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.

 

[Kurve]

Yep, they waffle on and don't seem to be in possession of the facts.

I always skip the intros, I think they get most of their information out of the press then the detective dad gives his take on it.

 

[Lady O]

I always skip the intros, I think they get most of their information out of the press then the detective dad gives his take on it.

I quit when they said Hill and Clay arrived first at Bucks and Lynn had the drone.

 

[Kurve]

I quit when they said Hill and Clay arrived first at Bucks and Lynn had the drone.

I didn't hear that bit.

 

[Terrafirma]

I quit when they said Hill and Clay arrived first at Bucks and Lynn had the drone.

LOL.! I noticed a lot of these podcasts have plenty of wrongs. Yes Lynn asks weedsprayers where to camp and they say Bucks Camp and tell him where it is. When he gets there Clay & Hill are already camped. Also one says the pros agreed with Lynn's version of events re the death of Clay LOL.

 

[Sir_Loin]

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”.

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.

Bit of attribution to BF and this thread wouldn't go astray

 

[Sir_Loin]

Gee, the first video I watched of the interviews, ABC NEWS, was extraordinary .

It’s the most well rehearsed stage show in history….

Watch how Greg Lynn explained campers' deaths to police after his arrest during murder investigation

Newly released police tapes reveal how Greg Lynn explained the deaths of Carol Clay and Russell Hill to officers during the interview in which he was charged with their murders.

www.abc.net.au

Incredible how matter-of-fact he is describing the deaths. Stone cold.

 

[Percel]

When's the Patrol going on sale?

The beige, the white, the off white….

 

[Poppy Penny]

But don’t forget he knew police were onto him. He told police in the interview he knew he’d been under surveillance.

I have wondered about this. If he knew, why was he so careless in the words he spoke, especially in his car.

 

[Percel]

Thanks so much for this. I have been wanting to watch the interview and hadn't seen it. My first observation was how long he takes between sentences and he appears to be putting pen to paper. He certainly takes a very long time as if he is thinking deeply before saying anything. The other thing I noticed he didn't make eye contact with the officer for any prolonged period as we know eye contact or lack of it gives away a fair bit IMO. At the point of describing the knife fight and subsequent death of Hill he starts clicking on the pen rapidly and hitting the paper. Make what you want of that but to me it seems a moment where his heart rate and speed increases. (2 videos).

It’s bizarre, I first did ROI training 25 years ago, and everything he is doing raised my hackles. Havent done one for a long time, but it is the most well rehearsed, planned and staged interview ever ( from his side).

VicPol did well just let him roll it out in parts. It was too smooth for them to interject and counter a lot of the statement.

 

[Iretired00]

It was too smooth for them to interject

Absolutely,what a polished performer. As one cop said,"he has iced water running through his veins "....

 

[Underarrest_]

Zipped up in a sleeping bag, a few twists of rope right around and it would become much easier.

Makes it sound so easy

 

[Sir_Loin]

I have wondered about this. If he knew, why was he so careless in the words he spoke, especially in his car.

Reading between the lines I think he was quite careful about what he said in the house. He clearly had no idea the police had installed listening devices in his car. Otherwise he wouldn't have said what he said and did what he ahem did in the car.

 

[Underarrest_]

When's the Patrol going on sale?

What colour are you going to paint it?

 

[Zidane98]

What colour are you going to paint it?

Blue

 

[Terrafirma]

Absolutely,what a polished performer. As one cop said,"he has iced water running through his veins "....

I was going to say he has Icy Cold Blood going through his veins..!

 

[GladdyDee]

I always skip the intros, I think they get most of their information out of the press then the detective dad gives his take on it.

The sons a bit of polyfiller to then throw to Dad. Despite what others have said about this podcast being flakey, I don't mind the Dad’s spin on the crimes even tho he’s sometimes half informed. Probably how the force rolls anyway.

 

[shorsky]

Waiting to hear Greg Lynn’s sentencing details.

I found it interesting that (after so long) the Jury found him guilty of the murder of Carol Clay, and I’ll admit that I was surprised.
However they did not find him guilty of murdering her partner Russell Hill - meaning I guess that they believed his account that Russell Hill fell on the knife in their tussle.

‘Murder’ involves ‘intent’. .. not an accidental firing of a gun in a fight between people ( imo that would be ‘manslaughter’) but for some reason there was no option for any decision other than ‘murder’.

While I’m wondering what convinced them that Lynn intentionally pulled the trigger that resulted in Ms Clay’s death, I got to wondering if perhaps the Jury had the view that it was RH who was initially and accidentally killed, and then CC was shot to cover that up.

 

[GladdyDee]

I was going to say he has Icy Cold Blood going through his veins..!

Hes just going through his Woolies purchases to make sure he got a discount that week. But hes doing it in 1990 when hanging your glasses around your neck might have been a thing

 

[Pamcake1]

Thanks so much for this. I have been wanting to watch the interview and hadn't seen it. My first observation was how long he takes between sentences and he appears to be putting pen to paper. He certainly takes a very long time as if he is thinking deeply before saying anything. The other thing I noticed he didn't make eye contact with the officer for any prolonged period as we know eye contact or lack of it gives away a fair bit IMO. At the point of describing the knife fight and subsequent death of Hill he starts clicking on the pen rapidly and hitting the paper. Make what you want of that but to me it seems a moment where his heart rate and speed increases. (2 videos).

I would love a body langauge expert to analyse the video but the would also need to see where his eyes are flickering to as well.
I agree with all that you say but would also point out that the pen is a prop that you can see when ever he looks like drawing he is not but hitting marks in his story.
He gestures widely with his arms at one point and looks up as if to say, see I'm being open in telling you everything. Mostly he avoids all eye contact except to look up breifly for confirmation peeping to see if the story is believed. Even with the pen as his prop he is sitting like a person crouched into him self in a defensive posture, with his voice a virtual metronome with little emotion at all or indeed expresion.
He is holding his voice at the same pitch and cadence the whole time never letting any expression out at all or change of pitch except when he looks up and says "that's it' I've told you everything." In that moment listen carefully as his voice relaxes and becomes far less controlled. He is relieved to have got to the end of hitting his marks in the script.
I agree with you when he is stabbing the pen and clicking it it is disturbing but I think he is purposefully adding in the drama. He is adding the 'drama' to it...like he believes that at that point he should show something(act out the drama) other than his droning litany, this in order to impress them with some sort of emotional punctuation of the truth of the deed because if he said it without the added drama it would not sound at all plausable.
It is the same everytime he makes a gesture with his hands, he is using these gestures to dramatise and punctuate but to me they are like he's remembered that he must do something else but hold himself so tightly with the pen touching the paper.
Good actors do this all seamlessly bad actors you can see them thinking and now I'll do this (flourish) so that they know what I mean.
At the point where Lynn says he goes back to his car after CC is shot, it occurs to me but how does he get past her body and RH would have been inbetween him and his car too?
When people are telling stories in detail you can generally put yourself in the story and see the picture, see what the person is telling you. With this story I see nothing, I see GL going on about hitting the right points in the story like 'ticking boxes'.

 

[Iretired00]

I agree 100% I think this scenario is as close to the truth as I can get via my logic and my mind. I also think Hill was shot.

^^ This
I always had this as the underlying way it went as well.I've never tried or wanted to analyse various parts of GL's story as it's all fabrication around a few salient undisputed facts.I also absolutely believe that alcohol played a part in both parties reactions to the events of the evening,we know RH had grog with him,I saw the bottle of Bundy in his esky and GL by all accounts was a drinker.Amen.

 

[Terrafirma]

Waiting to hear Greg Lynn’s sentencing details.

I found it interesting that (after so long) the Jury found him guilty of the murder of Carol Clay, and I’ll admit that I was surprised.
However they did not find him guilty of murdering her partner Russell Hill - meaning I guess that they believed his account that Russell Hill fell on the knife in their tussle.

‘Murder’ involves ‘intent’. .. not an accidental firing of a gun in a fight between people ( imo that would be ‘manslaughter’) but for some reason there was no option for any decision other than ‘murder’.

While I’m wondering what convinced them that Lynn intentionally pulled the trigger that resulted in Ms Clay’s death, I got to wondering if perhaps the Jury had the view that it was RH who was initially and accidentally killed, and then CC was shot to cover that up.

They said sentencing was around 4 weeks from the guilty verdict. Also would like to know is there a cut off for an appeal?

 

[Terrafirma]

^^ This
I always had this as the underlying way it went as well.I've never tried or wanted to analyse various parts of GL's story as it's all fabrication around a few salient undisputed facts.I also absolutely believe that alcohol played a part in both parties reactions to the events of the evening,we know RH had grog with him,I saw the bottle of Bundy in his esky and GL by all accounts was a drinker.Amen.

Yeah wow never really considered alcohol but would be a massive factor if they were on it

 

[Lady O]

Hes just going through his Woolies purchases to make sure he got a discount that week. But hes doing it in 1990 when hanging your glasses around your neck might have been a thing

Sounded like a pre-flight check. Tick. Tick. Tick.

 

[Iretired00]

Also would like to know is there a cut off for an appeal?

28 days to lodge appeal from verdict delivery.As I understand it (not really wanting to quote his words ! ) ,sentencing will come first.

 

[Terrafirma]

28 days to lodge appeal from verdict delivery.As I understand it (not really wanting to quote his words ! ) ,sentencing will come first.

Cheers