As I'm not a lawyer, I won't go down that rabbit hole, but I will say this:
I've never heard a judge go into the detail that Croucher did. Judges usually tell the jury that it's their duty to decide the facts of the case and his job is to explain the law. IMO he went a step too far.
He said the prosecution’s “circumstantial” case was asking the jury to infer the only reason GL would burn the campsite, dispose of the couple’s belongings and bodies and paint his car and trailer was because he “believed” he had murdered RH and CC. The jury are entitled to infer whatever they like.
Isn't it equally possible it's because he knew he'd murdered them? Neither GL nor anyone else said other people were at that campground between 6:40 and when he left Bucks Camp with the bodies in the trailer. So between, say, 7:00pm and midnight, after getting over his so-called panic, he had to dismantle his own campsite, totally burn RH's campsite, clean blood and tissue from RH's car, remove the large pool of blood where CC was crouching, remove the credit cards etc. from RH's car, load the bodies and remove all other incriminating evidence into trailer and drive by the shortest route to exit the valley. DI Stamper said, “We know that on midnight of the Friday night, there was a car that sounded like a petrol motor towing a trailer at that gate". [Myrtleford].
His car was also spotted on two cameras at the top of Mount Hotham, consistent with where a vehicle would exit the valley given the closure of the Myrtleford gate.”
I don't buy his story of being in a panic and didn't report it to the police that night because he thought he would be blamed. More likely it was because he knew the evidence would prove he was guilty.