Current Trial Russell Hill & Carol Clay - Wonnangatta *Pilot Greg Lynn Pleads Not Guilty to Murder

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #44
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
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.'
 
Last edited:
It's quiet until 4th January when the next hearing is. On that day we'll hear evidence of ballistic s experts and forensics etc and we might even hear what Lynn is claiming re the use of a firearm?

I wonder if it'll be open court? I'm off then, might make the trip up to Sale to see what happens
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Most of them do. Or at least are psychologically unbalanced due to rejection or abandonment in childhood.
Yes, but it's nothing to do with their victims. I think my original comment was in result to people suggesting that one or both victims had provoked him.
 
Yes, but it's nothing to do with their victims. I think my original comment was in result to people suggesting that one or both victims had provoked him.
A sharp word or some other 'slight' might be nothing to other people, but he might see it as 'provocation'. Or as has been posited previously, RH may have objected verbally to GL's activities. A normal person might shoot back a reply and leave it at that, sounds like GL may have had a violent history, if rumours about wife #1 have any substance. I don't think anyone is blaming the victims, are they?
 
A sharp word or some other 'slight' might be nothing to other people, but he might see it as 'provocation'. Or as has been posited previously, RH may have objected verbally to GL's activities. A normal person might shoot back a reply and leave it at that, sounds like GL may have had a violent history, if rumours about wife #1 have any substance. I don't think anyone is blaming the victims, are they?
Doubtless he will have a reason or excuse. We will just have to wait until the trial to find out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Are you suggesting that he’s a serial killer? I’m not having a go. Just curious.
It has been suggested by others, I'm not excluding the possibility.

What I am saying is that it might not have been provoked by the victims, he just saw these two elderly people and killed, dismembered and burnt them, and then simply went on with his life as before.

After all, they had only been in the area a matter of a few hours. It's not like they were annoying neighbours who had been provoking him for years.

If he has done this once, then it is quite possible he has done it before. I think three murders is the definition of a serial killer, so with this and the disappearance of one partner and the suspicious death of another........
 
A sharp word or some other 'slight' might be nothing to other people, but he might see it as 'provocation'. Or as has been posited previously, RH may have objected verbally to GL's activities. A normal person might shoot back a reply and leave it at that, sounds like GL may have had a violent history, if rumours about wife #1 have any substance. I don't think anyone is blaming the victims, are they?

GLs defence is going to be interesting, I can only imagine how he's going to explain being put in a position where he had no choice but to kill both of them and set their tent on fire.
 
GLs defence is going to be interesting, I can only imagine how he's going to explain being put in a position where he had no choice but to kill both of them and set their tent on fire.
Maybe they had Barry Manilow on repeat

Or really loud Frank Sinatra

To trigger his PTSD 😃
 
It has been suggested by others, I'm not excluding the possibility.

What I am saying is that it might not have been provoked by the victims, he just saw these two elderly people and killed, dismembered and burnt them, and then simply went on with his life as before.

After all, they had only been in the area a matter of a few hours. It's not like they were annoying neighbours who had been provoking him for years.

If he has done this once, then it is quite possible he has done it before. I think three murders is the definition of a serial killer, so with this and the disappearance of one partner and the suspicious death of another........
I guess it’s possible that he could be. And he could be responsible for other victims too. In this case he got caught partly because of the suspicious scene left behind. The victims just had too much stuff to be disposed of. But what if they didn’t? Theoretically he could have done this before and not been caught. There are plenty of unsolved crimes involving backpackers and hitch-hikers.

I mean, if he is guilty of this, and barring self-defence scenarios, then it could mean that he has the propensity to murder.
 
I guess the twist is how the ballistics might show close contact rather than distance shooting

I mean we all figured self defence was his only way through this

So if they were shot on their heads or very close to their heads, that would be more consistent with an execution style murder and go against any self defence claim?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top