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

[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



Disappearance of Barwon Prison Boss David Prideaux - High Country Mount Stirling
Hit and Run Death of Bryce Airs - High Country Jamieson

Israel Keyes

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.'

 

[Badd0g]

Two questions.

1. Did police inform Lynn about item 55 before Lynn gave his story?

Item 55 was discovered in a search in Mar 2022, so it was after his arrest.

The prosecution's showed some caution in not making claims they can't prove but they appear to be clear that Hill was killed first.

If that’s the case, Carol must have been murdered. I can’t see her coming at Lynn with any kind of weapon. IMO

The prosecution are using that exact reasoning for their premise that Russell died first, that Carol was unlikely to have started an argument, brandished a weapon or become violent...not an overly strong argument IFAM

I wonder if maybe the reason R&C camped so close to GL was that during those pleasantries exchanged on the 19th maybe GL said he would be leaving on the Saturday or Sunday, so R&C lite-camped quite close by so as not to have too far to go to relocate to R’s ‘favourite’ spot after GL departed? C had told family/friends that she’d be away until the 29th, so it’s possible they intended to settle into the valley for at least a week? So why not spend it in the prime spot if it were possibly being vacated soon.

Also, re the idea floating around that music being turned up was to try and cover any gunshots - If the nearest campers, the weed-sprayers were camped 3km away, I’m not convinced they’d have been able to hear the music, especially if it’s only coming from a car stereo. We live in a valley, and our nearest neighbour in any direction is around 1km+. We can hear the music when there’s a party going on, turned up loud, not quite crystal clear but enough that on a clear night we can usually ID the song.

RHs aerial would have taken significant time to set up according to his radio mate, so I think it unlikely they would have setup a temp camp. I think I also recall that Ashlin said he had planned to exit the valley on the Sunday to head to another location (could be wrong).
it sounds like the sprayers were camped along the river down near the cemetery (another popular spot) which is about 2.6 kms as they talked about the drone heading down river toward the Conglomerate creek confluence (which is just beyond there).

No problems with that theory.

However, has there has never been any evidence led about when Lynn arrived back in camp. When did he observe the flying drone; was is when he was committing the "illegal" hunting and he had the confrontation when he arrived back in camp earlier than he said in the ROI, possibly immediately after being spied in by the drone?
I believe that the ROI may contain some elements of truth, but the timeframe may be contracted or expanded to suit his own narrative.
The limited experience I've had with drones are that they are bloody noisy; a hunter carefully stalkimg a target to get a clean fatal shot would be acutely aware of any extraneous man made noise, as may the hunted
Spin his story 90 degrees. Lynn arrives back in camp angry about a drone flying over where he is hunting (lost target?), he confronts Hill who says you were hunting illegally and explains about his relative and how he dislikes hunters

The only evidence we will hear about him arriving back at camp will be his interview/statement when it is finally played to the jury - and there is no one to dispute that. It will only be trying to find a hole in his timeline and story that will reveal anything different. I agree that the timeframe is under a cloud - I just cannot see how he could have done all he did in the dark in the timeframe he says he did.
From my experience with deer, they make themselves scarce at any noise - they don't typically hang around campsites - making the "hunting too close to camp" claim a bit dodgy in my mind. I'm still not sold on the illegal deer hunting theory.

 

[Badd0g]

What do you mean to the rising of the court?

Its basically the shortest sentence a judge can give - it expires the moment the court rises for the judge to exit the court. So the accused has a conviction recorded against them but effectively serves no sentence.

 

[Badd0g]

Lynn's plan wasn't to deny he was actually in the valley at some point if he was questioned IMO, he admitted to Melanie he was only in the area for four hours.

Drone footage or imagery taken by Hill or Clay, would have proved that he was at Bucks Camp at the same time they were and presumably the last person to see them alive. It puts him square in the frame.

But surely if it was just that it had footage on it, either of his illegal activities or just placing him at the camp (which eye-witnesses have already done) he drove through so much bush, there were endless opportunities to dump it where no one would ever find it (as I suspect he has done with the trailer)...why burn it? I think he has a thing for fire TBH.

 

[fargo in dargo]

This drone thing is like a splinter in my brain! Its really bugging me. Bear with me guys please. As per my first post earlier, and others have confirmed, 1- no drone bits are found by forensics, and 2 - Lynn has said that he burned the drone. So both these points implies to me that Lynn got hold of a WHOLE and complete drone, at some point that evening. OK. Bear with me. We also know that Russel made his check in call that night between 6pm and 6:30pm 10 mins? up the track at Wonnangetta Station (for better reception?) During that call Russell said he had to go and finish setting up his camp. Also during that call Russell made NO mention whatsoever about catching someone (Lynn) on the drone doing illegal shit in the bush, either earlier that day or the day before. Assumption on my part here, but if Russell had recorded someone doing dodgy shit in the bush he would have told his radio mates?. I know i would have. But yes, my assumption here. So then Russell drives back to his partially set up campsite arriving around what 6:40pm? Lynn has also said that when he returned to camp he saw that the drone was flying over the camp. OK, for me, this is where Lynns story comes apart. In fading light, i am expected to believe that Russell is flying a drone?, WHEN he has a camp to finish setting up? Perhaps a meal to cook? Really? When was last light 7:30pm maybe? And you are having a romantic cuppa with your sweetheart? No, you are flying a drone? Really? I just dont buy that at all. Lets say Russell IS flying the drone, remember I said earlier that Lynn collected a WHOLE drone - so Russell has had to LAND the drone safely during this time as well? Really? Thats an awful lot of unlikely things to occur in fading light. At least in my dim brain! I think Lynn is using the drone as a red herring. My ameture take is that Lynn was shooting illegaly in fading light too near the camp, russel has confronted lynn (who has a loaded shotgun in his hands already), shit goes sideways, russell is shot, carol is murdered as the only witness. thats my take. the drone has nothing to do with what went down. Lynn is using it as part of his narrative of events. Hey look over here at THIS drone. Its crap. Now ladies and gentlemens, rip what i wrote apart please! What have i not taken into account????

 

[fargo in dargo]

Are we thinking Lynn might have been away from his camp hunting illegally when Hill and Clay actually first arrived and started setting up? Because that was an opportunity for Lynn to say 'Hi. You might be a bit close mate, this is a big valley.'

THIS from Kurve just a few minutes ago. THIS is what im thinking as well. And things just went sideways awfully quick.

 

[fargo in dargo]

The DJI Mavic has night vision, the DJI Mavic 3 has a thermal camera.

If Hill knows that valley like the back of his hand, he'd be quite confident flying his drone at night imo.

OK, if this is correct, then please ignore my previous posts.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

This drone thing is like a splinter in my brain! Its really bugging me. Bear with me guys please. As per my first post earlier, and others have confirmed, 1- no drone bits are found by forensics, and 2 - Lynn has said that he burned the drone. So both these points implies to me that Lynn got hold of a WHOLE and complete drone, at some point that evening. OK. Bear with me. We also know that Russel made his check in call that night between 6pm and 6:30pm 10 mins? up the track at Wonnangetta Station (for better reception?) During that call Russell said he had to go and finish setting up his camp. Also during that call Russell made NO mention whatsoever about catching someone (Lynn) on the drone doing illegal s**t in the bush, either earlier that day or the day before. Assumption on my part here, but if Russell had recorded someone doing dodgy s**t in the bush he would have told his radio mates?. I know i would have. But yes, my assumption here. So then Russell drives back to his partially set up campsite arriving around what 6:40pm? Lynn has also said that when he returned to camp he saw that the drone was flying over the camp. OK, for me, this is where Lynns story comes apart. In fading light, i am expected to believe that Russell is flying a drone?, WHEN he has a camp to finish setting up? Perhaps a meal to cook? Really? When was last light 7:30pm maybe? And you are having a romantic cuppa with your sweetheart? No, you are flying a drone? Really? I just dont buy that at all. Lets say Russell IS flying the drone, remember I said earlier that Lynn collected a WHOLE drone - so Russell has had to LAND the drone safely during this time as well? Really? Thats an awful lot of unlikely things to occur in fading light. At least in my dim brain! I think Lynn is using the drone as a red herring. My ameture take is that Lynn was shooting illegaly in fading light too near the camp, russel has confronted lynn (who has a loaded shotgun in his hands already), s**t goes sideways, russell is shot, carol is murdered as the only witness. thats my take. the drone has nothing to do with what went down. Lynn is using it as part of his narrative of events. Hey look over here at THIS drone. Its crap. Now ladies and gentlemens, rip what i wrote apart please! What have i not taken into account????

No need to rip anything apart. That's a good summation. Sometimes people with weak defences can get through the system and be perhaps found guilty of a lesser offence, especially if the jury is half asleep and don't understand the vital parts right from the judge. The beyond reasonable doubt line is done to death in trials like this. Many people see glaring holes in GL's defence.
Anyway, who said Russell had a drone apart from the weedsprayers who said they saw a drone but wouldn't have known who was flying it. The only person who said there was a drone was GL and imho I wouldn't believe a word that man said.

 

[Kurve]

OK, if this is correct, then please ignore my previous posts.

I don't know if Hill's particular DJI had night vision or thermal, it's just a possibility. Even so it still might be difficult to get footage of someone in the bush among big trees, unless Lynn was hunting along the river. They might have heard a shot or shots and sent the drone up? Then Lynn has returned.

Lynn's done a pretty good job at cleaning up and made it real difficult to work out exactly what's gone on.

 

[Dirh Semaj]

This part of GLs story make no sense to me.

If Carol did die from a bullet ricocheting, would there really be pieces of skull flung into the air? I can only imagine skull fragments separating from body if shot was a direct hit.

As the angle of the ricochet gets greater, the power of the projectile gets less and less. Meaning, Carol would need to have been almost in front of the gun when it discharged and the deflection almost neglegable. Ludicrous!

 

[Pamcake1]

Here's what we learned in the first week of Greg Lynn's murder trial

An escalating fight, a struggle for a gun, then a knife: Greg Lynn's lawyers argue the deaths of Russell Hill and Carol Clay were accidental.

www.abc.net.au

This just grabbed my attention from this ABC article today:

"But in conflict with the version put forward by Mr Lynn's barristers, they said it was more likely Mr Hill was killed first and that the couple were killed with "murderous intent," rather than by accident.
Mr Porceddu told the court the evidence of "violent deaths of two people in close proximity" point to the pair being killed "deliberately and without lawful justification".

In the article there is again the photo of the burnt campsite and I remembered from the comittal about the items that were thrown into the tent area, the chair frames and from memory there was a gas bottle and again from memory 'items that would not ordinarily be there'.
The statement that they were murdered in 'close proximity' is purposeful.
IMO I am returning to that R & C were shot, as they were sitting around in the dark, setting about making dinner or possibly after just having eaten it. That would explain the close proximity and the fact of the burnt area near the passanger side where Carol was crouching down. One of the two specific areas mentioned as being burnt to hide blood evidence.
That there was no argument and wrestling with the gun.
I go back to they were just sitting around (with their lower bodies encased in their sleeping bags to keep warm as you do) and were picked off in a sniper scenario, R being killed first and C either startled or possibly wounded, moves to hide by the car door and is then killed at close range.
That is a possible explanation of the 3 shots.
That if there was an argument it was well before and I say if, because why would you necessarily stay in that spot if you weren't feeling ok about it.
Maybe it is in fact a very, very simple scenario. No knife involved unless it was to finish R off so he was definitely deceased when his body was moved.
Then GL packs up his camp, or he may have already done that prior knowing he had to get out of there. That GL goes back to where his car is drives up and with headlights shining on the scene, moves the bodies first to the trailer, cleans up as best he can, closes the side hatch of R's 4WD thus preserving some blood spatter, takes the side mirror throws everything else in the tent, including gas bottle and pours the accelerant on it sets it alight and leaves.
That IMO is the simplest possible scenario.
We await the forensics as 'close proximity' being foreshadowed by the Prosecutor, must mean there was evidence to show that.

 

[fargo in dargo]

Here's what we learned in the first week of Greg Lynn's murder trial

An escalating fight, a struggle for a gun, then a knife: Greg Lynn's lawyers argue the deaths of Russell Hill and Carol Clay were accidental.

www.abc.net.au

This just grabbed my attention from this ABC article today:

"But in conflict with the version put forward by Mr Lynn's barristers, they said it was more likely Mr Hill was killed first and that the couple were killed with "murderous intent," rather than by accident.
Mr Porceddu told the court the evidence of "violent deaths of two people in close proximity" point to the pair being killed "deliberately and without lawful justification".

In the article there is again the photo of the burnt campsite and I remembered from the comittal about the items that were thrown into the tent area, the chair frames and from memory there was a gas bottle and again from memory 'items that would not ordinarily be there'.
The statement that they were murdered in 'close proximity' is purposeful.
IMO I am returning to that R & C were shot, as they were sitting around in the dark, setting about making dinner or possibly after just having eaten it. That would explain the close proximity and the fact of the burnt area near the passanger side where Carol was crouching down. One of the two specific areas mentioned as being burnt to hide blood evidence.
That there was no argument and wrestling with the gun.
I go back to they were just sitting around (with their lower bodies encased in their sleeping bags to keep warm as you do) and were picked off in a sniper scenario, R being killed first and C either startled or possibly wounded, moves to hide by the car door and is then killed at close range.
That is a possible explanation of the 3 shots.
That if there was an argument it was well before and I say if, because why would you necessarily stay in that spot if you weren't feeling ok about it.
Maybe it is in fact a very, very simple scenario. No knife involved unless it was to finish R off so he was definitely deceased when his body was moved.
Then GL packs up his camp, or he may have already done that prior knowing he had to get out of there. That GL goes back to where his car is drives up and with headlights shining on the scene, moves the bodies first to the trailer, cleans up as best he can, closes the side hatch of R's 4WD thus preserving some blood spatter, takes the side mirror throws everything else in the tent, including gas bottle and pours the accelerant on it sets it alight and leaves.
That IMO is the simplest possible scenario.
We await the forensics as 'close proximity' being foreshadowed by the Prosecutor, must mean there was evidence to show that.

THIS from Pamcake. Absolutely makes the most sense. No drone. No knife. Just simple opportunistic murder.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

think Lynn is using the drone as a red herring.

the drone has nothing to do with what went down.

My thoughts exactly. Lynn has spun a nice fairy story (IMO) but it’s possible the drone had nothing to do with it and was just something Lynn collected when he was cleaning up after the deaths and got rid of as well as the phones, Hill’s new RM Williams boots, and anything else identifiable that wouldn’t burn. But now it comes in handy to blur the facts. IMO

 

[Irma]

RHs aerial would have taken significant time to set up according to his radio mate, so I think it unlikely they would have setup a temp camp. I think I also recall that Ashlin said he had planned to exit the valley on the Sunday to head to another location (could be wrong).
it sounds like the sprayers were camped along the river down near the cemetery (another popular spot) which is about 2.6 kms as they talked about the drone heading down river toward the Conglomerate creek confluence (which is just beyond there).

Rob Ashlin’s input seems rather bizarre. He claims he’s been a good mate of Russell for 26 years (a DM article goes so far as to label Ashlin as Hill’s best friend), yet he didn’t know about R&C’s relationship until R’s wife told him, yet other radio/camping friends certainly knew, and had even camped with R&C..

Ashlin also claimed R&C had a pact to divorce and be together, but that R pulled out at the last minute. If he didn’t even know about the relationship, how did he know about this pact? And how could he speak with confidence in saying R pulled out of it, when no-one knows what R might’ve been planning to do. Everything Ashlin thinks he knows about R&C’s relationship has been fed to him second-hand.

The jury also heard that R spent much of his working life logging in the Wonnangatta Valley and “knew every nook and cranny” - yet Ashlin said R asked him for directions on how to get to Dargo through Wombat Spur. I would’ve thought R, knowing “every nook and cranny” would’ve known the way?

And this quote that was in the Bairnsdale Advertiser:
““His plan was in the next day or so to come down and camp at Upper Dargo as more or less a final night, I believe, and return (home) to Drouin,” Mr Ashlin told the Advertiser.”

So Ashlin believed R would be back home around the 23rd? With C telling friends/family that she was going away and wouldn’t be back til the 29th, just reinforces that Ashlin really had no idea what Russell’s plans were. This isn’t a go at Ashlin, more that I find some of what he says a bit bizarre, and that he speaks with such confidence when he really wasn’t in the loop to start with.

 

[PJays]

IMO I am returning to that R & C were shot,

That there was no argument and wrestling with the gun.

It's certainly interesting that Lynn's story says RH knifed and CC shot accidentally.

Subsequently after Lynn's story was first given to police (according to a reply to a previous post of mine) they found item 55 demonstrating CC was shot. But they've found nothing indicating likewise with RH.

If they'd subsequently found an item demonstrating RH was shot, GL's entire story loses all credibility.

So either GL got lucky, or his story is true in this respect.

 

[Badd0g]

Rob Ashlin’s input seems rather bizarre.

I court he said he became aware of the CC r/ship around 2018/19 when he visited the radio mate you've quoted as having known about it and camped with them (Jim Francis). That mate had also only recent found out. Seems RH kept it very much on the DL.

Ashlin said RH had always gone into and out of the valley via Zeka Spur but knew there were 2 ways out the east end. One of which has multiple river crossings and apparently the river was quite high around that time. He was looking for advice on the alternate way out and which tracks would be best.

I always give a later date/time than when we are expecting to get back from a hiking trip so people don't get worried too soon if we are delayed or decide on a longer route/extra night etc. Perhaps they did the same.

 

[Terrafirma]

This drone thing is like a splinter in my brain! Its really bugging me. Bear with me guys please. As per my first post earlier, and others have confirmed, 1- no drone bits are found by forensics, and 2 - Lynn has said that he burned the drone. So both these points implies to me that Lynn got hold of a WHOLE and complete drone, at some point that evening. OK. Bear with me. We also know that Russel made his check in call that night between 6pm and 6:30pm 10 mins? up the track at Wonnangetta Station (for better reception?) During that call Russell said he had to go and finish setting up his camp. Also during that call Russell made NO mention whatsoever about catching someone (Lynn) on the drone doing illegal s**t in the bush, either earlier that day or the day before. Assumption on my part here, but if Russell had recorded someone doing dodgy s**t in the bush he would have told his radio mates?. I know i would have. But yes, my assumption here. So then Russell drives back to his partially set up campsite arriving around what 6:40pm? Lynn has also said that when he returned to camp he saw that the drone was flying over the camp. OK, for me, this is where Lynns story comes apart. In fading light, i am expected to believe that Russell is flying a drone?, WHEN he has a camp to finish setting up? Perhaps a meal to cook? Really? When was last light 7:30pm maybe? And you are having a romantic cuppa with your sweetheart? No, you are flying a drone? Really? I just dont buy that at all. Lets say Russell IS flying the drone, remember I said earlier that Lynn collected a WHOLE drone - so Russell has had to LAND the drone safely during this time as well? Really? Thats an awful lot of unlikely things to occur in fading light. At least in my dim brain! I think Lynn is using the drone as a red herring. My ameture take is that Lynn was shooting illegaly in fading light too near the camp, russel has confronted lynn (who has a loaded shotgun in his hands already), s**t goes sideways, russell is shot, carol is murdered as the only witness. thats my take. the drone has nothing to do with what went down. Lynn is using it as part of his narrative of events. Hey look over here at THIS drone. Its crap. Now ladies and gentlemens, rip what i wrote apart please! What have i not taken into account????

Sunset was 7.40pm so last light around 8pm. The drone was in the air that's for sure. Don't forget the version of events you outlined are Lynn's not fact. Lynn could of simply shot the drone down and forced an altercation or told Hill to put the thing away or else. We don't know. I think the drone is relevant because otherwise Lynn wouldn't have been so keen to destroy it and take it with him.

 

[Pamcake1]

It's certainly interesting that Lynn's story says RH knifed and CC shot accidentally.

Subsequently after Lynn's story was first given to police (according to a reply to a previous post of mine) they found item 55 demonstrating CC was shot. But they've found nothing indicating likewise with RH.

If they'd subsequently found an item demonstrating RH was shot, GL's entire story loses all credibility.

So either GL got lucky, or his story is true in this respect.

I think you might be drawing a long bow in that respect.
It was said in the commital that the human remains of both deceased were so destroyed it could not be ascertained how RH died. So it is not a case of luck, it is a case of destroying the evidence so it can not be known how RH perished.

 

[Kurve]

The prosecution are using that exact reasoning for their premise that Russell died first, that Carol was unlikely to have started an argument, brandished a weapon or become violent...not an overly strong argument IFAM

I assumed they probably had more than that to prove that Russell was killed first and Carol despatched as a witness. The only thing I've seen so far that indicates Russell wasn't shot at their campsite, is the only clues to a violent death there is what Carol left behind in bone and matter. I'd think if Russell was shot around the vehicle in such a tight space, forensics would have found something.

 

[Angry_Crow]

Yes, I thought it was a very well written piece that made things just that little bit clearer.
Re cremation: given there were that many bones/fragments remaining, it couldn't have been that hot, but I can only guess it was petrol fuelled

I was actually going to say earlier it struck me as almost theatrical - but then considered it may have just been my perception. I'm glad I wasn't the only

When the defence said in his own words, I think they will show his police interview..
it’s suicide for him if he takes the stand.

Correct. That’s what they said in opening arguments.

 

[Dirh Semaj]

Sunset was 7.40pm so last light around 8pm. The drone was in the air that's for sure. Don't forget the version of events you outlined are Lynn's not fact. Lynn could of simply shot the drone down and forced an altercation or told Hill to put the thing away or else. We don't know. I think the drone is relevant because otherwise Lynn wouldn't have been so keen to destroy it and take it with him.

From the opening statement, the prosecution aren't using the drone to support their case. By admission, they can't prove a motive.

 

[fargo in dargo]

Sunset was 7.40pm so last light around 8pm. The drone was in the air that's for sure. Don't forget the version of events you outlined are Lynn's not fact. Lynn could of simply shot the drone down and forced an altercation or told Hill to put the thing away or else. We don't know. I think the drone is relevant because otherwise Lynn wouldn't have been so keen to destroy it and take it with him.

Ok, so Lynn has more light than what I think there was. Fair enough. So the drone COULD be up in light. OK But NOBODY has shot the drone down, because there WOULD be remnants found by forensics when they got there. They found a pellet with carols dna and a tiny bit of her skull afterall. I just cant see it shot out of the sky. Sooooo, Russell has safely landed the drone WHILST arguing with Lynn at the same time? Surely a shotgunned drone would have bits fly off it all over the area, and also break apart on impact with the ground? Lynn cant of collected all those bits even with light? Damm it this drone thing really frustrates me in the narrative....

 

[Terrafirma]

I assumed they probably had more than that to prove that Russell was killed first and Carol despatched as a witness. The only thing I've seen so far that indicates Russell wasn't shot at their campsite, is the only clues to a violent death there is what Carol left behind in bone and matter. I'd think if Russell was shot around the vehicle in such a tight space, forensics would have found something.

Yeah trying to understand if Hill was killed 1st why was it by knife and not by gun? Had Lynn spent the cartridges? Why is Hill using a knife in a gun fight? Doesn't make sense. As none of Hill's DNA or body parts found at campsite it does suggest no gun in his death. Coppers say Hill died 1st and Lynn says Clay died 1st. Prosecution make the most sense Lynn's version one in a million or one in a thousand Clay accidentally killed while crouching down?

 

[Pamcake1]

I court he said he became aware of the CC r/ship around 2018/19 when he visited the radio mate you've quoted as having known about it and camped with them (Jim Francis). That mate had also only recent found out. Seems RH kept it very much on the DL.

Ashlin said RH had always gone into and out of the valley via Zeka Spur but knew there were 2 ways out the east end. One of which has multiple river crossings and apparently the river was quite high around that time. He was looking for advice on the alternate way out and which tracks would be best.

I always give a later date/time than when we are expecting to get back from a hiking trip so people don't get worried too soon if we are delayed or decide on a longer route/extra night etc. Perhaps they did the same.

Badd0g do you remember or can you confirm the opening statement by the prosecution that I quoted from the ABC article above? Specifically, "Mr Porceddu told the court the evidence of "violent deaths of two people in close proximity" point to the pair being killed "deliberately and without lawful justification".

 

[Badd0g]

Badd0g do you remember or can you confirm the opening statement by the prosecution that I quoted from the ABC article above? Specifically, "Mr Porceddu told the court the evidence of "violent deaths of two people in close proximity" point to the pair being killed "deliberately and without lawful justification".

I was not there for opening address...I think highcountry was though.

 

[Pamcake1]

Ok, so Lynn has more light than what I think there was. Fair enough. So the drone COULD be up in light. OK But NOBODY has shot the drone down, because there WOULD be remnants found by forensics when they got there. They found a pellet with carols dna and a tiny bit of her skull afterall. I just cant see it shot out of the sky. Sooooo, Russell has safely landed the drone WHILST arguing with Lynn at the same time? Surely a shotgunned drone would have bits fly off it all over the area, and also break apart on impact with the ground? Lynn cant of collected all those bits even with light? Damm it this drone thing really frustrates me in the narrative....

Not at all described as a pellet.
They have found more than one piece of human bone fragments.