A trial has been set down for 10 weeks beginning June 21, 2027.

A small, outback Queensland town is on the hunt for a GP once again, two years after its campaign to recruit a doctor went viral.

The farming and mining town of Julia Creek, 600 kilometres from Townsville, made headlines in October 2022 when it offered up a lucrative salary of $500,000, plus a rent-free home, for a GP to take up residence there.

The campaign was a hit, and succeeded in attracting a GP to fill the role.

However, two years on, the doctor is moving on and Julia Creek is on the hunt for a doctor again.

This time, the town is upping its offer, putting together an eye-watering base salary package of up to $680,000, including allowances for a house and car.

The remuneration package on offer is more than double the average annual salary for GP jobs in Brisbane, which range from $260,000 to $280,000, according to employment website Seek.

Julia Creek, which describes itself as "a small town with a huge heart", is home to roughly 500 residents, with double that number living in the greater McKinlay shire.   

As well as the attractive salary, the job offers lifestyle benefits too, the advertisement for the senior medical officer states.

"No traffic jams or long commute here – simply black soil plains, blue sky and burnt orange sunsets," the ad extols. 

The town has a small, six-bed day hospital staffed by registered nurses and health workers, which can provide low-level care, as well as temporary care for patients needing to be transferred in an emergency.

Without a doctor in town, residents would need to travel 147km to Richmond.

Peter Ogden was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention.

Analysis: This will probably be Australia's first $1 billion election, and here's the ugly secret behind it: these campaigns are not just staggeringly expensive but they are pretty much a waste of time.

Let's be realistic. It's a fortune spent on a process which will decide who runs the country but tell voters very little about what that will mean to their lives.

First, the cost, and remember this is in a country where the leaders both champion the need to reduce public spending at the same time they are throwing money around to buy votes.

Put the pork barrelling to one side. That's for another day.

https://omny.fm/shows/neil-mitchell-asks-why/opposition-leader-peter-dutton/embed?style=cover

Instead consider this: the Australian Electoral Commission reports that the 2022 election cost the public $522,390,716 ( possibly inflated a little by the pandemic).

That includes a total of $75.8 million direct funding to the parties. Labor got $27.1 million, the Liberals $26.55 million right down to Jacqui Lambie who got $160,000, all assessed as part of the public cost of running the election.

But like the steak knives, there is more and it is all about winning your ears, hearts and minds.

'It would not be so bad if the election campaign actually led to sensible debate, worthwhile information, a genuine contest of ideas rather than a wrestle for popularity'

In the year leading to the election the parties spent $418 million doing their job, which includes thrusting printed pamphlets at bleary commuters on railway stations to glitzy advertising on TV that at times will try to convince you they have found the answer to curing cancer, world peace and perpetual motion, all in thirty seconds.

READ MORE: What you can expect in next week's federal budget

But don't look for accuracy in these advertising tsunamis. Through a ridiculous loophole, the politicians are not required to provide any truth in advertising until the campaign starts. For all but the last few weeks it is legal to lie. 

Regardless, the coalition last election spent $132 million, Clive Palmer $123 million and Labor $116 million.

At a conservative estimate we are throwing $900 million at democracy, more than half of it public money.

How many hospitals could be built, how much military hardware could be bought and how many pensioners would be given a bonus if that money was used differently?

It would not be so bad if the election campaign actually led to sensible debate, worthwhile information, a genuine contest of ideas rather than a wrestle for popularity, and a chance that the whole process meant the voter was buying anything other than a pig in a poke.

https://omny.fm/shows/neil-mitchell-asks-why/prime-minister-anthony-albanese/embed?style=cover

Within two  weeks I have now spoken at length to both the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Opposition leader Peter Dutton as a pre-election strategy for my podcast, Neil Mitchell Asks Why?

If you doubt my argument listen to the two interviews, linked above. Both were privately relaxed and publicly wary. Both are decent people, but they are locked into the theatre of bluster, point scoring, and minimal risk.

Take the nuclear debate. A decision on nuclear power could define the direction of Australia for the rest of the century.

We need sensible disagreement and rock solid facts rather than spin and rhetoric.

Dutton this week did go into some detail on my podcast. He admitted the benefits of any move to nuclear would not be felt until the 2040s or 50s, when we could expect a 44 per cent drop in electricity prices.

There's more than a touch of pie in the sky about that. It is not exactly a flying pig and may happen, but how many other factors could pop up to affect the prices in the next 25 to 30 years and how do households pay their bills in the meantime?

He also suggested he could use the lure of modular nuclear reactors being US made, as part of the trade war dealings with Donald Trump. God only knows where that could land. Dutton has offered to meet the PM anywhere anytime to debate but we  know how that would go.

Albanese would accuse Dutton of creating two headed kittens with nuclear waste, Dutton would accuse the PM of turning out the lights mid winter and none of us would be any the wiser on how to sensibly resolve the country's power crisis. 

The heat of an election campaign is no time to hope for sensible discussion. 

On other issues, the Opposition Leader this week gave broad brush policies, and suggests he can't give detail until he wins government and sees "the state of the books"

Albanese, meanwhile, is so careful not to say anything in case he says something that we can look at his record and not much else.

So what will happen during the campaign?

They will be asked about the price of milk, bread and petrol as supposed proof they understand the cost of living crisis. It proves nothing. They are rehearsing that already.

They will both spell out their vision which is motherhood stuff, both versions entirely sensible and if either could deliver it well worthwhile.

Albanese wants a fair go for all and "nobody left behind", same as last time.

Dutton wants a competitive and thriving country under one flag where it is again fashionable to be proud of your country.

As the campaign builds here will be televised debates which will be more about appearance than substance – believe me I have been on several panels for these debates over the years.

The ground rules are negotiated at such length and in such detail similar dedication to international affairs could bring world peace.

There will be dedicated gaffe chasers through the media and gaffes will come and go with little effect on the outcome.

Boomers will lament their loss of power as a political force and younger generations will wonder why any of these people is worth their vote.

And at the end of the $1 billion process we still will not have specific ideas on reducing cost of living, patching up the country's  defence, fixing the housing crisis or managing immigration properly.

Then, probably sometime in May, we will wake up with a new or returned government, congratulate ourselves on avoiding change by revolution, and get back to the footy or paying the bills.

It's an imperfect process and to improve it everybody needs to grow up, ban the spin, trust the people, and begin trying to convince rather than con.

That won't happen and to varying degrees never has. Here's proof from two fellows from history who knew a bit about words, argument and politics:

Sir Winston Churchill, twice British Prime Minister and 62 years a member of parliament: "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried."

And Plato, the Greek philosopher who died in 348 BC, which was before television was  invented: "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."

Good luck working out which is which.

Neil Mitchell hosts the podcast "Neil Mitchell Asks Why?" He posts interviews each Tuesday and his personal news analysis each Thursday. 

CCTV video has revealed the split-second moment when a hot drink was spilled in a delivery driver's lap in the US, leading to a multimillion dollar payout. 

A jury in the US ordered Starbucks to pay US$50 million ($79 million) in damages to a delivery driver who was severely burned by an improperly secured lid on hot beverages.

Michael Garcia was picking up drinks at a drive-through in Los Angeles when he "suffered severe burns, disfigurement, and debilitating nerve damage to his genitals when hot drinks ultimately spilled" onto his lap, according to the lawsuit filed in California Superior Court in 2020.

READ MORE: Ex-lover 'carefully planned' water polo coach's murder at school

The lawsuit accused Starbucks of breaching its duty of care by failing to secure the lid.

Michael Parker, Garcia's lawyer, said his client was picking up three beverages and one of the hot drinks wasn't fully pushed into the container.

When the barista handed Garcia the order, a drink fell out of the container and onto Garcia, Parker said.

READ MORE: Jury unable to reach verdict in Toyah Cordingley murder trial

Newly released video footage of the incident appears to show the moment it happened.

Garcia's damages included physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, inconvenience, grief, disfigurement, physical impairment, anxiety and emotional distress, according to a recording of the verdict from Courtroom View Network.

Starbucks said last week that it plans to appeal the verdict.

READ MORE: 'Deadly' sea foam infects more than 100 surfers

"We sympathise with Mr Garcia, but we disagree with the jury's decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive," a company spokesperson said in a statement.

"We have always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks."

The lawsuit is reminiscent of a famous 1994 lawsuit against McDonald's in which a woman spilled hot coffee on her lap and suffered third-degree burns. The plaintiff in that case, Stella Liebeck, was originally awarded nearly $4.7 million.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

A thief who swiped a golden toilet from an English palace was convicted Tuesday along with an accomplice who helped cash in on the spoils of the 18-carat work of art insured for nearly £5 million (more than $10.2 million).

Michael Jones had used the fully functioning one-of-a-kind latrine as he did reconnaissance at Blenheim Palace – the country mansion where British wartime leader Winston Churchill was born – the day before the theft, prosecutors said. He described the experience as "splendid."

He returned before dawn on September 14, 2019, with at least two other men armed with sledgehammers and crowbars. They smashed a window and pried the toilet from its plumbing within five minutes, leaving a damaging flood in their wake as they escaped in stolen vehicles.

READ MORE: Stranded astronauts taste first fresh air in nine months

"This was an audacious raid which had been carefully planned and executed," prosecutor Shan Saunders said.

"But those responsible were not careful enough, leaving a trail of evidence in the form of forensics, CCTV footage and phone data."

The purloined potty has never been recovered but is believed to have been cut up and sold.

The satirical work, titled "America" by Italian conceptual artist Maurizio Cattelan, poked fun at excessive wealth. It weighed just over 98 kilograms. The value of the gold at the time was £2.8 million ($5.72 million).

READ MORE: Prince Harry's visa records to be made public amid claims about drug use

The piece had previously been on display at The Guggenheim Museum in New York. The museum had offered the work to US President Donald Trump during his first term in office after he had asked to borrow a Van Gogh painting.

Jones, 39, was convicted of burglary in Oxford Crown Court.

The theft was planned by James Sheen, 40, who previously pleaded guilty to burglary, conspiracy and transferring criminal property.

Sheen then worked to broker a deal with Fred Doe to cash in on the haul, prosecutors said. In a series of text messages, Sheen referred to the loot as a "car," but he was actually talking about the gold.

READ MORE: 'Blood and treasure': Inside the Trump-Putin phone call

"I'll link up with ya, I got something right up your path," Sheen told Doe in one message.

"I can sell that car for you in two seconds … so come and see me tomorrow," Doe said in a reply.

Doe, 36, also known as Frederick Sines, was convicted of conspiracy to transfer criminal property.

A fourth man charged in the conspiracy, Bora Guccuk, 41, was acquitted by jurors.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

Prince Harry's immigration records are expected to be made public in the coming hours after a US District Court judge ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to do so last week.

The anticipated records release on Tuesday (Wednesday AEDT) comes after the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, filed a lawsuit to obtain the Duke of Sussex's immigration records after its request for their release under the Freedom of Information Act was previously denied by DHS.

The group argues "the public has an interest in knowing" whether Prince Harry "was properly vetted prior to or during admission into the United States."

READ MORE: PM's chilling warning as Israel shatters ceasefire

The Heritage Foundation raised questions about Prince Harry's writings of past recreational drug use in his memoir, since admission of past drug use can be grounds to reject a visa application.

"We're only focused on the specific issue that's drawn all the press attention: the drug use," lawyer Samuel Dewey, who represents the Heritage Foundation, previously told CNN.

"He's talked about, he's written about it extensively. He has waived any privacy interest he has in his drug use. He has bragged about it (in his memoir) and sold that."

In court documents, the Heritage Foundation argued there are only certain ways Prince Harry could have entered the US in March 2020.

"He might have been in possession of a diplomatic visa, but Heritage contended that was unlikely given his status with the Royal Family … Or he might have disclosed his past drug use and sought a waiver of admission… But, Heritage argued, this normally would take several years to attain," the documents read.

READ MORE: Killer mum found dead weeks after being freed from prison

"Alternatively, the Duke may have disclosed his past drug use but have been admitted into the United States without a waiver, which in Heritage's view would be unlawful."

"Heritage contended that the Duke's 'conduct likely violated numerous laws' that should have made him ineligible for admission," the court documents say.

Lawyers for the Heritage Foundation see the case as part of a larger effort to uncover non-compliance with the law by DHS in different areas – including accusations from Republican politicians that DHS is "deliberately refusing to enforce the Country's immigration laws and is responsible for the current crisis at the border," court filings read.

"This is a case that concerns Prince Harry, but what it's focused on is DHS's conduct," Dewey previously said.

"I am stunned that a Federal Court judge allowed a private entity to obtain immigration files," immigration lawyer Charles Kuck told CNN, arguing immigration files are under the protection of The Privacy Act of 1974.

"I think it opens a massive door if the federal courts are going to allow individual citizens to request immigration files of other citizens and residents."

DHS has noted the US Customs and Border Protection agency originally denied the Freedom of Information Act requests from the Heritage Foundation because the group did not have Prince Harry's authorisation or consent to release the information. But US District Judge Carl Nichols has since ruled in favour of the conservative think tank, ordering the redacted versions of the immigration documents be made public no later than Tuesday.

"Given that many of these facts were known about Harry before he filed for his green card, then I don't think immigration is going to be able to revoke his green card," Kuck told CNN. "This is being done as a publicity stunt, not, I think, to ultimately take Harry's green card away."

Immigration documents that could be released include Prince Harry's I-485 form, the Application to Register Permanent Residence, as well as his wife's petition for him, financial information, his work history, and supporting documents with marriage pictures together, Kuck said.

Prince Harry's wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, is an American citizen.

One question the I-485 form asks is 'Have you ever violated (…) any controlled substance law or regulation of a state, the United States, or a foreign country?'

That question has been the subject of numerous cases at the US Board of Immigration Appeals, Kuck told CNN, "because in order to answer that question, you have to know the elements of the crime."

"No person in their right mind would answer 'yes' to that question. Because what crime are you talking about? What are the elements of that crime? What are the parameters of violating that law? … I don't know what the elements of the crime are," Kuck said.

US President Donald Trump told the New York Post last month that he has ruled out deporting Prince Harry, who now lives in Montecito, California, with his wife and their two children, Prince Archie, 5, and Princess Lilibet, 3.

"I don't want to do that," the president told tabloid. "I'll leave him alone. He's got enough problems with his wife. She's terrible."

An American man accused of messaging with an Australian family whose delusional beliefs contributed to them killing three people has objected to Queensland police testifying at his trial.

Arizona man Donald Day Jr, 60, was arrested by FBI agents in December 2023 and charged with making threats to public figures and law enforcement agents and with illegal firearms possession in the US.

Day entered pleas of not guilty to all charges in the Arizona District Court in May 2024.

READ MORE: PM's chilling warning as Israel shatters ceasefire

Day allegedly sent messages about a "Christian end-of-days ideology" known as premillennialism to the members of the Train family in Queensland between May 2021 and December 2022.

Brothers Nathaniel, 46, and Gareth Train, 47, used high-powered rifles during an ambush to kill Constables Matthew Arnold, 26, and Rachel McCrow, 29, at a remote property at Wieambilla west of Brisbane, on December 12, 2022.

Nathaniel Train joined Gareth and his sibling's wife Stacey, 45, to fatally shoot neighbour Alan Dare, 58, soon after killing the two constables.

Day's lawyer Jon Sands filed a pre-trial motion in the US District Court of Arizona earlier in March asking certain evidence be found inadmissible, including testimony from eight Queensland police officers put forward by the prosecution.

"Carefully controlling the admissibility of evidence about the Trains and the shooting — acts for which Mr Day bears no responsibility — is the only way to ensure that Mr Day receives a fair trial," Sands said in his motion.

All three Trains were shot dead by specialist police officers hours after the ambush in December 2022 when they refused to negotiate or surrender.

READ MORE: Killer mum found dead weeks after being freed from prison

Sands accused Australian authorities of targeting Day for actions and speech legal in the US because all the actual suspects were dead.

"The court should limit the evidence admitted about the Wieambilla shooting to a stipulated statement of facts," Sands said.

"This approach … provides all the context necessary for the government to prove its case, without requiring the emotionally charged testimony of Australian law enforcement officials."

A coronial inquest into the shootings in 2024 heard the Trains had paranoid beliefs including that they were part of a final battle with Satan and police were "demons" who would transform the family into mindless slaves.

READ MORE: Female teacher jailed for ongoing sex abuse of child

Sands said US federal prosecutors would try to claim Day and the Trains had similar isolated lifestyles and anti-government beliefs.

"The government has indicated that it intends to introduce at trial a large volume of evidence related to the Trains and the Wieambilla shooting," Sands said.

The Queensland Police Service submitted to the US court witness statements from eight officers including from a Counter Terrorism Command security investigator who reviewed the alleged online and social media interactions between the Trains and Day.

The witness statements contained allegations Queensland police used forensic software to hack into iPhones found at the Trains' property and discovered messages exchanged with Day on video-sharing websites.

Day is due to stand trial in the US District Court in late April.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play. 

Israel has launched airstrikes across the Gaza Strip, killing at least 413 Palestinians, including women and children, according to hospital officials.

The surprise bombardment early on Tuesday shattered a ceasefire in place since January and threatened to fully reignite the 17-month-old war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the strikes after Hamas refused Israeli demands to change the ceasefire agreement. Officials said the operation was open-ended and was expected to expand. The White House said it had been consulted and voiced support for Israel's actions.

READ MORE: 'Possibly shocking': Court twist in death of Gene Hackman and his wife

The Israeli military ordered people to evacuate eastern Gaza, including much of the northern town of Beit Hanoun and other communities further south, and head toward the centre of the territory, indicating that Israel could soon launch renewed ground operations.

"Israel will, from now on, act against Hamas with increasing military strength," Netanyahu's office said.

The attack during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan could resume a war that has already killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and caused widespread destruction across Gaza. It also raised questions about the fate of the roughly two dozen Israeli hostages held by Hamas who are believed to still be alive.

A senior Hamas official said Netanyahu's decision to return to war amounts to a "death sentence" for the remaining hostages. Izzat al-Risheq accused Netanyahu of launching the strikes to try and save his far-right governing coalition and called on mediators to "reveal facts" on who broke the truce. Hamas said at least four senior officials were killed in Tuesday's strikes.

There were no reports of any attacks by Hamas several hours after the bombardment, indicating it still hoped to restore the truce.

The strikes came as Netanyahu comes under mounting domestic pressure, with mass protests planned over his handling of the hostage crisis and his decision to fire the head of Israel's internal security agency. His latest testimony in a long-running corruption trial was cancelled after the strikes.

READ MORE: Ex-lover 'carefully planned' water polo coach's murder at school

The main group representing families of the captives accused the government of backing out of the ceasefire, saying it "chose to give up on the hostages".

"We are shocked, angry and terrified by the deliberate dismantling of the process to return our loved ones from the terrible captivity of Hamas," the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said in a statement.

Wounded stream into Gaza hospitals

A strike on a home in the southern city of Rafah killed 17 members of one family, including at least 12 women and children, according to the European Hospital, which received the bodies. The dead included five children, their parents, and another father and his three children.

In the southern city of Khan Younis, Associated Press reporters saw explosions and plumes of smoke. Ambulances brought wounded people to Nasser Hospital, where patients lay on the floor, some screaming. A young girl cried as her bloody arm was bandaged.

READ MORE: 'Deadly' sea foam infects more than 100 surfers

Many Palestinians said they had expected a return to war when talks over the second phase of the ceasefire did not begin as scheduled in early February. Israel instead embraced an alternative proposal and cut off all shipments of food, fuel and other aid to the territory's 2 million Palestinians to try to pressure Hamas to accept it.

"Nobody wants to fight," Palestinian resident Nidal Alzaanin told the AP by phone from Gaza City.

"Everyone is still suffering from the previous months."

Gaza's Health Ministry said at least 413 people were killed in the strikes and hundreds more wounded. Rescuers were still searching the rubble for dead and wounded as the strikes continued. It was among the deadliest days of the war.

US backs Israel and blames Hamas

The White House sought to blame Hamas for the renewed fighting. National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said the militant group "could have released hostages to extend the ceasefire but instead chose refusal and war".

An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the unfolding operation, said Israel was striking Hamas' military, leaders and infrastructure and planned to expand the operation beyond air attacks.

The official accused Hamas of attempting to rebuild and plan new attacks. Hamas militants and security forces quickly returned to the streets in recent weeks after the ceasefire went into effect.

Netanyahu's office said the Israeli leader held security consultations with senior officials. It did not provide further details.

READ MORE: Jury unable to reach verdict in Toyah Cordingley murder trial

Talks on a second phase of the ceasefire had stalled

The strikes came two months after a ceasefire was reached to pause the war. Over six weeks, Hamas released 25 Israeli hostages and the bodies of eight more in exchange for nearly 2000 Palestinian prisoners in a first phase of the ceasefire.

But since that ceasefire ended two weeks ago, the sides have not been able to agree on a way forward with a second phase aimed at releasing the 59 remaining hostages, 35 of whom are believed to be dead, and ending the war altogether.

Hamas has demanded an end to the war and full withdrawal of Israeli troops in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages. Israel says it will not end the war until it destroys Hamas' governing and military capabilities and frees all hostages — two goals that could be incompatible.

Netanyahu's office on Tuesday said Hamas had "repeatedly refused to release our hostages and rejected all offers it received from the US presidential envoy, Steve Witkoff, and from the mediators".

Israel wants Hamas to release half of the remaining hostages in return for a promise to negotiate a lasting truce.

Hamas instead wants to follow the ceasefire deal reached by the two sides, which calls for negotiations to begin on the ceasefire's more difficult second phase, in which the remaining hostages would be released and Israeli forces would withdraw from Gaza.

A return to war would allow Netanyahu to avoid the tough trade-offs called for in the second phase of the agreement and the thorny question of who would govern Gaza.

It would also shore up his coalition, which depends on far-right lawmakers who want to depopulate Gaza and re-build Jewish settlements there.

Gaza already was in a humanitarian crisis

The war erupted when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel on October 7, 2023, killing some 1200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 hostages. Most have been released in ceasefires or other deals, with Israeli forces rescuing only eight and recovering dozens of bodies.

Israel responded with a military offensive that killed more than 48,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials, and displaced an estimated 90 per cent of Gaza's population. The territory's Health Ministry doesn't differentiate between civilians and militants, but says more than half of the dead have been women and children.

The ceasefire had brought some relief to Gaza and allowed hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians to resume to what remained of their homes.

Netanyahu faces mounting criticism

The released hostages, some of whom were emaciated, have repeatedly implored the government to press ahead with the ceasefire to return all remaining captives. Tens of thousands of Israelis have taken part in mass demonstrations calling for a ceasefire and return of all hostages.

Mass demonstrations are planned later on Tuesday and Wednesday following Netanyahu's announcement this week that he wants to fire the head of Israel's Shin Bet internal security agency.

Critics have lambasted the move as an attempt by Netanyahu to divert blame for his government's failures in the October 7 attack and handling of the war.

Since the ceasefire in Gaza began in mid-January, Israeli forces have killed dozens of Palestinians who the military says approached its troops or entered unauthorised areas.

Still, the deal has tenuously held without an outbreak of wide violence. Egypt, Qatar and the United States have been trying to mediate the next steps in the ceasefire.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

The man allegedly murdered in a North Adelaide park has been remembered as a terrific father with a massive heart.

Aaron Stahlhut was found dead at Brougham Reserve during his routine morning walk on Sunday.

The 54-year-old's sister today told 9News he had a "massive heart" and was a "terrific father", while a former Defence Force comrade said "he will be remembered as a good soldier and a great bloke who was respected by his peers".

READ MORE: Police closing in on suspects in Adelaide murder investigation

Stahlhut's sister told 9News he initially started walking daily to get healthy enough to receive a kidney transplant. Once his operation was successful he kept it up because it was a routine he grew to love.

There are also new details about Stahlhut's accused killer and his troubled background.

Rylie Everson-Clare, 20, a former student of one of Adelaide's elite schools, Westminster, is accused of murdering Stahlhut.

"Westminster, and all of its students and our greater community, are shocked and saddened about what's happened," principal Simon Shepherd said.

In a letter to parents, he revealed the school accepted Everson-Clare in 2018 when he was facing difficulties.

"When we can help students who are in need, then we will try to, and in Rylie's situation there was a need for him to have stability," he said.

Everson-Clare spent two years at Westminster before continuing his education in the Barossa Valley.

Friends of the alleged murderer claim he has been in a troubled place, and only recently had his welfare payments cut. 

"We've made some active inquiries, but obviously the matter is before the courts and there's a lot of work to be done to be able to establish exactly what's occurred here," South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said.

This article was produced with the assistance of 9ExPress.