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.'

 

[Badd0g]

Off topic, but is there any code of ethics if the defence laywer thinks their client is guilty? do they still try and get them off?

AFAIK they can still defend a client they know is guilty as long as they do not lie or mislead the court.

 

[LeChatNoir]

Off topic, but is there any code of ethics if the defence laywer thinks their client is guilty? do they still try and get them off?

Your lawyer’s ethical obligations

lsbc.vic.gov.au

Some examples of your lawyer’s obligations to the court and justice system include:

• Your lawyer can’t just say anything you want them to say in court
• Your lawyer can’t mislead the court, even if you ask them to
• If your lawyer finds out that you have lied to the court, your lawyer must get your consent to tell the court as soon as possible. If you don’t consent, your lawyer must refuse to act for you
• If you’ve told your lawyer that you’ve committed an offence your lawyer cannot suggest that someone else is responsible for that offence

 

[Kurve]

There's your mud map!

I knew there was a mud map. And he had a list!

 

[Terrafirma]

So from all reports or some it was a good day for the prosecution?

 

[GladdyDee]

Judge was debating possible directions this afternoon...he anticpates ge will be directing Jury next thursday, sending them off for deliberations.
Jury off till tuesday now.
Final summations commence Tues 10:15am. Expected two days by Judge.
I think there will be a lot more debate regarding Jury directions before then....lots of reference to changes in Jury directions act., Dann raised precedents, etc. More to come here

Judge clearly knows he's sitting on a cliff of precedents. Judge won’t be fully enjoying the KB weekend.

 

[Kurve]

"You did drive to Union Spur and you did hide the bodies, is that so?" the prosecutor asked.
"I didn't hide the bodies. I placed them there. I expected them to be found," the accused man replied.
Mr Lynn told the court he put leaves on the bodies to keep animals away. If he wanted to hide the bodies, he said, he could have moved them further into the scrub.

If he expected the bodies to be found, why did he go to all the trouble of removing them in the first place?

I don't understand this.

 

[Angry_Crow]

If he expected the bodies to be found, why did he go to all the trouble of removing them in the first place?

I don't understand this.

My thoughts precisely.

 

[Sir_Loin]

If he expected the bodies to be found, why did he go to all the trouble of removing them in the first place?

I don't understand this.

Because if he left them at the campsite it would have directly implicated him. His whole post “accident” behaviour is outrageous. IMO.

 

[Awakening]

If Greg wasn’t a pilot, he’d make an excellent HR manager.

 

[Eaglette01]

IMO the whole of GL is outrageous and offensive.

Killing and stalking animals - and, it now seems barefooted 80 year olds in their pjs

 

[Kurve]

My thoughts precisely.

Because if he left them at the campsite it would have directly implicated him. His whole post “accident” behaviour is outrageous. IMO.

If he expected them to be found and he wasn't bothered about it, it wasn't necessary for him to go back twice to further tamper with them.

 

[nut]

If he expected the bodies to be found, why did he go to all the trouble of removing them in the first place?

I don't understand this.

He was trying to put them somewhere that wouldn’t fit where he exited the area… I thought.

 

[josephine666]

If he expected the bodies to be found, why did he go to all the trouble of removing them in the first place?

I don't understand this.

Same. No follow up questions about WHY he moved the bodies. It was an opportunity to spell out to the jury that he moved them because they held evidence about cause of death, which is the only logical reason for taking such a risk.

 

[Sir_Loin]

If he expected them to be found and he wasn't bothered about it, it wasn't necessary for him to go back twice to further tamper with them.

Exactly. This ****ing guy. If it wasn’t for covid he would have gone back sooner.

I still can’t believe he took the stand. Only reason is he and his legal representatives know it’s a long shot anyway just roll the dice. IMO.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Same. No follow up questions about WHY he moved the bodies. It was an opportunity to spell out to the jury that he moved them because they held evidence about cause of death, which is the only logical reason for taking such a risk.

The facts speak for themselves. Don’t need to labour the point.

TBH I’ve been impressed by the crown’s approach. Sometimes the less said the better.

 

[Terrafirma]

So from all reports or some it was a good day for the prosecution

The facts speak for themselves. Don’t need to labour the point.

TBH I’ve been impressed by the crown’s approach. Sometimes the less said the better.

Yeah good point re somtimes the less said the better

 

[josephine666]

The facts speak for themselves. Don’t need to labour the point.

TBH I’ve been impressed by the crown’s approach. Sometimes the less said the better.

Well, I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but there have been a lot of points made by others in this thread that I hadn't thought of myself. Sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious.

I'm not criticising the crown's approach because I've only had the media to provide bits and pieces. Just concerned is all.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Well, I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but there have been a lot of points made by others in this thread that I hadn't thought of myself. Sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious.

I'm not criticising the crown's approach because I've only had the media to provide bits and pieces. Just concerned is all.

Not necessarily for the jury. Don’t forget there was a lengthy committal process so what has been admitted as evidence has been thoroughly tested.

Summation next week. That’ll be it’s own rodeo.

 

[craffles]

Disaster for the prosecution, have done nowhere near enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Lynn murdered both. It’s important that all remember the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defence.

Where this gets spicy is the interpretation of law and legal definitions behind charges like murder and manslaughter. The judges directions to the Jury will be very telling and no doubt this trial will be a Landmark one in case law and studied by legal students for decades to come.

 

[Kurve]

It's going to be tough for the jury too to find unanimous decisiona with the options of murder and manslaughter available, for two individuals.

I hope it doesn't but it might even end up hung on one or both.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Puritans pop up every 2nd page in this thread to "remind" us of the burden of proof, as if it's a newsflash.

So, in turn, it's only fair to remind some of you this isn't a Hollywood movie. It's not spicy. The prosecution doesn't need to make some grand spectacle and trick the killer into confessing on the witness stand.

 

[Lady O]

It's going to be tough for the jury too to find unanimous decisiona with the options of murder and manslaughter available, for two individuals.

I hope it doesn't but it might even end up hung on one or both.

He had motive, means and opportunity.

He admits deliberately destroying all evidence so he could escape detection.

He admits destroying the victims' remains when he became a suspect.

A jury should not reward him by acquitting him on the basis of his thoroughness in attempting to elude conviction.

 

[Ballarat Bob]

Saying that when he revisited the bodies there was no sign of animals interfering with the bodies suggests he had no intention of the bodies being found and he had in fact done his best to hide the bodies in either a grave or put enough logs rocks etc on top of them for no animal to access them.
The burning of the bodies , if they were still in a state of decomposition there is no way he is going to generate enough heat by just torching some sticks and logs on top of the bodies and adding to them through the night. He would need to get a serious fire going then put the bodies on top and and manage the fire all night. There would have to have been some serious pre work into working out just how hot he would have to get the fire going to get the bodies to charred bones.
Not convinced that the prosecution has let it's self down they will rightly focus on GL actions after the event. GL has destroyed the evidence in the most cold and calculating way and made up a story that he can hide behind imo.
Going to be interesting to see the judges directions though not sure on murder but manslaughter seems more likely.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Not sure they needed to. You only need to disbelieve some of his evidence to debunk the whole story IMO.

For example, if you don't believe Hill stole the gun, you believe NONE of his story.

Not really. The burden is on the prosecution to prove how they died and i dont think the prosecutor has.

 

[GladdyDee]

Exactly. This ****ing guy. If it wasn’t for covid he would have gone back sooner.

I still can’t believe he took the stand. Only reason is he and his legal representatives know it’s a long shot anyway just roll the dice. IMO.

The only witness not wanting to take the stand is fishier pile of fish - which is why he had to appear in the eyes of the defence IMO