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.

 

[Earls Smother]

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.

They are told to disregard that particular statement.

That doesn't mean that the scenario is completely ruled off the table. They can form that belief over the course of the entire trial surely? Otherwise, what is the point of weeks of evidence, if one statement at closing can have it all ruled inadmissable?

 

[Sir_Loin]

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.

It was not a compromised verdict. The jury was instructed that they could make a finding on those rules given to them by the judge after an interlocutory appeal.

This is a safe verdict the only way it gets overturned is if some justice wants to big note themselves

 

[Zidane98]

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.

Justice Croucher did offer the defense a mistrial for this stuff. That offer was refused.


Surely defense can't now roll it back and say they want a new trial based on the stuff that wasn't put to GL on the stand?

 

[Run n Spread]

Justice Croucher did offer the defense a mistrial for this stuff. That offer was refused.


Surely defense can't now roll it back and say they want a new trial based on the stuff that wasn't put to GL on the stand?

Probably not but will argue given the evidence presented the jury's verdict was unreasonable. Doubt they appeal based on the judges ruling itself but that the jury acted unreasonably and as DD said went down a forbidden path.
This is a problem with juries imo. The secrecy. No one knows exactly how they came to this. Could've flipped a coin for all we know. So an appeal will look at the instructions against the evidence and ascertain if it was reasonable to cone to this.
2 x guilty sure. But this weird split has hairs all.over it and does appear potentially unsafe.

 

[gymjam]

Justice Croucher did offer the defense a mistrial for this stuff. That offer was refused.


Surely defense can't now roll it back and say they want a new trial based on the stuff that wasn't put to GL on the stand?

Okay where is the evidence that backed the murder of Carol Clay?

 

[gymjam]

What happens if say there is something wrong or incorrect that considerations were based upon during the interlocutory hearings?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Okay where is the evidence that backed the murder of Carol Clay?

You mean her dna splattered on the canopy of the truck and a bullet fragment in the campsite with her dna on it

Apart from that not much else because someone did something…can you guess what it was?

 

[Run n Spread]

You mean her dna splattered on the canopy of the truck and a bullet fragment in the campsite with her dna on it

Apart from that not much else because someone did something…can you guess what it was?

To spite the burning that is evidence of itself. There was a shit ton of evidence.
They were camping together next to GL.
They both wind up dead. One obviously shot. With GLs gun.
Campsite burnt.
Bodies captured and later admitted to been moved by GL and destroyed.
To.me that's guilty x 2. There is no other explanation. Only way reasonable doubt can be established if GL can somehow explain it.
Which according to the jury he sort of did. At least half.
But the half they believed they were told to disregard or as per the quote above had the option of disregarding.
Test high court has made is can a jury acting reasonably and under proper and following proper instruction come to that conclusion?
Will be interesting. Fact that the not guilty means that matter is legally (criminally) at least done muddies the waters further

 

[Run n Spread]

Example I guess is you've been charged with punching someone out and robbing them.
You claim it was self defence and the money must have been taken by someone else.
In closing the crown says hey maybe the victim KOed themselves than was robbed by you opportunistically.
Judge says to disregard. Jury finds you not guilty of assault but guilty of robbery.
Clearly they have ignored instructions as there is no other explanation to explain how they got to that conusion.
What I mean by how the judge can roll correctly but still be an unreasonable verdict

 

[thumbs_up]

I don't even know what a scrotometer is.

Has to be a 12th man reference

 

[Eaglette01]

Do yourself a favour and listen as Russell Hill's daughter (Debbie) speaks on radio.
Debbie needs help to pursue GL in a Civil case.

MISSION: OK Melbourne lawyers - I suggest you accept this Civil case (pro-bono and help Russell Hill's family)

Take on GL !!

It is also mentioned - that a crowd funding would assist in this case - and I agree.

#sueGL

Why Russell Hill’s daughter plans to sue camp killer Greg Lynn

Russell Hill’s daughter Debbie has explained why she’s decided to sue Greg Lynn, the man who was acquitted of murdering her father in Victoria’s High Country four years ago. The former pilot was acquitted of Russell Hill’s murder, but convicted of murdering fellow camper Carol Clay. Joining Ross...

www.3aw.com.au

 

[Earls Smother]

Example I guess is you've been charged with punching someone out and robbing them.
You claim it was self defence and the money must have been taken by someone else.
In closing the crown says hey maybe the victim KOed themselves than was robbed by you opportunistically.
Judge says to disregard. Jury finds you not guilty of assault but guilty of robbery.
Clearly they have ignored instructions as there is no other explanation to explain how they got to that conusion.
What I mean by how the judge can roll correctly but still be an unreasonable verdict

To use that example I am thinking it would be more along the following lines.

You are charged as you said above. The prosecution show the following to be fact:

You and the victim were the only 2 there.

He was lying on the ground bleeding from the face.

You were found to have grazed knuckles.

The victims money was missing.

You had no injuries.

The victim was found to be unarmed.

Then in summing up, the prosecution says you punched him first and then robbed him. The defence argues that is not fair because it wasn't put directly to you in that manner previously to give you a chance to dispute it. Judge advises jury to ignore that statement.

The jury would have to ignore the statement, but they can still use what has been accepted into evidence to come to their verdict. They would still be allowed to come to the conclusion that you punched first, then robbed second.

The prosecution stuffed up by not directly putting to GL that he killed CC to cover up the murder of RH, but they didn't concoct some fantastic new theory when summing up. It was GL's lies that had the order of death the other way around - the prosecution at no stage accepted that version.

 

[Run n Spread]

To use that example I am thinking it would be more along the following lines.

You are charged as you said above. The prosecution show the following to be fact:

You and the victim were the only 2 there.

He was lying on the ground bleeding from the face.

You were found to have grazed knuckles.

The victims money was missing.

You had no injuries.

The victim was found to be unarmed.

Then in summing up, the prosecution says you punched him first and then robbed him. The defence argues that is not fair because it wasn't put directly to you in that manner previously to give you a chance to dispute it. Judge advises jury to ignore that statement.

The jury would have to ignore the statement, but they can still use what has been accepted into evidence to come to their verdict. They would still be allowed to come to the conclusion that you punched first, then robbed second.

The prosecution stuffed up by not directly putting to GL that he killed CC to cover up the murder of RH, but they didn't concoct some fantastic new theory when summing up. It was GL's lies that had the order of death the other way around - the prosecution at no stage accepted that version.

All true. But in my case the jury has found me not guilty of the assault but guilty of the robbery.
There is no logical flow how they could arrive at that conclusion. They either accepted the prosecution or defence yet didn't.
They've concocted something not aligned with what's presented

 

[Dirh Semaj]

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.

The jury's verdict of 'not guilty' for the death of Russell does not necessarily mean they didn't 'believe' he was murdered and died first.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The jury's verdict of 'not guilty' for the death of Russell does not necessarily mean they didn't 'believe' he was murdered and died first.

It just shows how well GL covered up/destroyed the evidence

 

[Eaglette01]

The jury's verdict of 'not guilty' for the death of Russell does not necessarily mean they didn't 'believe' he was murdered and died first.

Often a case will come down to "who told the best story". (I've heard this said over and over again in lawyer/barrister circles).

If it's not a good story - your lawyer will never put you on the stand.
In GL's case - Dan thought his story was good enough for the jury to listen to.
DPP had no idea how RH died.

GL had 20 months to practice his story "out loud in his vehicle" and in his own head. In sofar (IMO) - he believed his own lies in the end.

We have a legal system - not a justice system