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.'

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

That doesn't mean that GL murdered the two campers.
With Lloyd Rayney they also surrounded him with cops to arrest him and charged him with murder and then let him loose.
So the "eh" in your line indicates that you think GL is guilty of murder because he took the cops to the bodies. Is that right?

And your "really" comment regarding my thoughts about playing the entire video. What length of time would you be happy with for the video to be played in court?

You think there's reasonable doubt that he didn't cause their deaths?

 

[Run n Spread]

Exactly. I can’t see any of his version of events being true. He’s lied about the whole scenario. Hill being killed with his own knife is not believable. If Hill was stabbed then where was the forensic evidence of this at Lynn’s campsite? Not a drop of blood. The real place where Hill was killed was his own campsite and it was burnt. I don’t buy him being killed with a knife. I believe he was shot while sitting around his campsite after dark. Three shots, two of them to Hill in ambush and one to Clay at point blank range. Hence the reason for the tent, chairs, table etc being burnt is because they all would have had Hill’s blood/bone all over it.

IMO

Camp-site wasn't searched till days later. Any blood etc would be washed away by rain dew elements etc.
A crime scene forensic search of both spots was 20 months later= no chance of finding blood DNA etc. Skull fragments were a good get

 

[Run n Spread]

And what does the photo prove, unless it had arms and legs of two dead humans sticking out from it.
I'm starting to think GL's version of events isn't so absurd after all.
1. If there was a drone, he may or may not be the only person alive hat saw a drone being operated by RH
2. No murder weapons to produce as evidence
3. No eye witnesses
4. The skull fragments and DNA on a small piece of metal may be as important to the verdict as the seedpod from Loyd Rayney's wife's hair that was supposed to basically have his finger prints on it.
With all this swarming of his campsite before he could commit suicide did the police try and see if he could lead them to the bodies.
5. What is the prosecution's main incriminating evidence? Just lots of bits of circumstantial. In fact you could say at this stage the prosecution's theory is no more whacky than GL's version of events.
6. I see a lot of talk on BF about the drone but that's perhaps from GL's story and we believe that because it fits the narrative, but nothing else he says.
7. I believe the defence will get technical and that's when I believe a judge could be better at understanding the importance of certain things rather than a lay person on a jury who has probably already had their mind made up after the first three weeks.
8. Lloyd Rayney convinced his kids he wasn't a murderer and it appears GL's friend in the gallery also seems to be convinced of his innocence.
9. Lloyd Rayney wasn't even in remand and he was the prime and only suspect, but what have the police found about GL to have him behind bars waiting for the outcome.
10. And many honest people don't go to the cops after making some very bad errors of judgement.

Possibly you never know elements may indeed be true. Possible manslaughter. But not what's he's arguing.
Maybe Hill did confront him even attempt to go for the gun. Maybe Lyn did feel threatened. Maybe Hill did come with a knife.
He does have a good lawyer but the forensic detail Hills finger was on the trigger before a bullet ricochet off a mirror killing someone with a headshot who was crouched or a miraculous turn of physics and an enraged charge with a knife before an epic struggle and a fatal chest wound????
I mean I take your point. You need an open mind and significant portions may be true. But as above the movie script version above couldn't surely be true???. If that's the argument that's he's absolute right but he'd need to testify to it imo

 

[jason_recliner]

What length of time would you be happy with for the video to be played in court?

They will play the footage relevant to the case. Have you ever seen a police interview? Do you think there is 20 hours of productive, illuminating discussion and new information being proffered forth? How long do you think it would take to play 20 hours of footage with the judge questioning, lawyers commenting and explaining? How long do you think somebody can pay attention? What do you think will be gained by playing every second of footage?

That doesn't mean that GL murdered the two campers.
With Lloyd Rayney they also surrounded him with cops to arrest him and charged him with murder and then let him loose.
So the "eh" in your line indicates that you think GL is guilty of murder because he took the cops to the bodies. Is that right?

You stated/asked:
"what have the police found about GL to have him behind bars waiting for the outcome."

Nobody is saying Lynn's claims are impossible, most of us are saying they are unreasonable and we doubt it is what occurred, based on all of the evidence. It brings to mind an ancient adage:

"There are few things in life more pointless than a devil's advocate."

 

[theouthouse]

I don't know for sure what the circumstances were, no one can as there was no one else there to witness except Lynn and he can say - well, he has to say - whatever he likes to absolve himself (I think I've said this before ). But the fact that he was there, with a gun, and two people ended up dead, both probably shot (IMO), and he tried to conceal evidence, any doubt is unreasonable (IMO).

Forensic psychologists will be able to give expert testimony on GLs behaviour immediately post event and in the time frame after as to what his behaviour indicates.

In the absence of any real evidence one way or the other, I think this testimony will hold key to whatever verdict is given.

 

[Kurve]

Exactly. I can’t see any of his version of events being true. He’s lied about the whole scenario. Hill being killed with his own knife is not believable. If Hill was stabbed then where was the forensic evidence of this at Lynn’s campsite? Not a drop of blood. The real place where Hill was killed was his own campsite and it was burnt. I don’t buy him being killed with a knife. I believe he was shot while sitting around his campsite after dark. Three shots, two of them to Hill in ambush and one to Clay at point blank range. Hence the reason for the tent, chairs, table etc being burnt is because they all would have had Hill’s blood/bone all over it.

IMO

Hill's DNA in blood was found on a bath mat at the motel Lynn checked in to later, it probably came off Lynn's body when he was showering. That might tend to indicate Russell died by knife, up close.

The only evidence Carol died a violent death by gunshot was left at the campsite.

 

[jason_recliner]

Hill's DNA in blood was found on a bath mat at the motel Lynn checked in to later, it probably came off Lynn's body when he was showering. That might tend to indicate Russell died by knife, up close.

The only evidence Carol died a violent death by gunshot was left at the campsite.

He may also have got their blood on him while dismembering and moving their bodies.

 

[Kurve]

He may also have got their blood on him while dismembering and moving their bodies.

Of course that's possible. Do we know he was doing the dismembering before the first trip back to burn?

 

[Kurve]

Does anyone know if the prosecution will enter as evidence that GL was going to commit suicide after police thought he murdered two people.
Don't forget, GL says one person died from a gunshot he didn't fire and the other died from wounds suffered from their own knife.

The defence might try and use the idea that Lynn was suicidal. The cops might think he knew he was potentially being bugged and was talking it up to whoever might be listening.

 

[Pamcake1]

Forensic psychologists will be able to give expert testimony on GLs behaviour immediately post event and in the time frame after as to what his behaviour indicates.

In the absence of any real evidence one way or the other, I think this testimony will hold key to whatever verdict is given.

You mean after his arrest some 20 months after the actual event of the deaths?
His immediate behaviour after the event was that he didn't tell a soul, wasn't under police observation for a longtime (at least a year) as he wasn't even on the radar.
His immediate behaviour after arrest is coloured by that event and would not be useful to the prosecution.
I very much doubt whether it will be possible to analyse much of anything useful for court evidence.
I also very much doubt that GL or his Defence Counsel would permit psychological interviews forensic or otherwise for the prosecution.
He would have been being observed in prison somewhat but that tells you nothing much either.
So no, I don't think there will be this suposed testimony presented.
I could be wrong here but I just dont see it happening.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If Lynn takes the stand, I think that greatly increases the likelihood of a hung jury or not guilty.

Not if he trips up his evidence...

 

[GrayRanga]

Forensic psychologists will be able to give expert testimony on GLs behaviour immediately post event and in the time frame after as to what his behaviour indicates.

In the absence of any real evidence one way or the other, I think this testimony will hold key to whatever verdict is given.

A criminal trial is composed of two parts.

The first is whether, on the basis of the evidence provided to the Court, the accused was guilty of the offences of which they were charged

Courts act on the basis that a person is sane at the time of the commision of the offence and therefore are able to determine the lawfulness of the acts they commit.

A person being of "unsound mind" (suffering a disease of the mind) requires a completly different court case, where the Court seeks expert testimony about whether the accused was mad as a hatter at the time of the commision of the offence therefore was unable to determine the actions were wrong.

If convicted, the trial enters its second stage; sentencing.

Then the Court will hearing evidence from both the Prosecution and Defence which may or not mitigate the sentence imposed

 

[Badd0g]

Good morning Baddog, I got my info from this ABC article....

Campsite find deepens mystery around missing seniors

Police are searching Victoria's High Country for Carol Clay, 73, and Russell Hill, 74, who have not been heard from since March 20.

www.abc.net.au

"Mr Hill made a radio transmission on March 20, via HF radio, in which he said he was having transmission issues.

It was confirmed that he was at Wonnangatta Station, about a four-hour drive south-east of Wangaratta, when he made that transmission."

Russel did not make a successful call from Bucks Camp.

In the testimony of witness who was the last to speak with him he said he signed off as Russell Hill VK3-VZP, portable Wonnangatta station. I don't think he meant the Station as in the physical ruins, but that he meant he was a portable radio station at Wonnangata (as opposed to his home which would be his registered station). I'm not sure if you know the area but, Wonnangatta Station itself is but a couple of kms from where he was camped - it's only a few minutes drive from one to the other. It doesn't make sense that he made the call from the station when his aerial was up in the trees at Bucks camp at Dry River - to do so means he would have had to hoist his aerial twice.

 

[Badd0g]

Hence the reason for the tent, chairs, table etc being burnt is because they all would have had Hill’s blood/bone all over it.

IMO

If that were the case, wouldn't they have found fragments of RH bone at the site too? I am thinking that if you were going to concoct a story, you'd want to stay as close to the truth as possible. If it was a knife then changing the story up would be risky in case there is existing or emerging evidence of knife marks on bone etc

Of course that's possible. Do we know he was doing the dismembering before the first trip back to burn?

The forensic pathologist suggested that the bodies were partially decomposed before being burnt. It entirely possible many of the fragments became such due to splintering in the heat of fire. IMO he most likely dumped them whole in the first instance

His immediate behaviour after the event was that he didn't tell a soul, wasn't under police observation for a longtime (at least a year) as he wasn't even on the radar.

Not speaking to his psych state, but the timeline: he was on their radar from July 2020 when they first got the Hotham camera pics and interviewed him at his house (also when they secretly recorded the convo and noticed his car had been painted). He was under surveillance by that December.

 

[Terrafirma]

Exactly. I can’t see any of his version of events being true. He’s lied about the whole scenario. Hill being killed with his own knife is not believable. If Hill was stabbed then where was the forensic evidence of this at Lynn’s campsite? Not a drop of blood. The real place where Hill was killed was his own campsite and it was burnt. I don’t buy him being killed with a knife. I believe he was shot while sitting around his campsite after dark. Three shots, two of them to Hill in ambush and one to Clay at point blank range. Hence the reason for the tent, chairs, table etc being burnt is because they all would have had Hill’s blood/bone all over it.

IMO

Yeah he was covering blood splatter and anything else that happened in the vicinity of the Hill's campsite. The fact that Clay was killed crouching down at her own campsite suggests that Hill could of been killed there also if not for a lack of his remains. The police may not have recovered all of Hill at the burial/burn site?

“In May 2020 and/or November 2020, the accused returned to the bodies of Hill and Clay, where he further tampered with the human remains to dispose of the deceased. This involved burning, dispersing and partially interring them.”

Lynn had quite the collection "Gellatly’s statement, dated July last year, also details that he examined two swords, a pick-axe and more than 20 knives, including throwing knives and a blade known as a Gurkha, that were seized from Lynn’s property by police after he was arrested in November 2021."

 

[Terrafirma]

Going back to an original article it says blood on an armrest in Hill's car was likely to belong to Russell Hill. The fire interfered with the blood matter so it could not be confirmed. There is a chance Hill was injured and went to his car? And off course Carol was killed next to the car. Were they going to make a run for it for fear of their lives? This all occurred at night. Scary scenario if it was the case.

Mr Gellatly told the court he examined a number of vehicles, including a white LandCruiser ute.

"One possible bloodstain was located on an armrest," he told the court, but he said further testing was unable to confirm the substance was blood.

On the metal camper canopy at the back of Mr Hill's ute, which was found at the pair's campsite, Mr Gellatly said he detected what was thought to be "the location of splatter blood stains".

But he said further testing could not confirm the stains were from blood. He told the court he believed this was because the car was affected by heat from the fire that burnt Mr Hill's campsite.

"I've taken into consideration that it had the appearance of blood, it behaved like blood, it tested positive to a DNA screen test," he said.
The scientist's work established that the armrest stain was "more than 230 times [more likely] that [Mr] Hill was a contributor".

Mr Gellatly said two shotguns were tested, but no blood was detected on either.

He told the court his work could not confirm what action may had caused the blood stains on the car.

He said in winter when it was busy the cameras would capture 98 per cent of vehicles, only missing number plates where cars were tailgating.

"In summer, where there is less traffic and it is much more spread out, I would expect the capture rates to be almost 100 per cent," he said in his statement.

 

[Lady O]

Witnesses at a camp said a drone flew over them, one witness waved at the drone and the drone dipped it's wings to acknowledge the wave.

Well, the way I see it, there is no evidence that Hill even flew his drone prior to his murder. The weed sprayer said he saw a drone, but I can't see how he would have been able to identify it as being operated by Hill. We just do not know, but Lynn is claiming it as some kind of evidence that Hill was doing the wrong thing. Hill is also being accused of being "difficult" and inclined to start arguments, when we actually do not know this to be the case.

 

[Run n Spread]

Was that the weedsprayers who saw it nearly 3km away from RH's campsite?
What time did they see it dip its wings and how did they know it was operated by RH?

Yes that's a lot of bullshit.
And whatever they were talking about is irrelevant

 

[Badd0g]

Well, the way I see it, there is no evidence that Hill even flew his drone prior to his murder. The weed sprayer said he saw a drone, but I can't see how he would have been able to identify it as being operated by Hill. We just do not know, but Lynn is claiming it as some kind of evidence that Hill was doing the wrong thing. Hill is also being accused of being "difficult" and inclined to start arguments, when we actually do not know this to be the case.

While there might not be any direct evidence of the drone the sprayers saw being RHs, it's been established that he took his drone (it wasn't at his home), that it wasn't at the car, GL says it was over the campsite when he returned and they had a discussion/argument about it, and GL took it and has admitted burning/destroying it. I would say that's all pretty strong indicators that RH had and flew the drone before he died.

 

[Lady O]

Yes that's a lot of bullshit.
And whatever they were talking about is irrelevant

So are you saying you can't fly a drone three km away from where it was launched?

 

[Terrafirma]

Well, the way I see it, there is no evidence that Hill even flew his drone prior to his murder. The weed sprayer said he saw a drone, but I can't see how he would have been able to identify it as being operated by Hill. We just do not know, but Lynn is claiming it as some kind of evidence that Hill was doing the wrong thing. Hill is also being accused of being "difficult" and inclined to start arguments, when we actually do not know this to be the case.

Who else was flying a drone in the area? It was Hill's drone. Even the Police are saying the same. I think from memory you have always suggested Hill wasn't flying his drone. I don't get why you continue that line?

 

[Lady O]

Who else was flying a drone in the area? It was Hill's drone. Even the Police are saying the same. I think from memory you have always suggested Hill wasn't flying his drone. I don't get why you continue that line?

Hill owned a drone. Someone saw a drone flying that day. Ergo, the drone MUST have been flown by Hill. Therefore the reason he was murdered by Lynn and his partner was also murdered MUST be to do with him flying the drone.

So we are assuming that there was no one else in that area who could have been flying a drone.

 

[Terrafirma]

Hill owned a drone. Someone saw a drone flying that day. Ergo, the drone MUST have been flown by Hill. Therefore the reason he was murdered by Lynn and his partner was also murdered MUST be to do with him flying the drone.

So we are assuming that there was no one else in that area who could have been flying a drone.

So Lynn took Hill's drone burnt and destroyed it just for the fun of it? So if the drone wasnt flying what was the motive for the altercation? You cant be serious LOL

 

[Lady O]

So Lynn took Hill's drone burnt and destroyed it just for the fun of it? So if the drone wasnt flying what was the motive for the altercation? You cant be serious LOL

We only have Lynn's excuse for what happened. Can't ask Hill or Clay. No other evidence or witnesses. Do you believe anything Lynn says?

 

[Terrafirma]

We only have Lynn's excuse for what happened. Can't ask Hill or Clay. No other evidence or witnesses. Do you believe anything Lynn says?

Sorry you dont make sense O. And you also dont justify any of your claims so I'll sign off Cheers