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.'

 

[Sir_Loin]

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?

I actually haven’t seen the charging sheet and whether those charges are before this court. Someone else might know about this. I think he might have already pleaded guilty. Sentencing might be wrapped up in this proceeding but I’m guessing.

But yes two counts of murder

 

[jason_recliner]

We do know that the mirror was destoyed by the shotgun...

No, we don't know that. That is Lynn's story.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I am astounded by this:
"The breach arose from Mr Porceddu's failure to directly put to Mr Lynn that he covered up the campers' deaths because he believed he'd committed murder in cross-examination."
The prosecution didn't even put that question to the accused. WTF!!! What an absolute stuff up this trial has been.

 

[Lady O]

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

"This subsequent behaviour, if committed in the belief that he had murdered Mr Hill and Mrs Clay, is conduct the law calls incriminating conduct," the judge explained in summing up the prosecution case on Thursday.
[snip]
The judge said that included ignoring any "great sympathy" they may naturally feel for the deceased lovers or their loved ones, any belief their secret affair was "morally wrong" or any feeling that Mr Lynn's behaviour in covering up their deaths was "terrible".

"You must weigh the evidence logically and with an open mind, and not according to your passions or feelings or personal judgements about what is morally acceptable or morally unacceptable," the judge said.

"Your function and your duty is to use your heads, not your hearts."

Judge says deaths of Carol Clay and Russell Hill cannot be ruled manslaughter in Greg Lynn trial

Judge Michael Croucher tells the jury that the only charges to be considered are the alleged murders of two Victorian campers, Carol Clay and Russell Hill.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Dirh Semaj]

I am astounded by this:
"The breach arose from Mr Porceddu's failure to directly put to Mr Lynn that he covered up the campers' deaths because he believed he'd committed murder in cross-examination."
The prosecution didn't even put that question to the accused. WTF!!! What an absolute stuff up this trial has been.

I honestly don't believe the prosecution relies on Lynn’s testimony...except the guy rope question put to him.

Perhaps an inconsequential oversight by the prosecution.

 

[GrayRanga]

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

Actually, it goes back to the death of Vicky Cleary, sister of Phil Cleary.

Her murderer was aquitted of her murder on the grounds of provocation and convicted of manslaugher instead

if I remember correctly, the perceived injustice drove Phil Cleary into Politics where he used his position to lobby for changes to the Crimes Act

 

[Terrafirma]

This explains it.

The alternative charge of manslaughter had been mentioned to jurors at the outset of the weeks-long double murder trial.

But as Justice Michael Croucher's summing-up of the case began in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, he told jurors the circumstances of the case meant that if they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the murder charges, "any verdict of manslaughter in the alternative would be wrong".

"The only charges before you are murder, and it's for you to determine whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Russell] Hill and whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Carol] Clay," the judge said.T

 

[Sir_Loin]

Actually, it goes back to the death of Vicky Cleary, sister of Phil Cleary.

Her murderer was aquitted of her murder on the grounds of provocation and convicted of manslaugher instead

if I remember correctly, the perceived injustice drove Phil Cleary into Politics where he used his position to lobby for changes to the Crimes Act

Yeah I remember that. I think when I said “partially” in reference to Ramage I remember the outrage that he was able to claim that defence given the circumstances of the case. Was definitely one mentioned at the time as one of a litany of cases where it was an outrageous use of the law.

 

[Terrafirma]

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

Because I don't believe his version of events. Have you read them in totality? For example RH goes to Lynn's car in the dark in his PJ's, barefooted and takes Lynn's loaded shotgun. He leaves Lynn's rifle in the vehicle. He then loads the shotgun in the dark and fires a shot or shots off into the night sky. Why take the shotgun to disarm someone but leave his rifle? There are many of these that I consider outlandish, far fetched and simply not true. No offence taken but I must say are you suggesting he is innocent and you would believe the above? Just sayin..

captain cotch 9 said:
can someone explain in lamemans terms why manslaughter has been taken off the table?

The alternative charge of manslaughter had been mentioned to jurors at the outset of the weeks-long double murder trial.

But as Justice Michael Croucher's summing-up of the case began in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, he told jurors the circumstances of the case meant that if they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the murder charges, "any verdict of manslaughter in the alternative would be wrong".

"The only charges before you are murder, and it's for you to determine whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Russell] Hill and whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Carol] Clay," the judge said.

Hope that helps.

 

[GardenGnome]

Yeah this makes sense. Im also of the belief much of this would have been outlined in the pre trial hearings and commital. There MUST have been enough evidence to support MURDER otherwise the trial would NOT have proceeded

I’m thinking there’s a whole lot more evidence that has been deemed inadmissible. And had to be scrapped.

Remember much earlier on, the reporting of explosive evidence that DD sought to have excluded.

It’s reported there were more than 3,000 separate conversations captured by surveillance devices placed in his home, phone and vehicle.

He had a habit of talking to himself while driving in his vehicle. It’s more than likely he would have used these GL:GL drive-time opportunities to discuss with himself how things went down that night.

He would have been re-hashing details, playing if-only scenarios and all manner of other things.

We all agree he had plenty of time to rehearse and finesse his version of events, so I’m proposing that this fantabulous story is a product of these drive time chats.

I’ve not heard any mention of these recordings being submitted as evidence.

The burning question is… was he also using these chats as a mobile confession-booth?

And will these tapes or transcripts ever he released?

 

[Zidane98]

This explains it.

The alternative charge of manslaughter had been mentioned to jurors at the outset of the weeks-long double murder trial.

But as Justice Michael Croucher's summing-up of the case began in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, he told jurors the circumstances of the case meant that if they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the murder charges, "any verdict of manslaughter in the alternative would be wrong".

"The only charges before you are murder, and it's for you to determine whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Russell] Hill and whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Carol] Clay," the judge said.T

Does this mean DPP can prosecute for manslaughter separately if GL walks in that case?

No matter what the result he must surely be in front of a judge on sentencing for destruction of evidence post verdict also.

 

[InagoRaida]

Gee Croucher’s story is inspiring. Dropped out of school at 15. Ends up taking silk before going to the bench. Love it.

Yep loved it when i read it a start of trial..broad life experience! Lucky for us, and the Justice system, the MotoX gig didn't work out!

 

[Terrafirma]

Really does sound like the Prosecution stuffed up big time here. Is it enough of a stuff up to see him walk away from murder charges? Lynn walking away from murder scott free (Other than the lesser offences) would be a huge fail IMO.

Justice Croucher's instructions to jurors went into painstaking detail on Thursday as the judge explained various legal issues in the case, as well as the thresholds required to return a guilty verdict for murder.

As his address continued over the course of several hours, the judge took issue with at least two of the questions prosecutors asked of Mr Lynn when they cross-examined him on evidence he gave last week.

"There was simply no evidentiary basis for asking those questions and they should never have been asked," the judge said of the questions, which related to Mr Lynn's alleged shotgun use on the night of the campers' deaths.

The judge told jurors to ignore those questions.

They were also instructed they could more readily reject some parts of the prosecution argument because of what Justice Croucher called a "breach of the basic rules of fairness".

The breach arose from Mr Porceddu's failure to directly put to Mr Lynn that he covered up the campers' deaths because he believed he'd committed murder in cross-examination, despite relying on that allegation in his closing argument, the judge said.

"Had Mr Porceddu asked Mr Lynn these questions, Mr Lynn may well have been able to respond in a powerful and compelling way," he continued.

"Yet he has been denied that opportunity by the conduct of the prosecutor."

 

[InagoRaida]

If as you say manslaughter is not considered the jury will have some thinking to do and when they do go they won't be back in an hour.
You are very good at summing up, however there were a few typos (that may be accounted for a lack of sleep ).
For example, it's weigh up and not way up, astute instead of adtute but the main one for you to keep in mind is defence instead of defense (except if you intend practising law in America).
What a pity you can't make it to court today. It's imperative the judges directions to a jury are correct and it's people like you who are astute enough to pick up mistakes, like what happened to a rapist this week who was allowed out partly because the judge told the jury the wrong thing.
Are you pursuing a career as a criminal lawyer?

Sorry, yes i try to edit typos..i have sausage fingers and often typing on the go...for someone such as myself to whom typos are abhorrent, i am worst offender..i need a bigger phone screen!
Thankyou for your kind words though!

 

[Sir_Loin]

Really does sound like the Prosecution stuffed up big time here. Is it enough of a stuff up to see him walk away from murder charges? Lynn walking away from murder scott free (Other than the lesser offences) would be a huge fail IMO.

Justice Croucher's instructions to jurors went into painstaking detail on Thursday as the judge explained various legal issues in the case, as well as the thresholds required to return a guilty verdict for murder.

As his address continued over the course of several hours, the judge took issue with at least two of the questions prosecutors asked of Mr Lynn when they cross-examined him on evidence he gave last week.

"There was simply no evidentiary basis for asking those questions and they should never have been asked," the judge said of the questions, which related to Mr Lynn's alleged shotgun use on the night of the campers' deaths.

The judge told jurors to ignore those questions.

They were also instructed they could more readily reject some parts of the prosecution argument because of what Justice Croucher called a "breach of the basic rules of fairness".

The breach arose from Mr Porceddu's failure to directly put to Mr Lynn that he covered up the campers' deaths because he believed he'd committed murder in cross-examination, despite relying on that allegation in his closing argument, the judge said.

"Had Mr Porceddu asked Mr Lynn these questions, Mr Lynn may well have been able to respond in a powerful and compelling way," he continued.

"Yet he has been denied that opportunity by the conduct of the prosecutor."

Minor errors. On the shotgun use I don’t think it’s particularly relevant. Lynn’s testimony was that it wasn’t secure and that’s all you’d get out of him on that.

In terms of the direct question on whether GL destroyed evidence to cover up murder he would have just denied it. It’s not like that evidence has been thrown out.

 

[GardenGnome]

Kurve you should have engaged a criminal lawyer to participate in this discussion , educate us and with a view to promoting his bizz if he wanted. Just sayin. LOL

Or Daily De-briefs with Dermo Dan

 

[GardenGnome]

Or anyone with a beard, sunglasses and a hat pulled down!

Or a red, no green, or is it yellow by then Nissan Patrol?

 

[InagoRaida]

The suspense is killing me!

Perhaps there’s a technicality that forbids the post-event actions being considered/taken into account because those actions/destruction of evidence and bodies occurred after the accident(s)/murder(s).

But yes I can and do absolutely agree that the emotional, intellectual and logical connection implies guilt.

So therefore the responsibility for the jury to set those events aside in preference of the legal aspects would be so so hard.

The Prs. sought, and received pre trial, the ability to use the "incriminating conduct" post alleged offence as evidence (i believe this is not automatic in Vic? @GreyRanga ?). The Prs. had an Icarus moment and flew too close to tge sun...he pushed a liitle hard when Lynn was on the stand, being counselled by Judge, and again in his summation.

 

[InagoRaida]

InagoRaida - for the last several days you’ve been hinting at manslaughter being off the table.

Given you’ve been present for much of the legal debate are you able yet to explain why?

i think its best till after jury goes out at least....its no bombsgell evidence, more legal/ procedural.

 

[highcountry]

The entire trial by jury system is flawed. Almost intentionally so. Juries are ‘expected’ by law to remove emotion from their deliberations. They are directed to ignore this or that.

But in reality jurors are ordinary people. Just like the make up of this thread.

Having sat in court over many days I am absolutely confident that the majority views expressed here will be carried into the jury room. Even if they are not given an actual voice.

My understanding is that individual jurors are under no compulsion to voice justification to their personal decision of guilty or not guilty.

Meaning when the first poll is taken there could be a very high percentage of jurors saying guilty.

Those who are locked in so early will likely not waiver.

It’s only the hold outs who will end up being the determining factor.

 

[InagoRaida]

Not to take into account destroying the bodies or consider manslaughter. Crikey, did Dermot do that, if so he was worth every cent.
Those two things alone could be the basis of an appeal from the prosecution if the jury find him not guilty of murder IMO
It's hardly likely the jury can find guilty of one case of murder, which one do they choose. So it's two or nothing. How ridiculous. What a sad and sorry end to this court case.

Yes, Dermie is a weapon..i have mentioned several times how he bracketed the Prs. evidence and was trying to draw boundaries about how far they could go with the most incriminating items...just very astute and diligent on procedure. Impressive to watch him and McGrath.

 

[InagoRaida]

Sounds like it wasn’t off the table until today. So not sure what the pearl clutching is about

Last thursday afternoon (or fri morning at latest) to be precise, after jury was retired for long weekend..se my previous posts for timeline

 

[GardenGnome]

Look at it this way. The court agrees that the jury is open to find him guilty of murder only. That’s a good thing IMO.

Based in the evidence provided over the course of the trial it’s that definitive. No accident. He did it or he didn’t.

Pretty hard to argue he didn’t based on what’s been publicly reported IMO. But juries are strange beasts.

You’re right actually, one way to see this is that it’s now very black and white: the choice is a definitive yes or no.

The gray area of the need or option to consider differing forms of manslaugher for one or the other or the option of murder for one or the other or accidental deaths for one or the other.

in some ways this could make the process much more streamlined.

The fact that murder is still on the table holds a lot of weight.

 

[taz01]

I keep typing a response and then deleting it, Heaven forgive me if the Jury come back NOT GUILTY cos I can not believe how this appears to be panning out, dd going on about fairness, I have to laugh, there is nothing fair about what his client has and is putting the families through....DD putting GL on the stand might just have been an ACE move for the defence, how these defence laywers sleep at night I do not know, they will try and find any loop hole in the system to get their clients off, I think I may have to stop following these sort of cases and just put my head in the sand like other people do and pretend this stuff doesn't happen in the real world because it is truly heart breaking, even if the purps get found guilty they usually get some bullshit sentence that doesn't fit the crime.

 

[Earls Smother]

This explains it.

The alternative charge of manslaughter had been mentioned to jurors at the outset of the weeks-long double murder trial.

But as Justice Michael Croucher's summing-up of the case began in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, he told jurors the circumstances of the case meant that if they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the murder charges, "any verdict of manslaughter in the alternative would be wrong".

"The only charges before you are murder, and it's for you to determine whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Russell] Hill and whether Mr Lynn is guilty or not guilty in relation to [Carol] Clay," the judge said.T

So Croucher is saying, either;

1) you believe GL's version and therefore it is accidental and he is acquitted, or

2) you don't believe his version and it is murder.

Basically saying you can't downgrade the charges to manslaughter because you're not certain enough on murder. There can't be degrees of belief. GL's version says one accidentally fell on a knife and the other was accidentally shot. If his version is to be believed, he has to be acquitted.

Can't be one accident and one murder, because there is no sense in that. If first person was an accident, you are not going to murder the second one to cover it up. If first person was murder, well then it's a given that the second can't be an accident.