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.'

 

[InagoRaida]

From all intents, it seemed on Wed, the defence were perhaps running hard, maybe a bit on the backfoot, but the boldness of Lynn on the stand as sole witness has changed game significantly..its definitely put distance between the respective stories. It was a bold bold move, a friend in Law thought it may be a touch foolish..but in hindsight, with the tempered behaviour of both Mr & Mrs on his evidence day has proven to be a bold but prudent gamble, IMO.
Certainly he was a polished witness...sadly, slicker than some of the Crown witnesses/experts.
But is it enough? The jury only has to disbelieve a few holes in his story, and place weight in the incriminating conduct aspects, and he's done. I think that part will prove to be quite emotive to jurors, regardless of how it started.
Soon, we will know !

 

[theouthouse]

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

I would think because it's really hard to load a gun with no free hands, let alone fire multiple warning shots from a shotgun, even still further on that same point to get into an even strength wrestle where RH had two hands presumably on the shotgun for him to have any control over reloading or hanging onto it.

In my mind, it just does, in no way, shape or form, fit into GLs story for RH to have taken both.

Or even for GL to have taken the other gun that he left in his wide open car with music blaring, because then he would have been armed aswell.

Takes a lot of bravado to approach a person with a loaded gun they have recently fired multiple timed while leaving another gun just sitting there. His balls must be the size of basketballs.

IMO

 

[InagoRaida]

Ps: i think i saw another BF follower in the gallery...when walking in, looked like BF page on their mobile screen
They're everywhere!
(Front row, rhs middle)

 

[Kurve]

For those of you attending court and in the gallery, you should be aware that anything discussed in the absence of the jury should not be reported on anywhere outside the court, so we need to be careful in here.

There's plenty of time to tell later on, so take notes.

For further clarity, you are all free to speak unless the material is under sub judice direction or the court is closed.

 

[Kurve]

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

Okay but you know those top silks are usually one step ahead thinking of appeal points before the trial has even started lol

 

[FrankGrimes]

It’s the small details that will get, head torch, barefoot, walked briskly etc…
He can’t just walk away without anything I hope

 

[Kurve]

It’s the small details that will get, head torch, barefoot, walked briskly etc…
He can’t just walk away without anything I hope

I'm wondering if we've misunderstood the barefoot in pyjamas element of his ROI and it was out of context or something, that it was only Clay who was barefoot.

Even Lynn must know that suggesting Hill stalked up to his camp with a headlamp on for a confrontation in bare feet is not believable. If Hill made the effort to put a headlamp on, he also put his boots on.

 

[Lady O]

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?

This to me is a critical point.

If Lynn reckons Hill took his shotgun (presumably to prevent Lynn from illegally hunting?), including the magazine, then it makes no sense for Hill to leave the other weapon.

If Hill took the shotgun to prevent Lynn threatening them, (about Hill saying he would report him) again, he also would have taken the rifle.

So if you cannot come up with a sensible reason for Hill taking Lynn's shotgun and firing shots in the air (?), then it most likely did not happen.

If you believe it did not happen, then Lynn's reason for the struggle leading to the 'accidental' shooting of Clay and the subsequent struggle resulting in the 'accidental' stabbing of Hill, is a total fabrication.

I do not believe it is the Jury's responsibility to come up with an alternative. If you do not believe Lynn's "accident" story, then they must find him guilty.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I'm wondering if we've misunderstood the barefoot in pyjamas element of his ROI and it was out of context or something, that it was only Clay who was barefoot.

Even Lynn must know that suggesting Hill stalked up to his camp with a headlamp on for a confrontation in bare feet is not believable. If Hill made the effort to put a headlamp on, he also put his boots on.

Maybe he was wearing the boots Lynn stole

 

[maggiethecat]

In the same setting (two unrelated parties in the middle of a vast open area like Wonangatta) - I doubt it. Has it ever happened previously ?

The Wonangatta mystery is a great read

 

[Zidane98]

The Wonangatta mystery is a great read

They were known to each other though. Good read!

 

[GladdyDee]

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 Coucher, 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

Incredulous he doesnt accept he missed a portion of evidence at the site (CC’s remains). Thats the nail for me. Why dispute it ? Whats there to gain esp. if it played out as he said? Pushing back because he thinks he's too clever and cutting his nose to spite his face IMO

“A lie leads a man from a grove into a jungle”

 

[InagoRaida]

For those in the court's gallery.

For further clarity, you are all free to speak unless the material is under sub judice direction or it's a closed court.

Thanks Kurve as always your moderation is considered and even! Something i've observed many times here, and in the Leering Man thread(s)! You make a tough gig look very easy!

 

[Kurve]

Thanks Kurve as always your moderation is considered and even! Something i've observed many times here, and in the Leering Man thread(s)! You make a tough gig look very easy!

Thank you, I appreciate it.

 

[InagoRaida]

Incredulous he doesnt accept he missed a portion of evidence at the site (CC’s remains). Thats the nail for me. Why dispute it ? Whats there to gain esp. if it played out as he said? Pushing back because he thinks he's too clever and cutting his nose to spite his face IMO

“A lie leads a man from a grove into a jungle”

Or makes him go back and retrieve his hat, after escaping the lion's den!

 

[10571z]

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?

How do we know he was barefooted? Sorry missed this part

 

[InagoRaida]

Okay but you know those top silks are usually one step ahead thinking of appeal points before the trial has even started lol

Yes absolutely! And Justice Croucher has mentioned in almost every discussion...even refferring and quoting from Court of Appeals rulings in this case and others...well prepped they all are indeed...
Today, Dann's counsel assisting McGrath was flat out handing him post-it nites as he was debating with the Judge. Someone made mention of them them being a very active Defense team..i whole-heartedly agree. The moment Judge quotes a passage or ruling, McGrath is onto it straight away on his laptop. Watching them work together is like dolphins in syncronicity...the intrinsicly know what the other requires of them. Subtle single or double taps on McGrath's shoulder, and hand on the arm...McGrath is right there with the requisite info.
The Prs. side maybe not as urgent, and today, the simple thing of Prs. laptop going flat during address to the judge, and a mad flurry to plug in charger did not look like Premiership form....
But who knows if little details like this matter..but i'm an observational person, i i have observed different levels of operation...
To those in the know of such things, what would Dann's daily fee likely be..given my (very good) family law barrister was 12k for one day, i'd be guessing 25-35k a day for Mr. Dann?

 

[InagoRaida]

Hi Kurve..got this directly from Vic Law Courts website...can't report anything said sub judice, 'in the absence of a jury'...

Full relevant text:::
How do I report a trial before a jury?
Reporting a trial before a jury needs care - this is the area where contempt is a particular concern.
The key rule when reporting a trial before a jury is not to report anything that is said in court in the
absence of the jury.
You are also prohibited from any contact with jurors, and must protect jury identity and
confidentiality at all times.
In summary, reporters should be extremely careful to avoid:
• Reporting anything said in the absence of the jury
• Revealing prior convictions
• Breaching any suppression orders
• Reports that imply guilt or innocence of the accused
• Reports, including interviews, that could affect witnesses
• Comments, as distinct from reports of the court case
• Confessions
• Pictures of the accused where identity is an issue
• Any contact with jurors.
If in doubt, seek legal advice.
What is a voir dire and can I report this?
There are often parts of a trial called a voir dire. The term essentially refers to oral evidence and
argument in court to decide which way a case should be conducted. The court will not be closed, and
reporters are able to stay.
You must not report anything said in the absence of the jury – including during a voir dire.
If there is anything newsworthy or interesting, it must wait until after the trial is over and there is no
longer a risk of the jury hearing material which has been excluded.
:::

I lnow this is guidelines for reporters, but i imagine similarly applys to posting in-court info in any online / public forum?

 

[Underarrest_]

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.

The only evidence they had was Frasers confession in this case.
Perfect example of someone being presumed dead when they’re alive.

 

[Percel]

Thanks Kurve as always your moderation is considered and even! Something i've observed many times here, and in the Leering Man thread(s)! You make a tough gig look very easy!

Hear hear !!

 

[10571z]

The prosecution trying to nail him being a pilot so he shouldn’t have panicked is a fairly weak argument.

 

[Underarrest_]

Just listened to the latest podcast episode.
RH tells the court how he sat there and continued to stoke the fire.
Sickening.
I can’t see any part of him even thinking that this is not normal by the way he answers the questions.
Can’t imagine being the families of the victims listening to this in court.

 

[Pamcake1]

He did actually state yesterday that was one pathway that came across his mind in the moments after the deaths...ultimately, he decided him "disappearing" was the most prudent action..

This I find interesting.
IMO If I was sitting on a jury and heard this it would shore up the thought, that he was actively cooking the books so to speak. That at all costs he must cover up what was done. That he ran scenarios through such as robbery would mean to me that he was lying about it being an unfortunate 'accidental' double killing'.
How do you swallow and make sense the dichotomy of "I want to ultimately disappear but I want to maintain everything in my life because I was in a good spot in life" to paraphrase GL.

 

[Poppy Penny]

This I find interesting.
IMO If I was sitting on a jury and heard this it would shore up the thought, that he was actively cooking the books so to speak. That at all costs he must cover up what was done. That he ran scenarios through such as robbery would mean to me that he was lying about it being an unfortunate 'accidental' double killing'.
How do you swallow and make sense the dichotomy of "I want to ultimately disappear but I want to maintain everything in my life because I was in a good spot in life" to paraphrase GL.

Absolutely sickening eh?

 

[GardenGnome]

Absolutely sickening eh?

Yes the post-behaviour is sickening. The burnout of the campsite and the abhorrent and callous destruction of the bodies including all other attempts to cover up, selling off items, painting car etc I honestly cannot believe his wife is still standing by his side?