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.

 

[GrayRanga]

Sly has the good fortune of not only being clever, but also being the son of an 'old school' Victorian Assistant Police Commissioner who was respected by both sides of the law. One imagines that connection gives you a journalistic currency for life, if you're smart enough to know the rules--which clearly the longevity of Silvester's 'exclusives' suggests. Of course there are some organised realms of the underworld that his copper connections can't crack and hence there's a well worn theme to his crime stories. I would wager he has known all about GL, including Zig Zag Rd, for some time, waiting for the whistle to put it to print.

I always considered him as the unofficial press officer of VicPol. Some of his stories have a slight bias when you seek other sources, such as transcripts

It is interesting that Dann made an interesting comment in today's mention reported in The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...r-trial-carol-clay-russell-hill-appeal-ntwnfb

He also said media coverage of Lynn after the verdict was handed down was “flooded with inadmissible material”, gossip and “unsubstantiated allegations”, and linked to other crimes and deaths.

“We’ve reached the stage where all of that has combined to pollute and poison the well of justice, such that if the court of appeal did order a retrial, what’s going to happen then?” he said.

Dann said the chances of a retrial being conducted fairly were “nonexistent”.

Just imagine that, that “unsubstantiated allegations”, and linked to other crimes and deaths" may have "combined to pollute and poison the well of justice"

No reference to BF forums though ​

 

[Earls Smother]

I always considered him as the unofficial press officer of VicPol. Some of his stories have a slight bias when you seek other sources, such as transcripts

It is interesting that Dann made an interesting comment in today's mention reported in The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...r-trial-carol-clay-russell-hill-appeal-ntwnfb

He also said media coverage of Lynn after the verdict was handed down was “flooded with inadmissible material”, gossip and “unsubstantiated allegations”, and linked to other crimes and deaths.

“We’ve reached the stage where all of that has combined to pollute and poison the well of justice, such that if the court of appeal did order a retrial, what’s going to happen then?” he said.

Dann said the chances of a retrial being conducted fairly were “nonexistent”.

Just imagine that, that “unsubstantiated allegations”, and linked to other crimes and deaths" may have "combined to pollute and poison the well of justice"

No reference to BF forums though ​

Yes the comment I find interesting from Dann is:

“He maintains that he told zero lies in that [police] interview … that was played to the jury,” he told the court on Friday.

The "played to the jury" rider is telling. Dann knows he was able to get incriminating evidence excluded from the trial, and doesn't like the fact that it is now public knowledge. It is a strange anomaly of the legal system that evidence can be excluded from a trial, but then plastered all over the media immediately afterwards.

Dann is right in arguing that an appeal and potential retrial is affected by the release of such information. The thing is, he and GL deserve to have a retrial made tougher to win. The information is not fictitious and false - it actually happened. Dann had his best chance of winning with the information excluded, and probably did have "half" a win because of it.

IMO it is good that they won't be able to find 12 people who don't know a lot more than the original 12. It balances the scales in favour of "the people" instead of rich barristers and criminals.

 

[thumbs_up]

I always considered him as the unofficial press officer of VicPol. Some of his stories have a slight bias when you seek other sources, such as transcripts

It is interesting that Dann made an interesting comment in today's mention reported in The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...r-trial-carol-clay-russell-hill-appeal-ntwnfb

He also said media coverage of Lynn after the verdict was handed down was “flooded with inadmissible material”, gossip and “unsubstantiated allegations”, and linked to other crimes and deaths.

“We’ve reached the stage where all of that has combined to pollute and poison the well of justice, such that if the court of appeal did order a retrial, what’s going to happen then?” he said.

Dann said the chances of a retrial being conducted fairly were “nonexistent”.

Just imagine that, that “unsubstantiated allegations”, and linked to other crimes and deaths" may have "combined to pollute and poison the well of justice"

No reference to BF forums though ​

He's right, they can't have a retrial now with all the other information public. Mainstream media have reported on Lisa Lynn's death and the murder suicide in Macedon as possibly linked to GL. Thus why BF not getting a mention

 

[CD Xbow]

Love your openness and honesty.

Thanks P, it's easier once retired. Lost a couple of friends over the years from suicide, I can't help feeling the stigma associated with mental illness contributed.

 

[Pamcake1]

Yes the comment I find interesting from Dann is:

“He maintains that he told zero lies in that [police] interview … that was played to the jury,” he told the court on Friday.

The "played to the jury" rider is telling. Dann knows he was able to get incriminating evidence excluded from the trial, and doesn't like the fact that it is now public knowledge. It is a strange anomaly of the legal system that evidence can be excluded from a trial, but then plastered all over the media immediately afterwards.

Dann is right in arguing that an appeal and potential retrial is affected by the release of such information. The thing is, he and GL deserve to have a retrial made tougher to win. The information is not fictitious and false - it actually happened. Dann had his best chance of winning with the information excluded, and probably did have "half" a win because of it.

IMO it is good that they won't be able to find 12 people who don't know a lot more than the original 12. It balances the scales in favour of "the people" instead of rich barristers and criminals.

DD can't have it both ways as much as he would like to.

His remit is to defend his client within the legal system, of which he is masterful at ie.the exclussion of most of the ROI, within that same system his client was judged guilty of murder.

The court of public opinion, not being constrained by the narrow perimeters of the legal system nor contained by DD's fencing off of the ROI, do not believe in the majority that GL was 100% telling the truth in the ROI.
That is a fact that DD can not control.

That DD is now complaining about the public making up their own minds unfettered by the justice system is a bit rich.
In affect he is complaining about the judgement of guilty in one theatre while denying the fact of the judgement of guilty in the other theatre.

Rather like a script for 'Yes Minister', a cynical satire of the legal system and the star player within it.
To resort to that well worn but quintessential Australian movie, "GL is not guilty of murder? Tell him he's dreaming!"

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/missing-camper-killer-greg-lynn-gets-powerful-prison-job-cell-with-a-view/news-story/a3f0fe20e24291847a7e732322c35798

Missing camper killer Greg Lynn gets powerful prison job, cell with a view​

Greg in control,always in control until...........

Yay, the billet job and getting bags of shit thrown at you: it's less a prison and more like a four star hotel.

I know it gets clicks and if - as conceivably may happen - Lynn is seriously assaulted immediately following this article being published, they can probably squeeze another couple of front pages out of it, but this is just BS journalism. You'd think perhaps News Corp would be slightly more circumspect about running this sort of trash given how that's previously played out in the cases of Carl Williams and Tony Mokbel.

 

[GrayRanga]

DD can't have it both ways as much as he would like to.

His remit is to defend his client within the legal system, of which he is masterful at ie.the exclussion of most of the ROI, within that same system his client was judged guilty of murder.

The court of public opinion, not being constrained by the narrow perimeters of the legal system nor contained by DD's fencing off of the ROI, do not believe in the majority that GL was 100% telling the truth in the ROI.
That is a fact that DD can not control.

That DD is now complaining about the public making up their own minds unfettered by the justice system is a bit rich.
In affect he is complaining about the judgement of guilty in one theatre while denying the fact of the judgement of guilty in the other theatre.

Rather like a script for 'Yes Minister', a cynical satire of the legal system and the star player within it.
To resort to that well worn but quintessential Australian movie, "GL is not guilty of murder? Tell him he's dreaming!"

He was playing for effect to the Lay audience

The Judge would probably have a greater understanding of the minutiae of the Criminal Justice System that Dann does; most Judges were previously "silks" and were elevated to the Bench because of the peer acknowledgement of their expertise

Just proves that most Barristers are frustracted actors

 

[Pamcake1]

He was playing for effect to the Lay audience

The Judge would probably have a greater understanding of the minutiae of the Criminal Justice System that Dann does; most Judges were previously "silks" and were elevated to the Bench because of the peer acknowledgement of their expertise

Just proves that most Barristers are frustracted actors

I understand that, which is why i framed my comment as I did.
Furthermore to use theatrical analogies:
He is playing a professional role, he doesn't get to write the whole script, he has no control over the audience, he is preaching to the stalls, the soliloquy of the 2nd act does not enthrall the matinee audience.

 

[Analysis Reactor]

It’s funny that Dann says the prosecution broke the rules 20-25 times. What exactly did prosecution do? They suggested that Lynn murdered both of them in cold blood and systematically got rid of all the evidence. Umm yeah Dann, Lynn was on a double murder trial what did you think the prosecution was going to talk about how much of an honest angel Lynn is for what he did to the campers but revealing the location of the bodies? Furthermore, saying xyz has been released to the public would make an unfair retrial is Lynn’s fault. He was the architect of his own downfall and everything that came to light to the public by his own actions. The verdict has been handed so it’s best Lynn gets used to prison life.

IMO

 

[GrayRanga]

I understand that, which is why i framed my comment as I did.
Furthermore to use theatrical analogies:
He is playing a professional role, he doesn't get to write the whole script, he has no control over the audience, he is preaching to the stalls, the soliloquy of the 2nd act does not enthrall the matinee audience.

Love the allusions

However, he does raise one thing, the fat lady hasn't sung the closing aria yet, so the trial is still ongoing.

The Age, the Herald Sun etc have legal departments to cast a jaundiced eye over their copy before publication.

Don't know how many posters here seek legal advice beifore posting allegations of a person committing crimes based purely on the "vibe"

 

[Run n Spread]

I believe it is as simple as that. If you believe his version, then you must acquit 2 accidental deaths.


Yes, they are separate (which is what started this conversation, with Kurve saying they could have been tried separately) but really one event.



Yes it is sufficient IMO. No-one knows what happened as you say, including the prosecution. The Judge gave the jury "one narrow path to guilty", which was to disbelieve the one surviving person's version of events.

There were 2 people killed and their bodies destroyed. There was bugger all physical evidence, but Lynn was proven to be the only other person there and he was the only one of the 3 who possessed a firearm.

He either lied or he didn't. That applies to both cases.

Jury has really botched this one with what I reckon was a compromised verdict. Should've debated more/hung a verdict if no agreement.
Problems are 3 fold as I see it.
1. Finding of not guilty for RH not guilty means that matter is done. Can't be re tried again in conjunction with CC in an appeal even if flawed. Not guilty essentially is all done
2 and 3 The split verdict. Two ways this maybe unsound.
A. The jury accepted the closing argument that he killed RH and than CC as a witness. This was never put to GL in cross and doesn't make sense. The case centred on another order. In this case a split verdict (if possible ) would be the confrontation CC killed by accident (not guilty) than he killed RH as cover (guilty) thus that is the half half story believable in line with evidence
The road the jury took centres on he either killed CC first than rh by accident =makes no sense
Or as first mentioned RH by accident than CC. But this was argued against the rules in closing so is ripe for the appeal.
Rather than none there was plenty of evidence. Shotgun skull burning bodies for 2 guilty verdicts. Only prospect of reasonable doubt was GLs story holding up which in part it did.
TLDR
Should've been no.split verdict
But the split of CC guilty RH not guilty makes no.sense on order of evidence presented or reasoning. Jury has botched it with imo.a compromised verdict. Not guilty means 1 part is over and opens up the judges rulings and reasonable order of events

 

[Run n Spread]

It’s funny that Dann says the prosecution broke the rules 20-25 times. What exactly did prosecution do? They suggested that Lynn murdered both of them in cold blood and systematically got rid of all the evidence. Umm yeah Dann, Lynn was on a double murder trial what did you think the prosecution was going to talk about how much of an honest angel Lynn is for what he did to the campers but revealing the location of the bodies? Furthermore, saying xyz has been released to the public would make an unfair retrial is Lynn’s fault. He was the architect of his own downfall and everything that came to light to the public by his own actions. The verdict has been handed so it’s best Lynn gets used to prison life.

IMO

You can't create a new argument at closing. Given GL took the stand points needed to be put to him to answer. Even the judge said he winced during closing.
Smart by DD. He could've called for a halt and instant dismissal and mistrial but rolled the dice on a verdict (and got half essentially ending that charge) knowing it was gold.plated appeals
Whatever GL pays him he's worth every penny

 

[Dirh Semaj]

Jury has really botched this one with what I reckon was a compromised verdict. Should've debated more/hung a verdict if no agreement.
Problems are 3 fold as I see it.
1. Finding of not guilty for RH not guilty means that matter is done. Can't be re tried again in conjunction with CC in an appeal even if flawed. Not guilty essentially is all done
2 and 3 The split verdict. Two ways this maybe unsound.
A. The jury accepted the closing argument that he killed RH and than CC as a witness. This was never put to GL in cross and doesn't make sense. The case centred on another order. In this case a split verdict (if possible ) would be the confrontation CC killed by accident (not guilty) than he killed RH as cover (guilty) thus that is the half half story believable in line with evidence
The road the jury took centres on he either killed CC first than rh by accident =makes no sense
Or as first mentioned RH by accident than CC. But this was argued against the rules in closing so is ripe for the appeal.
Rather than none there was plenty of evidence. Shotgun skull burning bodies for 2 guilty verdicts. Only prospect of reasonable doubt was GLs story holding up which in part it did.
TLDR
Should've been no.split verdict
But the split of CC guilty RH not guilty makes no.sense on order of evidence presented or reasoning. Jury has botched it with imo.a compromised verdict. Not guilty means 1 part is over and opens up the judges rulings and reasonable order of events

Quite simply, the jury was certain Greg murdered Carol and lacked evidence for a conviction on the murder of Russell.

In my opinion that is clear.

They weren't certain on the order of deaths and neither were the prosecution. Greg destroyed the evidence that could prove that.

 

[Analysis Reactor]

You can't create a new argument at closing. Given GL took the stand points needed to be put to him to answer. Even the judge said he winced during closing.
Smart by DD. He could've called for a halt and instant dismissal and mistrial but rolled the dice on a verdict (and got half essentially ending that charge) knowing it was gold.plated appeals
Whatever GL pays him he's worth every penny

The judge made it clear to the jury that some of the prosecution’s arguments were inadmissible and that Lynn could have answered them directly at the stand but didn’t have the opportunity. Dann can have retrial after retrial and do a hand stand, it doesn’t take away the solid evidence of murder. Dann clearly wants to milk Lynn for every penny he has.

 

[Run n Spread]

The judge made it clear to the jury that some of the prosecution’s arguments were inadmissible and that Lynn could have answered them directly at the stand but didn’t have the opportunity. Dann can have retrial after retrial and do a hand stand, it doesn’t take away the solid evidence of murder. Dann clearly wants to milk Lynn for every penny he has.

Said at the beginning he's only hope was manslaughter. Some how he's got a not guilty and could go manslaughter in a re trial. By which time sentence would be done

 

[Run n Spread]

Quite simply, the jury was certain Greg murdered Carol and lacked evidence for a conviction on the murder of Russell.

In my opinion that is clear.

They weren't certain on the order of deaths and neither were the prosecution. Greg destroyed the evidence that could prove that.

Yes but the prosecution suddenly changed track and argued he killed RH first at closing without bringing it up before. Essentially different from opening. He should've argued GLs story is fanciful the guy rope timing etc makes it impossible the only other rational explanation is 2 x murder. Instead he essentially went off script for whatever reason.
Verdicts have to follow the chain of evidence to be safe. Only way a split verdict works is if it is the other way round. Based on what was presented. Otherwise 2 guilty or not guilty.

 

[Analysis Reactor]

Said at the beginning he's only hope was manslaughter. Some how he's got a not guilty and could go manslaughter in a re trial. By which time sentence would be done

Manslaughter is off the table. There’s no chance he’s getting off with one count of murder. Total waste of time and money but Dann can go ahead and keep milking his cash cow.

 

[Underarrest_]

Love the allusions

However, he does raise one thing, the fat lady hasn't sung the closing aria yet, so the trial is still ongoing.

The Age, the Herald Sun etc have legal departments to cast a jaundiced eye over their copy before publication.

Don't know how many posters here seek legal advice beifore posting allegations of a person committing crimes based purely on the "vibe"

I’m interested to know what’s been said on here that hasn’t been raised in the media and what allegations have been made as fact.

 

[Run n Spread]

Manslaughter is off the table. There’s no chance he’s getting off with one count of murder. Total waste of time and money but Dann can go ahead and keep milking his cash cow.

Guess we'll all have to wait till appeal. Will be interesting. Than the potential for high court. Still years off a final resolution

 

[Underarrest_]

He's right, they can't have a retrial now with all the other information public. Mainstream media have reported on Lisa Lynn's death and the murder suicide in Macedon as possibly linked to GL. Thus why BF not getting a mention

Also connections to the woman missing in Doha has been reported in the media.

 

[Underarrest_]

The judge made it clear to the jury that some of the prosecution’s arguments were inadmissible and that Lynn could have answered them directly at the stand but didn’t have the opportunity. Dann can have retrial after retrial and do a hand stand, it doesn’t take away the solid evidence of murder. Dann clearly wants to milk Lynn for every penny he has.

The Judge made it clear that the prosecutions arguments were inadmissible and unable to be considered at trial, so how is that an argument now for a retrial? Also the fact the jury found one guilty and one not guilty? The jury obviously have there reasons for this, using the available evidence and there’s limited chance there could be a fair retrial.
Dann seems concerned that the victim impact statements might impact the decision for a retrial. Dann indicated requesting a stay which the Judge seemed to indicate was unlikely with a murder conviction, which leads to the question, will there be a retrial?
Time will tell but looking forward to the sentencing so Lynn can enjoy his alleged new job and room with a view.

 

[Iretired00]

Yay, the billet job and getting bags of shit thrown at you: it's less a prison and more like a four star hotel.

I know it gets clicks and if - as conceivably may happen - Lynn is seriously assaulted immediately following this article being published, they can probably squeeze another couple of front pages out of it, but this is just BS journalism. You'd think perhaps News Corp would be slightly more circumspect about running this sort of trash given how that's previously played out in the cases of Carl Williams and Tony Mokbel.

He had better hope when he gets out from the assessment facility and into the mainstream prison system he doesn't end up in Barwon with the prisoners of war,I'm guessing they will take a particular dislike to him.

 

[theouthouse]

So how would a retrial work then if it comes to that. Would it only be for CC?

I would think taking RH out of the occasion would make it severely more obvious that this was nothing more than cold blooded murder, as those post death actions are extreme and I'm sure would very well be tested in any retrial for a solitary murder.

 

[Cluck]

Yay, the billet job and getting bags of shit thrown at you: it's less a prison and more like a four star hotel.

I know it gets clicks and if - as conceivably may happen - Lynn is seriously assaulted immediately following this article being published, they can probably squeeze another couple of front pages out of it, but this is just BS journalism. You'd think perhaps News Corp would be slightly more circumspect about running this sort of trash given how that's previously played out in the cases of Carl Williams and Tony Mokbel.

You don't actually believe that News Corp or any media outlet release anything that isn't already known in criminal circles regarding organised crime? And as for GL? He is now part of the system.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

You don't actually believe that News Corp or any media outlet release anything that isn't already known in criminal circles regarding organised crime? And as for GL? He is now part of the system.

So was Williams. In that case, his death quite possibly ensured that one or more unsolved murders remained that way. And either the Herald-Sun is run by complete idiots, or they had a fair idea that putting that story on the front page was putting Williams directly at risk.

The Justice Department and the prisons have an obligation to ensure the safety of their prisoners. Now that Lynn's been convicted, I don't much care to read about the meagre "luxuries" he's been afforded, nor do I have curious daydreams about notorious prison gangs brutalising Lynn and others of his ilk. Thank goodness for modern day Robin Hoods like Matthew Johnson and the G-Fam to maintain order I suppose.

If a newspaper article talking about what colour Lynn's bedsheets are is likely to jeopardise his safety then there ought to be legal avenues to stop it being printed.