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.'

 

[jason_recliner]

The jury isn't to know of a defendant's prior convictions as it can taint with bias, priors are to be taken in to consideration at sentencing by the judge.

That is, unless the prosecution can successfully have the judge permit as propensity or tendency evidence. This is really difficult to do in front of a jury, easier judge only trials.

It doesn't make sense. The goal of the trial is to bias the jury towards the truth. If somebody has been involved in many previous violent assaults, it's more likely true they are involved in another violent assault than somebody who's never been violent. So if the jury is not allowed to consider an extensive history of violent assaults, it might be harder for them to believe the truth that the shaved and suited man in front of them committed a violent assault.

 

[Kurve]

It doesn't make sense. The goal of the trial is to bias the jury towards the truth. If somebody has been involved in many previous violent assaults, it's more likely true they are involved in another violent assault than somebody who's never been violent. So if the jury is not allowed to consider an extensive history of violent assaults, it might be harder for them to believe the truth that the shaved and suited man in front of them committed a violent assault.

If there's been many violent assaults in the same vein, then it might have a chance at getting past the judge as propensity or tendency evidence.

If it wasn't this way, think how easy it would be to set someone up with known convictions and have them convicted for something they didn't do.

It's been like this for forever.

 

[jason_recliner]

If it wasn't this way, think how easy it would be to set someone up with known convictions and have them convicted for something they didn't do.

For sure, but how often are people being set up/framed for crimes they didn't commit? Compared to how often guilty people are walking free? I don't know, but I suspect the latter is far more common than the former.

It's been like this for forever.

"We've always done it this way" is rarely a good reason to keep doing something that way.

 

[Angry_Crow]

I'd imagine the actual truth is probably a highly unlikely chain of events that ended in tragedy that nobody would believe if it were written as a fictional story. It really sucks that GL is the only one that knows what went down and the reality is he has a very clear motive to massage the truth for his own benefit.


As the old saying goes, truth is often stranger than fiction.

Chances are what actually happened that night will be taken to Lynns grave.

I personally believe the most likely scenario is these two A type personalities have ended up in a fist fight that’s ended in RH being killed. Possibly even accidentally? Maybe during the struggle/fight after being struck by Lynn RH has fallen and hit his head awkwardly and died? Faced with that Lynn decides Carol must be disposed of? Or RH was strangling him and GL produces his knife and stabs RH. Lots of possibilities but I think the prs are correct to assume RH was killed first (who knows how/why?) and then CC executed.

 

[GrayRanga]

Can the prosecution bring up known prior convictions if it's related to the trial? I imagine this is all agreed pre trial in hearings.

Each offence is considered as a separate event. unless the Court is satisfied that they are related as a chain of events in which case each offence would probably be consolidated into the charges heard by the Court

Generally, prior offences are advised to the Judge as part of the sentencing process where recidism and "criminality" are considered to impose a sentnece.

It should be remembered that the Judge in this matter advised the jurors to only consider the evidence presented in the Court

 

[Kurve]

"We've always done it this way" is rarely a good reason to keep doing something that way.

And I've given a good reason why it's done this way.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been around for a long time as well, as a cornerstone of justice.

 

[jason_recliner]

And I've given a good reason why it's done this way.

I'm not convinced the benefits outweigh the costs/injustices. The legal system works in the interests of criminals over victims in many ways. Anyway, one for the criminology thread...

 

[Angry_Crow]

That didn't happen imo.

There's a small possibility that Lynn's music was annoying them and Hill's gone up there to get him to turn the music down and he's approached the car going too close to Lynn's guns, Lynn's reacted straight away and stabbed him with his own knife.

There's been some mention of a particular knife that Lynn uses and has on his waist at all times. I'll try and find it.

Yes he carries a Damascus knife at all times when camping. That was in the ROI. Florence and Passingham put it to him in the ROI that that was in fact the knife used to kill RH. Obviously this was denied.

 

[GrayRanga]

I'm not convinced the benefits outweigh the costs/injustices. Anyway, one for the criminology thread...

No, this matter is of concern for every person living in Australia.

You are proposing that legal precedent evolving since before the Magna Carta (Dane Law) which has become embedded into the checks and balances of modern society be tossed out to save time and money?

You are suggesting that people's people's lives and liberties be placed into the hands of arbitrary and capricious decision makers ( more than currently) to stream line Justice to save a couple of quid?

 

[GardenGnome]

Yep.

The park ranger who gave testimony about his encounter with Lynn had a discussion with him about gun permits.

But he was not specifically asked if he saw any guns or noted if they were secured.

Fire arm offences, either a breach of safe carry and storage or hunting regulations are potentially serious enough to adversely impact Federal Police good character checks.

These bi annual checks are mandated by CASA and without approval certification to operate on aircraft is automatically revoked.

Which would potentially be a career ending event.

Which, as alluded to earlier, would cause GL to be concerned enough to follow this up w RH to prevent him to reporting… there’s the motive… his aggravation gets out of control, fury gets the better of him, anger increases and well, we know the rest.

 

[jason_recliner]

No, this matter is of concern for every person living in Australia.

You are proposing that legal precedent evolving since before the Magna Carta (Dane Law) which has become embedded into the checks and balances of modern society be tossed out to save time and money?

You are suggesting that people's people's lives and liberties be placed into the hands of arbitrary and capricious decision makers ( more than currently) to stream line Justice to save a couple of quid?

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from reading my post. I think the legal system should primarily aim to achieve justice for victims and punish/deter criminals. If there are ways it can be improved, whether that includes allowing for greater consideration of criminal history during trials, and/or other initiatives/changes/proposals/improvements, they should be considered, assessed, and implemented if found likely to be effective IMO. The current system fails so many victims; that it has evolved from the magna carta is irrelevant.

 

[Thats Ambitious]

It doesn't make sense. The goal of the trial is to bias the jury towards the truth. If somebody has been involved in many previous violent assaults, it's more likely true they are involved in another violent assault than somebody who's never been violent. So if the jury is not allowed to consider an extensive history of violent assaults, it might be harder for them to believe the truth that the shaved and suited man in front of them committed a violent assault.

This is kinda the point. The reason its not allowed is because the person is not being tried on their previous actions, they are being tried on the particular charge before the Court at that time.

 

[faible]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from reading my post. I think the legal system should primarily aim to achieve justice for victims and punish/deter criminals. If there are ways it can be improved, whether that includes allowing for greater consideration of criminal history during trials, and/or other initiatives/changes/proposals/improvements, they should be considered, assessed, and implemented if found likely to be effective IMO. The current system fails so many victims; that it has evolved from the magna carta is irrelevant.

The system would fail many more victims if you removed the presumption of innocence and having a trial be based on the facts of the case. Heaps of young Aboriginal kids get locked up on spurious charges, once you've got that, every other case in the future allowing it to be introduced would likely just create a cycle of them being found guilty regardless, locking them in to bouncing in and out of prison which is common enough.

I'd rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be locked up.

Past actions are taken in to consideration at sentencing, and, - assuming Kurve is right - can be applied to be raised if relevant to the case.

 

[Run n Spread]

It doesn't make sense. The goal of the trial is to bias the jury towards the truth. If somebody has been involved in many previous violent assaults, it's more likely true they are involved in another violent assault than somebody who's never been violent. So if the jury is not allowed to consider an extensive history of violent assaults, it might be harder for them to believe the truth that the shaved and suited man in front of them committed a violent assault.

I get that but it's beyond reasonable doubt not what is likely to happen. Was the Natasha Ryan case in Qld. Where a serial killer was convicted of 2 murders + hers. Turns out she was alive all along hiding with a BF. So the jury just lumped it together. Although a SK technically a wrongful conviction on NR.
They are not being charged for previous convictions but that specific case.

 

[jason_recliner]

... if you removed the presumption of innocence...

I'm not suggesting that.

...having a trial be based on the facts of the case...

Yes, and the facts in many cases include that the accused is a multiple repeat offender.

I'd rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be locked up.

Me too, until I'm the victim of a guilty person going free!

Past actions are taken in to consideration at sentencing, and, - assuming Kurve is right - can be applied to be raised if relevant to the case.

Regardless of what can be done, what is being done is failing many, many victims of crime. I don't believe this is the best that can be done, or that this current legal system best serves the majority of people. It's not hopeless or useless, but I believe it can be improved. We've got robots on Mars for christ's sake, we can achieve pretty much anything.

 

[faible]

I'm not suggesting that.


Yes, and the facts in many cases include that the accused is a multiple repeat offender.


Me too, until I'm the victim of a guilty person going free!

They're tried on the facts of the case, not the facts of other cases.

Otherwise we'd just go 'oh yeah that kid shoplifted before, so he did it this time LOCK HIM UP'.

No system will be perfect, but this version is probably the least imperfect at balancing the rights of the accused and the accuser - remembering that there's plenty of times the accused isn't guilty.

 

[GardenGnome]

I still do not believe for one minute a bare footed RH goes to lynn's unlocked vehicle and takes the shotgun, then chooses the correct magazine for that gun, leaving a rifle and another magazine in the vehicle, if you are taking someone's gun you would have to know you would piss them off, is anybody really going to do this?

Yes, good point… why would he not take BOTH guns

 

[GrayRanga]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from reading my post. I think the legal system should primarily aim to achieve justice for victims and punish/deter criminals. If there are ways it can be improved, whether that includes allowing for greater consideration of criminal history during trials, and/or other initiatives/changes/proposals/improvements, they should be considered, assessed, and implemented if found likely to be effective IMO. The current system fails so many victims; that it has evolved from the magna carta is irrelevant.

The legal system is not primarily in seeking "Justice" (whatever that means).

it is about ensuring that persons breaching the laws of the land, legislated into force by our duly elected Parliamentary representatives (and having received Royal Assent) are held to account in an independent arm of Government; the Judiciary.

If they are found guilty of breaching the law, the Judiciary can impose punishment, based on the aforesaid Legislation and that may be tempered with justice by taking into considerstion factors that impinging upon it, which are based of precedent of previous court decisions.

Now, what changes to the established system to you envisage to bring "Justice" to the victims, whilst ensuring that the convicted lawbreaker also receive a eqitable outcome within the parameters set down by law?

Changes to the Australian Constitution or the Letters Patent of each State?

None of the Founding Documents of this nation, include the concept of "Justice" that I'm aware of.

 

[10571z]

Agree, this doesn't seem likely. It also seems utterly unlikely that GL would simply kill an elderly couple over a disagreement. That also seems completely implausible. Nothing makes sense with this case at all, why would 2 different parties completely unknown to each other even get into a confrontation in remote Wonnangatta where there's often kilometers between campers enjoying the serenity of the place?

I'd imagine the actual truth is probably a highly unlikely chain of events that ended in tragedy that nobody would believe if it were written as a fictional story. It really sucks that GL is the only one that knows what went down and the reality is he has a very clear motive to massage the truth for his own benefit.


As the old saying goes, truth is often stranger than fiction.

I agree. As implausible as the story sounds the other story of he decided to go to the high country and murder 2 people makes just as much sense.

There isnt an obvious answer to what really happened.

 

[jason_recliner]

... what changes to the established system to you envisage to bring "Justice" to the victims, whilst ensuring that the convicted lawbreaker also receive a eqitable outcome within the parameters set down by law?

I've suggested one possibility, above. I believe strongly in the value of review, adaptive management and continuous improvement. No doubt there are many more improvements that can be made if the will is there, however...

 

[InagoRaida]

You’re back! I was worried murdery stuff had done murdery stuff to you.

Haha..life got in the way...catching up on all the work time i've taken off in recent weeks!
After half a day of legal arguments, somewhat concillatory...in the absence of the jury...all i can say is it has become clearer, yet murkier. Defence counsel Dann has an incredible talent for bracketing and drawing boundaries around ambiguous or contentious items, and the directions to the Jury. His depth of knowledge of the Law, his quick wit, and adroit summation of any point is very impressive to watch, regardless of what bad or otherwise opinion i hold of the defendant. The old idiom of selling ice to eskimos holds true for Mr. Dann I expect. Especially as i came across him on the footpath on my way to court, and he and collaegue McGrath were intently discussing the case and the elements required for Murder...talk about synchronicity!
After feeling quite certain yesterday, the legal arguments today leave me much less so. The Law is so clear yet so ambiguous. Tuesday will be very telling indeed.
I took lots of notice today, made some notes, but its all silent until at least deliberation conclude I would think.
Summations Tuesday 10:15 with a jury fresh from a long long weekend!
It is coming to a close, but i think a definitive outcome in this case is very difficult to predict.

 

[Kurve]

Especially as i came across him on the footpath on my way to court, and he and collaegue McGrath were intently discussing the case and the elements required for Murder...talk about synchronicity!

Oooooh they're thinking on the potential for murder conviction/s.

 

[Spectrix]

There have been multiple references in this thread to the possibility of manslaughter on one or more of the charges in the case. Is that actually something that is on the table? I can't see any references to it in the media.

 

[InagoRaida]

I truly think a large part of issue is the Crown case being him killing Hill, first, Carol second...the reverse of the defence. That it going to affect how people of the jury fall...Lynn seems to be adamant it is accident(Clay) self defence(Hill)...but the Crown insist the other way around, Hill first (unknown cause), Clay 2nd(Mudered because witness to Hill death).
This makes seeing the cases as two seperate entities as difficult, as the sequence one believes actually happened Lynn or Crown) affects the direct culpability of the defendeant. Likewise, Dann was at pains yesterday to point out that the defence want to make clear to the jury that "two accidents" can indeed happen, and it is not per "lightening doesnt strike same place twice" type analogy. Dann was very strong on this yesterday. I think he has very correctly deduced this will be influential on how the jury process their deliberations...once, oh no, unlicky two dead...he's unlukiest guy in the world scneario. I'm sure this is not satisfactorily resolved yet....summations will be VERY interesting.
The hurdle the Crown must jump which such littke evidence is quite immense...they only really have the gun fragment that confirms Carol's method of death (despite Lynn yesterday alluding to the fact it may have been 'placed' there!!!), the phone ping/camera, and then the many "incriminitating conduct" offences conducted, and concurred by Lynn, post Hill/Clay deaths. That list of incriminating conduct grew to include changing colour of, and disposing of (selliing?) Trailer yesterday, in the timeframe AFTER he knew that police we aware of his route home.(that evidence by Lynn yesterday is also proving troublesome).
So really, the crux of the Crown case is we dont know how he did it, nor why or what order, but all the actions post strongly incriminate him as a man concealing a Murder (or two)..
In My Opinion.
But if the incriminating conduct of destruction of evidence and remains is sufficient for one murder (say, Clay), it must mean it is true for both? This os the difficulty presented by treating seperate/in unity. @GreyRanga please jump in here with your learned understanding please!
The whole evolution of this case and trial has been truly fascinating, but i hope something we will not see a repeat of anytime soon.
It truly is a true test of the minds of Justice Croucher, against those of consel on both sides. It truly is a sparring match, yet so surprisingly concillatory as the weave through the entanglements of law and precedent. Feel quite honoured to have been able to watch thus far

 

[InagoRaida]

Kurve, i think it was more likely the opposite possibility that Manslaughter would not apply.. purely IMO, and from my own observations.

Oooooh they're thinking on the potential for murder conviction/s.