I think from reading peoples posts during the trial and asking the simple question here, What happened that night? and seeing so many people have different versions of events it shows that the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt of murder beyond a reasonable doubt which would be a major issue to me as a juror.
I get that I'm in the minority but to me on the balance of probabilities it's far more likely for a negligent or accidental discharge (with or without a struggle) to have occurred than Lynn cold bloodedly murdering 2 senior citizens over an argument, then leaving a blinking neon sign of a crime scene.
It just doesn't make any sense to me having heard what we have about Lynn that he chooses to kill 2 in cold blood knowing he won't be able to dispose of the car, people will pass through the campground as soon as the early morning and report concerns about the half burnt camp/open car to police, he's got limited amount of night to then dispose of evidence and bodies, difficult terrain to traverse, etc.
Look, I don't think it went down the way Lynn described with RH grabbing his gun and shooting in the air first but I'm far from convinced he meant to kill them as well.
I still think alcohol was the missing factor we should have heard more about in the trial. Unless they thought arguing Lynn was intoxicated would lower his culpability? Surely not?