disco stu wrote:Any idea how far Grant is from where they were originally camped/killed?
mchughcb wrote:So they have already found remains at Grants.
Going to be interesting how the old bloke died. And more interesting why.
Larry wrote:mchughcb wrote:So they have already found remains at Grants.
Going to be interesting how the old bloke died. And more interesting why.
Thing is we may never know all the details. As he will most likely plead guilty now. Pretty hard to deny it after bodies are found where you told the cops they would find them.
Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:Long range target shooting is a thing but I never new long range hunting was a thing.
mchughcb wrote:So they have already found remains at Grants.
Going to be interesting how the old bloke died. And more interesting why.
bladeracer wrote:Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:Long range target shooting is a thing but I never new long range hunting was a thing.
It's not really. Hunting implies getting close to your quarry, which essentially rules out anything we would consider long-range. It also implies taking an active role, which is why I can't consider "sitting in a tree stand waiting for an animal to come to the feed you laid out for it" to be hunting. Much like English hunting, where you pay the landowner and he has his game warden drive you out to the field they keep the deer in, you shoot one, then go and wait in the library to sip sherry, while the game warden dresses it for you, then drives you back to your Rangerover.
But long-range taking of game is a thing, there are several Youtube channels where they don't shoot anything if it's closer than a few hundred meters.
bladeracer wrote:mchughcb wrote:So they have already found remains at Grants.
Going to be interesting how the old bloke died. And more interesting why.
I agree. Killing two people in an argument is possible, and even setting fire to their gear in a poor attempt to conceal it, but then taking the risk to move the bodies so far away just seems weird.
mchughcb wrote:bladeracer wrote:Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:Long range target shooting is a thing but I never new long range hunting was a thing.
It's not really. Hunting implies getting close to your quarry, which essentially rules out anything we would consider long-range. It also implies taking an active role, which is why I can't consider "sitting in a tree stand waiting for an animal to come to the feed you laid out for it" to be hunting. Much like English hunting, where you pay the landowner and he has his game warden drive you out to the field they keep the deer in, you shoot one, then go and wait in the library to sip sherry, while the game warden dresses it for you, then drives you back to your Rangerover.
But long-range taking of game is a thing, there are several Youtube channels where they don't shoot anything if it's closer than a few hundred meters.
What tree stand were you using to make that observation because in general people use blinds with feed not tree stands. Infact i don't know anybody that has used a treestand with feed.
Here's the legend Noel https://youtu.be/xVwvLQXN6ko
Here's the not a pro https://youtu.be/59NWr25b2qQ
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:mchughcb wrote:So they have already found remains at Grants.
Going to be interesting how the old bloke died. And more interesting why.
I agree. Killing two people in an argument is possible, and even setting fire to their gear in a poor attempt to conceal it, but then taking the risk to move the bodies so far away just seems weird.
Not weird at all, far harder to prove murder when you don't actually have any bodies as the case then relies on circumstantial evidence.
Remember they need to prove you did it deliberately and intended to kill the person's without lawful excuse to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Blr243 wrote:A very awful experience for people gone missing. Weekend camping trips are something we really look forward to ... nature is spose to be a wonderful experience......I like to think, camped in the middle of nowhere, just minding my own business , that I’m safe , and nothing, other than rain flies and mozzies will give me a hard time
Oldbloke wrote:Sooo, for "game" feeding or baiting is not to my knowledge allowed in Victoria.
And no hunting, shooting after dark on public land. No Spot lights, or NV.
Private property NV and artificial lights are permitted.
bladeracer wrote:No, removing the bodies is not unusual. Transporting them so far at the time of bushfire road closures and patrols seems to be bloody risky.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:No, removing the bodies is not unusual. Transporting them so far at the time of bushfire road closures and patrols seems to be bloody risky.
You need some perspective here, we are talking about moving them less then 50kms not 500kms in one of the most remote areas of the state. Moving them away from an area with other campers nearby to a even more secluded area in the middle of the night.
You would have zero chance of even coming across another person let alone getting stopped and your vehicle searched in the middle of the night in such a remote area,
So why is it bloody risky as you claim.
womble wrote:Transporting murdered dead bodies carries with it inherent risks imho
bladeracer wrote:Because roads were blocked due to bushfires and these ultra remote areas had witnesses (others caught up in the road closures) watching him having difficulty turning his vehicle around with a trailer on the narrow road, in the dark. It was a huge risk if he'd gotten bogged or trapped by fire control, and somebody offered to help him. They may well have wound up in the trailer themselves. I'm not aware that any other campers were in the immediate area.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:Because roads were blocked due to bushfires and these ultra remote areas had witnesses (others caught up in the road closures) watching him having difficulty turning his vehicle around with a trailer on the narrow road, in the dark. It was a huge risk if he'd gotten bogged or trapped by fire control, and somebody offered to help him. They may well have wound up in the trailer themselves. I'm not aware that any other campers were in the immediate area.
Because the roads where blocked would lessen the risk of a vehicle search as frankly you would have more important things to be doing then random vehicle searched in the middle of the night in a remote area with bush fire threat.
I am sure you have helped someone who has been bogged or stuck before, did you search their vehicle when helping them?
There were a number of different parties camping in the area.
Also the burnt out camp site was found at 2pm the next day after they went missing by other campers.
Fionn wrote:womble wrote:Transporting murdered dead bodies carries with it inherent risks imho
This is your cognitive biases at play, it's very common to have primary and secondary murder scenes, but extremely rare that the person is caught moving the body between them.
bladeracer wrote:Did I say anything about searching any vehicles?
There could be anything that the murderer overlooked that might catch somebody's eye, that might lead to his capture, either immediately or later on. Taking the bodies with him leaves an evidence trail that ties him to the victims and the scene. Even if it were never discovered, that trail exists, that wouldn't exist otherwise.
I don't see how anybody can argue that it was not a very risky decision to make in the circumstances.
bladeracer wrote: Yes, very common, but usually a choice made because the circumstances make it relatively unlikely to cause any issues during the move.
bladeracer wrote:Extremely rare doesn't make it less risky.
bladeracer wrote:How many times have killers been identified because of things that became apparent because they decided to attempt to remove the bodies from the scene? How many killers have been caught on CCTV moving evidence, that wouldn't have been looked at twice if they hadn't made that choice? People noticed or filmed moving vehicles, wheelie bins, or suitcases at unusual times or in unusual places.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:Did I say anything about searching any vehicles?
There could be anything that the murderer overlooked that might catch somebody's eye, that might lead to his capture, either immediately or later on. Taking the bodies with him leaves an evidence trail that ties him to the victims and the scene. Even if it were never discovered, that trail exists, that wouldn't exist otherwise.
I don't see how anybody can argue that it was not a very risky decision to make in the circumstances.
No you didn't say anything about searching vehicles, the issues you raised here don't change depending on whether or not you are carry bodies, so I gave you credit that you meant this, as it only does if the vehicles are searched and you are found with them, hence why I raised it.
Every single action someone takes leaves a evidence trail, so your point is well pointless. What he has achieved by moving the bodies, is delayed a murder investigation, removed a primary murder crime scene, hidden a secondary crime scene, removed evidence of the crime(bodies), removed information and any evidence on how the victims died and introduced doubt in what took place.
Also remember hanging around an active crime scene is a proven way, many many people get caught, the little interaction you have with it the better and if you have interacted with it burn it to the ground to destroy any evidence of the crime and what you may have left.
Clearly the guy is far smarter then you, seeing you can't understand the basic reasoning behind it.
Fionn wrote:I am not agreeing with you, it's just when I point out your flawed reasoning, you shift your argument instead of giving a counter one or admitting your errors in reasoning, so eventually you come around to the logic pointed out in my posts which makes it seem that way.
You do it a lot of the time in your different posts when challenged.
Fionn wrote:Clearly it didn't cause any issues, as the bodies hadn't and most likely wouldn't have been found until he gave up the location.