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.

 

[Terrafirma]

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

The Pros never used motive because it would have been shot down. I think we all know the motive was the drone or the campsite location but nobody can say for sure as there are no witnesses. I think the jury chose to dismiss a lot of Dann's rhetoric during the trial. Interesting times ahead. This thread ain't dying a slow death that's for sure.

 

[Earls Smother]

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

I believe it is as simple as that. If you believe his version, then you must acquit 2 accidental deaths.

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

Yes, they are separate (which is what started this conversation, with Kurve saying they could have been tried separately) but really one event.

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.

Yes it is sufficient IMO. No-one knows what happened as you say, including the prosecution. The Judge gave the jury "one narrow path to guilty", which was to disbelieve the one surviving person's version of events.

There were 2 people killed and their bodies destroyed. There was bugger all physical evidence, but Lynn was proven to be the only other person there and he was the only one of the 3 who possessed a firearm.

He either lied or he didn't. That applies to both cases.

 

[alejandro]

With complete respect for all of your contributions, @GreyRanga ,however, sitting in the mention hearing this morning, Dann elucidated volumously about the Prs. absence of proving any motive about RH, nor did Prs. put the question of motive about CCs death (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 probabky the most salient of Dann's 20-25 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, amongst themselves in the meantime.
For us here, could you please explain further in regard to my observations above?

Judging by your spelling and grammar you must have missing fingers.

 

[Terrafirma]

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.

Lying is enough if you are to use the Dawson case as a reference. The Judge convicted Chris Dawson on murdering Lynette Dawson when there was no body nor evidence other than Chris Dawson was caught lying by the judge on multiple occasions. Google the case. Chris Dawson also just lost his appeal recently. Let's hope the same occurs with Greg Lynn

 

[GrayRanga]

With complete respect for all of your contributions, @GreyRanga, hoever, sitting in the mention hearing this morning, Dann elucidated volumously about the Prs. absence of proving any motive about RH, nor did Prs. put the question of motive about CCs death (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 probabky the most salient of Dann's 20-25 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 a d Prs. have lots of items to discuss, re; the plea,amongst themselves in the meantime.

Sorry, I haven't read the detail of today's mention yet.

As I read your post, the Defence has flagged it's intention to appeal the conviction; no surprise there and mentioned in the Court within 28 days of conviction.

As it stands on 19 July 2024, Lynn has been convicted of one charge of murder and will be sentenced of that in September and the Judge will impose a sentence in relation to that conviction, not on the implied intention to appeal the conviction.

Did the Defence state or imply that the appeal against conviction will be heard before the sentencing date?

Unlikely, but if he either acquitted or a retrial ordered on Appeal, the sentencing is moot

 

[FromOldFitzroy]

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?

I’m not sure how Dann thinks this advances his client’s case.
Of course his client would say that.
He, Lynn, is unlikely to say, I didn’t kill either, or both of, Clay and Lynn, but, back in my past, ………

 

[justallyone]

Sorry, I haven't read the detail of today's mention yet.

As I read your post, the Defence has flagged it's intention to appeal the conviction; no surprise there and mentioned in the Court within 28 days of conviction.

As it stands on 19 July 2024, Lynn has been convicted of one charge of murder and will be sentenced of that in September and the Judge will impose a sentence in relation to that conviction, not on the implied intention to appeal the conviction.

Did the Defence state or imply that the appeal against conviction will be heard before the sentencing date?

Unlikely, but if he either acquitted or a retrial ordered on Appeal, the sentencing is moot

The defence did state this:

Mr Dann said the defence was considering whether it should make an extraordinary application to the court for Lynn's sentence to be delayed during the appeal period, due to concerns about the verdict, how the trial was run and his safety.

Croucher said the application was about as likely to succeed, as him winning the Stawell Gift in his prime


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Zidane98]

Surely the proecdural issues of Porceddu raised by Dann are not enough to order a retrial. It's a stretch to argue they were the difference between conviction & acquittal.


There has to be new compelling evidence to acquit or order a retrial and guess what - old mate destroyed most of it so he is shit outta luck.

 

[FromOldFitzroy]

From the ABC site,
"We're not convinced beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the guilty verdict which they ultimately announced," Mr Dann said.
Well, go to appeal, Mr Dann.
But, and I stand to be corrected, a jury’s verdict stands unless there are far more fundamental failures in the trial process. Just because you have doubts about the verdict, aren’t completely “convinced”, won’t, I believe, get you anywhere, IMO.

 

[Underarrest_]

Judging by your spelling and grammar you must have missing fingers.

This thread is about two people’s bodies and parts that went missing, not about anyone’s missing spelling or grammar.

 

[alejandro]

This thread is about two people’s bodies and parts that went missing, not about anyone’s missing spelling or grammar.

How am I meant to discuss people’s bodies and parts if I can’t read his incoherent posts?

 

[Terrafirma]

How am I meant to discuss people’s bodies and parts if I can’t read his incoherent posts?

You are so talented you'd find a way.!

 

[Underarrest_]

How am I meant to discuss people’s bodies and parts if I can’t read his incoherent posts?

Perhaps you could watch the police interview. It’s on the top of the thread.

 

[InagoRaida]

Sorry, I haven't read the detail of today's mention yet.

As I read your post, the Defence has flagged it's intention to appeal the conviction; no surprise there and mentioned in the Court within 28 days of conviction.

As it stands on 19 July 2024, Lynn has been convicted of one charge of murder and will be sentenced of that in September and the Judge will impose a sentence in relation to that conviction, not on the implied intention to appeal the conviction.

Did the Defence state or imply that the appeal against conviction will be heard before the sentencing date?

Unlikely, but if he either acquitted or a retrial ordered on Appeal, the sentencing is moot

Thankyou!
Agreed with your penultimate paragraph, DD expressed multiple times about sentencing impact on his inevitable appeal...
He was also hesitant on sentencing prior to having time to analyse the walk the jury undertook to reach their verdicts. He did focus on this point, and felt the directions given and the actions of Prs. led the jury down a certain pathway (which, in his opinion, was not correct). Lynn maintains his innocence vehemently.
DD wants J. Croucher to review his submission relative to sect 309 (subsect /para 66 from memory)...Justice remarked it being highly unusual application of this section (esp. for murder trial). Prs. didn't object, and Justice agreed to review this as part of his submission. DD felt this should occur before plea hearing, and certainly before sentencing.
Much was made by DD about in the event in which an appeal is sucessful, and a retrial ordered, "how is Lynn expected to get a fair (re)trial given all the info & speculation in the media about his perceived involvement in other crimes".
J. Croucher made humourous interlude, i think in reference to applicability of S309, being "as likely as him winning the Stawell gift" He and DD engaged in witty repartè, DD stated he's seen how fast Croucher can run on the footy field, thus s309 may be highly likely. J.Croucher is very entertaining in these lighter moments.

There was also general agreeance by Prs. and DD about the Victim Impact Statements (VIS) being read on a separate day, fitting around JC's next trial. Most of that appeared to be sensitivities around the victims and their welfare.
DD confirmed GL will undertake a psych assessment pre-plea hearing, but stated on the basis of GL's asserted innocence on all charges, this will definitely not be in the form of "why he did it"...instead, DD stated it will be more focussed on the effect the whole trial process has affected GL's state of mind, the length of custody, the assault(s) he experienced in remand, and his feelings of what he feels its doing to his family. DD asserted a lot of his submissions on the basis his appeal will be sucessful!
J.Croucher stated one option may be for a stay on sentencing, based on awaiting outcome of appeal.
I think the last point addresses your question?

 

[Terrafirma]

Surely the proecdural issues of Porceddu raised by Dann are not enough to order a retrial. It's a stretch to argue they were the difference between conviction & acquittal.


There has to be new compelling evidence to acquit or order a retrial and guess what - old mate destroyed most of it so he is shit outta luck.

Its obviously really grey here would love Dann to contribute here

 

[InagoRaida]

Its obviously really grey here would love Dann to contribute here

Me tooo! Dann (& Porceddu's) observations after the trial would be incredibly interesting...
To be a fly on the wall in DD's chambers this evening...

 

[Thats Ambitious]

I believe it is as simple as that. If you believe his version, then you must acquit 2 accidental deaths.

That tracks, but if you dont believe Lynn's version of events, that does not automatically mean that the jury can find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both counts.

It was clear and agreed by the parties that Clay died from a shotgun slug to the head which was fired from Lynn's gun. However, and due to Lynn destroying evidence, the prosecution could not say how Hill died. This IMO is why the jury could not find Lynn guilty of Hill's murder beyond reasonable doubt (although if it was balance of probabilities I reckon Lynn would have been done on both counts).

 

[InagoRaida]

Judging by your spelling and grammar you must have missing fingers.

In the interests of satisfying your penchant for impeccable grammar, you so frequently demonstrate in your own posts, as soon as I stop moving on the train and sit without motion, I will engage my self-proclaimed "sausage fingers" to amend my comments to your satisfaction...

Can you mark and assess them please, honourable Sensei?

 

[InagoRaida]

How am I meant to discuss people’s bodies and parts if I can’t read his incoherent posts?

You new to this practice of reading??

 

[Earls Smother]

That tracks, but if you dont believe Lynn's version of events, that does not automatically mean that the jury can find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both counts.

It was clear and agreed by the parties that Clay died from a shotgun slug to the head which was fired from Lynn's gun. However, and due to Lynn destroying evidence, the prosecution could not say how Hill died. This IMO is why the jury could not find Lynn guilty of Hill's murder beyond reasonable doubt (although if it was balance of probabilities I reckon Lynn would have been done on both counts).

Yes, but I've stated this earlier.

2 people have died within minutes of each other. What are the odds of a lying murderer (which he has been found to be), deliberately killing one and not the other? It doesn't pass the reasonable doubt sniff test for the second death to be anything but another murder IMO.

It doesn't matter that there is no physical evidence. As the poster above said, compare it to the Dawson case. The only difference here is we have 2 deaths not 1.

 

[alejandro]

You new to this practice of reading??

Your posts read like sanscript?

 

[GladdyDee]

What are the odds he engaged in cruelty towards animals or liked lighting fires as a child?

Yes, surprised no one has come out the woodwork to attest how unbearable he was as a kid. I wonder was he always Greg Lynn

 

[Underarrest_]

Your posts read like sanscript?

I’m sure if you watch the interview it’ll be easy to understand Lynn’s concise, smooth and accurate language.
Is there anything interesting you’d like to talk about regarding the case itself?

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Yes, but I've stated this earlier.

2 people have died within minutes of each other. What are the odds of a lying murderer (which he has been found to be), deliberately killing one and not the other? It doesn't pass the reasonable doubt sniff test for the second death to be anything but another murder IMO.

Yep, the odds are bugger all, I'm not disagreeing with that.

All I am trying to do is clarify how the not guilty/guilty verdict is not flawed.

For instance, consider the following scenario: Lynn and Hill are wrestling over the gun, Hill has a heart attack and drops dead, Clay starts screaming like a banshee "you killed him!!", Lynn thinks 'well, they will say I did it anyway, its my word against hers, in for a penny...' then blam, away goes that problem. Lynn has no culpability for Hill, but murder for Clay.

Is it likely that the above scenario happened? hell no, and even though it doesn't follow Lynn's narrative, it is enough to introduce doubt, which is all that is needed.

 

[Underarrest_]

Yes, surprised no one has come out the woodwork to attest how unbearable he was as a kid. I wonder was he always Greg Lynn

I only watched the Snowtown movie the other week and noted how the killer’s painted one of their victims cars after they killed them.
Maybe GL learnt a few tricks from his local knowledge of the murders given he went to school not far away.