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.

 

[alejandro]

Completely disagree. highcountry continuously writes, not about theory or ‘IMO’ but states what is written as fact. Not an opinion, as fact. Plenty of claims to have knowledge of Jetstar staff and Lisa, right down to ‘Lisa’s pig’ which has also been described as ‘the children’s pig’ or ‘a pig that wandered in to the property’. Moving on to ‘people who refused to fly with him’. It’s pointedly personal and I again ask what is the connection?

Probably a pilot GL failed, salty little boy

 

[gymjam]

I suspected this was going to be brought up by Dann.


Don't be surprised if all talk of this is quashed in the media now now unless there is an official decision to reopen an investigation.

I think there will be a behind the scene hunt to locate source for media article inclusions.

 

[Underarrest_]

Completely disagree. highcountry continuously writes, not about theory or ‘IMO’ but states what is written as fact. Not an opinion, as fact. Plenty of claims to have knowledge of Jetstar staff and Lisa, right down to ‘Lisa’s pig’ which has also been described as ‘the children’s pig’ or ‘a pig that wandered in to the property’.

The whole world knows about the pig. Was on 60 mins. Most people who have a pet, it’s a family pet including the children’s.

Probably a pilot GL failed, salty little boy

Geez imagine being failed by GL, biggest winner of all time....

 

[Analysis Reactor]

This one understands

Ok so you don’t think there can be one count guilty and one count not guilty due to a lack of evidence?
How do you suppose the jury came to a guilty verdict?

 

[ninaballerina]

The whole world knows about the pig. Was on 60 mins. Most people who have a pet, it’s a family pet including the children’s.

Geez imagine being failed by GL, biggest winner of all time....

‘The whole world’ knows about the pig…
Like the whole world knows about ‘that missing girl in Dubai’?!

 

[Kurve]

Completely disagree. highcountry continuously writes, not about theory or ‘IMO’ but states what is written as fact. Not an opinion, as fact. Plenty of claims to have knowledge of Jetstar staff and Lisa, right down to ‘Lisa’s pig’ which has also been described as ‘the children’s pig’ or ‘a pig that wandered in to the property’. Moving on to ‘people who refused to fly with him’. It’s pointedly personal and I again ask what is the connection?

Asking more than once is inappropriate, three times would be pestering. Posters aren't under any obligation to answer any questions or to reveal personal information.

 

[CD Xbow]

Perhaps the Jury wore rose colored glasses when the prosecutor was on his feet and spurted out accusations that were not founded and backed up by evidence supplied to defence.

The lack of evidence and the difficulties encountered were solely due to the perpetrator, Greg Lynn going to extreme degrees to destroy the evidence. Evidence which could have proved the story he told, or disproved it. The only rose coloured glasses are on your nose.

 

[Underarrest_]

‘The whole world’ knows about the pig…
Like the whole world knows about ‘that missing girl in Dubai’?!

Yes they do, it’s in the media.
why are you picking on HighCountry because she says she has personal knowledge that these events have been discussed?

 

[Earls Smother]

Perhaps the Jury wore rose colored glasses when the prosecutor was on his feet and spurted out accusations that were not founded and backed up by evidence supplied to defence.

I guess we will see with the appeal. At the moment he is a lying murderer. Such is our legal system, that in 2 years time he might not be.

There is no doubt the defence has some things to work with.

It will be very interesting to see whether the jury's verdict on RH can be used to hurt the CC guilty finding.

 

[fake tyrone]

I don't see why there can't be a motive with an accidental death of RH as a result of a confrontation between RH/GL. Either way RH is dead, GL is involved and he is a Jetstar captain. Because they're in such a remote place with the nearest people being 1km + away it becomes easier for GL to dispatch CC as a witness.

I'm of the same opinion.

RH's death as a result of a physical altercation with GL may have been accidental, a medical episode, self-defence, manslaughter, or many other scenarios. What GL might have been left with is a dead RH at his feet while CC is screaming at him that he's killed RH. Maybe she's hysterical, maybe she's distraught, and GL can't calm her down. Maybe he's worried she's got her own version of events according to how she's interpreted what she's witnessed and GL is worried whose version of events the police will believe if he does the right thing by going to the police. If they choose to believe hers over his, then his career is in jeopardy, his name and face gets splashed all over the news and his life is potentially upended forever. So, he finds himself standing there, deep in the bush, with a dead man at his feet and no other witnesses except for the hysterical lover. He might come to the conclusion that if he kills her and gets rid of the evidence, he can avoid the police and the news altogether, so he pulls the trigger on her and sets everything else into motion.

Whether that is a legally correct method with which to reach a split verdict is another question, but I think it is highly likely that RH could have died as a result of a physical alteraction with GL that wasn't murder, and GL then went on to murder CC as they both panicked out there in the darkness alone.

 

[Kurve]

I guess we will see with the appeal. At the moment he is a lying murderer. Such is our legal system, that in 2 years time he might not be.

There is no doubt the defence has some things to work with.

It will be very interesting to see whether the jury's verdict on RH can be used to hurt the CC guilty finding.

I did have thoughts through this that the charges for each death should have been trialed separately. Too late now, he can't be trialed again for the murder of RH.

 

[Terrafirma]

Completely disagree. highcountry continuously writes, not about theory or ‘IMO’ but states what is written as fact. Not an opinion, as fact. Plenty of claims to have knowledge of Jetstar staff and Lisa, right down to ‘Lisa’s pig’ which has also been described as ‘the children’s pig’ or ‘a pig that wandered in to the property’. Moving on to ‘people who refused to fly with him’. It’s pointedly personal and I again ask what is the connection?

I don't think it's any of your business. You have 2 choices, Either believe what Highcountry says or ignore it. You pestering him for proof is not how this place works IMO but Kurve can be the judge of that. As I said and I'll say it again you demanding how he knows is like asking an undercover cop to blow his cover. You don't seem to be able to grasp that. It's not your god given right to demand proof, this is not a courtroom and all you'll achieve is push people away from contributing to this forum by asking them to get up on stage and tell the world private information. People have the right to be anonymous IMO

 

[Kurve]

Completely disagree. @highcountry continuously writes, not about theory or ‘IMO’ but states what is written as fact.

I've just wasted a heap of time going back over highcountry posts and what you've stated here looks real dubious.

Point me to just one of their posts to back your claim up, thanks.

 

[Terrafirma]

Completely disagree. highcountry continuously writes, not about theory or ‘IMO’ but states what is written as fact. Not an opinion, as fact. Plenty of claims to have knowledge of Jetstar staff and Lisa, right down to ‘Lisa’s pig’ which has also been described as ‘the children’s pig’ or ‘a pig that wandered in to the property’. Moving on to ‘people who refused to fly with him’. It’s pointedly personal and I again ask what is the connection?

So what is your opinion on Lisa Lynn's death? Or what is your opinion on the treatment of Lisa Lynn as outlined on 60 minutes by her neighbour? This is fact isn't it? So what is your opinion.? What is your opinion on Carol Clay's death? Answer please.

 

[InagoRaida]

I think his family tree might be a circle aye

I see the trolling pillock has rejoined us...

 

[Earls Smother]

I did have thoughts through this that the charges for each death should have been trialed separately. Too late now, he can't be trialed again for the murder of RH.

Judge Croucher's guidelines were "one narrow path to guilty". I might be wrong, but I've always assumed that to mean "you think he is a liar and you don't believe his version of events".

I would guess that Croucher would have been scratching his head at the split verdicts i.e. they found him to be half a liar. You would think the appellant Judge would think along similiar lines to Croucher.

What will be interesting, is whether the Judge has to take into account that the Jury found him to have lied in at least part of his story. If 12 independent people are tasked with determining whether a defendant has lied, and they come up with "yes", does that mean the Judge has to accept that?

Given the lack of physical evidence, the "lied" or "not lied" component of the verdicts is huge. If the Judge accepts that he lied, then the decision would presumably stand, and we would all have to accept that GL got lucky with the RH decision.

If the judge is allowed to disregard the Jury's belief that he lied, and effectively start from scratch, then the CC case is in a bit of trouble IMO.

 

[InagoRaida]

I don't think it's any of your business. You have 2 choices, Either believe what Highcountry says or ignore it. You pestering him for proof is not how this place works IMO but Kurve can be the judge of that. As I said and I'll say it again you demanding how he knows is like asking an undercover cop to blow his cover. You don't seem to be able to grasp that. It's not your god given right to demand proof, this is not a courtroom and all you'll achieve is push people away from contributing to this forum by asking them to get up on stage and tell the world private information. People have the right to be anonymous IMO

Third choice is if you object to the content, just leave, and take "Alejandro" with you...and leave us in peace and considered RESPECTFUL debate!

 

[Terrafirma]

Judge Croucher's guidelines were "one narrow path to guilty". I might be wrong, but I've always assumed that to mean "you think he is a liar and you don't believe his version of events".

I would guess that Croucher would have been scratching his head at the split verdicts i.e. they found him to be half a liar. You would think the appellant Judge would think along similiar lines to Croucher.

What will be interesting, is whether the Judge has to take into account that the Jury found him to have lied in at least part of his story. If 12 independent people are tasked with determining whether a defendant has lied, and they come up with "yes", does that mean the Judge has to accept that?

Given the lack of physical evidence, the "lied" or "not lied" component of the verdicts is huge. If the Judge accepts that he lied, then the decision would presumably stand, and we would all have to accept that GL got lucky with the RH decision.

If the judge is allowed to disregard the Jury's belief that he lied, and effectively start from scratch, then the CC case is in a bit of trouble IMO.

Yes agree with your comment don't believe his version of events. This was reinforced when the jury asked to view Lynn's testimony again IMO. They had zoomed in on a few things that weren't believable in their eyes. Yes the judge should accept the jury's verdict otherwise why engage a jury IMO? In WA this case would have been a Judge only trial IMO we don't have that in Victoria interestingly. The Judge gave them a narrow path to guilty as there was one IMO.

 

[GrayRanga]

I have to say, this is not surprising ‘concern regarded the notion that motive could not be proven for CC's murder verdict, based on RH murder charge being found not guilty...given that the Prs. put forward their argument that CC was murdered on the basis of her witnessing the murder of RH.’
How does this work? Does the jury technically have to believe the Prosecutor’s story or are they able to have their own version?

Why do people continue with this "motive" bull shit.

The charge of Murder in Victoria is a Common Law Offence, which is the unlawful killing of another with the intenction to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Prosecution has to prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt (not flights of fancy ..."but, but ...") that the alleged offender (being of sound mind) killed another unlawfully with the intent to kill or cause Greivous Bodily Harm.

End of story

The jury determined that Carol Clay was murdered on the basis of the evidence provided to them. Lynn was aquitted of the murder of Hill on the same basis.

I would suggest that the jury's decision is more "pure", in that the prosecution did not present a motive, and it was decided on the basis of the evidence alone rather than comparing it to a narrative the prosecution supplied.

The just did not believe Lynn's narrative.

Leave discussions of "motive" to the "true crime" writers, producers or podcasters to wax elequent about or watch TV shows where the crime is solved in 60 minutes less commercials

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Judge Croucher's guidelines were "one narrow path to guilty". I might be wrong, but I've always assumed that to mean "you think he is a liar and you don't believe his version of events".

I would guess that Croucher would have been scratching his head at the split verdicts i.e. they found him to be half a liar. You would think the appellant Judge would think along similiar lines to Croucher.

What will be interesting, is whether the Judge has to take into account that the Jury found him to have lied in at least part of his story. If 12 independent people are tasked with determining whether a defendant has lied, and they come up with "yes", does that mean the Judge has to accept that?

Given the lack of physical evidence, the "lied" or "not lied" component of the verdicts is huge. If the Judge accepts that he lied, then the decision would presumably stand, and we would all have to accept that GL got lucky with the RH decision.

If the judge is allowed to disregard the Jury's belief that he lied, and effectively start from scratch, then the CC case is in a bit of trouble IMO.

Its not as simple as if the jury believed that he lied or did not lie.

The two charges are separate and the jury has done their job properly by not conflating them.

The Jury could have thought that Lynn lied out his arse, but that alone is not sufficient for the jury to find Lynn guilty beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the prosecution could not say what really happened.

 

[InagoRaida]

Judge Croucher's guidelines were "one narrow path to guilty". I might be wrong, but I've always assumed that to mean "you think he is a liar and you don't believe his version of events".

I would guess that Croucher would have been scratching his head at the split verdicts i.e. they found him to be half a liar. You would think the appellant Judge would think along similiar lines to Croucher.

What will be interesting, is whether the Judge has to take into account that the Jury found him to have lied in at least part of his story. If 12 independent people are tasked with determining whether a defendant has lied, and they come up with "yes", does that mean the Judge has to accept that?

Given the lack of physical evidence, the "lied" or "not lied" component of the verdicts is huge. If the Judge accepts that he lied, then the decision would presumably stand, and we would all have to accept that GL got lucky with the RH decision.

If the judge is allowed to disregard the Jury's belief that he lied, and effectively start from scratch, then the CC case is in a bit of trouble IMO.

IMHO, the split verdict is NOT because they did believe GL about RH and didn't believe him about CC. Instead, I think the jury were not convinced by most of his story, and given evidence that she died by gunshot, it was a reasonable pathway to convict.
In the case of RH, the Prs. offered no theory on CAUSE of death, and there being no evidence due to actions of GL, thus the Jury could not feel completely comfortable with convicting for Murder in this instance (certainly not ALL of the Jury). As Grey Ranga, Highcountry, et al. have postulated, he may have died from sudden health event, heart attack, etc.
The Jury are all regular everyday people such as us, and may not be able to feel absolutely comfortable based on the available evidence, to put their hand on their heart and convict. I don't believe it would have added greatly to the sentence, and may have been more prone to appeal?
Sad indeed for RH family, as I like many on here, feel he is gulity of RH's murder, or at least significantly culpable.
But there is a lot more to evolve in this case yet it seems!

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Just reading the ABC article, and Dermot Dann is quoted as saying (Lynn) "maintains that he's never killed any person, at any time, at any place, anywhere, ever"....

Somewhat strange that the defence has been expanded to 'any person... ever'.... Does Lynn get access to Bigfooty in the clink?

 

[Underarrest_]

Why do people continue with this "motive" bull shit.

The charge of Murder in Victoria is a Common Law Offence, which is the unlawful killing of another with the intenction to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Prosecution has to prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt (not flights of fancy ..."but, but ...") that the alleged offender (being of sound mind) killed another unlawfully with the intent to kill or cause Greivous Bodily Harm.

End of story

The jury determined that Carol Clay was murdered on the basis of the evidence provided to them. Lynn was aquitted of the murder of Hill on the same basis.

I would suggest that the jury's decision is more "pure", in that the prosecution did not present a motive, and it was decided on the basis of the evidence alone rather than comparing it to a narrative the prosecution supplied.

The just did not believe Lynn's narrative.

Leave discussions of "motive" to the "true crime" writers, producers or podcasters to wax elequent about or watch TV shows where the crime is solved

Agree, he’s been found guilty.
This is what the defence is asking.

 

[InagoRaida]

Why do people continue with this "motive" bull shit.

The charge of Murder in Victoria is a Common Law Offence, which is the unlawful killing of another with the intenction to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Prosecution has to prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt (not flights of fancy ..."but, but ...") that the alleged offender (being of sound mind) killed another unlawfully with the intent to kill or cause Greivous Bodily Harm.

End of story

The jury determined that Carol Clay was murdered on the basis of the evidence provided to them. Lynn was aquitted of the murder of Hill on the same basis.

I would suggest that the jury's decision is more "pure", in that the prosecution did not present a motive, and it was decided on the basis of the evidence alone rather than comparing it to a narrative the prosecution supplied.

The just did not believe Lynn's narrative.

Leave discussions of "motive" to the "true crime" writers, producers or podcasters to wax elequent about or watch TV shows where the crime is solved in 60 minutes less commercials

With complete respect for all of your contributions, @GreyRanga , however, sitting in the mention hearing this morning, Dann elucidated voluminously about the Prs.'s absence of proving any motive about RH, nor did Prs. put to Lynn the question of motive about CC's death (her being sole witness of RH death, in Prs. version of events). Dann is quite focussed on this point, that Porceddu didn't put to the witness directly the question of motive, or the theory that he shot CC to cover up her witnessing RH's death. This was probably the most salient of point Dann's 20-25 perceived procedural errors in which he believes the Prs. "broke the rules".
The plea hearing, on 12th Sept (and possibly Fri the 13th!) will be very interesting! DD and Prs. have lots of items to discuss re: the plea submissions amongst themselves in the meantime.
For us here, could you please explain further in regard to my observations above?

 

[Kurve]

Just reading the ABC article, and Dermot Dann is quoted as saying (Lynn) "maintains that he's never killed any person, at any time, at any place, anywhere, ever"....

Somewhat strange that the defence has been expanded to 'any person... ever'.... Does Lynn get access to Bigfooty in the clink?

Probably not I'd say but there's a lot of social media activity around this case across a few sites, he could have heard something from visitors or got hold a radio and listened to Sly's contributions.

Up until investigators had Lynn as a firm suspect, a serial killer operating through the high country was being explored. I'm sure they'll be trying to ascertain Lynn's movements on the dates people went missing. Post arrest and conviction, police will ask a coroner to reopen an inquest into the death of Lynn's first wife.

It's a legitimate discussion.