Weeks after receiving a warning about her coverage of Erin Patterson’s murder trial, influencer Constance Hall has taken aim at some of the evidence used to convict the triple murderer.

Patterson, 50, was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder on Monday, after she served beef wellington laced with death cap mushrooms during a lunch at her Leongatha home in July 2023.

Patterson’s former in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, as well as Gail’s younger sister, Heather Wilkinson, died the week following the lunch, while Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, recovered following a month and a half in hospital.

Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today

During the trial, Hall notified her followers that she’d removed a post about the case after she was warned her coverage and responses to it could breach contempt laws.

“Fyi you guys, I had to remove the post about the mushroom trial because I received an email from the Vic government telling me to immediately delete it and that numerous comments on the post breached ‘the principles of sub justice (sic) contempt’,” Hall posted in June.

She added that she’d discuss the case with her followers after the trial, and she has made good on her word.

Hall pointed to a number of private messages sent by Patterson on Facebook, which were used as evidence in the trial to show Patterson’s strained relationship with her in-laws. Patterson admitted she regretted the statements in court.

In context, Patterson was meeting with her father-in-law, Don Patterson, about problems she was having with her estranged husband, Simon Patterson.

“So Don said they can’t adjudicate if they don’t know both sides and Simon won’t give his side,” Patterson wrote in the messages, referring to Don and Simon.

“So he said all he can ask is that Simon and I get together to pray for the children. This family I swear to f**king God.

“I said to him about fifty times yesterday that I didn’t want them to adjudicate. Nobody bloody listens to me. At least I know they’re a lost cause.”

Hall has argued that the kind of language used by Patterson isn’t unusual for former in-laws. She added she didn’t believe the messages proved she had any kind of murderous intent towards her ex’s family.

“I think my doubts stemmed from her messages ... like if that was the worst they could get on her messages ... well, I’d hate to see what they’d pin on me after reading mine,” Hall wrote on Facebook.

“I mean, those messages revealed that she wasn’t a fan of the ex and his family, but that’s so common that it just doesn’t feel like a motive. Ugh, my heart goes out to those kids.”

Hall, who rose to fame as a mummy blogger, added: “I mean, she just doesn’t look like the mushroom poisoning super villain that she ended up being ... You really never can tell, can you.”

Hall’s followers had a mixed reaction to the post.

“Did she do it? Unsure. I don’t believe the evidence was enough to convict. It’s all circumstantial and I believe the jury has been heavily influenced by the media in the two years it took to go to trial,” one follower said.

“Me too ... I’m not convinced,” another added.

“The evidence now able to be released is extensive and compelling. Lies, lies and more lies, that were all uncovered by investigating police. l believe the right decision has been made,” yet another wrote.

Other followers were also convinced of her guilt.

“There was WAY more then text messages Con x. She killed that man’s family,” one follower wrote.

“Seriously? I thought it was so obvious and everyone knew. Just goes to show,” another wrote.

“She did it,” another wrote.

The jury’s guilty verdicts came after seven days’ deliberation at the end of an 11-week trial in the Victorian town of Morwell, in the state’s LaTrobe Valley.

Following the verdict, Patterson was transferred back to Melbourne’s Dame Phyllis Frost Centre where it is believed she is being held in protective custody.

On Sunrise on Tuesday, criminal defence lawyer Ruth Parker spoke about a possible appeal from the convicted murderer.

Patterson’s legal team now has 28 days from her judgement to launch an appeal.

“Technically, the rule is that you have 28 days to appeal your conviction. But, realistically, the court will grant leave to appeal out of time for such big cases, where there is so much evidence and transcript,” Parker told hosts Natalie Barr and Matt Shirvington.

“Ultimately, I think that if she has the option to appeal she will.”