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.

 

[Earls Smother]

I'm talking about an appeal against conviction.
The prosecutor broke the rules in only putting foward the argument of RH killed in a confrontation and than CC at closing. The jury was told to disregard.
Where the conviction is ripe for appeal is this appears what they've done and hence the problem with the split verdict. There are 2 ways to interpret it
A. He killed RH accidentally (which according to the not guilty verdict is actually happened legally speaking)than CC as a cover up. But this wasn't put to GL in cross and the jury were supposed to disregard it. How else can you interpret the verdict.
B He killed CC first then RH by accident. Impossible and beyond the scope of what's reasonable.
This is an ungodly mess and why I said at the end of the trial the jury ballsed it up
Can easily appeal in A or B the verdict is not supported by evidence presented. (If they wanted a split verdict it needed to be the other way)
One of two things I think happened in the jury room
1. There was a hold out. So they reached a compromise verdict to at least get a verdict
2. They couldn't find that the prosecution proved their case/disproved the fact GLs story was false but didn't have the minerals for a double acquittal given the blowback and publicity (plus the outlandish nature of the story)so settled on the theory of the closing = confrontation possible accident than cover up.

They are told to disregard that particular statement.

That doesn't mean that the scenario is completely ruled off the table. They can form that belief over the course of the entire trial surely? Otherwise, what is the point of weeks of evidence, if one statement at closing can have it all ruled inadmissable?

 

[Sir_Loin]

I'm talking about an appeal against conviction.
The prosecutor broke the rules in only putting foward the argument of RH killed in a confrontation and than CC at closing. The jury was told to disregard.
Where the conviction is ripe for appeal is this appears what they've done and hence the problem with the split verdict. There are 2 ways to interpret it
A. He killed RH accidentally (which according to the not guilty verdict is actually happened legally speaking)than CC as a cover up. But this wasn't put to GL in cross and the jury were supposed to disregard it. How else can you interpret the verdict.
B He killed CC first then RH by accident. Impossible and beyond the scope of what's reasonable.
This is an ungodly mess and why I said at the end of the trial the jury ballsed it up
Can easily appeal in A or B the verdict is not supported by evidence presented. (If they wanted a split verdict it needed to be the other way)
One of two things I think happened in the jury room
1. There was a hold out. So they reached a compromise verdict to at least get a verdict
2. They couldn't find that the prosecution proved their case/disproved the fact GLs story was false but didn't have the minerals for a double acquittal given the blowback and publicity (plus the outlandish nature of the story)so settled on the theory of the closing = confrontation possible accident than cover up.

It was not a compromised verdict. The jury was instructed that they could make a finding on those rules given to them by the judge after an interlocutory appeal.

This is a safe verdict the only way it gets overturned is if some justice wants to big note themselves

 

[Zidane98]

I'm talking about an appeal against conviction.
The prosecutor broke the rules in only putting foward the argument of RH killed in a confrontation and than CC at closing. The jury was told to disregard.
Where the conviction is ripe for appeal is this appears what they've done and hence the problem with the split verdict. There are 2 ways to interpret it
A. He killed RH accidentally (which according to the not guilty verdict is actually happened legally speaking)than CC as a cover up. But this wasn't put to GL in cross and the jury were supposed to disregard it. How else can you interpret the verdict.
B He killed CC first then RH by accident. Impossible and beyond the scope of what's reasonable.
This is an ungodly mess and why I said at the end of the trial the jury ballsed it up
Can easily appeal in A or B the verdict is not supported by evidence presented. (If they wanted a split verdict it needed to be the other way)
One of two things I think happened in the jury room
1. There was a hold out. So they reached a compromise verdict to at least get a verdict
2. They couldn't find that the prosecution proved their case/disproved the fact GLs story was false but didn't have the minerals for a double acquittal given the blowback and publicity (plus the outlandish nature of the story)so settled on the theory of the closing = confrontation possible accident than cover up.

Justice Croucher did offer the defense a mistrial for this stuff. That offer was refused.


Surely defense can't now roll it back and say they want a new trial based on the stuff that wasn't put to GL on the stand?

 

[Run n Spread]

Justice Croucher did offer the defense a mistrial for this stuff. That offer was refused.


Surely defense can't now roll it back and say they want a new trial based on the stuff that wasn't put to GL on the stand?

Probably not but will argue given the evidence presented the jury's verdict was unreasonable. Doubt they appeal based on the judges ruling itself but that the jury acted unreasonably and as DD said went down a forbidden path.
This is a problem with juries imo. The secrecy. No one knows exactly how they came to this. Could've flipped a coin for all we know. So an appeal will look at the instructions against the evidence and ascertain if it was reasonable to cone to this.
2 x guilty sure. But this weird split has hairs all.over it and does appear potentially unsafe.

 

[gymjam]

Justice Croucher did offer the defense a mistrial for this stuff. That offer was refused.


Surely defense can't now roll it back and say they want a new trial based on the stuff that wasn't put to GL on the stand?

Okay where is the evidence that backed the murder of Carol Clay?

 

[gymjam]

What happens if say there is something wrong or incorrect that considerations were based upon during the interlocutory hearings?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Okay where is the evidence that backed the murder of Carol Clay?

You mean her dna splattered on the canopy of the truck and a bullet fragment in the campsite with her dna on it

Apart from that not much else because someone did something…can you guess what it was?

 

[Run n Spread]

You mean her dna splattered on the canopy of the truck and a bullet fragment in the campsite with her dna on it

Apart from that not much else because someone did something…can you guess what it was?

To spite the burning that is evidence of itself. There was a shit ton of evidence.
They were camping together next to GL.
They both wind up dead. One obviously shot. With GLs gun.
Campsite burnt.
Bodies captured and later admitted to been moved by GL and destroyed.
To.me that's guilty x 2. There is no other explanation. Only way reasonable doubt can be established if GL can somehow explain it.
Which according to the jury he sort of did. At least half.
But the half they believed they were told to disregard or as per the quote above had the option of disregarding.
Test high court has made is can a jury acting reasonably and under proper and following proper instruction come to that conclusion?
Will be interesting. Fact that the not guilty means that matter is legally (criminally) at least done muddies the waters further