daniel christie's killer charged with murder, page-51

Greenhart you posted rather an interesting if brief post which nearly every poster since including you yourself seem to be ignoring especially Disc Stu who ignored it and posted that he thought we all got our legal info from A Current Affair, no offence meant Stu just calling it as I see it.

Greenhart your earlier post which stated...

"Murder as a basic principle

Firstly, murder can be proven in four ways:

1 killing with the intent to kill
2 killing with the intent of inflicting grievous bodily harm
3 reckless murder
4 killing while committing a crime of violence (felony murder).

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4385/what-constitutes-the-crime-of-murder-the-basic-ele.aspx"

... reads like a factual Law article which seemed to my limited legal knowledge to indicate a murder charge would be a very likely event in this case and a guilty verdict a shoo-in.
Yet you next post ignored your No.2, 3 and 4 ways to PROVE murder or at very least No.3 and 4. Why?

In it you say "DS I agree intent would be hard to prove in this case"

It is my opinion going only on what I have read, and admittedly on no sworn evidence, that the only one of the four ways to prove murder has been committed that the prosecutor's office can rule out is the No. 1 way and then only maybe.