Current Trial Russell Hill & Carol Clay Pt 2 *Pilot Greg Lynn Guilty for the Murder of Carol Clay

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1 Russell Hill & Carol Clay - Wonnangatta *Pilot Greg Lynn Pleads Not Guilty to Murder

DPP v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 (12 April 2024) INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL​

R v Lynn (Rulings 1-4) [2024] VSC 373 (28 June 2024)​

R v Lynn (Rulings 5 & 6) [2024] VSC 375 (28 February 2024)

R v Lynn (Ruling 7) [2024] VSC 376 (8 May 2024)

The Greg Lynn Police Interview Tapes (Shortened Version)

The 3.5 HR Police Interview

THREADS FOR THE HIGH COUNTRY DISAPPEARED
High Country Disappearance of Prison Boss David Prideaux
The Disappearance of Warren Meyer

2008 - Warren Meyer (23 March 2008) not found
2010 - Japp and Annie Viergever (29 March 2010) both shot & 3 dogs, house burnt.
2011 - David Prideaux (5 June 2011) not found
2017 - Kevin Tenant (17 February 2018) shot 3 times, played dead.
2019 - Conrad Whitlock (29 July 2019) not found
2019 - Niels Becker (24 October 2019) not found
2020 - Russell Hill and Carol Clay (20 March 2020) murdered

Lynn's first wife Lisa, was found dead on 26 October 1999.

 

[champagnegirl]

I always thought he disposed of it as well.But how ? very difficult I say.Cut it up in his garage,Nope,it would have attracted too much attention.Dumped it ? I doubt that it went unobserved for this long.Pushed it off a track ?-a passenger would see it after all these years.A complete mystery....

Left it on someone’s front verge with a free please take sign ?

 

[Terrafirma]

Crime scene to court: Why the jury didn’t buy Greg Lynn’s story (PAID ARTICLE)​

Sorry this is a paid article. If anyone has a subscription could they post the content?


A trial is always about what happens in the court, not what happened at the crime scene. Which means a jury of six men and six women in the Supreme Court spent seven days deciding what happened 346 kilometres away and 1558 days earlier.
(There had been a plan to take the murder jury to the crime scene on a giant army Chinook helicopter, but it was deemed to be too expensive.)

Crime scene to court: Why the jury didn’t buy Greg Lynn’s story

Six men and six women of the jury heard two versions of the events that led to the deaths of Russell Hill and Carol Clay. They agreed there was a third version.

www.theage.com.au

 

[InagoRaida]

I think she just wants to make the most of living in that house while she can before she starts searching for rentals.

Maybe contemplation about seeing a family lawyer?

 

[Iretired00]

Atrial is always about what happens in the court, not what happened at the crime scene. Which means a jury of six men and six women in the Supreme Court spent seven days deciding what happened 346 kilometres away and 1558 days earlier.
(There had been a plan to take the murder jury to the crime scene on a giant army Chinook helicopter, but it was deemed to be too expensive.)
There was only one eyewitness and he was the defendant – Greg Lynn – charged with the murders of campers Carol Clay and Russell Hill. The jury found him guilty of Clay’s murder and not guilty of Hill’s.


Play Video
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/javascript:void(0);

​

​

Play video
3:21

How the Greg Lynn murder trial unfolded​

It’s been over four years since Carol Clay and Russell Hill died - here is how the case unfolded.

It is a huge endorsement of the jury system that 12 people would study the evidence so closely to deliver a split decision, choosing not to blindly accept either the versions presented by the defence or the prosecution. They were more rigorous than that.
On hearing the verdict Lynn showed no emotion, which is not surprising. He was a commercial airline pilot. They are selected only after rigorous psychological testing shows they have logical and ordered minds and then trained to remain calm in potentially catastrophic circumstances. This is why when a pilot loses an engine they go to the book, not the parachute.
Lynn may be a strange man who did strange things, but that does not make him a murderer.

The prosecution was based on logic. The defence on Lynn’s sworn testimony. The prosecution said Lynn’s case was based on lies. The defence said the prosecution was guessing.
A strong case can be based on independent eyewitnesses (human and electronic), crime scene evidence, pathology reports and admissions from the accused.

Clockwise from left: A sketch of the Bucks Camp site Gregory Lynn drew for police; Lynn; Carol Clay; and Russell Hill.
The Lynn case had none of the above. The prosecution could not prove how the couple died because Lynn had dumped, burned and pulverised the bodies, and police were unable to gather vital evidence from the scene as Lynn had burned the site.
What was agreed was that Lynn had a confrontation with Hill at a remote campsite. That Hill, 74, and Clay, 73, died violently and that Lynn destroyed the crime scene, left clues to make it look like it could be a robbery and hid the bodies.
The prosecution said Lynn shot them then destroyed evidence and hid the bodies because he was a murderer.
The defence said Lynn was present when they died, panicked, then destroyed evidence and hid the bodies because he believed police would think he was a murder. This scenario goes against all of Lynn’s training. All flight staff are taught to self report any possible mistakes. “It is drilled into us,” says one experienced flight staff.

When the judge removed the option of finding Lynn guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter it appeared the jury would have to find Lynn guilty of two murders or set him free.
They did neither.

RELATED ARTICLE​

Missing campers trial​

‘Relieved and devastated’: Hill and Clay families’ joint statement​

They found a third version – one that was not put to them in open court. Rather than choose to side with the prosecution or the defence, the jury reviewed Lynn’s evidence and testimony from a ballistic expert to analyse Lynn’s claim Clay was accidentally shot.
It would appear the jury concluded that Hill was killed in unprovable circumstances, but Lynn then murdered Clay because she was a witness to the death. With the option of manslaughter off the table the jury had to conclude whether Hill was murdered – a deliberate act – not just unlawfully killed – a reckless act.
With no forensic evidence, it was impossible for the jury to establish the exact circumstances of Hill’s death, but they apparently concluded it was so damning that Lynn chose to kill Clay and destroy the crime scene in the cover-up.
In his police interview Lynn said: “I’m not a bad person.” Yet he admitted he acted despicably. But does this mean he is a murderer?

Lynn says that on March 20, 2020, while camping at Dry River Creek Road (also known as Bucks Camp) in the Wonnangatta Valley, he had a dispute with Hill that led to the older man leaning into Lynn’s car to grab a shotgun.
The two men fought over the gun, Lynn says, with Hill’s finger on the trigger when it accidentally discharged, hitting Clay in the head while she crouched down on the passenger side of Hill’s white Toyota LandCruiser ute, with the shot deflecting off the vehicle’s external mirror.
Realising Clay was dead, Hill attacked Lynn with a knife, fell on his blade, causing a fatal chest wound.
It is unusual for a random shot to hit someone hiding from the line of fire. It is even more unusual for a ricocheted solid shot to hit someone in the head, killing them instantly. We contacted a respected mathematician asking for a calculation of the odds. He said the variables made it impossible to be accurate, but it was “wildly improbable”.

“As a general proposition people do not die from a single stab wound to the chest ...”

To put this in perspective: In another case where a woman was shot allegedly after a gun was dropped the probability was one in 160 billion. But the question for the jury was not that it was improbable but whether it was possible. They found that it was not.
It is even more unusual for an accidental self-inflicted stabbing wound to avoid the ribs and breastbone to create a fatal wound. Again, the jury had to decide if it was possible. They found it was impossible to establish what happened and acquitted Lynn on this count.


According to Lynn, Hill died instantly. A senior pathologist not involved in this case said: “As a general proposition people do not die from a single stab wound to the chest unless it triggers an underlying condition such as heart disease.”
If either Clay or Hill lingered, Lynn would have been duty bound to call for help but if they were dead his actions from that point were about self-preservation. He couldn’t save them so he may as well save himself.

RELATED ARTICLE​

Missing campers trial​

Staged suicide? Push for coroner to reopen inquest into death of Gregory Lynn’s first wife​

There is something else that is unusual. Lynn gave sworn evidence opening himself to cross-examination. Usually, the accused stays silent. Lynn was the only defence witness.
The defence considered calling character witnesses to show that Lynn was a good egg. But the Crown would have wanted to call rebuttal witnesses including the parents of his first wife, Lisa. They would have testified about her mysterious death in 1999 and how she was terrified of Lynn.
They could have given evidence of how Lynn had beheaded the family’s pet miniature pig in a fit of rage and left it on the doorstep for Lisa to find, and how the next door neighbour’s dog that had annoyed Lynn was found dead and strung up on their fence.

And how Lynn taunted them over the fact that although he was estranged from Lisa he had inherited the house she bought before they were married.

Lynn’s evidence was impressive. He was quietly spoken and calm. Depending on your views, his calmness didn’t align with his version that he panicked. The other is he was calm because he was telling the truth.
In a criminal trial, the defence doesn’t have to prove anything. It only has to establish the prosecution has not proven its case. The prosecution is the lead actor in the play and the defence is the heckler in the audience.
The prosecution has to convince the jury there is no other reasonable alternative to the case they have submitted.
The prosecution said two accidental deaths in minutes at the same spot was so improbable it should be discounted. They claimed Lynn’s methodical destruction of the crime scene and the disposal of the bodies was not consistent with a person gripped by panic.
But human nature is not a predictable science. Calm people panic, brave people run away, timid people fight if cornered and smart people do dumb things.

RELATED ARTICLE​

Missing campers trial​

A lockdown project and a fallen tree: Gregory Lynn’s sliding doors moments​

The defence said the prosecution produced nothing to disprove Lynn’s testimony, but the jury would have wrestled with a number of questions.
Why would an experienced shooter and risk-averse pilot leave firearms and ammunition in plain sight in an open car? Why, after the pyjama-clad Hill fired a shot in the air, did the “scared shitless” Lynn not seek safety in the dark bush?
Why did Lynn choose to move 70 metres (that is the distance from MCG centre circle to the goal square) over unprotected space from his camp to where Hill took the gun to the couple’s camp to grapple with Hill over the loaded firearm? Why after the initial fight for the firearm that left Clay dead did Lynn choose to fire the gun to make sure it was empty rather than remove the magazine?
Why didn’t Lynn keep possession of the loaded gun to protect himself from further attack and why would Hill, who hated guns (telling others a relative had been shot in a hunting accident) grab, load and fire a shotgun over a claim Lynn was playing his music too loudly?
The jurors may have asked why Hill would take such drastic action that was likely to involve police intervention, exposing his secret affair with Carol Clay. And how could Lynn see the “flashing” steel of the knife Hill used to attack him in the dark?

Play Video
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/javascript:void(0);

​

​

Play video
4:01

Robyn Hill’s message for Greg Lynn after verdict​

Reluctantly thrust into the limelight after her husband's High Country death and a trial that exposed her family's secrets, Russell Hill's widow has broken her silence.

March 20, 2020, was a sunny, mild day but from 6pm the clouds rolled in and at night there was a waning moon, which left it 88 per cent in darkness.
When Lynn set fire to the crime scene he removed the external mirror from Hill’s car and threw it into the blaze. This would indicate it was evidence and had been hit by a shot but not the way Lynn said in his evidence.
The police theory (and it is only a theory) is that when Hill and Clay arrived at the campsite Lynn had already set up at the best spot, a private area with access to the river. The annoyed Hill would have walked through the prime spot to get water, raising tension between the two men – both of whom had a history of wanting to win any argument.
Later Lynn, who walked around the bush in camouflage gear as if about to go on safari, was buzzed by Hill’s hovering drone. “Pilots hate drones,” a detective said.
The drone has not been found.
There were three twists of fate that led to Lynn being charged and the remains being found. Once police knew he was the only suspect, they began a media campaign to put pressure on Lynn.
Lynn’s planned route to where he intended to dispose of the bodies was blocked by a temporary sign as the road was closed because of the fear of falling trees from the summer’s bushfires. He was forced to turn back and find another way out. Police say if the original route through the wilderness was open he could have disposed of the remains and slipped back unnoticed.

RELATED ARTICLE​

Missing campers trial​

What the jury wasn’t told about the missing campers case​

In an earlier interview with Lynn at his home in July 2021, he admitted being at the campsite but claimed it was a day earlier and that he had not seen or spoken to the couple. “I didn’t come across them on my trip,” Lynn lied.
A police officer secretly recorded the conversation and the judge ruled it was inadmissible because he should have been cautioned as a suspect.
When he was arrested in November and taken to the Sale police station he began by feigning ignorance: “Why am I here?”
In between “no comment” answers he said his original statement was true – he had not seen them. His lawyer tells him not to talk, but he continues to leave the door open and police continue to press.
He is asked 2944 questions. It is not until question 1691 he says: “I am going to ignore my solicitor’s advice and tell you what happened right from scratch.”
From there he tells the version he presented in court. That he didn’t kill the couple but panicked because he didn’t think anyone would believe him. He got that part right.

Subscribers can sign up to receive his Naked City newsletter every Thursday.

John Silvester is a columnist.Connect via email.

 

[InagoRaida]

Standard is 6x4, but I don't think his was that small

7x4 is also common..thats what it looked like...i'm 6 ft, and can easily sleep in a 7x4

 

[Percel]

it's close to a 6 x 4

View attachment 2032076

Agree it’s a 6 x 4, low side as well.

 

[Terrafirma]

Atrial is always about what happens in the court, not what happened at the crime scene. Which means a jury of six men and six women in the Supreme Court spent seven days deciding what happened 346 kilometres away and 1558 days earlier.
(There had been a plan to take the murder jury to the crime scene on a giant army Chinook helicopter, but it was deemed to be too expensive.)
There was only one eyewitness and he was the defendant – Greg Lynn – charged with the murders of campers Carol Clay and Russell Hill. The jury found him guilty of Clay’s murder and not guilty of Hill’s.

John Silvester is a columnist.Connect via email.

Thanks Iretired this is good reading. It highlights quite a lot like Hill would not have died instantly but mostly it confirms a lot of what we have all discussed. Scary to think what Hill went through if he didnt die instantly and what Lynn really could of done to him.

 

[Percel]

Has GL said how he lifted the bodies into the trailer?

Not sure he had a lot of friends, or mechanical options to help. And he didn’t have a lot if time to build a pulley system/or other (allegedly)

Gotta be a straight drag and deadlift you’d think.

 

[InagoRaida]

""As a COVID project, Lynn bought a bee hive. When he was stung, he suffered an allergic reaction that put his heart out of rhythm and required strong medication.
This left the pilot unfit for flying, and he was assigned to simulation training.
If he were still flying, police would have been forced to alert Jetstar of their concerns over Lynn flying hundreds of passengers around Australia. This would have alerted him that he was the suspect and foiled the police strategy of building pressure.""

The latter paragraph has not really been highlghted before, AFAIK, but it highlights another of the fortuitous circumstances that define this case. IMO, the work done by police via media realases/60min was a significant factor in him succumbing.
The gate closed, Hill's phone left on, Hotham camera, him already reassigned from flying on medical grounds...so many holes lined up in the slices of swiss cheese to allow this conviction ,that he could have very possibly evaded if one or more of them hadn't occured.
This "chance" element i consider a remarkable part of the case, given his careful, considered, precise and methodical actions post the deaths.

Ps: Everyone i know who travels to the HC knows about the Hotham cameras.... I have always thought the Hotham camera may have been a carefully thought out "timestamp" for his journey (and later alibi), but RH's phone brought that undone. Countering my theory, is he avoided all the Hume Fwy cameras?
Who really knows what was going thru his devious mind, except the convicted murder GL himself..

 

[Percel]

""As a COVID project, Lynn bought a bee hive. When he was stung, he suffered an allergic reaction that put his heart out of rhythm and required strong medication.
This left the pilot unfit for flying, and he was assigned to simulation training.
If he were still flying, police would have been forced to alert Jetstar of their concerns over Lynn flying hundreds of passengers around Australia. This would have alerted him that he was the suspect and foiled the police strategy of building pressure.""

The latter paragraph has not really been highlghted before, AFAIK, but it highlights another of the fortuitous circumstances that define this case. IMO, the work done by police via media realases/60min was a significant factor in him succumbing.
The gate closed, Hill's phone left on, Hotham camera, him already reassigned from flying on medical grounds...so many holes lined up in the slices of swiss cheese to allow this conviction ,that he could have very possibly evaded if one or more of them hadn't occured.
This "chance" element i consider a remarkable part of the case, given his careful, considered, precise and methodical actions post the deaths.

Ps: Everyone i know who travels to the HC knows about the Hotham cameras.... I have always thought the Hotham camera may have been a carefully thought out "timestamp" for his journey (and later alibi), but RH's phone brought that undone. Countering my theory, is he avoided all the Hume Fwy cameras?
Who really knows what was going thru his devious mind, except the convicted murder GL himself..

Great post, initial bit is a fascinating bit of info

 

[jason_recliner]

TLDR

OK, hate to say it but I'm bored of this case now. Attention span isn't what it used to be

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I felt quite down when I noticed the very red eyes of those two young men leaving the court almost every day.

Young people are very strong in their loyalties and would single-mindedly support their father, allowing themselves to be convinced he was being persecuted and wrongly accused. Unfortunately, during the trial they learned about sordid details Dad had conveniently left out in his explanation to them.

 

[Kurve]

Crime scene to court: Why the jury didn’t buy Greg Lynn’s story (PAID ARTICLE)​

Sorry this is a paid article. If anyone has a subscription could they post the content?


A trial is always about what happens in the court, not what happened at the crime scene. Which means a jury of six men and six women in the Supreme Court spent seven days deciding what happened 346 kilometres away and 1558 days earlier.
(There had been a plan to take the murder jury to the crime scene on a giant army Chinook helicopter, but it was deemed to be too expensive.)

View attachment 2032227

Crime scene to court: Why the jury didn’t buy Greg Lynn’s story

Six men and six women of the jury heard two versions of the events that led to the deaths of Russell Hill and Carol Clay. They agreed there was a third version.

www.theage.com.au

It's because it's a paid article, we can't post the entire thing. We can paraphrase and get away with an excerpt.

 

[Zidane98]

""As a COVID project, Lynn bought a bee hive. When he was stung, he suffered an allergic reaction that put his heart out of rhythm and required strong medication.
This left the pilot unfit for flying, and he was assigned to simulation training.
If he were still flying, police would have been forced to alert Jetstar of their concerns over Lynn flying hundreds of passengers around Australia. This would have alerted him that he was the suspect and foiled the police strategy of building pressure.""

The latter paragraph has not really been highlghted before, AFAIK, but it highlights another of the fortuitous circumstances that define this case. IMO, the work done by police via media realases/60min was a significant factor in him succumbing.
The gate closed, Hill's phone left on, Hotham camera, him already reassigned from flying on medical grounds...so many holes lined up in the slices of swiss cheese to allow this conviction ,that he could have very possibly evaded if one or more of them hadn't occured.
This "chance" element i consider a remarkable part of the case, given his careful, considered, precise and methodical actions post the deaths.

Ps: Everyone i know who travels to the HC knows about the Hotham cameras.... I have always thought the Hotham camera may have been a carefully thought out "timestamp" for his journey (and later alibi), but RH's phone brought that undone. Countering my theory, is he avoided all the Hume Fwy cameras?
Who really knows what was going thru his devious mind, except the convicted murder GL himself..

GL gave testimony that he took the back roads to get back to Melbourne for this very purpose. After driving past the most well known traffic cameras in the entire region!


One thing that still does not make sense is why GL would even travel home via Hotham from Union Spur Track which is just out of Dargo. It was something like 1 and a half hours longer to go that way back to Caroline Springs and there were plenty of options to exit the VHC south via Princes Hwy to return to Melbourne. Or he could have gone back via Licola etc.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Yeah, a bit surprised that their first reaction was "they have run off together"

That seems often to be the default explanation when someone disappears, especially women, eg Lynette Dawson, Bronwyn Winfield, Marion Barter, and more. Put in the too-hard basket.

 

[Lady O]

GL gave testimony that he took the back roads to get back to Melbourne for this very purpose. After driving past the most well known traffic cameras in the entire region!


One thing that still does not make sense is why GL would even travel home via Hotham from Union Spur Track which is just out of Dargo. It was something like 1 and a half hours longer to go that way back to Caroline Springs and there were plenty of options to exit the VHC south via Princes Hwy to return to Melbourne. Or he could have gone back via Licola etc.

Maybe because he had some things to get rid of on the way?

 

[Terrafirma]

Has GL said how he lifted the bodies into the trailer?

I think you will have to use your imagination with this. However if it had a tail gate this would have been dropped allowing him a far easier ramp up to do so. It's not something I like to think about. When you think of all the stages Lynn had to deal with and what happened to them it makes me feel sick.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Crime scene to court: Why the jury didn’t buy Greg Lynn’s story (PAID ARTICLE)​

Sorry this is a paid article. If anyone has a subscription could they post the content?


A trial is always about what happens in the court, not what happened at the crime scene. Which means a jury of six men and six women in the Supreme Court spent seven days deciding what happened 346 kilometres away and 1558 days earlier.
(There had been a plan to take the murder jury to the crime scene on a giant army Chinook helicopter, but it was deemed to be too expensive.)

View attachment 2032227

Crime scene to court: Why the jury didn’t buy Greg Lynn’s story

Six men and six women of the jury heard two versions of the events that led to the deaths of Russell Hill and Carol Clay. They agreed there was a third version.

www.theage.com.au

That’s an excellent article. The jury turned out to be very astute. They didn’t believe Lynn any more than we did, and found a way to nab him that was logical and within the law.

 

[Terrafirma]

That seems often to be the default explanation when someone disappears, especially women, eg Lynette Dawson, Bronwyn Winfield, Marion Barter, and more. Put in the too-hard basket.

When you look at how the camping site was left , the fire, the car, their burnt belongings I don't know how you could come to the conclusion they run off together? Their wallets still in the car etc. It simply doesn't make sense. Perhaps because their relationship wasn't above board this gave it merit? Perhaps because I already know what happened I'm coming to this conclusion but if you all ask yourself if you were confronted with this scene would you think they ran off together without their wallets and car from the middle of nowhere?

 

[Lady O]

When you look at how the camping site was left , the fire, the car, their burnt belongings I don't know how you could come to the conclusion they run off together? Their wallets still in the car etc. It simply doesn't make sense. Perhaps because their relationship wasn't above board this gave it merit? Perhaps because I already know what happened I'm coming to this conclusion but if you all ask yourself if you were confronted with this scene would you think they ran off together without their wallets and car from the middle of nowhere?

No, it was a ridiculous suggestion right from the start.

 

[Zidane98]

Maybe because he had some things to get rid of on the way?

Plenty of places to do that going the shortest route home.

 

[Zidane98]

When you look at how the camping site was left , the fire, the car, their burnt belongings I don't know how you could come to the conclusion they run off together? Their wallets still in the car etc. It simply doesn't make sense. Perhaps because their relationship wasn't above board this gave it merit? Perhaps because I already know what happened I'm coming to this conclusion but if you all ask yourself if you were confronted with this scene would you think they ran off together without their wallets and car from the middle of nowhere?

Yes very good point.


To think they ran off together one would have to deduce they had staged the disappearance with help from a third party. An elderly couple are not getting out of Wonnangatta on their own accord.

 

[GrayRanga]

The more I read of Lynn's response on the evening and subsequest actions he doesn't really come across as the criminal mastermind, it was a litany of klutzy actions which eventually caught him in a web of his own deceits

I think he initially decided that he was going to make it look like a robbery ... leave the bodies, take the drone, money and pretend he wasn't there.

He rethought it ... disappear the bodies and burn the site so that the mess of the murders was covered. Set fire to the tent and the car might go up too. Again pretend he wasn't there

Isn't aware of the road closure after the fires? 5 minutes research on Google before even going up there in the first place would have informed him of the closures if he knew the country and the effect of the fires

Dumps the bodies and covers them with branches and pretend he wasn't there

Goes out via Hotham, going out via Dargo gives you more sealed backroads to make it to Melbourne, but he would have to drive across the city

Police knock on his door. Spur of the moment response, pretends he wasn't there which raise flags.

Maybe if he had said that he was there, saw the couple but didn't pass on the information to the police because he had observed nothing and left earlier because there were too many people there scaring the game and camped at Grant for the night(?).

If he had offered a few fake sightings of other vehicles (?)

Why did he go back to burn the bodies? The smell of decomposing wildlife near a road is not unusual on bush tracks; the probability of them being discovered and linked to him was minimal.

He was advised to say nothing by the duty solicitor but he thought he knew better and presented a balderdash story that a year 12 Legal Studies student could drive a Kenworth through

Not a criminal mastermind by any long shot

One of the truisms of the Criminal Justice System is that most people inside are unlucky, thick or have a big mouth

He was unlucky and had a big mouth.

 

[Lady O]

The more I read of Lynn's response on the evening and subsequest actions he doesn't really come across as the criminal mastermind, it was a litany of klutzy actions which eventually caught him in a web of his own deceits

I think he initially decided that he was going to make it look like a robbery ... leave the bodies, take the drone, money and pretend he wasn't there.

He rethought it ... disappear the bodies and burn the site so that the mess of the murders was covered. Set fire to the tent and the car might go up too. Again pretend he wasn't there

Isn't aware of the road closure after the fires? 5 minutes research on Google before even going up there in the first place would have informed him of the closures if he knew the country and the effect of the fires

Dumps the bodies and covers them with branches and pretend he wasn't there

Goes out via Hotham, going out via Dargo gives you more sealed backroads to make it to Melbourne, but he would have to drive across the city

Police knock on his door. Spur of the moment response, pretends he wasn't there which raise flags.

Maybe if he had said that he was there, saw the couple but didn't pass on the information to the police because he had observed nothing and left earlier because there were too many people there scaring the game and camped at Grant for the night(?).

If he had offered a few fake sightings of other vehicles (?)

Why did he go back to burn the bodies? The smell of decomposing wildlife near a road is not unusual on bush tracks; the probability of them being discovered and linked to him was minimal.

He was advised to say nothing by the duty solicitor but he thought he knew better and presented a balderdash story that a year 12 Legal Studies student could drive a Kenworth through

Not a criminal mastermind by any long shot

One of the truisms of the Criminal Justice System is that most people inside are unlucky, thick or have a big mouth

He was unlucky and had a big mouth.

I think he had to go back, once he was identified on the camera. He had to obliterate the bodies so no one knew what he did to them. He had to destroy the evidence, so he could muddy the waters if he was charged and it was successful. If all the information was known I think people would be horrified (much more so than they are now).

 

[Underarrest_]

Not sure he had a lot of friends, or mechanical options to help. And he didn’t have a lot if time to build a pulley system/or other (allegedly)

Gotta be a straight drag and deadlift you’d think.

This is what I find interesting.
I imagine it’s difficult to lift dead weight. Is is possible to do?