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.

 

[Run n Spread]

100%
Cant see the reasoning but were not in the room.
Appeal will be a free for all

They had the same witness and same testimony for both deaths

Can't appeal RH or try him again

 

[justallyone]

Can further charges be laid? Can there now be a charge of manslaughter for RH? What about the callous destruction of the bodies and evidence?

GL was only charged with murder x 2. The other destruction of bodies etc will help form part of the sentencing IMO

 

[Kurve]

What the jury wasn’t told about the missing campers case

Five hours of former pilot Gregory Lynn’s police interview, 5000 secret recordings and details about his first wife’s death were excluded from his murder trial.

www.smh.com.au

Already starting to hear more

If anybody can access this article, please feel free to post the main points.

 

[Angry_Crow]

Perhaps it's not that they believed his story about RH, it's that there was no evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Correct

 

[herbalgerbil]

Where is the evidence presented that Hill died at Lynn's hand?

Both murder and manslaughter charges rely on the basic premise that someone's actions resulted in another person's death.

Without evidence to that effect, Lynn cannot be charged with manslaughter either,

Im suggesting that, given dearth of evidence, the Prosecution are counting this as a win.

The "vibe" does not win Murder trials

Haha ‘the vibe’ was definitely murdery af from the outset - wouldn’t have needed a trial at all if that was enough. Thankfully though we do have a whole legal system with set processes.

Manslaughter as I understand it, could be argued that the supposed ‘knife tussle’ between GL and RH did involve GLs hands… no?

 

[Run n Spread]

For those who don't know the process here: there will be firstly a plea hearing (date yet, to be set) where the defence presents a plea and then the judge sentences after that.

So sentencing is some time away, possibly 2 months.

If there is an appeal then GL will run the risk of re-opening the case to being sentenced for two murders not just the one.

How? Can't retry on a not not guilty. If he won appeal it would be a re trial on CC only

 

[Underarrest_]

What do you think the headlines would have been? Jetstar pilot involved in confrontation resulting in death would have ended his career pretty much. Because it was a random encounter in such a remote location it made the decision in a split second easier for GL to dispatch CC as a witness. I assume that was the line of reasoning for the jury.

I guess I have to think like a murderer.
If I was present at a death from an accident, I wouldn’t kill the other person there, and I have a lot to lose in life.

 

[striker3]

The jury must have placed weight on how difficult it was to load a gun (ie. only someone experienced could have done that), plus the admission from GL that he was holding the gun in a struggle with RH.

I’m perplexed that the jury think GL had the intention to murder CC but accept the accidental death of RH (caused by RH himself).

Based on that logic, I figure that if manslaughter was on the table it would have resulted in 1 x manslaughter, 1 x not guilty.

It’ll be interesting to see how long he gets, I’d assume based on his post murder conduct he will receive close to the maximum due the pain and suffering he caused to the family.

 

[GardenGnome]

If anybody can access this article, please feel free to post the main points.

It’s the police surveillance recordings of GL talking to himself in the car that I think would be a quite interesting listen! Imagine being to officer tasked with listening to or transcribing these recordings!

 

[faible]

If anybody can access this article, please feel free to post the main points.

12ft.io/https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/what-the-jury-wasn-t-told-about-the-missing-campers-case-20240616-p5jm68.html

 

[Pamcake1]

How? Can't retry on a not not guilty. If he won appeal it would be a re trial on CC only

Pardon, I'll clarify that.
As I understand it if the trial is re-opened via appeal there is the potential for him being found to be responsible for RH's death as well. You are right he can't be retried for murder once found not guilty. It is also possible for the DPP to appeal the lack of conviction on RH but they most probably won't.

 

[Run n Spread]

A strange verdict imo. Completely reeks of a compromise and unaccountable.
Clearly the jury didn't buy the struggle story.
Than surely its guilty for RH as there is no other rational explanation.
Or you believe the story at not guilty for both.
Sure you could argue no proof. But the jury can only go what was presented not theorise.
Bizarre.
Juries don't have to explain thou.
Not sure what grounds of appeal he'd have for CC. The jurors were properly instructed and briefed.
Only 2 that the verdict was unreasonable given chain of events I.e. 2 not guilty
Or judge erred in taking manslaughter off the table.
Opens up interesting avenue. As in eyes of the law he is not guilty of RH. So only left to examine is CCsdeath. In that case maybe retried for manslaughter

 

[Iretired00]

FOUND GUILTY !

 

[Kurve]

It’s the police surveillance recordings of GL talking to himself in the car that I think would be a quite interesting listen! Imagine being to officer tasked with listening to or transcribing these recordings!

I had a quick look and saw Doha mentioned as well before it locked me out. Suppressions on Doha and Lynn's first wife's death was expected but I want to know what was going on in the first week that the jury wasn't allowed to hear.

 

[Zidane98]

Life stage shouldn’t really matter though, should it?

Even if RH started the confrontation, it’s a scary thought that potentially telling someone to stop being a dickhead with a gun at a campsite then means it’s your own fault if you then die as a result of that convo… still murder (or at least manslaughter) IMO, but I understand there was not enough evidence in the prosecution of the murder charge

Wrongs Act Victoria:

WRONGS ACT 1958 - SECT 43​

Definitions
In this Part—

"court" includes tribunal, and, in relation to a claim for damages, means anycourt or tribunal by or before which the claim falls to be determined;

"damages" includes any form of monetary compensation;

"harm" means harm of any kind and includes—


(a) injury or death; and


(b) damage to property; and


(c) economic loss

"injury" means personal or bodily injury and includes—


(a) pre-natal injury; and


(b) psychological or psychiatricinjury; and


(c) disease; and


(d) aggravation, acceleration orrecurrence of an injury or disease;

"negligence" means failure to exercise reasonable care.


The main factor in damages is economic loss. As RH was retired the reality is there isn't going to be much in the way of economic losses to recover in the case that a wrongful death can be proven against GL. Not withstanding the fact that a jury has declared GL not guilty of murder and that it will be difficult to prove that RH himself was not culpable in some way.

Of course anyone can lodge a claim if they like in the magistrates court. The reality could be huge legal fees, a small chance of a victory and putting the family through more publicity over something they probably just want to put behind them now.

 

[faible]

Clearly the jury didn't buy the struggle story.
Than surely its guilty for RH as there is no other rational explanation.

I don't think that's accurate.

They didn't buy that the struggle lead to the death of Clay given the sequence of events provided by Lynn to explain her death. Not that a struggle didn't happen (prosecution couldn't prove that) and that Hill didn't die in the course of a struggle.

 

[Run n Spread]

Pardon, I'll clarify that.
As I understand it if the trial is re-opened via appeal there is the potential for him being found to be responsible for RH's death as well. You are right he can't be retried for murder once found not guilty. It is also possible for the DPP to appeal the lack of conviction on RH but they most probably won't.

My understanding is you can't appeal a NG or retry it. Appeal judges can't over turn a NG verdict.
This is a real head scratcher. A bit of a ridiculous way of deliberating.
Not without precedent where the CSK was found NG of 1 murder but guilty of others.
But given the chain of events in trial how they arrived at the verdict is bizarre.
Best case for gl is wins appeal on instruction than a retrial and guilty of manslaughter
Given he's found not guilty that could be open. By then he'd be through his sentence

 

[Poppy Penny]

Just watched abc, stated Lynn's lawyer has gone overseas on a preplanned trip and he has 28 days to appeal, interesting dd did the hard yards then pisses off before the verdict is read out

Lynn must be miffed -DD on holiday helped paid for by him! And Lynn having a long holiday in jail! Ah the irony!

 

[Earls Smother]

The jury had a motive for shooting Clay.

Like many, they would have had trouble believing someone who must have no priors, who's held a good job and trusted with the safety of hundreds of people, would for no reason at all, murder two people.

Not if you believe GL's version. Hers was the first "accident".

For them to come up with motive for CC, they have to disbelieve the order of events - i.e. find him to be a liar.

If they accepted that he lied about the order of events, surely they should see the whole story as a fabrication?

 

[Kurve]

A strange verdict imo. Completely reeks of a compromise and unaccountable.
Clearly the jury didn't buy the struggle story.
Than surely its guilty for RH as there is no other rational explanation.
Or you believe the story at not guilty for both.
Sure you could argue no proof. But the jury can only go what was presented not theorise.
Bizarre.
Juries don't have to explain thou.
Not sure what grounds of appeal he'd have for CC. The jurors were properly instructed and briefed.
Only 2 that the verdict was unreasonable given chain of events I.e. 2 not guilty
Or judge erred in taking manslaughter off the table.
Opens up interesting avenue. As in eyes of the law he is not guilty of RH. So only left to examine is CCsdeath. In that case maybe retried for manslaughter

While it isn't necessary, juries feel safer if they can see a motive.

I never really understood that black and white decision made between the prosecution and the defence to remove the option for manslaughter.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Report just on Sky - Justin Quill, a lawyer, said it was a really weird trial. He couldn't understand why it took so long to reach a verdict, or how they concluded that CC was murdered. He said Lynn giving evidence was also unusual.

Sounds as if the jury picked bits out to believe or not believe.

And didn't the prosecution allege that RH had been killed first? What happened to that? The way Lynn told it was that RH attacked him after CC was killed. So how was CC killed? I reckon Lynn might appeal the verdict.

 

[Underarrest_]

Wrongs Act Victoria:

WRONGS ACT 1958 - SECT 43​

Definitions
In this Part—

"court" includes tribunal, and, in relation to a claim for damages, means anycourt or tribunal by or before which the claim falls to be determined;

"damages" includes any form of monetary compensation;

"harm" means harm of any kind and includes—


(a) injury or death; and


(b) damage to property; and


(c) economic loss

"injury" means personal or bodily injury and includes—


(a) pre-natal injury; and


(b) psychological or psychiatricinjury; and


(c) disease; and


(d) aggravation, acceleration orrecurrence of an injury or disease;

"negligence" means failure to exercise reasonable care.


The main factor in damages is economic loss. As RH was retired the reality is there isn't going to be much in the way of economic losses to recover in the case that a wrongful death can be proven against GL. Not withstanding the fact that a jury has declared GL not guilty of murder and that it will be difficult to prove that RH himself was not culpable in some way.

Of course anyone can lodge a claim if they like in the magistrates court. The reality could be huge legal fees, a small chance of a victory and putting the family through more publicity over something they probably just want to put behind them now.

Put it behind them now?
I don’t believe they’ll ever really do that.
I hope they at least get some compensation for what they’ve been through (post death,) which he has admitted too.

 

[Royces Hart]

Guess Greggo is going to lose his Woolworths Everyday Rewards membership now.

 

[Finknottle]

Basically he accidentally killed Hill in a tussle about gun use then murdered Carol to cover his tracks

In truth we'll never know. I still strongly suspect he murdered both but I am happy he got convicted for at least 1 murder.

 

[Underarrest_]

Lynn must be miffed -DD on holiday helped paid for by him! And Lynn having a long holiday in jail! Ah the irony!

I was thinking the same thing.
Picturing 🏝