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​

 

[Mister Dog]

The biggest loser in all of this outside the families involved is this poor bastard, an architect from Canada:


View attachment 2029874


Just look at the photo on the Google book review!

Is A.I to blame for that?

 

[Xtreme]

Interesting turn of events. Hopefully the judge gives the right sentence.

Maximum allowed or it's a fail

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

It’s only his family who will suffer. GL gets free board and food for probably or most of the rest of his life.
So much for him protecting his family.

Exclusive club membership. Just not the club he applied for

 

[Romaine Calm]

One of the problems is when the jury is instructed to find a motive and to fit the evidence into the neat and inflexible 'four elements of murder'.

Unfortunately, some murders do not fit in the box and the accused is therefore found not guilty.

Those secret

One of the problems is when the jury is instructed to find a motive and to fit the evidence into the neat and inflexible 'four elements of murder'.

Unfortunately, some murders do not fit in the box and the accused is therefore found not guilty.

Those secret recordings are going to make a great addition to a book.

 

[10571z]

In Doha? Missing but never found.

Perhaps he ticked all the boxes on that one?

Or he’s just very unlucky.

Yep that’s the one. Was the public knowledge? I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere.

 

[Awakening]

“The Coroners Court heard Lynn accepted via unsigned statements he had been violent toward his ex-wife including breaking into the family home, stealing keys and taking the car.

'Greg's behaviour in general would be described as bizarre. In my opinion, he has a warped mind,' she (Lisa’s mother) told the coroner.

'He has done things in the past like killing animals and neighbour's pet, refusing to feed the children when he was supposed to be looking after them and on one occasion, he exploded into a fit of uncontrollable rage when we went for dinner at the Macedon Hotel.'

Lisa's mum told the court Lynn verbally attacked a man in the bar after he made the mistake of speaking to Lisa.

He then flew into a 'rage' at his then wife after leaving the hotel, she told the coroner.

Lynn's defence chose not to present any 'good character' evidence to the jury.”

And yet Mr Hill’s character was assassinated in court. The system is broken.

Mother of Greg Lynn's ex-wife blamed him for her suicide: court

When the parents of Greg Lynn's estranged ex-wife heard she was dead, they immediately suspected it was his doing, court documents have revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Zidane98]

Is A.I to blame for that?

I'm surprised GL didn't cite AI in his trial as a factor.

 

[Awakening]

Who is appealing? Your comment makes it sounds like an appeal on the not guilty verdict from the prosecution, which is not possible.

Prosecution could appeal the sentence, but we’re not at that stage yet.

If you think GL will appeal, on what grounds do you suggest? I’d propose an appeal might be possible on the grounds that GL didn’t intend to kill or cause serious injury and that there isn’t evidence to confirm any such thing. His defence could argue that GL’s evidence is that it was a struggle in the heat of an argument or confrontation and there cannot possibly be intent to kill in that situation.

I could write more about different theories and approaches to appeals, prosecution, defence, etc but I’m going outside to soak up some sun

Appeal against the guilty verdict on Clay.

 

[striker3]

IMHO this bizarre guilty for CC, not guilty for RH could be a bad outcome for the prosecution if the defence can successfully argue for an appeal based on the specifics of the 4 elements of murder.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

'Even though Dann went pretty hard down this track I can't possibly see how the police could be accused of misconduct.

He wasn't interviewed immediately, was allowed rest. Was informed he didn't have to say anything. Was advised to speak to his appointed legal representative. Said lawyer actually spoke to Lynn and further advised him to say nothing.

I don't see the unlawful conduct here. This was an intelligent man, he wasn't grilled or held in inhumane conditions.

Waterboarding was too good for him

 

[Zidane98]

“The Coroners Court heard Lynn accepted via unsigned statements he had been violent toward his ex-wife including breaking into the family home, stealing keys and taking the car.

'Greg's behaviour in general would be described as bizarre. In my opinion, he has a warped mind,' she (Lisa’s mother) told the coroner.

'He has done things in the past like killing animals and neighbour's pet, refusing to feed the children when he was supposed to be looking after them and on one occasion, he exploded into a fit of uncontrollable rage when we went for dinner at the Macedon Hotel.'

Lisa's mum told the court Lynn verbally attacked a man in the bar after he made the mistake of speaking to Lisa.

He then flew into a 'rage' at his then wife after leaving the hotel, she told the coroner.

Lynn's defence chose not to present any 'good character' evidence to the jury.”
And yet Mr Hill’s character was assassinated in court. The system is broken.

Mother of Greg Lynn's ex-wife blamed him for her suicide: court

When the parents of Greg Lynn's estranged ex-wife heard she was dead, they immediately suspected it was his doing, court documents have revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The court was never going to allow into evidence testimony from his ex wife's family which would obviously be very biased against him. To do so could have jeopardised the entire trial. It would be a simple decision by the judge to determine relevance of which there isn't any to the case.

 

[Awakening]

The court was never going to allow into evidence testimony from his ex wife's family which would obviously be very biased against him. To do so could have jeopardised the entire trial. It would be a simple decision by the judge to determine relevance of which there isn't any to the case.

This isn’t just mum mouthing off to daily mail. It was her evidence in the coroners court.

I get that they wouldn’t permit it in this case.

And Lynn admitted he was violent towards his ex wife.

The fact that the defence didn’t submit any good character evidence is very telling imo. Didn’t want to open up that can of worms.

 

[Kurve]

“The Coroners Court heard Lynn accepted via unsigned statements he had been violent toward his ex-wife including breaking into the family home, stealing keys and taking the car.

'Greg's behaviour in general would be described as bizarre. In my opinion, he has a warped mind,' she (Lisa’s mother) told the coroner.

'He has done things in the past like killing animals and neighbour's pet, refusing to feed the children when he was supposed to be looking after them and on one occasion, he exploded into a fit of uncontrollable rage when we went for dinner at the Macedon Hotel.'

Lisa's mum told the court Lynn verbally attacked a man in the bar after he made the mistake of speaking to Lisa.

He then flew into a 'rage' at his then wife after leaving the hotel, she told the coroner.

Lynn's defence chose not to present any 'good character' evidence to the jury.”
And yet Mr Hill’s character was assassinated in court. The system is broken.

Mother of Greg Lynn's ex-wife blamed him for her suicide: court

When the parents of Greg Lynn's estranged ex-wife heard she was dead, they immediately suspected it was his doing, court documents have revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Here it comes, like the dam of information broke with all the stuff we weren't allowed to talk about before.

 

[faible]

Yep.

We can talk about Doha now.

Any more information? I missed this one earlier

 

[Kurve]

Any more information? I missed this one earlier

It's told he had another wife in Doha who mysteriously disappeared.

 

[faible]

IMHO this bizarre guilty for CC, not guilty for RH could be a bad outcome for the prosecution if the defence can successfully argue for an appeal based on the specifics of the 4 elements of murder.

It's really not that bizarre by the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' IMO.

 

[Romaine Calm]

This can only help the pros. when he tries to appeal, the judge was strict in the law so the chances of an appeal should be slim.

Under difficult circumstances I believe the Pros & Victorian Police are to be commended for a job well done.

 

[faible]

It's told he had another wife in Doha who mysteriously disappeared.

What are the chances? Poor guy, people just keep mysteriously disappearing and dying around him.

 

[Earls Smother]

He'd lie if he killed Clay second, since that would be murder.

Yes I know. But the jury couldn't have found him guilty of that murder if they believed him.

They didn't. They went with guilty because he lied (in their eyes) and killed her second to cover up the first death.

There's no evidence AFAIK to disprove that there was a struggle with Hill - and therefore that Hill could have died during a struggle - and manslaughter was not an option.

Agree on no direct evidence. But why kill Clay (2nd in the jury's eyes) if the first death of RH was not deliberate?

You don't murder a defenceless 72 year old woman because you have accidentally been involved in the death of her partner.

There was at least some evidence around the sequence of events that would have had to occur for Clay to be accidentally shot before Hill to suggest it was improbable.

Agree.

If he was destroying evidence for one, why not both and try to get away with the whole thing? Given it seems he killed Clay to cover up killing Hill, or so the jury believes.

I can see that scenario.

You're doing that thing where people forgot how the justice system works and base it on what 'seems' more likely, which is fine in a civil suit, but not a criminal one.

So what did the judge's instruction "one narrow path to guilty" mean?

He never specified that as applying to one and not the other.

 

[gymjam]

Killed the neighbours pet?
That says it all....

What pet was it? A marauding cat perhaps,?

 

[faible]

Yes I know. But the jury couldn't have found him guilty of that murder if they believed him.

They didn't. They went with guilty because he lied (in their eyes) and killed her second to cover up the first death.

They haven't explained why they found him guilty for her murder, so we're just speculating.

We know they mustn't have believed his version of events in-full, at least the parts that were related to her death.

So if his version of events - she was killed accidentally during a struggle - were able to be sufficiently disproven or shown to be so unlikely as to be implausible by the prosecution, that would mean he's lying about how she died, and given there's no argument made she was a threat to him by the defence, I assume they therefore believe he deliberately killed her for <reasons>.

Agree on no direct evidence. But why kill Clay (2nd in the jury's eyes) if the first death of RH was not deliberate?

You don't murder a defenceless 72 year old woman because you have accidentally been involved in the death of her partner.

You don't dispose of two bodies, burn them with kerosene and smash them in to ~ 2500 pieces if it was accidental either. But it's all about what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Based on the story, I believe there probably was some kind of confrontation between the two men that escalated to violence. It might be that Lynn would have been found guilty of manslaughter of Hill had that option been available, but not necessarily that he set out and intended to kill Hill to be culpable of murder. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Hill, but manslaughter? I reckon I'd be able to square that away.

If he's not telling the truth about how Clay died - and it would appear that there was sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution to leave no doubt that his story could have happened - and we know that she was shot, if not murder how else does a 72 year old woman get shot given the scenario the defence outlined was the only explanation provided?

I'm not entirely sure why manslaughter was taken off the table, as I think Hill's death might well have reached that bar but not murder.

 

[Badd0g]

For those who don't know the process here: there will be firstly a plea hearing (date yet, to be set) where the defence presents a plea and then the judge sentences after that.

So sentencing is some time away, possibly 2 months.

If there is an appeal then GL will run the risk of re-opening the case to being sentenced for two murders not just the one.

I thought I saw sentencing was set for July 19?

 

[Run n Spread]

Keeping him for 3 days seems excessive. I didn't know you could keep that long. Thought it was 48 hours.
Also why were some recordings released but not others? (Even if the ones that weren't give a hint of what happened)
Also the conduct of the prosecution during cross? Should the jury have been instructed on that.
(The comments just another chapter in his life etc).
Some very dodgy practices with.on
Will be an interesting appeal. And given a not guilty verdict (maybe reached as a weird compromise) he's essentially off the hook for RH. Could still win on appeal for CC.
Would be an interesting retrial given the acquittal of RH.

 

[striker3]

It kind of is a concept actually.

If the prosecution’s produces evidence there is a natural presumption that whatever it is that is presented exists, unless evidence of the contrary is produced by the defence.

Any such evidence produced to the contrary (by defence) must rebut this presumption from the prosecution “on the balance of probabilities” (not beyond reasonable doubt)

But it’s not the defences responsibility to produce any evidence, right?

 

[Earls Smother]

I believe that the Jury considered the whole story to be a fabrication.

Much like the greater percentage of posters on this thread

They couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that that Hill was murdered or even died as a result of Lynn's actions (manslaughter).

They possibly formed the view that Hill's death(from whatever reason) resulted in a series of events that cumulated in Clay being shot from beside the toilet tent.

That they found to be proven (asking for the ballistic evidence to be replayed suggests that they didn't believe she was cowering in fear, rather stalked and assassinated)

Lynn's post murder actions will be taken into account by the sentencing Judge when imposing sentence; I'd suggest this will be far in excess of an "ordinary" murder of one individual.

Fair enough, but I'm still interested to know what the judge meant by "one narrow path to guilty".

He seemed to be suggesting fully guilty, not partly guilty. He never gave them separate instructions for each case did he?