Recent content by mirage1

All i kept hearing about was intent to kill, when murder is obviously much broader. When you feed someone deadly mushrooms intentionally I think it qualifies for this.

I think many are not understanding the criteria for murder in australia. You don't even need intent to kill.

I think she can change her story for the trial, and simply claim, after the deaths she panicked and claimed she bought them from a store, despite innocently picking them. She wanted to protect herself despite unknowingly picking them. It will still hurt the credibility, plus there seems to be...

I suspect the only reason you feed someone deadly mushrooms is to kill them. Anything else is giving them a completely unreasonable benefit of the doubt.

This looks awesome. Perfect theme for this place!

You don't need evidence or proof the child abuse story is fabricated. The burden of proof is on the defense side making the claims of child abuse. Sort of an important fact.

Gilham family murders in Australia. Jeffrey Gilham was convicted of murdering his parents and brother, but a few years later it was over turned on appeal and never re trialed. The evidence shows he is guilty as sin, He married and has kids now and living the good life after inheriting the money...

The shooter was literally in the best shooting position possible. Really is shocking for sure.

No surprise. There was always doubt about how he Killed Hill but for Clay there was no plausible explanation other than Murder as she was the witness.

Can he be convicted for just one victim and acquitted for the other? I expect him to be convicted for Carol for sure. The doubt could be for Hill.

I am still struggling to accept that as sufficient motive for an airline captain out camping to snap and execute two elderly people. Its such a huge leap. I find it more plausible that Hill was killed during an altercation (manslaughter?), and then the lady was murdered as she was the witness. I...

Even a dishonest story can have parts mixed with truth, its pretty common. The true part could be Hill did confiscate the gun which kicked off the conflict. if you don't trust someone with a gun, confiscating it makes logical sense. The claim of him being the trigger man could all be bs. Lynn...

Ive seen a few posts in various places from people who claim to know Lynn and they all describe him as a difficult character so it sounds like it was a perfect storm for conflict to occur. You would still expect better from men their age.

I think confiscating a dangerous weapon makes sense. It happens all the time.

Hmm Ok. Feels like its almost splitting hairs. So he is claiming the deaths were pure accidents completely. Interesting.