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.'

 

[Terrafirma]

Each charge is considered on it's own merits even though both deaths occurred in seeminly one train of events

The jury doesn't know how Hill died ... heart attack, (they know he had a dicky heart and was using viagra), knife wound, gunshot or blunt weapon?

They don't know so a reasonable juror may determine a finding of not guilty on that charge.

Clay they do know how she died, a shotgun slug to the head.

That implies an outside agency pulling the trigger. Lynn says it wasn't him but the jury may form a reasonable doubt to his testimony.

Aquittal on Hill but Guilty for Clay?

100% this is what Im hoping for

 

[Zidane98]

Each charge is considered on it's own merits even though both deaths occurred in seeminly one train of events

The jury doesn't know how Hill died ... heart attack, (they know he had a dicky heart and was using viagra), knife wound, gunshot or blunt weapon?

They don't know so a reasonable juror may determine a finding of not guilty on that charge.

Clay they do know how she died, a shotgun slug to the head.

That implies an outside agency pulling the trigger. Lynn says it wasn't him but the jury may form a reasonable doubt to his testimony.

Aquittal on Hill but Guilty for Clay?

Big problem with this is the sequence of events. For me it's unfeasible CC simply stood around and watch RH be killed in an altercation. Either she would have fled in terror in their vehicle or called for help on the radio. I guess that's why prosecution argues RH was killed first because there isn't a viable case for murder if RH was killed after CC.

If the jury don't buy that and accept CC was killed first I reckon they are going to find him not guilty.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Provocation is a partial defence to murder. If it is successfully raised, the accused will be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

Surely, the whole case centred on a dispute leading to GL being provoked which led to their deaths.

 

[Lady O]

Thank you InagoRaida for providing that information. I found this Age article that has has a marked-up aerial photo, but it is still very hard to make head nor tail of the drawn items by Lynn, especially with other vehicles and tents included.

Lynn answered 1200 police questions, told no lies: defence

The prosecutor has asked the jury to reject as “fiction” accused killer Gregory Lynn’s claim the deaths were accidental.

www.theage.com.au

Am I correct to assume this is the only marked-up aerial view of the campsite and there is nothing with accurate mark-ups that include measurements or north point? Trying to work out where the sunset would have caste shadows.

View attachment 2018437

I have found some of the times:

Lynn arrived on 19/3/2020
Hill and Clay arrived at the camp site at around 3:00pm on 20/3/2020
Victoria Parks and Wildlife ranger spotted drone overhead in Wonnangatta Valley at approx. 5:00pm on 20/3/2010. I wonder where he was positioned at the time - the valley is very expansive place! Was this Hill flying his drone to spot Lynn?
Hill made a high-frequency radio call to a friend at 6:00pm which lasted 40 minutes. Did he mention concerns about someone shooting nearby?
What time did Lynn return to campsite?
Sunset at 7:24pm on 20/3/2020. Shooting only permitted between 7:15am and 1/2 hour before sunset.

I know nothing about guns so ask contributors the following; how far from a camping ground would you be permitted to hunt deer and in doing so, fire a Barathrum Arms 12 gauge shotgun?

It was stated at the trial that Hill & Clay arrived on the 19th.

 

[Angry_Crow]

If it hadn't been blown away by a shotgun!

Nah he fell on a kitchen knife/ clean kill through the heart.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Provocation is a partial defence to murder. If it is successfully raised, the accused will be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

Surely, the whole case centred on a dispute leading to GL being provoked which led to their deaths.

Provocation hasn’t been allowed as a defence in Victoria since around 2005 if I remember correctly.

 

[Terrafirma]

Big problem with this is the sequence of events. For me it's unfeasible CC simply stood around and watch RH be killed in an altercation. Either she would have fled in terror in their vehicle or called for help on the radio. I guess that's why prosecution argues RH was killed first because there isn't a viable case for murder if RH was killed after CC.

If the jury don't buy that and accept CC was killed first I reckon they are going to find him not guilty.

I disagree nobody other than Lynn knows how quickly Hill died. Why was Clay crouched near the car door? Ee simply dont know what Clay did in the seconds prior to her death IMO

 

[GrayRanga]

Provocation hasn’t been allowed as a defence in Victoria since around 2005 if I remember correctly.

I was up to typing 2005 and you posted

 

[Underarrest_]

She didnt die by suicide ss such it was deemed accidental drugs alcohol etc then the elements outside. There was a coroners enquiry. Her relatives said she didnt drink nor do drugs they disputed this from memory. The conclusion was she struggled to deal with Lynn ending the marriage or something of that nature from memory

That’s ok, I don’t know the details.
I was more saying that if GL was there when his former wife died, he would have seen one dead person. He could have even seen a parent who’d died.
Thank you though. I’ll edit my post accordingly.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I was up to typing 2005 and you posted

Could be wrong but I think the reforms pushed through were partially related to the James Ramage case

 

[Lady O]

It was extreme post death act - but didnt make the dead any deader, so in relation a murder conviction dont get carried away with just that part, is how Im reading it , that’s on the first read. Telling them to stick with what all the evidence adds up to rather than just rely on that act as a fait d,accompli. IMO but its not totally clear to the layman. So messed up actually.

It would be hard to interpret the reason for him turning two people into ashes as anything other than to avoid a murder charge.

 

[Zidane98]

I disagree nobody other than Lynn knows how quickly Hill died. Why was Clay crouched near the car door? Ee simply dont know what Clay did in the seconds prior to her death IMO

Nobody knows why exactly. We do know that the mirror was destoyed by the shotgun and that she was under the canopy when she was killed from the dna evidence. That means wherever the shot came from must of come from the front of the vehicle. to destory the mirror and kill CC under the canopy. For me those physical circumstances don't exactly match what someone would do if they were killing with murderous intent. Why not drag CC away from the vehicle and kill her elsewhere away from their campsite if intent is murderous? There's a river nearby, if you want to eliminate someone as a witness makes sense to end them in the river where their blood washes away. Killing her next to the vehicle left DNA from blood / fat all over the underside of the canopy - some pretty clear evidence that she was killed there.

For me, crouching near the vehicle is exactly what someone would do if there was a physical altercation nearby that had you in fear. I really do believe CC was killed during a confrontation, just not sure I buy GL's story how it went down.

 

[captain cotch 9]

100% this is what Im hoping for

no offence but why are you so strong on him being guilty?

 

[Angry_Crow]

It would be hard to interpret the reason for him turning two people into ashes as anything other than to avoid a murder charge.

Surely, surely surely - commonsense will prevail and this will be the final conclusion.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Jury is being asked to not make a “moral” judgement. They’re being asked to evaluate the actions in the context of the full weight of fact and evidence. i.e don’t let emotion or moral outrage cloud your judgement. Perfectly reasonable jury direction IMO.

Except they won’t

 

[nut]

The prosecution have stuffed this up IMO.

 

[Lady O]

Nobody knows why exactly. We do know that the mirror was destoyed by the shotgun and that she was under the canopy when she was killed from the dna evidence. That means wherever the shot came from must of come from the front of the vehicle. to destory the mirror and kill CC under the canopy. For me those physical circumstances don't exactly match what someone would do if they were killing with murderous intent. Why not drag CC away from the vehicle and kill her elsewhere away from their campsite if intent is murderous? There's a river nearby, if you want to eliminate someone as a witness makes sense to end them in the river where their blood washes away. Killing her next to the vehicle left DNA from blood / fat all over the underside of the canopy - some pretty clear evidence that she was killed there.

For me, crouching near the vehicle is exactly what someone would do if there was a physical altercation nearby that had you in fear. I really do believe CC was killed during a confrontation, just not sure I buy GL's story how it went down.

Even if it has been proven (and I'm not sure it has) that a shogun slug smashed the passenger side wing mirror, it doesn't prove that this was the same slug that killed Clay. There was apparently multiple shots fired (said by Lynn to have been when Hill was in command of the gun), but we only have his word that. He could have fired multiple shots at Clay, or Hill.

 

[LeChatNoir]

I'm somewhat relieved that manslaughter if off the table. This makes it a lot easier for the jury to come to a decision.

I think that was a great move by a Justice Croucher to take manslaughter off the table and in no way implying that Lynn is innocent.

Like most people on this forum we see Lynn for what he is, and even so, there has probably been a 50-50 split of us thinking he’ll get manslaughter. Entertaining the real possibility that he would get manslaughter really pissed me off.

Now, the jury’s job is a lot simpler:

1. Greg Lynn murdered Russell Hill and Carol Clay, or

2. Greg Lynn did not murder Russell Hill and Carol Clay

End of the day, there are two dead people that did not die by accident. So either Lynn killed them or he did not.

Or am I missing something? Please, please don't tell me I'm missing something.

 

[captain cotch 9]

I'm somewhat relieved that manslaughter if off the table. This makes it a lot easier for the jury to come to a decision.

I think that was a great move by a Justice Croucher to take manslaughter off the table and in no way implying that Lynn is innocent.

Like most people on this forum we see Lynn for what he is, and even so, there has probably been a 50-50 split of us thinking he’ll get manslaughter. Entertaining the real possibility that he would get manslaughter really pissed me off.

Now, the jury’s job is a lot simpler:

1. Greg Lynn murdered Russell Hill and Carol Clay, or

2. Greg Lynn did not murder Russell Hill and Carol Clay

End of the day, there are two dead people that did not die by accident. So either Lynn killed them or he did not.

Or am I missing something? Please, please don't tell me I'm missing something.

can someone explain in lamemans terms why manslaughter has been taken off the table?

 

[nut]

I believe Greg Lynn’s actions led to the deaths of Hill and Clay…
It was his gun and he was at Hills campsite.
Why is manslaughter off the table?

So all hit and runs with a car are now either murder or not?

 

[Sir_Loin]

I'm somewhat relieved that manslaughter if off the table. This makes it a lot easier for the jury to come to a decision.

I think that was a great move by a Justice Croucher to take manslaughter off the table and in no way implying that Lynn is innocent.

Like most people on this forum we see Lynn for what he is, and even so, there has probably been a 50-50 split of us thinking he’ll get manslaughter. Entertaining the real possibility that he would get manslaughter really pissed me off.

Now, the jury’s job is a lot simpler:

1. Greg Lynn murdered Russell Hill and Carol Clay, or

2. Greg Lynn did not murder Russell Hill and Carol Clay

End of the day, there are two dead people that did not die by accident. So either Lynn killed them or he did not.

Or am I missing something? Please, please don't tell me I'm missing something.

Or he murdered one and not the other.

 

[Sir_Loin]

can someone explain in lamemans terms why manslaughter has been taken off the table?

I believe Greg Lynn’s actions led to the deaths of Hill and Clay…
It was his gun and he was at Hills campsite.
Why is manslaughter off the table?

So all hit and runs with a car are now either murder or not?

Comes down to intent. Did GL kill them with murderous intent? There’s other prongs to reach a guilty verdict generally speaking but the one the crown went with in this case was murderous intent.

If there was no intent then he’s not culpable for their deaths.

 

[MiguelM]

Or he murdered one and not the other.

That is what I was hoping, that is an option yeah?

So with the tampering of evidence he has admitted guilt so can still be sentenced on that even though the jury don't need to deliberate on it?

 

[GladdyDee]

On the ABC site, it reports there so many things the jury has been directed to ignore, surprised they havent been asked to turn a blind eye to GL being with Jetstar

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I'm somewhat relieved that manslaughter if off the table. This makes it a lot easier for the jury to come to a decision.

I think that was a great move by a Justice Croucher to take manslaughter off the table and in no way implying that Lynn is innocent.

Like most people on this forum we see Lynn for what he is, and even so, there has probably been a 50-50 split of us thinking he’ll get manslaughter. Entertaining the real possibility that he would get manslaughter really pissed me off.

Now, the jury’s job is a lot simpler:

1. Greg Lynn murdered Russell Hill and Carol Clay, or

2. Greg Lynn did not murder Russell Hill and Carol Clay

End of the day, there are two dead people that did not die by accident. So either Lynn killed them or he did not.

Or am I missing something? Please, please don't tell me I'm missing something.

I think it was closer to 100% thinking manslaughter.
There is a third choice:
3. GL Killed RH and not CC, or the other way round.
What you're missing is that Victoria may have got rid of provocation 20 years ago and that law to me would have fitted this situation very well.