Current Trial Russell Hill & Carol Clay Pt 2 *Pilot Greg Lynn sentenced 32 yrs with a non-parole period of 24 yrs

[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

R v Lynn [2024] VSC 635 (18 October 2024)​

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.

 

[GladdyDee]

If my experience in working with consensus groups is anything to go by, in the jury there’ll be this type of group think/ dynamic

1 hammering the one point - eg ‘the rope, he didn’t mention it’, ‘weird things happen’

1 passive - contributing little nothing

3 backslapping and repeating each others words ‘wheres the knife gone?’ ‘How do we know RH didnt grab the gun?’

1 aggrieved by being there ‘are we nearly there?’

The rest, listening a lot and can go either way


Juries are a different beast, I know, but just shooting the breeze while the clock ticks for GL.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If the jury come back with guilty of one count of murder, what would be your guess would it be Clay or Hill that was murdered?

Hill.

I could see the jury believing the 1 accidental shooting of Clay (even though personally I don't)... but then Hill getting stabbed with his own knife... complete BS!

IMO

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Hill.

I could see the jury believing the 1 accidental shooting of Clay (even though personally I don't)... but then Hill getting stabbed with his own knife... complete BS!

Thanks for the reply. God only knows why GL took the mirror off when it may have helped his ricochet story and to stay Hill was killed with his own knife and then burning it without leaving a trace of the blade - just complete and utter b..lls..t.

 

[Run n Spread]

If my experience in working with consensus groups is anything to go by, in the jury there’ll be this type of group think/ dynamic

1 hammering the one point - eg ‘the rope, he didn’t mention it’, ‘weird things happen’

1 passive - contributing little nothing

3 backslapping and repeating each others words ‘wheres the knife gone?’ ‘How do we know RH didnt grab the gun?’

1 aggrieved by being there ‘are we nearly there?’

The rest, listening a lot and can go either way


Juries are a different beast, I know, but just shooting the breeze while the clock ticks for GL.

In my experience there will be a leader or 2 emerge. Maybe someone with legal.knowledge and/or dominant personality types
Most will agree and just say what they think everyone else wants to hear. Maybe one or 2 dissenters but they will be shouted down.
Most will go.guilty doubt the hold outs will dig in. Will be convicted imo.

 

[Badd0g]

Great shot. I think the aerial wire, is light brownish in colour, and that appears to be lying on the ground, in the photo taken by the 1st scene witness, the man with his 11yo son. Could this mean the brownish wire was brought down by the fire, or was it cut down and then burnt. that electronic looking bottle-looking thingy - is it some kind of ampliphier, was not there in police photos.

The aerial was attached to the car when it was found, not lying on the ground. There are photos that show it attached on discovery

 

[Lady O]

The aerial was attached to the car when it was found, not lying on the ground. There are photos that show it attached on discovery

Yes. I think if it was "annoying" GL he would have cut it down before he left.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Hill.

I could see the jury believing the 1 accidental shooting of Clay (even though personally I don't)... but then Hill getting stabbed with his own knife... complete BS!

The knife is a fabrication, afaic. I can almost believe Clay was hit accidentally but I reckon Hill was taken out to stop him from reaching the radio. IMO

 

[spl]

Thanks for the reply. God only knows why GL took the mirror off when it may have helped his ricochet story and to stay Hill was killed with his own knife and then burning it without leaving a trace of the blade - just complete and utter b..lls..t.

I dont believe GL's version of events, but IF it did go down as he says it did, removing the mirror makes sense. RH didn't have a gun so having a bullet hole in the mirror indicates a 3rd party is involved in their disappearance rather that the possibility of them running away/getting lost etc

 

[DemonWheels]

Can we role play?
So hypothetically, let’s say I’m a juror and I:

• don’t believe GL’s whole story, too fanciful to be 2 x accidental deaths within minutes
• but find certain elements of his story do line up with evidence (available evidence)
• don’t believe he has set out to murder two people
• just doesn’t add up that this calm and law abiding ‘pilot’ person on trial would ‘murder’ two people

But:

• Pros. has shown his story has holes and big inconsistencies in detail
• His desperation to allude capture must account for something?
• he could have simply buried the bodies and no one would ever find them. But because he burnt them he was then able to say ‘here they are’ yet they no longer tell us how they died

Guaranteed I’m missing a few things but if that’s their summation how would that juror vote?

 

[Lady O]

I dont believe GL's version of events, but IF it did go down as he says it did, removing the mirror makes sense. RH didn't have a gun so having a bullet hole in the mirror indicates a 3rd party is involved in their disappearance rather that the possibility of them running away/getting lost etc

This is the wing mirror as found. I'm not sure it looks like it was broken by a slug from a shotgun, but.......

 

[Badd0g]

Better chance of a hung jury since the options of manslaughter was removed.

I've voted a hung jury on one or both in the poll, if I don't care about being wrong and would prefer a clear decision.

I thought the poll was purely for how long the jury would be out. Isn't a hung jury an outcome and having it there dancing a bit close to the edge?

Hung juries account for only 3-8% of all trials in Australia apparently. Not great odds.

 

[Kurve]

I thought the poll was purely for how long the jury would be out. Isn't a hung jury an outcome and having it there dancing a bit close to the edge?

Hung juries account for only 3-8% of all trials in Australia apparently. Not great odds.

Hung on one or both. I don't think it's specific enough but technically, it's no outcome.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Can we role play?
So hypothetically, let’s say I’m a juror and I:

• don’t believe GL’s whole story, too fanciful to be 2 x accidental deaths within minutes
• but find certain elements of his story do line up with evidence (available evidence)
• don’t believe he has set out to murder two people
• just doesn’t add up that this calm and law abiding ‘pilot’ person on trial would ‘murder’ two people

But:

• Pros. has shown his story has holes and big inconsistencies in detail
• His desperation to allude capture must account for something?
• he could have simply buried the bodies and no one would ever find them. But because he burnt them he was then able to say ‘here they are’ yet they no longer tell us how they died

Guaranteed I’m missing a few things but if that’s their summation how would that juror vote?

The defence said he answered 1057 or so questions from police and didn't lie once and i don't think that was denied by the prosecution.
In the Brittnay Higgins trial I think the judge said she can be inconsistent with the evidence she gave because of the trauma or something.
The same thing could be said of GL and he was under a great deal of stress and forget to mention ducking under the rope or whatever was inconsistent and that could be put down to the trauma of being caught and looking at two counts of murder.
I think the jury member in your hypothetical case would have to vote not guilty to both charges because of the reasonable doubt business but hopefully can get bullied into changing the vote by a dominant member.

 

[thumbs_up]

Can we role play?
So hypothetically, let’s say I’m a juror and I:

• don’t believe GL’s whole story, too fanciful to be 2 x accidental deaths within minutes
• but find certain elements of his story do line up with evidence (available evidence)
• don’t believe he has set out to murder two people
• just doesn’t add up that this calm and law abiding ‘pilot’ person on trial would ‘murder’ two people

But:

• Pros. has shown his story has holes and big inconsistencies in detail
• His desperation to allude capture must account for something?
• he could have simply buried the bodies and no one would ever find them. But because he burnt them he was then able to say ‘here they are’ yet they no longer tell us how they died

Guaranteed I’m missing a few things but if that’s their summation how would that juror vote?

"Don't believe GL's whole story". Only one verdict if that's the case, guilty murder X 2.

IMO

 

[highcountry]

Yep, it really is that simple either true or false in its entirety no exceptions.

Evidence aside - much of this case comes down to what a reasonable person would believe a reasonable person would do.

Will a jury of reasonable people believe that two people died by accident within minutes of each other and the only other person at the scene survived and then went on to destroy all evidence that proved their story?

One accidental death perhaps, two is not just a stretch but an almost impossible possibility.

If you can’t accept that both were accidents Lynn’s entire case falls apart.

Has there ever been a recorded case of two people dying by accident of different causes within minutes of each other?

If both were accidents there was a need to preserve evidence.

Not destroy it.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

He might not have shot Hill but he could have bludgeoned him with the butt of the gun. Hence having to destroy his skull later.

 

[OzF]

This might clarify for some on here exactly what the jury needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt to find Lynn guilty of murder x 2. The Judge apparently mentioned these in his instructions to the jury.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/next-steps-for-jury-in-former-jetstar-captains-double-murder-trial-over-russell-hill-and-carol-clay-deaths/news-story/9bc5d4c3a1ffa55b63a592182ee1caaa

"Justice Croucher told the jury their job was not to punish Mr Lynn for the “terrible and selfish” actions he had admitted to but to impartially judge if the prosecution had proven the four elements of murder for each death beyond reasonable doubt.

He said Mr Lynn was to be presumed innocent and for the jury to think two accidental deaths was improbable, was “fundamentally flawed”.


Just to clarify the four elements of Murder are:

Four Pillars of a Murder Conviction​

To secure a murder conviction, the prosecution must irrefutably prove the following:

• The accused directly caused the victim’s death.
• The actions leading to the death were conscious, voluntary, and deliberate.
• The accused had the intent to kill or cause serious injury, fully aware that such outcomes were likely.
• There was no lawful justification for the act, such as self-defence.

Murder & Manslaughter Offences in Victoria: A Comprehensive Guide

McMahon Criminal Defence Lawyers Murder & Manslaughter Offences in Victoria: A Comprehensive Guide

www.mcdl.com.au

I'm not sure people understand this completely

There are 12 jurors. All it takes is ONE juror to not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of ONE of these four pillars, and there can not be a unanimous verdict of guilty

 

[Lady O]

I'm not sure people understand this completely

There are 12 jurors. All it takes is ONE juror to not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of ONE of these four pillars, and there can not be a unanimous verdict of guilty

It's a wonder anyone is ever convicted, unless the entire jury witnessed the crime in person. Even then, there would probably be one who wasn't convinced of his guilt.

 

[thumbs_up]

It's a wonder anyone is ever convicted, unless the entire jury witnessed the crime in person. Even then, there would probably be one who wasn't convinced of his guilt.

A lot of cases have much more evidence available, making it easier for the jury to decide, as the accused often does not destroy all of it.

 

[Irma]

Perhaps these kids are the "bikies" people keep referring to on various crime threads.

Ohhh I think you’re onto something! There’s actually a documentary on them called BMX Bandits.

 

[Kurve]

I thought the poll was purely for how long the jury would be out. Isn't a hung jury an outcome and having it there dancing a bit close to the edge?

It's been edited so it relates more clearly to how long the jury would be out.

 

[Dirh Semaj]

I'm not sure people understand this completely

There are 12 jurors. All it takes is ONE juror to not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of ONE of these four pillars, and there can not be a unanimous verdict of guilty

The jurors don't all vote individually. Within the jury pool they may go around the table informally. If after deliberation, it is a split decision (only the jurors will know the numbers), the judge will tell them to try harder. They've got to be unanimous in their decision. If "trying harder" doesn't work, I think a majority is on the cards if it's 11-1, 10-1 or 9-1 with a not guilty verdict. 11 out of 12 is not enough for guilty....therefore hung trial.

 

[Kurve]

The jurors don't all vote individually. Within the jury pool they may go around the table informally. If after deliberation, it is a split decision (only the jurors will know the numbers), the judge will tell them to try harder. They've got to be unanimous in their decision. If "trying harder" doesn't work, I think a majority is on the cards if it's 11-1, 10-1 or 9-1 with a not guilty verdict. 11 out of 12 is not enough for guilty....therefore hung trial.

As OzF pointed out prior but which was deleted while I was trying to get another question answered, apparently in murder trials it must be unanimous. I'd thought that was only relevant to Federal Court trials and that the law had recently changed for Victorian state trials but there it is. Or appears to be.

"Supreme Court Victoria: A majority verdict cannot be considered if the offence is murder, treason, an offence against section 71 or 72 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 or a Commonwealth offence."

JURIES ACT 2000 - SECT 46 Failure to reach unanimous verdict in criminal trials

classic.austlii.edu.au

 

[Badd0g]

It's been edited so it relates more clearly to how long the jury would be out.

Fair enough.. You're the mod. I would have thought anything that was outcome-based (positive or negative) would have been verboten.

 

[thumbs_up]

Fair enough.. You're the mod. I would have thought anything that was outcome-based (positive or negative) would have been verboten.

As a polling purist, I'll make the point also that as it's a timeframe based poll, it should only list timeframes IMO.