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

MOD NOTICE

This case is sub judice as under consideration by the courts. Sub judice contempt can occur if information is published that may be prejudicial to the court proceedings.

Please do not state as fact that which is opinion. Also, use 'IMO' and 'allegedly' a lot.

Rules - Updated Crime Board Rules - READ BEFORE POSTING​

General Information The BigFooty Crime board is a community that fosters discussion on current and past crimes, some which have social and media notoriety, that attracts the attention of public opinion and discussion on such matters. Please read these rules very carefully, both the Big Footy...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[hathound]

but any number of paths to a unanimous verdict of not guilty

But for this case, is there really, as Lynn's story has locked it down to one path? Although he could be modifying parts of it from the actual events that might have otherwise made a case against him for manslaughter.

For example when Lynn says he was wrestling with RH over the shotgun, it might have in reality been Lynn's hand on the trigger when it went off accidently killing CC. He would then have to demonstrate self defense instead of simply claiming she did not die by his hand. The same with the death of RH by his own hand by falling on his own knife instead of Lynn, in reality, pressing it into his chest during the struggle.

So would it be proper for a jury to arrive at a conclusion that they were killed by GL in this manner of self defense, if that is what they considered the path of events that occurred, even if it is different from the path of events of both the prosecution and also that of the defendant? This would result in a not guilty verdict. And in another variation, what if the jury concluded that they were killed by GL's hand, but considered the self defense bar was not quite reached (which I think would normally be manslaughter), but as manslaughter is not an available option, it would again result in a not guilty verdict (as the bar of murder is not reached in this scenario as it requires "intent")?

 

[Spectrix]

Perhaps there wasn’t as much to clean as has been suggested but wanted to indicate there was.
Neatly done while they slept

Exactly how neat do you suppose he could be when unexpectedly murdering two randoms in the forest?

Lynn isn't Dexter


edit...

...or is he?


...

 

[Spectrix]

But for this case, is there really, as Lynn's story has locked it down to one path?

Actually, it is only the prosecution's story that has it locked down to one path.

Remember that Lynn is essentially regarded as an innocent man, but he's had a serious allegation made against him.

If the jury are satisfied in accepting the prosecution's particular version of events beyond reasonable doubt, he will be regarded as being guilty (one narrow path to guilty).

If the jury are not sure, or they think there's a chance that it happened differently, or they accept Lynn's story, he will be regarded as not guilty (any number of paths to not guilty).

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent as such. It simply means it that the prosecution's allegations were not able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Spectrix]

There is also another option, that partially delves into the shades of grey.

Let's say some jury members are really not sure about Russell Hill's death for instance - Perhaps the men got into a heated argument and it escalated to the point that one of them ended up dead. It's not clear how exactly.

Lynn then felt that he needed to kill the only possible witness, Ms Carol Clay. So he shot her.

The charges would be not guilty for Russel Hill, and guilty for Carol Clay

 

[CredibleSauce]

He might have hidden/ transported the kerosene in the multitude of gloves he admitted to keeping in his vehicle

I mean who doesn’t love to bring the work branded gloves they’ve just used to (allegedly) pick up random strangers disgusting plane rubbish and save them in their car for future purposes instead of chucking them in the bin??
Super normal behaviour.
How convenient he had the opportunity to bring it up in court and emphasise what a nice bloke he is.

 

[Earls Smother]

Actually, it is only the prosecution's story that has it locked down to one path.

Remember that Lynn is essentially regarded as an innocent man, but he's had a serious allegation made against him.

If the jury are satisfied in accepting the prosecution's particular version of events beyond reasonable doubt, he will be regarded as being guilty (one narrow path to guilty).

If the jury are not sure, or they think there's a chance that it happened differently, or they accept Lynn's story, he will be regarded as not guilty (any number of paths to not guilty).

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent as such. It simply means it that the prosecution's allegations were not able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I must be seeing it differently. To me, the prosecution admit they don't know the exact version of events. How can they?
They certainly don't have one particular version they are relying on.

What they have done is determine there were 3 people (and only 3) present. 2 have died and had their bodies and other evidence destroyed. One death has been proven to be via a weapon owned and stored by the survivor. That surviving person has provided his version of 2 independent accidents.

The prosecution are relying on 12 reasonable people finding that story so implausible, as to be bullshit beyond reasonable doubt.

The "one narrow path" IMO, is to simply not believe GL's version - i.e. he is lying.

 

[Underarrest_]

I mean who doesn’t love to bring the work branded gloves they’ve just used to (allegedly) pick up random strangers disgusting plane rubbish and save them in their car for future purposes instead of chucking them in the bin??
Super normal behaviour.
How convenient he had the opportunity to bring it up in court and emphasise what a nice bloke he is.

I’m surprised he didn’t chuck in that he was recycling to help the planet in the name of protecting all human beings.

 

[theouthouse]

So RH has broken into the car, or you left the keys?
Breaking into a locked car to steal a firearm in order to take it to the police because the firearm owner was breaking the law?

I mean I can't see RH stealing the firearm in any scenario, let alone a break & enter to aid a theft in order to take the evidence to the police, or whatever he was planning to do with it. It's ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter in any scenario as being in possession of a firearm without a license is a big no no.

From the perspective of RH taking anything that does not belong to him, irrespective of storage requirements or if it's just lying out in the open in someone elses car, is classified as theft.

Yes it is ridiculous, and in my view a projection of GLs own behaviour around the drone at RHs campsite.

 

[Underarrest_]

Exactly how neat do you suppose he could be when unexpectedly murdering two randoms in the forest?

Lynn isn't Dexter


edit...

...or is he?

View attachment 2022060
...

Maybe Ms Clay was on her way to the toilet and GL thought she was a deer standing near the vehicle/mirror and RH was tucked up snug in bed.

 

[Terrafirma]

Maybe Ms Clay was on her way to the toilet and GL thought she was a deer standing near the vehicle/mirror and RH was tucked up snug in bed.

You should have used a comedy emoji with this.!

 

[Percel]

Maybe Ms Clay was on her way to the toilet and GL thought she was a deer standing near the vehicle/mirror and RH was tucked up snug in bed.

Rusty is on the blue pill, he ain’t snug in nothing, he’s working the rizz

 

[Terrafirma]

It doesn't really matter in any scenario as being in possession of a firearm without a license is a big no no.

From the perspective of RH taking anything that does not belong to him, irrespective of storage requirements or if it's just lying out in the open in someone elses car, is classified as theft.

Yes it is ridiculous, and in my view a projection of GLs own behaviour around the drone at RHs campsite.

What's more ridiculous is if your camping in the vicinity of someone your not getting along with and want to take his firearm why would you take the shotgun but leave the rifle? Everybody is forgetting this. In his initial interview I believe Lynn said he was hunting with his rifle but by court it was his shotgun. Because at this stage he'd found out the Police had discovered a part of Clay's skull with a shotgun slug in it. This alone would urge me to believe he is lying. We all said at the start you'd most likely hunt deer with a rifle not a shotgun but if you were going to kill 2 people in close quarters, as they were, you'd always used a shotgun. Lynn was convinced there was nothing of Clay left at the campsite. The guilty verdict is in the detail and the fanciful story of events that he proposed after having 18 months to prepare for this very moment. He has lot's of Dexter in him that's for sure IMO.

 

[gymjam]

It doesn't really matter in any scenario as being in possession of a firearm without a license is a big no no.

From the perspective of RH taking anything that does not belong to him, irrespective of storage requirements or if it's just lying out in the open in someone elses car, is classified as theft.

Yes it is ridiculous, and in my view a projection of GLs own behaviour around the drone at RHs campsite.

I have a 'scenario' for how RH came into possession of the firearm.

Media have stated it is believed the altercations that were (allegedly) responsible for the deaths of RH and CC occurred between 9:30 and 10:00pm.

I think it likely they were getting ready to go to bed; hence Lynn's quip to detectives indicating to them that RH/CC were having an intimate session. He may have made his way to their tent area and overheard sounds that gave him that impression.

Lynn stated to detectives, that he had opened the car doors of his vehicle, and played music very loudly to annoy RH.

My scenario is: This playing of loud music by Lynn occurred after the (alleged) heated discussion between the two of them, regarding the RH drone flying (and I have just become aware that in 2020, it was illegal to use drones within any State or National park within Victoria). And yes, the loud music did (allegedly) annoy RH to such an extent, that he left his own campsite and CC, and walked across to the campsite of Lynn which was approx 30/35 metres away, most likely furiously striding across, with intentions of demanding Lynn turn the music off.

On reaching the vehicle, Lynn told RH to move away and there were more (alleged) angry words between them. RH then noticed the firearms and separate ammunition sitting (openly in the unlocked vehicle) on the back seat, and took possession of the shotgun and ammunition telling Lynn, he was going to report him and hand the firearms into police; for leaving the firearms and ammunition in a place that was unlocked. My question: if Lynn had stored the firearms and ammunition on the back seat of his vehicle whilst all doors were locked, and windows up, would that have been deemed legal?

Then RH made haste to return to his own vehicle and lock the firearm and ammunition away. Lynn followed him furiously and on reaching RH's vehicle, attempted to gain re-possession of the firearm. By this time, RH had loaded the gun (with ammunition) because he was afraid of Lynn's reaction. And that is why the men were scuffling over the firearm at the front of RH's vehicle. RH initially tried to lock the firearm in the cabin section of his vehicle, and could not due to the closeness of Lynn, and was then attempting to make his way to the passenger side of his vehicle, by moving around the front of his vehicle and fired-off two warning shots to warn Lynn not to come any closer. Lynn then attempted to remove possession of the firearm from RH and that is when an accidental (3rd alleged) triggering of the firearm occurred. This then resulted in the death of CC who had been positioned between the passenger side of RH vehicle, and the tent.

In any scenario, I don't understand why CC stayed within the immediate location of RH vehicle; why she did not move to a different location? Was she frozen in fear after witnessing RH's actions (as detailed in my scenario) and the subsequent actions of Lynn and the two men furiously trying to out do each other to remain in possession of a loaded firearm?

Note: My consideration for RH (allegedly) choosing to take possession of the shotgun, is that he had experience with a shotgun when he was a teenager, according to media reports.

 

[gymjam]

It doesn't really matter in any scenario as being in possession of a firearm without a license is a big no no.

From the perspective of RH taking anything that does not belong to him, irrespective of storage requirements or if it's just lying out in the open in someone elses car, is classified as theft.

Yes it is ridiculous, and in my view a projection of GLs own behaviour around the drone at RHs campsite.

Apparently LH was set-up at the same same campsite the week prior and spoke with 3 hunters that were also set-up at the same campsite. RH had used his drone in the park on that occasion as well, and had during conversation with the shooters, asked if they minded if he used his drone and they apparently, indicated it wasn't an issue with them.

RH had talked to the shooters at length about safety around firearms and hunting and his personal work history connected to the park; and detailed what had occurred a few years before regarding the accidental shooting death involving his male relative and another younger male relative. Note: I posted information yesterday about that tragedy.

 

[Terrafirma]

I have a 'scenario' for how RH came into possession of the firearm.

Media have stated it is believed the altercations that were (allegedly) responsible for the deaths of RH and CC occurred between 9:30 and 10:00pm.

I think it likely they were getting ready to go to bed; hence Lynn's quip to detectives indicating to them that RH/CC were having an intimate session. He may have made his way to their tent area and overheard sounds that gave him that impression.

Lynn stated to detectives, that he had opened the car doors of his vehicle, and played music very loudly to annoy RH.

My scenario is: This playing of loud music by Lynn occurred after the (alleged) heated discussion between the two of them, regarding the RH drone flying (and I have just become aware that in 2020, it was illegal to use drones within any State or National park within Victoria). And yes, the loud music did (allegedly) annoy RH to such an extent, that he left his own campsite and CC, and walked across to the campsite of Lynn which was approx 30/35 metres away, most likely furiously striding across, with intentions of demanding Lynn turn the music off.

On reaching the vehicle, Lynn told RH to move away and there were more (alleged) angry words between them. RH then noticed the firearms and separate ammunition sitting (openly in the unlocked vehicle) on the back seat, and took possession of the shotgun and ammunition telling Lynn, he was going to report him and hand the firearms into police; for leaving the firearms and ammunition in a place that was unlocked. My question: if Lynn had stored the firearms and ammunition on the back seat of his vehicle whilst all doors were locked, and windows up, would that have been deemed legal?

Then RH made haste to return to his own vehicle and lock the firearm and ammunition away. Lynn followed him furiously and on reaching RH's vehicle, attempted to gain re-possession of the firearm. By this time, RH had loaded the gun (with ammunition) because he was afraid of Lynn's reaction. And that is why the men were scuffling over the firearm at the front of RH's vehicle. RH initially tried to lock the firearm in the cabin section of his vehicle, and could not due to the closeness of Lynn, and was then attempting to make his way to the passenger side of his vehicle, by moving around the front of his vehicle and fired-off two warning shots to warn Lynn not to come any closer. Lynn then attempted to remove possession of the firearm from RH and that is when an accidental (3rd alleged) triggering of the firearm occurred. This then resulted in the death of CC who had been positioned between the passenger side of RH vehicle, and the tent.

In any scenario, I don't understand why CC stayed within the immediate location of RH vehicle; why she did not move to a different location? Was she frozen in fear after witnessing RH's actions (as detailed in my scenario) and the subsequent actions of Lynn and the two men furiously trying to out do each other to remain in possession of a loaded firearm?

Note: My consideration for RH (allegedly) choosing to take possession of the shotgun, is that he had experience with a shotgun when he was a teenager, according to media reports.

Hill didn't have possession of the firearm nor was there loud music.! You based your whole story on a fictional version of events that was put forward by Greg Lynn to suit himself. None of this most likely happened. Closer to the truth would be Lynn was pissed off at the drone, pissed off at them camping so close etc etc. Lynn approached Hill about the drone and there was an argument. Hill most likely told Lynn where to go and sent him back to his campsite. Lynn lost the plot and killed Hill then Clay as the witness. This is the closest thing to REALITY IMO. Remember Lynn had 18 months to prepare his story based on knowing what really happened out there..........

P.S. And Lynn said he was hunting deer with his rifle on multiple occasions in his initial interview. Multiple times he said he was shooting with his rifle. By court it became a SHOTGUN because by then Lynn found out they found a shotgun slug with Clay's skull on it. he lied.

 

[gymjam]

I mean who doesn’t love to bring the work branded gloves they’ve just used to (allegedly) pick up random strangers disgusting plane rubbish and save them in their car for future purposes instead of chucking them in the bin??
Super normal behaviour.
How convenient he had the opportunity to bring it up in court and emphasise what a nice bloke he is.

Naaah, he saved the unused gloves and after removing such from his pockets, placed them in his vehicle. I don't think he was emphasizing 'what a nice bloke he is' at all. I think he was just describing normal work processes, which could be supported by witness accounts if required.

 

[Kurve]

In any scenario, I don't understand why CC stayed within the immediate location of RH vehicle; why she did not move to a different location? Was she frozen in fear after witnessing RH's actions (as detailed in my scenario) and the subsequent actions of Lynn and the two men furiously trying to out do each other to remain in possession of a loaded firearm?

Clay wouldn't have noticed it if Hill had been stabbed up closer to Lynn's campsite. It was a dark night, there's patches of trees and shrubs in between and stabbing can be very quiet.

By the time she's realised Hill may have been hurt, she's ducking for cover and knows she's probably next. IMO.

 

[Kurve]

I'm going with the prosecution here even if I think they might have stuffed it somewhat.

 

[Lady O]

Hill didn't have possession of the firearm nor was there loud music.! You based your whole story on a fictional version of events that was put forward by Greg Lynn to suit himself. None of this most likely happened. Closer to the truth would be Lynn was pissed off at the drone, pissed off at them camping so close etc etc. Lynn approached Hill about the drone and there was an argument. Hill most likely told Lynn where to go and sent him back to his campsite. Lynn lost the plot and killed Hill then Clay as the witness. This is the closest thing to REALITY IMO. Remember Lynn had 18 months to prepare his story based on knowing what really happened out there..........

P.S. And Lynn said he was hunting deer with his rifle on multiple occasions in his initial interview. Multiple times he said he was shooting with his rifle. By court it became a SHOTGUN because by then Lynn found out they found a shotgun slug with Clay's skull on it. he lied.

There are any number of different stories we could make up to explain what happened. I've even strayed into imagining what might have occurred, but anything we come up with, it is just that, an imagination. Maybe we watch too much TV or read too many crime novels.

Lynn has put forward a story of how two people ended up dead, both by accident and neither was his fault.

The Prosecution has put forward an alternative and they have stuck to what the small amount of evidence they have found reveals.

The reality is that there are only two options. To believe Lynn's story or not.

 

[hathound]

Hill didn't have possession of the firearm nor was there loud music.! You based your whole story on a fictional version of events that was put forward by Greg Lynn to suit himself. None of this most likely happened.

You are entitled to draw your own conclusion, but it is still good to discuss the GL version for whether it could be a plausible one, no matter whether it was fictional or reality.

 

[hathound]

The reality is that there are only two options. To believe Lynn's story or not.

I agree, but what I would like to know is if they would need to believe his story "beyond reasonable doubt" or just on their perceived "balance of probabilities"? And what if any would have the judge's direction to the jury on this question?

 

[gymjam]

Hill didn't have possession of the firearm nor was there loud music.! You based your whole story on a fictional version of events that was put forward by Greg Lynn to suit himself. None of this most likely happened. Closer to the truth would be Lynn was pissed off at the drone, pissed off at them camping so close etc etc. Lynn approached Hill about the drone and there was an argument. Hill most likely told Lynn where to go and sent him back to his campsite. Lynn lost the plot and killed Hill then Clay as the witness. This is the closest thing to REALITY IMO. Remember Lynn had 18 months to prepare his story based on knowing what really happened out there..........

P.S. And Lynn said he was hunting deer with his rifle on multiple occasions in his initial interview. Multiple times he said he was shooting with his rifle. By court it became a SHOTGUN because by then Lynn found out they found a shotgun slug with Clay's skull on it. he lied.

And how do you know there was no loud music. They weren't camped close - 30/35 metres away. Lynn, in my opinion, does not have the personality to 'loose the plot' and he has revealed this in the processes he followed after discovering both people deceased. He kept control of the situation even to his detriment. There is one thing that I am sure of, and that is, none of us here, can even imagine what played out on that terribly fateful night, or the following day, or every day that followed.

I think it more likely that RH became pissed off with Lynn, because Lynn reacted negatively about RH flying his drone close to where he was hunting. RH conversation with the 3 hunters the week prior shows me he wanted to keep flying his drone in a Victorian park, and probably knew it was illegal to do so, that is why he asked for their consent. What would he have done if they had said NO.

What actions, and by whom, do you consider were (allegedly) ultimately responsible for causing the day to end like it did? If you take steps backwards, where is the exact point that changed the progress of that fateful day?

For me, it is about two people in a tent, one being unfaithful to their spouse; these two people madly and deeply in love with each other, having their longed for intimate time interrupted by deliberate playing of very loud music by someone that had no idea how his decision to do so, would change their 3 lives for eternity.

There is one inter-connected moment I believe changed everything for these three people, and it is the moment Lynn decided to turn his music to a high level and to open all of his car doors so the music could be heard at the campsite of RH and CC. The opening of his cars 4 doors, probably from a locked position, is the ultimate decision that set eternity in play.

If only the music wasn't played! If the music wasn't played, nothing would have occurred, and eternity would have been left to develop naturally IMO.

 

[MiguelM]

And how do you know there was no loud music. They weren't camped close - 30/35 metres away. Lynn, in my opinion, does not have the personality to 'loose the plot' and he has revealed this in the processes he followed after discovering both people deceased. He kept control of the situation even to his detriment. There is one thing that I am sure of, and that is, none of us here, can even imagine what played out on that terribly fateful night, or the following day, or every day that followed.

I think it more likely that RH became pissed off with Lynn, because Lynn reacted negatively about RH flying his drone close to where he was hunting. RH conversation with the 3 hunters the week prior shows me he wanted to keep flying his drone in a Victorian park, and probably knew it was illegal to do so, that is why he asked for their consent. What would he have done if they had said NO.

What actions, and by whom, do you consider were (allegedly) ultimately responsible for causing the day to end like it did? If you take steps backwards, where is the exact point that changed the progress of that fateful day?

For me, it is about two people in a tent, one being unfaithful to their spouse; these two people madly and deeply in love with each other, having their longed for intimate time interrupted by deliberate playing of very loud music by someone that had no idea how his decision to do so, would change their 3 lives for eternity.

There is one inter-connected moment I believe changed everything for these three people, and it is the moment Lynn decided to turn his music to a high level and to open all of his car doors so the music could be heard at the campsite of RH and CC. The opening of his cars 4 doors, probably from a locked position, is the ultimate decision that set eternity in play.

If only the music wasn't played! If the music wasn't played, nothing would have occurred, and eternity would have been left to develop naturally IMO.

30-35 metres is very close for bush camping IMO!

 

[Underarrest_]

And how do you know there was no loud music. They weren't camped close - 30/35 metres away. Lynn, in my opinion, does not have the personality to 'loose the plot' and he has revealed this in the processes he followed after discovering both people deceased. He kept control of the situation even to his detriment. There is one thing that I am sure of, and that is, none of us here, can even imagine what played out on that terribly fateful night, or the following day, or every day that followed.

I think it more likely that RH became pissed off with Lynn, because Lynn reacted negatively about RH flying his drone close to where he was hunting. RH conversation with the 3 hunters the week prior shows me he wanted to keep flying his drone in a Victorian park, and probably knew it was illegal to do so, that is why he asked for their consent. What would he have done if they had said NO.

What actions, and by whom, do you consider were (allegedly) ultimately responsible for causing the day to end like it did? If you take steps backwards, where is the exact point that changed the progress of that fateful day?

For me, it is about two people in a tent, one being unfaithful to their spouse; these two people madly and deeply in love with each other, having their longed for intimate time interrupted by deliberate playing of very loud music by someone that had no idea how his decision to do so, would change their 3 lives for eternity.

There is one inter-connected moment I believe changed everything for these three people, and it is the moment Lynn decided to turn his music to a high level and to open all of his car doors so the music could be heard at the campsite of RH and CC. The opening of his cars 4 doors, probably from a locked position, is the ultimate decision that set eternity in play.

If only the music wasn't played! If the music wasn't played, nothing would have occurred, and eternity would have been left to develop naturally IMO.

I wouldn’t say he’s exactly in the right mind though if he can roast two bodies from sunset to sunrise. Capable of anything. IMO.

 

[gymjam]

I agree, but what I would like to know is if they would need to believe his story "beyond reasonable doubt" or just on their perceived "balance of probabilities"? And what if any would have the judge's direction to the jury on this question?

Balance of probabilities should never come into play imo. I believe this trial should have proceeded with Judge only. It is highly technical and many 'things' could be placed on either side of the scales of Justice, in the wrong order, but with the best intentions of jury members, and it is easy to include steps that tip the scales to the incorrect side.