But her lawyers also argue that other pieces of evidence would have helped Patterson in court. Photos and images relating to her hobby as a long-time mushroom forager - and supporting their argument that the deaths were a tragic accident - had been wrongly excluded, the defence says.

Then there are their issues with the prosecution. Patterson's team say they were inconsistent about a motive, starting the trial by saying they wouldn't argue a particular motive, but ending it by implying there was one.

They also criticise the five days Patterson was cross-examined by barrister Nannette Rogers. At times it felt tense witnessing the two sparring in the courtroom, with Rogers accusing her of repeatedly lying. Patterson argues it was "unfair and oppressive".

But the most intriguing aspect of the appeal document submitted by Erin Patterson's lawyers relates to the jury deliberations.

Because there was so much hype around the case, there were steps taken throughout the trial to ensure the jury wasn't influenced by friends, family or the media. When they began deliberating, they had to stay in supervised accommodation, with little to no contact with the outside world, until they reached a decision.