Current Trial Russell Hill & Carol Clay - Wonnangatta *Pilot Greg Lynn Pleads Not Guilty to Murder

[Kurve]

MOD NOTICE

This case is sub judice as under consideration by the courts. Sub judice contempt can occur if information is published that may be prejudicial to the court proceedings.

Please do not state as fact that which is opinion. Also, use 'IMO' and 'allegedly' a lot.

Rules - Updated Crime Board Rules - READ BEFORE POSTING​

General Information The BigFooty Crime board is a community that fosters discussion on current and past crimes, some which have social and media notoriety, that attracts the attention of public opinion and discussion on such matters. Please read these rules very carefully, both the Big Footy...

www.bigfooty.com

On the Greg Lynn committal proceedings Crown Prosecutor Mr Dickie said 'It is clear hopefully from the document, and if it's not clear from the document it's clear hopefully from the charges put before the court, that it is alleged of course that the accused acted with murderous intent when he allegedly killed the two victims.'

 

[nut]

GL claims RH took his gun from his camp and went to RH camp to get it back, that why he was there and so was the gun!

Yep…. And the gun should have been locked up, secured and unloaded, with the ammo in a seperate secure place when not being used. This is the responsibility of the gun owner.
Lynn needs to explain how the gun was taken from him loaded!!!
This is manslaughter on its own IMO. Just like driving a car under the influence.

 

[Sir_Loin]

“” It was his gun. It was at Hills camp site.””

That’s a really good point actually - GL was at RH’s campsite - given evidence of CC shot/death there plus extensive burn-out to destroy evidence.

The very fact that GL was at someone else’s camp - with a gun (and presumably a knife) - means he went out of his way (for whatever reason) to intrude upon someone else’s space and confront them with a gun.

It’s not usual behaviour - it’s threatening and certainly would provoke a scuffle.

Not sure how the prosecution will be able to interrogate this in open court but why was CC crouching down at the rear end passenger side of RH’s vehicle?

Not out of the realms of possibility that she was taking cover/hiding IMO.

Also I haven’t seen it reported where the slug was found in proximity to RH’s vehicle. Behind or forward of that position?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Yep…. And the gun should have been locked up, secured and unloaded, with the ammo in a seperate secure place when not being used. This is the responsibility of the gun owner.
Lynn needs to explain how the gun was taken from him loaded!!!
This is manslaughter on its own IMO. Just like driving a car under the influence.

He’s full of shit. He would have done if he’d finished for the day IMO.

 

[Eaglette01]

Do you have a link to this article? I've seen it mentioned in this thread but I don't recall reading it yet.

This is one: there are many

Police listened to 5000 covert recordings of accused High Country killer

Detectives investigating the killings of campers Russell Hill and Carol Clay say they’ve listened to recordings of the alleged killer muttering to himself that were picked up by listening devices installed in Gregory Lynn’s car.

www.theage.com.au

 

[nut]

He’s full of shit. He would have done if he’d finished for the day IMO.

Pretty sure you can only hunt game during daylight hours.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Pretty sure you can only hunt game during daylight hours.

Yep. But people do hunt at night against the law. GL says RH complained about GL hunting too close to the camp site.

Not a stretch to think he may have been hunting after hours also. We’ll never know but irrespective if it went down as GL says the firearms should have been made safe when he was back at his site.

If he was such an avid outdoorsman as he claims that would have happened. That’s why his version of events sounds like total BS to me. IMO.

 

[GardenGnome]

If only he hadn't burnt the evidence, and moved the bodies, burnt and pulverised them, and tossed the phones, drone and keys into some river, he might have had a snowflake's chance of beating the rap.

Part of his undoing was of course driving past a license plate identification camera with RH phone in his vehicle

 

[DemonWheels]

This is one: there are many

Police listened to 5000 covert recordings of accused High Country killer

Detectives investigating the killings of campers Russell Hill and Carol Clay say they’ve listened to recordings of the alleged killer muttering to himself that were picked up by listening devices installed in Gregory Lynn’s car.

www.theage.com.au

Maybe we actually will see some dramatic twist or ‘gotcha’ style moment once the interview is played to the court room (assuming the prosecution have been allowed to play what they need to). This is from the article above:

“Earlier in the hearing, lawyers for the alleged killer won a bid to keep “explosive evidence” withheld from the public ahead of a possible Supreme Court murder trial.“

 

[GardenGnome]

Yep…. And the gun should have been locked up, secured and unloaded, with the ammo in a seperate secure place when not being used. This is the responsibility of the gun owner.
Lynn needs to explain how the gun was taken from him loaded!!!
This is manslaughter on its own IMO. Just like driving a car under the influence.

This bit echoes my thoughts… is there provision for GL to be charged with something along the lines of irresponsible storage of gun(s)?

 

[Run n Spread]

If only he hadn't burnt the evidence, and moved the bodies, burnt and pulverised them, and tossed the phones, drone and keys into some river, he might have had a snowflake's chance of beating the rap.

This is the point. You don't want to give murderers carte blanch where hide the body well enough and you can't be convicted.
Same time presumption of innocence and beyond reasonable doubt must be protected.
Proven by facts. Opinions of I think he did it should no way be enough to convict. Otherwise may as well have Salem witch burning

 

[nut]

This bit echoes my thoughts… is there provision for him to charges with something along the lines of irresponsible storage of gun(s)?

Which should be used by the prosecutors to put doubt in his story that Hill just waltzed over to Lynn’s camp site and took his gun.
How and why would Hill do that?

 

[Run n Spread]

Do you think the prosecution have established beyond reasonable doubt that GL murdered CC and RH?

In the committal and the trial it was made out RH was an angry old man in a bad temper. That could easily have given cause for accidental death with guns and knives around when he started arguing with GL.

And in this case, is it reasonable for the jury to consider no reasonable doubt based on the evidence?

I only know the minimal snippets in the media and from those who've been in court.
But honestly no. All their witnesses evidence and their slam dunk points seems to align with GLs story.
However given murder charges automatically open up to instructions of manslaughter I don't believe the defence has counter argued enough to explain away the not inconvenient facts that 2 dead bodies have materialised in GLs presence and been moved and destroyed.
Looking.like manslaughter x2 imo
Unless GL gives a hell of a testimony or closing arguments are out of this world.
Whole thing rests on the judges instructions.
The jury will convict I reckon regardless but it will be a very interesting appeal

 

[Kurve]

Maybe we actually will see some dramatic twist or ‘gotcha’ style moment once the interview is played to the court room (assuming the prosecution have been allowed to play what they need to). This is from the article above:

“Earlier in the hearing, lawyers for the alleged killer won a bid to keep “explosive evidence” withheld from the public ahead of a possible Supreme Court murder trial.“

Oh I forgot about that, I hope we get it on Monday. Explosive evidence for the prosecution might turn the case because up to now it looks kind of meh

 

[Lady O]

No....
Jurors will have an idea in their individual heads at this point.

The 'charge' that the judge outlines at the end of the trial will be when things change and Jurors will start to think collectively rather than individually. Of course, through the trial they'll be chatting about what they're thinking about... but the 'charge' from the judge will drill home what their responsibility is.

They'll be reflecting on the opening statements and how the bar has supported evidence they've seen in the weeks preceding...in the closing statements...

At the end of the day the jurors don't know each other from a bar of soap. They're a team that need to work together to achieve a unanimous outcome.

Been on a jury?

 

[Quiet_Reading]

Lynn really, really likes knives and guns.

Among the collection of weapons were two swords and 16 knives in sheaths, including throwing knives and daggers, court documents state.

Forensic officer Mark Gellatly told the court suspected traces of blood had been found on a large Gurkha knife, a hunting knife, Damascus knife, dagger and on the inner surface of the sheath of a yellow-handled hatchet.

Court documents allege Lynn's home had been loaded with guns, including semi-automatic pistols, Rugar revolvers, semi-automatic and lever action rifles and semi-automatic shotguns - one of which police allege was used to kill Ms Clay.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/me...cking-motel-covered-blood-elderly-camper.html

Just catching up on posts here. Kurve, I believe the police also found a long arm silencer at GL’s house with all the firearms & knives. These are illegal I believe without a permit from the chief commissioner of police.

I do know that some hunters use them, and if you did own one, why would you not use it with deer? If you missed your mark, then the noise of the rifle would scare off the deer & you might be done for the day.

What we do know is that there were 3 shots as per GL’s story - one that killed CC, and 2 he supposedly discharged into the air. I think as many others do, that this story was to reflect 3 shots fired that possibly would have been heard by other witnesses in the valley, so no silencer attached to the rifle at the time this happened.

So 2 things to possibly consider:

1. Was GL hunting quite close to the camp with a silencer & RH only realised he was hunting nearby when he put the drone up & this angered him even more?

2. If GL was using his silencer, it wasn’t attached to the supposedly still loaded shotgun RH allegedly took from GL’s 4WD. If you going to bother dismantling this, then would you not be removing any ammo & bolt at the same time once you were done using the firearm for the day?

3. If he was using the Ruger rifle to hunt deer with a silencer, why was the shotgun loaded as well (with RH stealing it)?

This is probably something the hunters might like to comment on?

It’s just a thought & a question in my mind, that if you have the silencer & going to go to all that trouble to get a permit or take the risk of owning one illegally, why wouldn’t you use it?

The last thing, and what others have questioned is that GL lead the police to where he supposedly dumped the knife, keys & burnt the drone. Hunting knives & sets of keys are reasonably heavy, as are phones, so you would think that these would possibly have been found, plus the burnt remains of the drone (plastic/metal)? That doesn’t add up when the location has apparently been given to the police?

 

[OzF]

Maybe we actually will see some dramatic twist or ‘gotcha’ style moment once the interview is played to the court room (assuming the prosecution have been allowed to play what they need to). This is from the article above:

“Earlier in the hearing, lawyers for the alleged killer won a bid to keep “explosive evidence” withheld from the public ahead of a possible Supreme Court murder trial.“

That means it won't come out in trial. It is probably evidence that came out from before he had all his cautions/lawyer present or from recordings that didn't cross all the t's/dot the i's

 

[MiguelM]

Been on a jury?

I have been on 3 and people's mind is made up very early.

They can change their opinion though.

 

[GladdyDee]

In today’s Age newspaper an article on the Robert Farquharson case, where he was found guilty of the murder of his three sons, quotes the ‘strands of rope’ – a legal term for evidence used to convict in a largely circumstantial case.

“This is called a “strands of the rope” case. That’s the legal term – it essentially means that no single strand is necessarily enough to convict somebody but woven together, they make a case that is strong enough. In the Farquharson case, there are six main strands of circumstantial evidence.”

IMO the six strands of rope for GL to be hypothetically convicted are: (in no particular order)

#1 moved bodies away from the ‘accident’ to hide what went down there

#2 made sure all the incriminating evidence was burnt at the site

#3 CC DNA/ skull fragments don’t exactly conform with accidental shooting story

#4 hid the knife, destroyed the drone, both vital parts of evidence of multiple unfortunate‘accidents’ and motive.

#5 Elderly couple accused of confronting him, not the more likely other way

#6 Clinical destruction of their bodies to cover his tracks


Did I miss a vital strand that tightens the rope?

Just a fascinating exercise to do on a Sunday morning.

 

[Lady O]

I have been on 3 and people's mind is made up very early.

They can change their opinion though.

Yes, but my point was that there is pressure on the jurors who aren't convinced or don't agree with the majority, to change their vote. It is very hard to hold out, if in your opinion, there is insufficient evidence for a "beyond reasonable doubt". After several days and numerous visits to the Judge for clarification or further instructions, the majority come up with a strategy; if you believe x happened then you must vote z.

 

[MiguelM]

Yes, but my point was that there is pressure on the jurors who aren't convinced or don't agree with the majority, to change their vote. It is very hard to hold out, if in your opinion, there is insufficient evidence for a "beyond reasonable doubt". After several days and numerous visits to the Judge for clarification or further instructions, the majority come up with a strategy; if you believe x happened then you must vote z.

Yeah, fair call.

You really need to pay attention to the Judge to help IMO.

Depends on the makeup of the juriors too and who is elected foreman. Strong personality types can take over. Every jury I have been on there has been an initial round the room "vote" at the first discussion.

One I was on I was the second last vote and was opposite to the preceeding 10. The foreman voted the same as me. In the end the other 10 changed their vote when we explained.

In the end the basis of a Jury is a cross section of opinions, backgrounds to achieve a fair result, though defence are good at picking professions etc. to avoid bias.

 

[Percel]

In today’s Age newspaper an article on the Robert Farquharson case, where he was found guilty of the murder of his three sons, quotes the ‘strands of rope’ – a legal term for evidence used to convict in a largely circumstantial case.

“This is called a “strands of the rope” case. That’s the legal term – it essentially means that no single strand is necessarily enough to convict somebody but woven together, they make a case that is strong enough. In the Farquharson case, there are six main strands of circumstantial evidence.”

IMO the six strands of rope for GL to be hypothetically convicted are: (in no particular order)

#1 moved bodies away from the ‘accident’ to hide what went down there

#2 made sure all the incriminating evidence was burnt at the site

#3 CC DNA/ skull fragments don’t exactly conform with accidental shooting story

#4 hid the knife, destroyed the drone, both vital parts of evidence of multiple unfortunate‘accidents’ and motive.

#5 Elderly couple accused of confronting him, not the more likely other way

#6 Clinical destruction of their bodies to cover his tracks


Did I miss a vital strand that tightens the rope?

Just a fascinating exercise to do on a Sunday morning.

Essendon CAS case was deliberated on the same way

 

[GardenGnome]

Depends on the makeup of the jurors too and who is elected foreman. Strong personality types can take over. Every jury I have been on there has been an initial round the room "vote" at the first discussion.

In the end the basis of a Jury is a cross section of opinions, backgrounds to achieve a fair result, though defence are good at picking professions etc. to avoid bias

These are good points that I’ve also been pondering - the composition of the jury.

We know Dann is switched on enough to select what could be considered a (relatively) sympathetic jury.

In the jury selection I’ve been involved in, prospective jurors were excluded for various reasons and all were given the option to self-remove given the nature of the case (it was child s#x abuse).

I’m thinking during the process or selection there may have been questions of familiarity with guns, interest in camping hunting etc ? Just a thought.

People with no experience with guns will have very different understanding and might therefore have very different thoughts to those accustomed to guns or interest and/or experience with guns, knives, shooting and hunting.

Some jurors may have self-removed due to the gruesome nature of this case, so it could be that those who remained for selection have a different level of tolerance to guns/hunting violence etc.

Just thoughts that I’ve been pondering.

What is the extent to which the defence are able to question potential jurors and then select those who they believe may be more sympathetic?

 

[Awakening]

I can’t be bothered finding a link but I seem to recall Lynn was in poor mental health due to a fight with his wife, not necessarily anything to do with the deaths of Hill and Clay.

I recall reading it was his pattern to bugger off into the wilderness by himself if he had been arguing with his wife.

But my memory could be wrong.

 

[Lady O]

Yeah, fair call.

You really need to pay attention to the Judge to help IMO.

Depends on the makeup of the juriors too and who is elected foreman. Strong personality types can take over. Every jury I have been on there has been an initial round the room "vote" at the first discussion.

One I was on I was the second last vote and was opposite to the preceeding 10. The foreman voted the same as me. In the end the other 10 changed their vote when we explained.

In the end the basis of a Jury is a cross section of opinions, backgrounds to achieve a fair result, though defence are good at picking professions etc. to avoid bias.

In other words, you and the foreman persuaded the other 10 to your point of view? Presumably on the basis that you thought they were wrong and you were right?

In both juries I have sat on, the minority was eventually cajoled, coaxed and at times, downright bullied into agreeing with the others.

 

[jason_recliner]

Lynn was going to kill himself because he knew he'd been caught, nothing to do with feeling guilty or otherwise bad about killing them. IMO.