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.

 

[Cold Sober]

The legal system is a joke, as this case has yet again proven.
You have more chance of getting away with murder than you have a speeding fine or not paying enough child support.

 

[Sir_Loin]

The devious Dann would say that the rules bound to admissible evidence as that which was presented to the jury.

And he’d be right

 

[Sir_Loin]

Actually, it was Lynn who said "murder" not "killing". I was wondering if Dann misquoted Lynn.

Maybe Lynn had his finger on top of Hill's finger when it was on the gun? Maybe Lynn had his hand over Hill's when he had the knife? If so, he didn't touch the trigger or the knife.

I can see why he would say it wasn't murder (as he understands it).

What total BS. You’re in troll territory now

 

[Earls Smother]

No, because defence said:

1. Hill had his finger on the trigger so it wasn't Lynn that killed Clay;
2. Hill fell on his own knife and that it wasn't done by Lynn (and by extension Lynn wasn't touching the knife)

This is exactly right. GL's narrative fits in perfectly with the above to explain 2 accidental deaths.

Why is it then, with Lynns testimony agreeing with all the available evidence, that he was found guilty?

The evidence was such that it could be manipulated to suit both sides. Lynn had a crack at concocting a story to suit the evidence. The jury didn't believe him and found him guilty - not on the evidence, but the disbelief in his version being plausible. If you (not you personally) don't want to call this lying, that is just semantics for the sake of arguing.

The evidence that did exist lead the jury to be more certain of murder with CC, because they knew how she died. I still think if it was anyone here's mum and dad up there in the high country, and they were both dead after an encounter with a third person who owned firearms, you would find it hard to accept that your dad died "accidentally". Even more so when that third person has been found to be a murderer and a liar.

 

[Sir_Loin]

This is exactly right. GL's narrative fits in perfectly with the above to explain 2 accidental deaths.

Why is it then, with Lynns testimony agreeing with all the available evidence, that he was found guilty?

The evidence was such that it could be manipulated to suit both sides. Lynn had a crack at concocting a story to suit the evidence. The jury didn't believe him and found him guilty - not on the evidence, but the disbelief in his version being plausible. If you (not you personally) don't want to call this lying, that is just semantics for the sake of arguing.

The evidence that did exist lead the jury to be more certain of murder with CC, because they knew how she died. I still think if it was anyone here's mum and dad up there in the high country, and they were both dead after an encounter with a third person who owned firearms, you would find it hard to accept that your dad died "accidentally". Even more so when that third person has been found to be a murderer and a liar.

Jesus Christ time to pause on the midsummer murders back catalogue mate.

Just one point. You say “Why is it then, with Lynns testimony agreeing with all the available evidence, that he was found guilty?”

Because he destroyed all the evidence, except the bit when he blew someones head off and the evidence didn’t align to his bullshit story.

 

[Earls Smother]

Jesus Christ time to pause on the midsummer murders back catalogue mate.

Just one point. You say “Why is it then, with Lynns testimony agreeing with all the available evidence, that he was found guilty?”

Because he destroyed all the evidence, except the bit when he blew someones head off and the evidence didn’t align to his bullshit story.

But the evidence did align with his bullshit story. What part of the evidence didn't?

Accidental shooting = piece of skull and bullet fragment. That in no way contradicts his version in itself.

How ironic you mention "bullshit story". Does bullshit not mean lies?

 

[Sir_Loin]

But the evidence did align with his bullshit story. What part of the evidence didn't?

Accidental shooting = piece of skull and bullet fragment. That in no way contradicts his version in itself.

How ironic you mention "bullshit story". Does bullshit not mean lies?

If it aligned with his story why destroy the evidence? Can you catch the bouncing ball?

 

[Earls Smother]

If it aligned with his story why destroy the evidence? Can you catch the bouncing ball?

I think you should change your user name from Sirloin to Chuck Steak given the quality of your analysis.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I think you should change your user name from Sirloin to Chuck Steak given the quality of your analysis.

 

[GrayRanga]

The evidence that did exist lead the jury to be more certain of murder with CC, because they knew how she died. I still think if it was anyone here's mum and dad up there in the high country, and they were both dead after an encounter with a third person who owned firearms, you would find it hard to accept that your dad died "accidentally". Even more so when that third person has been found to be a murderer and a liar.

You are bringing so much of your own preconceptions' of the Court case without a basic understanding of Criminal Trials into the discussion, I can understand SirLoin's frustrations.

Really simple, Lynn was charged with 2 counts of murder. The Jury found that on the basis of the evidence presented, which includes Lynn's Testimony under oath and his ROI, that Lynn murdered Clay. He was aquitted of the murder of Hill.

The jury did not find that Hill died accidently (where did you get that one from?), only that there was not enought evidence to support the allegation that he died at Lynn's hand with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

The jury did not find Lynn a liar (why are you even saying that?). it found that the evidence presented by the Prosecution was more compelling than that presented by the Defence

 

[Earls Smother]

You are bringing so much of your own preconceptions' of the Court case without a basic understanding of Criminal Trials into the discussion, I can understand SirLoin's frustrations.

Really simple, Lynn was charged with 2 counts of murder. The Jury found that on the basis of the evidence presented, which includes Lynn's Testimony under oath and his ROI, that Lynn murdered Clay. He was aquitted of the murder of Hill.

The jury did not find that Hill died accidently (where did you get that one from?), only that there was not enought evidence to support the allegation that he died at Lynn's hand with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

The jury did not find Lynn a liar (why are you even saying that?). it found that the evidence presented by the Prosecution was more compelling than that presented by the Defence

That paragraph you quoted is more a personal opinion. Why only quote one part of a post? Why not refute the whole post?

There is no point going round and round with this. You believe the evidence weighed in favour of what occurred - one guilty, one acquittal.

I believe the evidence fully supported GL's version of events - however unlikely that version might have been. He is smart enough to have "fitted" a story to the evidence he knew was admissable. Chuck Steak referred to the destruction of the evidence (bodies). Again, GL provided an explanation for that - he panicked and didn't want to lose his memberships and privileges. It is whether someone (in this case the jury) actually accepts his version as being truthful that determined the verdict.

For every piece of evidence, GL had an explanation from his perspective of innocence. No piece of evidence existed which blew his story apart. It simply came down to whether the jury believed or disbelieved (wholly or partially) his version. They didn't, they determined he was lying. They were then happy to use what evidence they did have, to convict on CC, whilst remaining uncertain how RH died.

We believe different things, that's fine. The 12 jury members were likely the same, hence the time taken and split decision delivered.

 

[Terrafirma]

The totality of evidence has to include assessing the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. In taking the stand, GL is subject to this scrutiny.

If they believed him, why didn't they acquit? Because they didn't believe him, which equates to saying they thought he was lying. A largely circumstantial case is way more dependent on whether witnesses are believed by the jury/judge, or not.

Dawson was still found guilty with no physical evidence. How do you think that was? It's irrelevant when the judge actually uttered those exact words.

As I understand it the judge in the Dawson case found him guilty of lying on multiple occasions and that's why he delivered a guilty verdict. I thought the judge mentioned the lying during the presentation of the Guilty verdict. It was something along the lines of not being able to draw any other conclusion other than guilty of murder etc etc. I think we are mincing with words if we are to believe Lynn did not lie, it is my interpretation the Jury found him guilty of murdering Clay because they did not believe his version of events, to me that is the same as lying IMO.

 

[Percel]

I think you should change your user name from Sirloin to Chuck Steak given the quality of your analysis.

Safe to say that after Loin’s fine work in here, he’ll be rebranded to prime rib before long…

maybe just Sir Rib?

 

[Terrafirma]

Safe to say that after Loin’s fine work in here, he’ll be rebranded to prime rib before long…

maybe just Sir Rib?

Always love the humor when it comes. I've been on the receiving end of the great man he doesn't hold back.! May I suggest Rib Eye...!

 

[thumbs_up]

I believe the evidence fully supported GL's version of events - however unlikely that version might have been. He is smart enough to have "fitted" a story to the evidence he knew was admissable.

Another perspective: he was dumb enough to think he was smart enough to fool the police and the jury.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Safe to say that after Loin’s fine work in here, he’ll be rebranded to prime rib before long…

maybe just Sir Rib?

It’s Sir_Rib. Doesn’t have the same ring

 

[Sir_Loin]

Always love the humor when it comes. I've been on the receiving end of the great man he doesn't hold back.! May I suggest Rib Eye...!

Have had to dodge a few short balls from you too my friend

 

[Sir_Loin]

You are bringing so much of your own preconceptions' of the Court case without a basic understanding of Criminal Trials into the discussion, I can understand SirLoin's frustrations.

Really simple, Lynn was charged with 2 counts of murder. The Jury found that on the basis of the evidence presented, which includes Lynn's Testimony under oath and his ROI, that Lynn murdered Clay. He was aquitted of the murder of Hill.

The jury did not find that Hill died accidently (where did you get that one from?), only that there was not enought evidence to support the allegation that he died at Lynn's hand with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

The jury did not find Lynn a liar (why are you even saying that?). it found that the evidence presented by the Prosecution was more compelling than that presented by the Defence

Great stuff as usual. Explained in simple terms that anyone can grasp.

I don’t mind alternative views when they’re in good faith, research has been done and the thread(s) have been read.

So much good quality info and discussion on this case. Love the good natured mickey taking especially when it comes to me. Have LOL’d a lot. Keep it coming

 

[Underarrest_]

Great stuff as usual. Explained in simple terms that anyone can grasp.

I don’t mind alternative views when they’re in good faith, research has been done and the thread(s) have been read.

So much good quality info and discussion on this case. Love the good natured mickey taking especially when it comes to me. Have LOL’d a lot. Keep it coming

Except, I don’t know what to call you now so I’ll just call you Sir_

 

[Percel]

Except, I don’t know what to call you now so I’ll just call you Sir_

Don’t bait him, he’s a bad ass

 

[Kurve]

Don’t bait him, he’s a bad ass

I've been watching and quietly calling him 'Chucky'

 

[Sir_Loin]

I've been watching and quietly calling him 'Chucky'

 

[GladdyDee]

Riffing titles for upcoming Netflix series on this murder(s)… possibly already been done to death but here goes..

Not Murder, as he understands it
Ly(o)nn on the stand
Wonnangatta fisticuffs
Strictly lies
The drone, the gun, the retiree and his lover
Presume nuffin
The deliberate know all

 

[thumbs_up]

Riffing titles for upcoming Netflix series on this murder(s)… possibly already been done to death but here goes..

Not Murder, as he understands it
Lyon on the stand
Wonnangatta fisticuffs
Strictly lies
The drone, the gun, the retiree and his lover
Presume nuffin
The deliberate know all

Drone to death

 

[Underarrest_]

Drone to death

“The huntsman”