McGuire, his former partner. He is expected to plead not guilty in the Supreme Court of Victoria when the trial begins. Ms McGuire was reported missing by her family in April last year and her body found in a vehicle that had been destroyed by fire south-west of Ballarat. Until yesterday, the matter was subject to a suppression order. The trial is expected to run for five weeks.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
77 per cent of childcare workers operating below safety requirements, union survey finds
More concerns have been raised about safety at childcare centres, with three-quarters of workers telling a survey their place of work was operating below minimum staffing levels at least weekly. The United Workers Union survey of 2,100 childcare workers also found that 42 per cent of workers said their centre was operating below minimum staffing levels on a daily basis. The findings come after the charging of a Melbourne childcare worker with more than 70 offences, including sexual assault, and a long-running ABC investigation revealed examples of profit being placed above care. "While examining the tragic events revealed in Melbourne last week, we also need to understand the alarm that is being sounded by educators," UWU early education director Carolyn Smith said. "Workers report children are left without emotional support, without adequate supervision to stop them hurting themselves or others, and without appropriate education." The union survey was conducted before the Melbourne childcare worker was charged. "I can't even guarantee the safety of the children and myself. I feel sad, unsafe and stressful every day," a Victorian worker told the survey. Do you have a story to share? Email The for-profit operyators that dominate the childcare sector pay staff less and rely more on casual workers, an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigation in 2023 found. "Partly because of understaffing, we see a real churn of staff moving through centres, and that's when we don't have that safe, quality environment we need," Ms Smith said. The issues highlighted in the ABC investigation echo the UWU survey, which revealed the top four concerns of educators. Preeti Soodan, a Melbourne educator at a large for-profit provider, told ABC News childcare workers had too many demands placed on them, including cleaning and administration. "There are many challenges we face during the day. We keep changing the hats; we are educators, we are leaders, we are supervising the children, we have many responsibilities with documentation," Ms Soodan said. "We don't only educate them, we have to wipe the tables, clean them, support them emotionally. Throughout our day, we are always juggling." Ms Soodan is a trained primary school teacher with more than a decade's experience working in Australia and India. She said workers were treated as "glorified babysitters" rather than educators. "The neuroscience tells us that 90 per cent of the brain develops till the age of five, so you can understand how precious this profession is," Ms Soodan said. The UWU survey revealed 83 per cent of workers agreed a common staffing loophole called the "under the roof" ratio was used by centres and compromised the wellbeing of children. Ratios are designed to ensure a minimum of staff are present at all times to supervise children but the numbers of workers required in each room varies according to the age of the children. Some staff count all workers "under the roof" rather than numbers in individual rooms required under the National Quality Framework (NQF) and state-based regulators. "Educators tell us that what was supposed to be a commonsense stopgap for changes that occur at centres through the day, has become an overused staffing loophole, entrenching educators regularly working below minimum staffing requirements in their rooms," Ms Smith said. Even where ratios were being met, staff reported an increase in children with additional needs meant safety was still being compromised. "We always work with the correct ratio, but the increase of children with higher needs is making current ratios completely inappropriate," a New South Wales educator told the union survey. Federal Minister for Early Childhood Education Senator Jess Walsh said the survey results were "very concerning". "Providers must meet minimum staffing levels to provide safe, quality early education and care," she said. "We will work with educators and their union to address the concerns raised in this survey." The minister said the government last year agreed to spend $3.6 billion to give childcare workers a pay rise and job vacancies were falling in the sector. The Australian Childcare Alliance, a lobby group representing for-profit providers, said its members had been working with government to improve attraction and retention of workers. "We are unable to comment on a survey with no oversight of the detail included in the data," a spokesperson said. "The sector is rightfully expected to comply with the regulations and National Quality Framework at all times. This is non-negotiable."
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Accidentally unredacted document reveals issues with children at Tasmanian watch houses
Staff at two Tasmanian prisons have "urgently" requested body-worn cameras and reported "high levels of anxiety" when managing children in watch houses, a mistakenly unredacted document shows. Using the Right to Information (RTI) process, the ABC requested information about complaints or concerns regarding Tasmanian children being held in adult custodial facilities — where they await court, bail or police interview. RTI — sometimes called Freedom of Information — is a system that helps people access documents and other public-interest information held by public authorities. When journalists or members of the public receive documents through RTI, they are usually partly blacked out as to not disclose information. The ABC made an RTI request to the Department of Justice, the public authority for the Tasmanian Prison Service. Two months later, a 14-page document was received. See more details of the ABC's request, the information provided and relevant parts of the Right to Information Act, here. By mistake, the document received was completely free from redaction, revealing in full an "issues register" from 2024, where prison staff listed concerns around the detention of children in watch houses and the Department of Justice responded with suggestions or actions to address them. Within minutes the department sent another email saying they "would like to recall" the document. It then sent a second, corrected version of the document, which was completely redacted aside from several paragraphs and a one-page introduction. Watch houses are designed for temporary detention and lack the facilities of long-term prisons or detention centres. The department told the ABC that redactions were made where the document contained personally identifying information, deliberative information, and information "out-of-scope" of the request. The unredacted version contained no names or personally identifying details. The ABC has decided to publish this story, after reviewing the information. The ABC can reveal the hidden information was indicative of staff concerns that: The Department of Justice has since told the ABC: The department said it was in the final stages of acquiring body-worn cameras in reception prisons — where watch houses are located — "with implementation expected before the end of the year". In the issues register, the department responded to staff concerns about health and hygiene risks for children, saying it would "upgrade infrastructure to allow young people to tend to basic hygiene and self-care". "Reducing the risk of trauma to young people in reception prisons remains a key priority. The department is committed to ongoing improvements." Tasmanian prison staff, who manage youth in watch houses on behalf of Tasmania Police, said police officers "regularly" told detainees they "will be at the WH [watch house] for a little while" — which can negatively impact their mental and physiological state. Dysregulation refers to an inability to control or regulate emotional responses. Staff also said police provided insufficient information when transferring people to watch houses, resulting in "significant operational risks and impacts the safety of detainees". But police say an admission form for each detainee outlining personal details, behavioural risks, medical information and child safety concerns is provided to prison staff. "Tasmania Police aims to provide timely and accurate information to prison staff regarding a youth in custody at the time the youth is detained," a police spokesperson said. The department said over the next five years it intended to "advocate for Youth Justice Blueprint to incorporate watch house facility for young people". Johan Lidberg, an associate professor at Monash University, believed because the document was "in the highest public interest" and did not identify people, it was not reasonable to keep it hidden — and considered the "personal information" exemption did not apply. The department was asked for more details on the decision to not disclose the information. It replied: "As outlined in the right to information decision, if you are dissatisfied with the decision you may seek an internal review under section 43 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act)." The ABC requested details of: "Complaints, concerns or similar regarding children and young people being held in an adult remand facility and related correspondence from 2022 to 2025." One 14-page document was given to the ABC titled "Engaging with Young People Training — Issues and Responses". It included a one-page introduction and then a table with two columns — one outlining staff-raised issues with dealing with young people in watch houses and the other with the department's written response to the issue. It was initially completely unredacted but with red outline boxes left around some sections, and then, minutes later a version with those boxes redacted was sent through in which almost all the document was redacted. The initial introduction as well as some sections on pages 2 and 3 were left unredacted. No staff or detainees were named in the document. The department said redactions were made according to the following parts of Tasmania's Right to Information Act: Exemptions subject to public interest test Section 35 — 'Internal deliberative information' I consider that disclosing the above listed items, which contain material compiled by departmental officers may contain information which is wrong or inaccurate — see clause (u) of Schedule 1. The material contains records of ongoing consultations between officers, including material which is deliberative in nature. It is also important to note that the material relates to exchanges by relatively junior Departmental employees and there is no information to indicate their views would be adopted as a formal policy. I also consider that the nature of the comments of Departmental officers are deliberate in nature and should not be disclosed. Officers must feel free to provide their opinions, advice and recommendations, and to participate openly in consultative and deliberative processes, in order for decision and action resulting from those processes to be robust. The overriding public interest consideration is the need to ensure that there is a frank exchange of views between officers when making decisions. The disclosure of consultations or deliberations would likely prevent such exchanges from occurring, with a consequent detrimental impact on good decision-making. Further, it would also lead to a reluctance to document the reasons for decision, with a consequent loss in transparency in the decision-making process. Section 36 — 'Personal information of a person' I consider that disclosing the personal information of members of the public would be detrimental to the interests of those persons — see clause (m) of Schedule 1. The personal information of people who have been held at a watch-house is not in the public domain and those persons might suffer discrimination by reason of their having been in these facilities if disclosed. As a consequence of the above, I am of the opinion that the factor favouring disclosure are outweighed by those against disclosure and it is not in the public interest to provide the personal information of a members of the public. 'Information out of scope' I consider that part of the material contains information which is out of scope of your request. The relevant material has been redacted and marked accordingly.
