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.

 

[Lady O]

I think the defence complained because the Police were just having a normal chat with him and he wasn't officially told he was a suspect.

Yes, might upset the narrative Dann proposed that he told no lies. He denied seeing them for one thing in the earliest interview in his home.

 

[Kurve]

Yes, might upset the narrative Dann proposed that he told no lies. He denied seeing them for one thing in the earliest interview in his home.

Dann's been exposed for manipulating the jury and not being completely honest himself in his defence of Lynn by exploiting the fact that not all of Lynn's interviews were admitted to evidence. It was one of his main points of defence, that Lynn told no lies, and he used it aggressively at every opportunity.

 

[Lady O]

Dann's been exposed for manipulating the jury and not being completely honest himself in his defence of Lynn by exploiting the fact that not all of Lynn's interviews were admitted to evidence. It was one of his main points of defence, that Lynn told no lies, and he used it aggressively at every opportunity.

Is there no penalty for the defence deliberately lying? Different if he is only defending his client without knowingly telling lies, but when he worked to have his client's lies excluded and then says "he didn't lie", that in itself is dishonest.

 

[Kurve]

Is there no penalty for the defence deliberately lying? Different if he is only defending his client without knowingly telling lies, but when he worked to have his client's lies excluded and then says "he didn't lie", that in itself is dishonest.

The devious Dann would say that the rules bound to admissible evidence as that which was presented to the jury.

 

[GrayRanga]

Dann's been exposed for manipulating the jury and not being completely honest himself in his defence of Lynn by exploiting the fact that not all of Lynn's interviews were admitted to evidence. It was one of his main points of defence, that Lynn told no lies, and he used it aggressively at every opportunity.

Dann's reponsibity is to defend his client to the best of his ability on the basis of the narrative provided by the accused, obeying the Common Law precedents and legislative precedents and structure of the Court.

A Defence barrister may believe that the accused's story is total BS, but he/she has the responsibility to present it and attack the Prosecution's case to ensure it is beyond reasonable doubt

Whether Lynn told lies in his testimony or ROI is immaterial to Dann's defence of Lynn.

The defence is only based on the evidence provided to the Court.

After all, didn't Lynn say something during his ROI that he decided to ignore his legal advice and tell the truth?

It is the Prosecution's role to highlight flaws in the accused's narrative

The Jury make a determination on the evidence presented, in which they found that Lynn's narrative did not satisfy the bench mark of creating a reasonable doubt (the one narrow path)

I once heard a Supreme Court judge explain it as there are 4 "truths" in a Criminal Matter:

1. What the Prosecution allege (that both Hill and Clay were murdered by Lynn)
2. What the Defence allege (both Hill and Clay died by a series of unfortunate events in which Lynn was present but did not kill them)
3. What the Jury found (Lynn murdered Clay but unable to determine, on the basis of the evidence provided, that he murdered Hill)
4. What actually happened.

From the Court's perspective, only "truth" number 3 is important.

That is the point that will be subject to appeal.

Dann's personal belief's of the matter is immaterial and he would only be upbraided by the Bar Council if he failed to provide a complete and adequate defence of the accused.

The nature of our adversarial Justice system means that the 4th "truth" is often not determined

 

[Lady O]

The devious Dann would say that the rules bound to admissible evidence as that which was presented to the jury.

I wonder if what Dann is quoted as saying "He maintains that he's never killed any person at any time, at any place, anywhere, ever," misquoted Lynn and should have been, 'He maintains that he's never MURDERED any person at any time, at any place, anywhere, ever (as he understands it)'

 

[Zidane98]

Here's the article from the wayback machine.

Greg Lynn and trying to pull a rabbit from a legal hat

The defence thought it would win and chose not to push for a new trial. To now say it was a miscarriage of justice is a little like getting a free kick, playing on, hitting the post and then asking for another shot.

web.archive.org

Wasn't expecting that it was so close to the judge declaring a mistrial.

 

[Underarrest_]

Dann's reponsibity is to defend his client to the best of his ability on the basis of the narrative provided by the accused, obeying the Common Law precedents and legislative precedents and structure of the Court.

A Defence barrister may believe that the accused's story is total BS, but he/she has the responsibility to present it and attack the Prosecution's case to ensure it is beyond reasonable doubt

Whether Lynn told lies in his testimony or ROI is immaterial to Dann's defence of Lynn.

The defence is only based on the evidence provided to the Court.

After all, didn't Lynn say something during his ROI that he decided to ignore his legal advice and tell the truth?

It is the Prosecution's role to highlight flaws in the accused's narrative

The Jury make a determination on the evidence presented, in which they found that Lynn's narrative did not satisfy the bench mark of creating a reasonable doubt (the one narrow path)

I once heard a Supreme Court judge explain it as there are 4 "truths" in a Criminal Matter:

1. What the Prosecution allege (that both Hill and Clay were murdered by Lynn)
2. What the Defence allege (both Hill and Clay died by a series of unfortunate events in which Lynn was present but did not kill them)
3. What the Jury found (Lynn murdered Clay but unable to determine, on the basis of the evidence provided, that he murdered Hill)
4. What actually happened.

From the Court's perspective, only "truth" number 3 is important.

That is the point that will be subject to appeal.

Dann's personal belief's of the matter is immaterial and he would only be upbraided by the Bar Council if he failed to provide a complete and adequate defence of the accused.

The nature of our adversarial Justice system means that the 4th "truth" is often not determined

We can be thankful that Lynn exposed himself in the police interview by telling police that he destroyed the bodies after the police visit. He obviously never told them the truth at that stage which would have been quite telling for the jury.

 

[shorsky]

Is there no penalty for the defence deliberately lying? Different if he is only defending his client without knowingly telling lies, but when he worked to have his client's lies excluded and then says "he didn't lie", that in itself is dishonest.

There are Conduct Rules yes, however there’s a big difference between the Barrister etc sensing that their clients is speaking BS & is guilty - as opposed to If the client tells their Barrister that they are in fact guilty ( which rarely happens). In either scenario though, the Barrister is still entitled to defend that person.

Having said that, I doubt GL will have confessed Guilt to Dann; it’s my bet that he’s a pathological liar, and will have stuck with the story of events that he told Police had unfolded.

 

[Lady O]

There are Conduct Rules yes, however there’s a big difference between the Barrister etc sensing that their clients is speaking BS & is guilty - as opposed to If the client tells their Barrister that they are in fact guilty ( which rarely happens). In either scenario though, the Barrister is still entitled to defend that person.

Having said that, I doubt GL will have confessed Guilt to Dann; it’s my bet that he’s a pathological liar, and will have stuck with the story of events that he told Police had unfolded.

I am not speaking of any "confession" he might have made to Dann.

In the first instance, for example, Lynn said he did not see Hill and Clay at Bucks Camp. Then in the ROI he said he not only saw them but was involved in both of their "accidental" deaths.
That Dann had the first instance (never saw them), excluded due presumably to him not being cautioned as a suspect, we will assume that Lynn DID lie to Police at that time. That he saw them but was not involved in their "accidental" deaths went unchallenged by Dann even though Lynn had no lawyer present at the time. The latter may well also be a lie.

So Dann's assertion that "he didn't lie" is also untrue.

I don't know what other evidence was excluded because Lynn "changed his mind" about what happened.

 

[Iretired00]

There are Conduct Rules yes, however there’s a big difference between the Barrister etc sensing that their clients is speaking BS & is guilty - as opposed to If the client tells their Barrister that they are in fact guilty ( which rarely happens). In either scenario though, the Barrister is still entitled to defend that person.

Having said that, I doubt GL will have confessed Guilt to Dann; it’s my bet that he’s a pathological liar, and will have stuck with the story of events that he told Police had unfolded.

As I understand it,the legal rep would then become an accessory to fact and would be committing a criminal offence by withholding that information but no,no way would GL be admitting.I agree he's pathological liar of the magnitude of former USA president Nixon who was said to be totally immune to effective results from lie detector apparatus.Watching GL's ROI is real evidence of an expert liar......totally guileless,ha

 

[Underarrest_]

As I understand it,the legal rep would then become an accessory to fact and would be committing a criminal offence by withholding that information but no,no way would GL be admitting.I agree he's pathological liar of the magnitude of former USA president Nixon who was said to be totally immune to effective results from lie detector apparatus.Watching GL's ROI is real evidence of an expert liar......totally guileless,ha

A lawyer can still defend someone if their client admits guilt to them but pleads not guilty. They just can’t mislead the court but can argue that the prosecution hasn’t proven their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Agree that there’s no way Lynn would admit guilt to anyone. He believes his own lies.

 

[GrayRanga]

That Dann had the first instance (never saw them), excluded due presumably to him not being cautioned as a suspect, we will assume that Lynn DID lie to Police at that time.

The evidence of the interview in this instance was not presented to the Jury.

Therefore, on the evidence the Jury heard, the interview didn't happen.

Dann is quite correct in his statement that Lynn didn't lie in any statement to the Court.

The Jury made determination of guilt on the basis of the evidence provided, and didn't accept Lynn's explanation of the events of that night

It doesn't mean he was lying, but that his evidence was not enough to form reasonable doubt

It helps if you can cope with a degree of Cognitive Dissonance to help with Court procedures, there's a logic to it but it does not necessarily agree with a simple narrative.

 

[InagoRaida]

Dann's been exposed for manipulating the jury and not being completely honest himself in his defence of Lynn by exploiting the fact that not all of Lynn's interviews were admitted to evidence. It was one of his main points of defence, that Lynn told no lies, and he used it aggressively at every opportunity.

More specifically, he stated (paraphrasing!) Lynn told no lies in the interviews admitted in the trail, presented to jury.
The is a very important distinction!

Edit: Sorry GreyRanga, i just read your post, stating very clearly what i just typed

 

[Earls Smother]

The evidence of the interview in this instance was not presented to the Jury.

Therefore, on the evidence the Jury heard, the interview didn't happen.

Dann is quite correct in his statement that Lynn didn't lie in any statement to the Court.

The Jury made determination of guilt on the basis of the evidence provided, and didn't accept Lynn's explanation of the events of that night

It doesn't mean he was lying, but that his evidence was not enough to form reasonable doubt

It helps if you can cope with a degree of Cognitive Dissonance to help with Court procedures, there's a logic to it but it does not necessarily agree with a simple narrative.

No he isn't. He just adjusted his lies to fit with what evidence he knew the prosecution would present. The evidence excluded meant that his lies in relation to that particular evidence were also excluded.

"Not accepting Lynn's explanation of the events of that night" is to have found that he was not being truthful - the very definition of lying. To make up a version of events in order to create reasonable doubt is to actually lie. Otherwise why have the sworn oath, if it is just accepted that you are allowed to say anything to create doubt?

The jury didn't have enough evidence to convict on that evidence alone. They decided GL's version was fictitious, then allowed the evidence to assist in a guilty verdict for CC, but were not satisfied re RH.

The judge in the Dawson case stated point blank that Dawson lied - the very basis for the finding. The jury don't give reasons, but the "one narrow path" was to have found that GL's version was untrue.

 

[GrayRanga]

No he isn't. He just adjusted his lies to fit with what evidence he knew the prosecution would present. The evidence excluded meant that his lies in relation to that particular evidence were also excluded.

"Not accepting Lynn's explanation of the events of that night" is to have found that he was not being truthful - the very definition of lying. To make up a version of events in order to create reasonable doubt is to actually lie. Otherwise why have the sworn oath, if it is just accepted that you are allowed to say anything to create doubt?

The jury didn't have enough evidence to convict on that evidence alone. They decided GL's version was fictitious, then allowed the evidence to assist in a guilty verdict for CC, but were not satisfied re RH.

The judge in the Dawson case stated point blank that Dawson lied - the very basis for the finding. The jury don't give reasons, but the "one narrow path" was to have found that GL's version was untrue.

No

There is a subtle difference, the Jury did not believe Lynn's testimony when weighed against the other evidence presented.

This does not mean he lied to the Court. only means that the other evidence was more compelling to the Jury's collective mind.

Everybody in the Court room may believe that Lynn was lying but the case is determined on the weight of evidence presented to see whether it reaches the threshold of reasonable doubt.

 

[Earls Smother]

No

There is a subtle difference, the Jury did not believe Lynn's testimony when weighed against the other evidence presented.

This does not mean he lied to the Court. only means that the other evidence was more compelling to the Jury's collective mind.

Everybody in the Court room may believe that Lynn was lying but the case is determined on the weight of evidence presented to see whether it reaches the threshold of reasonable doubt.

So the sworn oath should be amended to "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or a version of events that is knowingly untrue in order to create doubt in the prosecution's case".

In general terms, what you are saying may be more applicable. In this case, there simply wasn't enough evidence to outweigh anything. It was mostly destroyed. God help what would have happened if the destruction of said evidence was ruled inadmissable.

If Lynn's version was accepted as even close to being what happened, then they had to acquit. The evidence alone could in no way contradict that strongly enough. The only way to find him guilty was to totally disbelieve at least part of what he was saying - i.e. find he lied.

How do you explain the judge telling Dawson that he bare-faced lied? Dawson had a version of events and there was no physical evidence whatsoever to contradict that. By your theory, Dawson wins on balance because there is nothing to outweigh his side of the story.

 

[Lady O]

So the sworn oath should be amended to "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or a version of events that is knowingly untrue in order to create doubt in the prosecution's case".

In general terms, what you are saying may be more applicable. In this case, there simply wasn't enough evidence to outweigh anything. It was mostly destroyed. God help what would have happened if the destruction of said evidence was ruled inadmissable.

If Lynn's version was accepted as even close to being what happened, then they had to acquit. The evidence alone could in no way contradict that strongly enough. The only way to find him guilty was to totally disbelieve at least part of what he was saying - i.e. find he lied.

How do you explain the judge telling Dawson that he bare-faced lied? Dawson had a version of events and there was no physical evidence whatsoever to contradict that. By your theory, Dawson wins on balance because there is nothing to outweigh his side of the story.

When you compare this case to Dawson's, you wonder how on earth Lynn got away with only one murder conviction! The only thing that was compelling with Dawson was that there was a motive (new girlfriend) and with Lynn the motive is unclear. However, the jury in Lynn was told there was no need to find a motive. Applying the same criteria to Dawson, he would not have been convicted at all. At least in the case of Lynn, some evidence of the actual deaths of Hill and Clay has been established via the remains, the only thing lacking is the method of their deaths.

 

[Sir_Loin]

How do you explain the judge telling Dawson that he bare-faced lied? Dawson had a version of events and there was no physical evidence whatsoever to contradict that. By your theory, Dawson wins on balance because there is nothing to outweigh his side of the story.

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse with the Dawson comparison. Those comments were made at sentencing not before. It’s not for the jury to decide if GL lied, they need to weigh up the totality of evidence and draw a conclusion. That’s it. The judge will evaluate any of GL’s deception as a factor in sentencing.

When you compare this case to Dawson's, you wonder how on earth Lynn got away with only one murder conviction! The only thing that was compelling with Dawson was that there was a motive (new girlfriend) and with Lynn the motive is unclear. However, the jury in Lynn was told there was no need to find a motive. Applying the same criteria to Dawson, he would not have been convicted at all. At least in the case of Lynn, some evidence of the actual deaths of Hill and Clay has been established via the remains, the only thing lacking is the method of their deaths.

Evidence presented to court by the prosecution (including a slug fragment with her DNA from the scene) was CC was murdered with a shotgun. GL admitted she was shot with the shotgun. We only have GL’s account of RH’a death, no evidence outside of his account.

There is evidence clearly of the method of CC’s death but not RH’s.

 

[Earls Smother]

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse with the Dawson comparison. Those comments were made at sentencing not before. It’s not for the jury to decide if GL lied, they need to weigh up the totality of evidence and draw a conclusion. That’s it. The judge will evaluate any of GL’s deception as a factor in sentencing.



Evidence presented to court by the prosecution (including a slug fragment with her DNA from the scene) was CC was murdered with a shotgun. GL admitted she was shot with the shotgun. We only have GL’s account of RH’a death, no evidence outside of his account.

There is evidence clearly of the method of CC’s death but not RH’s.

The totality of evidence has to include assessing the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. In taking the stand, GL is subject to this scrutiny.

If they believed him, why didn't they acquit? Because they didn't believe him, which equates to saying they thought he was lying. A largely circumstantial case is way more dependent on whether witnesses are believed by the jury/judge, or not.

Dawson was still found guilty with no physical evidence. How do you think that was? It's irrelevant when the judge actually uttered those exact words.

 

[Sir_Loin]

The totality of evidence has to include assessing the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. In taking the stand, GL is subject to this scrutiny.

If they believed him, why didn't they acquit? Because they didn't believe him, which equates to saying they thought he was lying. A largely circumstantial case is way more dependent on whether witnesses are believed by the jury/judge, or not.

Dawson was still found guilty with no physical evidence. How do you think that was? It's irrelevant when the judge actually uttered those exact words.

it’s not irrelevant at all. When does the jury state they think GL was lying? They don’t get up and say “guilty your honour, we think the defendant was lying”. That is not what they’re charged with.

 

[Lady O]

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse with the Dawson comparison. Those comments were made at sentencing not before. It’s not for the jury to decide if GL lied, they need to weigh up the totality of evidence and draw a conclusion. That’s it. The judge will evaluate any of GL’s deception as a factor in sentencing.



Evidence presented to court by the prosecution (including a slug fragment with her DNA from the scene) was CC was murdered with a shotgun. GL admitted she was shot with the shotgun. We only have GL’s account of RH’a death, no evidence outside of his account.

There is evidence clearly of the method of CC’s death but not RH’s.

I don't follow your logic. How would, for example, a rib bone from Hill with knife marks, have changed the outcome? She was shot (accidentally), he was stabbed (accidentally), according to the accused.

How did finding out she was shot according to your post above, enabled a murder outcome? Why did it exclude an accidental shooting? If Hill's death from a knife to his heart was established, would that have proved murder also? What about him falling on his knife in a struggle?

 

[Sir_Loin]

I don't follow your logic. How would, for example, a rib bone from Hill with knife marks, have changed the outcome? She was shot (accidentally), he was stabbed (accidentally), according to the accused.

How did finding out she was shot according to your post above, enabled a murder outcome? Why did it exclude an accidental shooting? If Hill's death from a knife to his heart was established, would that have proved murder also? What about him falling on his knife in a struggle?

That’s not what you wrote. You wrote “the only thing lacking is the method of their deaths”. We don’t know what the method of RH’s death was but it’s pretty clear from the evidence as I posted above, that the method of CC’s death was a shotgun slug to the head. Not only is that not in dispute but the jury found it was murder.

Not sure what you’re on about otherwise.

 

[striker3]

I wonder if what Dann is quoted as saying "He maintains that he's never killed any person at any time, at any place, anywhere, ever," misquoted Lynn and should have been, 'He maintains that he's never MURDERED any person at any time, at any place, anywhere, ever (as he understands it)'

No, because defence said:

1. Hill had his finger on the trigger so it wasn't Lynn that killed Clay;
2. Hill fell on his own knife and that it wasn't done by Lynn (and by extension Lynn wasn't touching the knife)

 

[Lady O]

No, because defence said:

1. Hill had his finger on the trigger so it wasn't Lynn that killed Clay;
2. Hill fell on his own knife and that it wasn't done by Lynn (and by extension Lynn wasn't touching the knife)

Actually, it was Lynn who said "murder" not "killing". I was wondering if Dann misquoted Lynn.

Maybe Lynn had his finger on top of Hill's finger when it was on the gun? Maybe Lynn had his hand over Hill's when he had the knife? If so, he didn't touch the trigger or the knife.

I can see why he would say it wasn't murder (as he understands it).