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.'

 

[justallyone]

I wonder if the prosecution has messed up here. Was the guy line brought in as evidence at any point prior to their closing argument? I don’t remember reading anything about it prior.

DP definitely mentioned the guy rope to GL on the stand. He said it didn’t pose a problem and RH might haved lifted it. Mmm…

 

[FrankGrimes]

For me their lack of explanation how & why RH was murdered is a big mistake on their part.

If they convince the jury of this then it becomes more logical that GL ended CC as a witness to his crime.

From the evidence available IMO CC's death is more likely to have occured before RH was killed then after.

The issue is they don’t actually know how he died, it’s prob more a legal thing..

 

[Lady O]

The issue is they don’t actually know how he died, it’s prob more a legal thing..

Nor do they know why. They can only guess at a reason, from what GL said, but that's relying on him to tell the truth.

 

[GladdyDee]

‘Complete factual vacuum’: Scathing closing arguments in alleged camper killer trial

Defence lawyers for the man accused of murdering two campers in Victoria's High Country have attempted to tear apart the prosecution's case, arguing the retirees' deaths were tragic accidents.

www.abc.net.au

Dermott Dan ""How can you find someone guilty in a complete factual vacuum?". Wow, I can't believe he said this, considering it is his client who is responsible for destroying the evidence that left the factual vacuum including the bodies of Hill & Clay

You cant have it both ways. If its a factual vacuum then GLs numbered list of ‘factoids’ are as useless as handleless teapot. Pity his client put a dustpan to ‘sweep’ up the evidence. Emotional vacuum is how it looks. IMO

 

[Spectrix]

The issue is they don’t actually know how he died, it’s prob more a legal thing..

They don't know how or why he died. They think he died first, and that it was murder. It may have been murder, or it may have been an accident or manslaughter due to an argument between the pair getting out of control. Only Lynn knows.

It's not possible to prove Lynn guilty of murder for Hills death in particular.

 

[GrayRanga]

Just random thoughts

The jury knows 2 people died (or at least partial remains found)

We know that one, Clay, was hit a close range by a shotgun slug. We don't know how Hill died, except for Lynn's ROI.

Assume for one moment that the ROI is vaguely true, this was the result of an altercation and he died of a knife wound.

The jury may believe this was suicide (doubtful). accident (slim possibility), outright murder or as a result of Lynn's actions in self defence.


I'd suggest the jury may tend towards the latter, for without significant proof for or against, and swing towards the conclusion of guilty of manslaughter for that charge rather than murder

If the jury accepts that Clay's death was the result of Hill's death and Lynn's self admitted desire to maintain his lifestyle, I'd suggest that they may swing towards a conviction of murder for Clay as, again, Lynn admitted if they disappeared his problems would all be resolved. This desire is manifested into the extreme measures taken to destroy their bodies and the crime scenes.

Historically, the "average" person convicted of murder in Victoria served about 16 years before release. With truth in sentencing suggests a Non-Parole period of about 16 years or so and a head sentence of about 21 years for the murder charge

If Lynn is convicted of Manslaughter of Hill's death, the Judge may choose to make this sentence wholly concurrent, partially concurrent or wholly cumulative.

Now watch a Jury and Judge make a complete utter balls up of my prognostications

 

[Underarrest_]

Just random thoughts

The jury knows 2 people died (or at least partial remains found)

We know that one, Clay, was hit a close range by a shotgun slug. We don't know how Hill died, except for Lynn's ROI.

Assume for one moment that the ROI is vaguely true, this was the result of an altercation and he died of a knife wound.

The jury may believe this was suicide (doubtful). accident (slim possibility), outright murder or as a result of Lynn's actions in self defence.


I'd suggest the jury may tend towards the latter, for without significant proof for or against, and swing towards the conclusion of guilty of manslaughter for that charge rather than murder

If the jury accepts that Clay's death was the result of Hill's death and Lynn's self admitted desire to maintain his lifestyle, I'd suggest that they may swing towards a conviction of murder for Clay as, again, Lynn admitted if they disappeared his problems would all be resolved. This desire is manifested into the extreme measures taken to destroy their bodies and the crime scenes.

Historically, the "average" person convicted of murder in Victoria served about 16 years before release. With truth in sentencing suggests a Non-Parole period of about 16 years or so and a head sentence of about 21 years for the murder charge

If Lynn is convicted of Manslaughter of Hill's death, the Judge may choose to make this sentence wholly concurrent, partially concurrent or wholly cumulative.

Now watch a Jury and Judge make a complete utter balls up of my prognostications

The jury has a difficult job.
Is it possible the jury could just go for 1 count of manslaughter or murder for Ms Clay given they have the evidence that it was GL’s shotgun that killed her. Could the fact that the shotgun wasn’t secured be taken into account?

 

[nut]

GL was cross examined about the guy rope. GL first said he didn’t see it, and then said, I must have gone under it, it didn’t get in the way.

Perfectly reasonable answer… the guy rope was tied to a pop up toilet tent… it would have had very little resistance in a struggle… Hill would have easily be able to lift it with up .. it looks very loose in the photos as well, like had been stretched .. I can’t see how the guy rope proves anything.

 

[Underarrest_]

Perfectly reasonable answer… the guy rope was tied to a pop up toilet tent… it would have had very little resistance in a struggle… Hill would have easily be able to lift it with up .. it looks very loose in the photos as well, like had been stretched .. I can’t see how the guy rope proves anything.

Honestly, it’s not like a guy rope is a huge rope and would have stopped any altercation, IMO.
I did feel GL stumbled with his answers when questioned though because maybe he was caught off guard. IMO

 

[Sir_Loin]

Honestly, it’s not like a guy rope is a huge rope and would have stopped any altercation, IMO.
I did feel GL stumbled with his answers when questioned though because maybe he was caught off guard. IMO

Wasn’t put to him in his police interview apparently which is why DD got his knickers in a twist over it

 

[MiguelM]

Wasn’t put to him in his police interview apparently which is why DD got his knickers in a twist over it

So he didn't get the chance to rehearse his answer.

 

[GladdyDee]

DD has very poor choice of words at times - no meat on the bones!

In fact, there’s no bones to pick

 

[Terrafirma]

So he didn't get the chance to rehearse his answer.

EXactly

 

[theouthouse]

Reading between the lines of GL testimony and the crime scene this is my version of how the evening took place ad how I would create the scene if given the artistic license:

RH flying drone illegally in park. GL takes offence to this and approaches the couple telling them to not fly the drone without a permit. RH tells him to fudge off.

GL goes back to his camp and stews over this, being the doo gooder decides to take matters into his own hand later that night by stealing the drone and taking it to police to dob in RH. Cranks his music up, grabs his gun and his damascus nife is always on him.

Sneaks over to the others camp where they are retired for the night.

GL stalks up like a hunter, hides behind the driver's side of the car and susses out the camp, with his music going on in the background hiding any footsteps or noise of his approach.

He approaches the front of the ute and uses the barrel of the gun to lift the guy rope up and ducks under it in his hunters pose, gun up, creeping towards the tent or back of car where the drone is.

RH hears something, maybe a door trying to be opened to access the drone and comes to investigate seeing GL snooping around camp. RH yells at GL and 'marches' at him angrily at a great pace. GL tries to let off a shot to fend off RH but RH was on him too quickly so the shot goes nowhere significant. Tussell ensures, possibly with both holding the gun, and possibly breaking the side mirror off. GL in close combat, releases his grip on the gun and gets his knife, flashes of silver in the night catch GLs eyes as he stabs RH a few times.

RH falls back debilitated and wounded but not dead. GL goes to take his gun off RH. During this time CC has come out hearing the gun blast or the yelling and is trying to stay out the way but when sees RH wounded starts yelling at RH to see if he's OK, thinking GL is going in to kill him begs GL to stop.

GL notices her and kills her. He then goes back to RH, who rolls him over onto his back, drool running out of RH mouth in shock and GL finishes him off with the last shot.

Rest is as GL admits.

IMO only.

 

[champagnegirl]

DD has very poor choice of words at times - no meat on the bones!

In fact, there’s no bones to pick

I too thought that was a very insensitive comparison given that the families of all three parties involved were present. A bit of empathy wouldn't have gone astray.

 

[Underarrest_]

So he didn't get the chance to rehearse his answer.

It will be interesting to see how much weight his answers to this line of questioning has.

 

[FromOldFitzroy]

They don't know how or why he died. They think he died first, and that it was murder. It may have been murder, or it may have been an accident or manslaughter due to an argument between the pair getting out of control. Only Lynn knows.

It's not possible to prove Lynn guilty of murder for Hills death in particular.

What about cases where there’s no body, like Lyn Dawson and Bob Chappell.
The defendants were still found guilty.
In my opinion it’s on the balance of probabilities.
It’s most unlikely that 2 people accidentally died within a very short period of time in that very small space.
The defendant has removed all means of proving accidental death when he should have preserved the scene if that were the case.

 

[Awakening]

I too thought that was a very insensitive comparison given that the families of all three parties involved were present. A bit of empathy wouldn't have gone astray.

Defence lawyers are immune from empathy

 

[Terrafirma]

What about cases where there’s no body, like Lyn Dawson and Bob Chappell.
The defendants were still found guilty.
In my opinion it’s on the balance of probabilities.
It’s most unlikely that 2 people accidentally died within a very short period of time in that very small space.
The defendant has removed all means of proving accidental death when he should have preserved the scene if that were the case.

The Dawson similarities are there it seems to me many people dont know about the Dawson case

 

[Sir_Loin]

What about cases where there’s no body, like Lyn Dawson and Bob Chappell.
The defendants were still found guilty.
In my opinion it’s on the balance of probabilities.
It’s most unlikely that 2 people accidentally died within a very short period of time in that very small space.
The defendant has removed all means of proving accidental death when he should have preserved the scene if that were the case.

It’s not a balance of probabilities, that’s civil law. But I get what you’re saying.

Just a snap shot of the relevant points of law what needs to be proven to convict on a murder/manslaughter charge.

Murder and Manslaughter Offences | Galbally & O’Bryan Lawyers, Melbourne

In Victoria, there are different offences that relate to the unlawful killing of another person. These include murder and manslaughter. If you or someone you know has been charged with one of these offences, it is imperative to seek legal advice. Contact our Galbally & O'Bryan's team of expert...

www.galballyobryan.com.au

 

[FrankGrimes]

They don't know how or why he died. They think he died first, and that it was murder. It may have been murder, or it may have been an accident or manslaughter due to an argument between the pair getting out of control. Only Lynn knows.

It's not possible to prove Lynn guilty of murder for Hills death in particular.

I still think it’s more then possible based on them putting holes in his bs story, logic tells you it wasn’t an accident, unsure about the legal side.

 

[GardenGnome]

I did feel GL stumbled with his answers when questioned though because maybe he was caught off guard. IMO

You mean because it wasn’t part of his script

 

[justallyone]

Perfectly reasonable answer… the guy rope was tied to a pop up toilet tent… it would have had very little resistance in a struggle… Hill would have easily be able to lift it with up .. it looks very loose in the photos as well, like had been stretched .. I can’t see how the guy rope proves anything.

Surely RH didn’t lift up the rope and say “here GL, come on through” mid wrestle?

 

[GardenGnome]

Reading between the lines of GL testimony and the crime scene this is my version of how the evening took place ad how I would create the scene if given the artistic license:

RH flying drone illegally in park. GL takes offence to this and approaches the couple telling them to not fly the drone without a permit. RH tells him to fudge off.

GL goes back to his camp and stews over this, being the doo gooder decides to take matters into his own hand later that night by stealing the drone and taking it to police to dob in RH. Cranks his music up, grabs his gun and his damascus nife is always on him.

Sneaks over to the others camp where they are retired for the night.

GL stalks up like a hunter, hides behind the driver's side of the car and susses out the camp, with his music going on in the background hiding any footsteps or noise of his approach.

He approaches the front of the ute and uses the barrel of the gun to lift the guy rope up and ducks under it in his hunters pose, gun up, creeping towards the tent or back of car where the drone is.

RH hears something, maybe a door trying to be opened to access the drone and comes to investigate seeing GL snooping around camp. RH yells at GL and 'marches' at him angrily at a great pace. GL tries to let off a shot to fend off RH but RH was on him too quickly so the shot goes nowhere significant. Tussell ensures, possibly with both holding the gun, and possibly breaking the side mirror off. GL in close combat, releases his grip on the gun and gets his knife, flashes of silver in the night catch GLs eyes as he stabs RH a few times.

RH falls back debilitated and wounded but not dead. GL goes to take his gun off RH. During this time CC has come out hearing the gun blast or the yelling and is trying to stay out the way but when sees RH wounded starts yelling at RH to see if he's OK, thinking GL is going in to kill him begs GL to stop.

GL notices her and kills her. He then goes back to RH, who rolls him over onto his back, drool running out of RH mouth in shock and GL finishes him off with the last shot.

Rest is as GL admits.

IMO only.

Sounds logical… better “cross-check” with Greggo to make sure it “ticks all the boxes”

 

[10571z]

How did the Hotham cameras not get the rego?