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]

If what they had in the vehicle was audio, how did they know what he was doing? Surely he wasn't doing a commentary? And how did they know about the sun screen? Unless, there was video as well?

 

[Sir_Loin]

If what they had in the vehicle was audio, how did they know what he was doing? Surely he wasn't doing a commentary? And how did they know about the sun screen? Unless, there was video as well?

Tipping it was the twelfth man type of thing

 

[Zidane98]

If you read the whole article from the link I provided in a later post, you'll get more info on why they eventually decided to do it whilst they were in. Partly due to it being during COVID restrictions when there was a lot more staying in than usual.

What would have happened if they were caught in the act of installing this stuff? A phony arrest for breaking & entering?

 

[Zidane98]

They did get the conviction but it was a very very close run thing. And there’s still an appeal to come.

Hope the cops and the DPP learn from this and not tread such a fine line in the future. And use sunscreen responsibly.

It was good work. Justice Croucher had pretty much offered GL/Dann the opportunity of a mistrial after the stuff in prosecution closing that wasn't put to GL on the stand. They declined, thinking they were in a good position. Thankfully, they were proven wrong.

 

[Royces Hart]

If what they had in the vehicle was audio, how did they know what he was doing? Surely he wasn't doing a commentary? And how did they know about the sun screen? Unless, there was video as well?

Pretty sure he was singing the Banana Boat song during the deed.

 

[Lady O]

Pretty sure he was singing the Banana Boat song during the deed.

Day-O, Daaaayyyy-O!

 

[GrayRanga]

It was good work. Justice Croucher had pretty much offered GL/Dann the opportunity of a mistrial after the stuff in prosecution closing that wasn't put to GL on the stand. They declined, thinking they were in a good position. Thankfully, they were proven wrong.

Unlike most professions, Judges are subject to the very public judgement of their peers for their decisions .

They have a vested interest in getting it right, if nothing else to preserve their professional conceit.

Every single decision during the case by Croucher would have been made with the awareness that if he got it wrong his fellow Judges would be quite scathing in judgement of his errors.

Therefore he run a conservative trial under established precedents

 

[Zidane98]

Unlike most professions, Judges are subject to the very public judgement of their peers for their decisions .

They have a vested interest in getting it right, if nothing else to preserve their professional conceit.

Every single decision during the case by Croucher would have been made with the awareness that if he got it wrong his fellow Judges would be quite scathing in judgement of his errors.

Therefore he run a conservative trial under established precedents

Very true, this was a super high profile case and the stakes were high.


I believe Croucher played it perfectly. The issue of the prosecution's closing arguments not being put to GL when he was on the stand simply had to be addressed as a procedural legal matter.

Not only was Dann given the option of a mistrial I also understand that Croucher instructed the jury to disregard closing arguments that were not put to GL on the stand.

My understanding is this legal avenue is completely closed now on any appeal as Croucher afford the defense every opportunity to use it and that opportunity was refused.

I actually don't see an appeal being heard he was that thorough.


My understanding of the appeals process is that can only happen if there is significant new exculpatory evidence that is available (not happening) or the conviction was legally unsafe (eg Pell case). To my mind I believe Croucher has made this conviction water tight and an appeal will get no further than lodgment.

 

[Iretired00]

What would have happened if they were caught in the act of installing this stuff? A phony arrest for breaking & entering?

I've been wondering this myself,would have blown the investigation although a lot of evidence ended up being ruled inadmissible anyway-thoughts ?

 

[Sir_Loin]

What would have happened if they were caught in the act of installing this stuff? A phony arrest for breaking & entering?

They don’t get caught that’s how good they are

Even if they did they’d have a story to tell “we’re just in your neighbourhood fixing a gas leak etc”

 

[Iretired00]

"The daughter of Russell Hill, the camper who died in mysterious circumstances in Victoria’s High Country, plans to sue the man acquitted of his murder." from The Age.
Well well,we always thought this a possibility.Where in the blazes would GL get the finance for an appeal.....

 

[Sir_Loin]

‘We’re owed the truth’: Russell Hill’s daughter plans to sue killer Greg Lynn

The daughter of the dead high country camper says the case will be about much more than just money.

www.theage.com.au

Go Debbie!

How ****ed is this “justice” system. Seriously.

 

[Percel]

But they still got the conviction!

With the benefit of hindsight and presumably from a strictly legal viewpoint it removed a whole gamut of points that could have subsequently appealed and focussed the jury to answer the one simple question; "Did Lynn cause either the camper's deaths with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm?"

When the next series of books, articles and podcasts come out after the appeals are finalised, the authors have better access to the Depositions to work through and can form a more deliberated analysis of the murderes's psyche

Of course, it won't remove the prurient need of observers to know the difference in SPF factors

Gee I love prurient, great word that.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Gee I love prurient, great word that.

I think they were referring to you specifically

 

[GrayRanga]

Gee I love prurient, great word that.

Didn't choose the word for anyone here in particular *, but there's something inherently tacky about the sound of the word (licentious is another one) that implies a yuck factor with slightly sordidly sexual suggestions rather than sensual ones.

In a previous job and life, I was writing correspondence and reports.

Our boss forbade any letter to leave the Office that was more than one page long; we took great pride in choosing and using the exact word rather than a phrase or cliché

* in general though, possibly yes

 

[Sir_Loin]

Didn't choose the word for anyone here in particular *, but there's something inherently tacky about the sound of the word (licentious is another one) that implies a yuck factor with slightly sordidly sexual suggestions rather than sensual ones.

In a previous job and life, I was writing correspondence and reports.

Our boss forbade any letter to leave the Office that was more than one page long; we took great pride in choosing and using the exact word rather than a phrase or cliché

* in general though, possibly yes

Ok mate stop teasing the bell end you’re John Silverster right?

 

[Awakening]

Tipping it was the twelfth man type of thing

I’m dead

 

[Sir_Loin]

Trying to restrain myself Kurve is going to get angry with me

Should I bring up the scrotometer?

 

[Run n Spread]

Very true, this was a super high profile case and the stakes were high.


I believe Croucher played it perfectly. The issue of the prosecution's closing arguments not being put to GL when he was on the stand simply had to be addressed as a procedural legal matter.

Not only was Dann given the option of a mistrial I also understand that Croucher instructed the jury to disregard closing arguments that were not put to GL on the stand.

My understanding is this legal avenue is completely closed now on any appeal as Croucher afford the defense every opportunity to use it and that opportunity was refused.

Ironically this may be what leads to an appeal.
The jury clearly didn't ignore as that is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn.
The only other would be he killed CC than RH by accident? Makes no sense. And would be a jury acting unreasonably.
So RH in an accident before CC to cover up (which the jury weren't "allowed") to consider but seemingly did/compromised why DD stated they went down a forbidden path.
If they were going split verdict needed to be other way round. (Shot her by mistake than killed him. That explains the allowed evidence and what could be considered)
Otherwise his story created doubt crown had holes in their case =2 not guilty
Or he's story is bullshit he's killed them and got rid of the bodies=2 guilty
Appeal is not without foundation. Could easily be kicked back for a new trial.
A lot will be determined by legal argument and precedent. This ends in the high court imo.

 

[Kurve]

Trying to restrain myself Kurve is going to get angry with me

Should I bring up the scrotometer?

I don't even know what a scrotometer is.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I don't even know what a scrotometer is.

It’s a tool that test the humidity or moisture of one’s underwear playing cricket

Look it’s a really obscure reference maybe I should have let that one through to the keeper

 

[Sir_Loin]

It’s a tool that test the humidity or moisture of one’s underwear playing cricket

Look it’s a really obscure reference maybe I should have let that one through to the keeper

love it when I get a lol out of you

 

[Zidane98]

Ironically this may be what leads to an appeal.
The jury clearly didn't ignore as that is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn.
The only other would be he killed CC than RH by accident? Makes no sense. And would be a jury acting unreasonably.
So RH in an accident before CC to cover up (which the jury weren't "allowed") to consider but seemingly did/compromised why DD stated they went down a forbidden path.
If they were going split verdict needed to be other way round. (Shot her by mistake than killed him. That explains the allowed evidence and what could be considered)
Otherwise his story created doubt crown had holes in their case =2 not guilty
Or he's story is bullshit he's killed them and got rid of the bodies=2 guilty
Appeal is not without foundation. Could easily be kicked back for a new trial.
A lot will be determined by legal argument and precedent. This ends in the high court imo.

I believe Croucher covered this in sentencing. He allowed for the possibility that GL mistakenly believed he would be found guilty for RH death and subsequently murdered CC as a witness.

Croucher couldn't find enough evidence to find motive was a factor in sentencing though. My understanding of sentencing guidelines for murder is min 25 years (70% non parole period), life if there was motive and / or pre meditation (no parole period on life sentences).

 

[Earls Smother]

Ironically this may be what leads to an appeal.
The jury clearly didn't ignore as that is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn.
The only other would be he killed CC than RH by accident? Makes no sense. And would be a jury acting unreasonably.
So RH in an accident before CC to cover up (which the jury weren't "allowed") to consider but seemingly did/compromised why DD stated they went down a forbidden path.
If they were going split verdict needed to be other way round. (Shot her by mistake than killed him. That explains the allowed evidence and what could be considered)
Otherwise his story created doubt crown had holes in their case =2 not guilty
Or he's story is bullshit he's killed them and got rid of the bodies=2 guilty
Appeal is not without foundation. Could easily be kicked back for a new trial.
A lot will be determined by legal argument and precedent. This ends in the high court imo.

FWIW I agree with most of what you say here. For the second death to be an accident would be an absurd finding.

Croucher said the following to the jurors:
"They were also instructed they could more readily reject some parts of the prosecution argument because of what Justice Croucher called a "breach of the basic rules of fairness". The breach arose from Mr Porceddu's failure to directly put to Mr Lynn that he covered up the campers' deaths because he believed he'd committed murder in cross-examination, despite relying on that allegation in his closing argument, the judge said."

Whilst they have to ignore the cover up (from a hiding murder POV), they can still find that CC died second based on what was admissable.

GL had to argue they died CC first and RH afterwards. It was the only way to "explain" 2 accidents. You're not going to shoot someone in the head as the second accident. The prosecution framed their case around it being the other way around, but couldn't prove it. They obviously did enough to convince the jury on the order of deaths.

I can understand Dann being confused from a legal perspective with split verdicts, but unless the jury were specifically directed as per the bolded above, then the finding is reasonable IMO.

 

[Run n Spread]

I believe Croucher covered this in sentencing. He allowed for the possibility that GL mistakenly believed he would be found guilty for RH death and subsequently murdered CC as a witness.

Croucher couldn't find enough evidence to find motive was a factor in sentencing though. My understanding of sentencing guidelines for murder is min 25 years (70% non parole period), life if there was motive and / or pre meditation (no parole period on life sentences).

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.