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.'

 

[Sir_Loin]

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.

Have any other drone owners in the area come forward to say it was theirs? That would be direct evidence.

So yes it’s indirect evidence which is still evidence. The juries I’ve served on always get the same instruction.

“For example, if a witness said that they saw someone enter the courthouse wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet, that would be indirect or ‘circumstantial’ evidence of the fact that it was raining outside. You can conclude from the witness’s evidence that it was raining, even though they didn’t actually see or hear the rain.

As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. Although people often believe that indirect or circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, that is not true. It can be just as strong or even stronger. What matters is how strong or weak the particular evidence is, not whether it is direct or indirect. And it needs to be considered in context of the totality of the evidence presented”

Heard the same analogy on direction from the magistrate on the juries I served on so it’s factually incorrect to say there’s no evidence to suggest it wasnt Russell’s drone.

 

[Lady O]

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

Yeah, no worries.

You see from the time that the couple went missing, until the time he was arrested, there was a lot of information circulating in the media. About their illicit affair, about his temperament, about him owning a drone. Plenty of time for someone who was involved in their disappearance to patch all this information together to concoct a story which made it appear that they actually "caused" or "deserved" what happened, in order to reduce his own culpability.

For all we know, he may have simply not like the look of them.

 

[Lady O]

Have any other drone owners in the area come forward to say it was theirs? That would be direct evidence.

So yes it’s indirect evidence which is still evidence. The juries I’ve served on always get the same instruction.

“For example, if a witness said that they saw someone enter the courthouse wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet, that would be indirect or ‘circumstantial’ evidence of the fact that it was raining outside. You can conclude from the witness’s evidence that it was raining, even though they didn’t actually see or hear the rain.

As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. Although people often believe that indirect or circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, that is not true. It can be just as strong or even stronger. What matters is how strong or weak the particular evidence is, not whether it is direct or indirect. And it needs to be considered in context of the totality of the evidence presented”

Heard the same analogy on direction from the magistrate on the juries I served on so it’s factually incorrect to say there’s no evidence to suggest it wasnt Russell’s drone.

Wasn't another drone found in the search for Hill and Clay that was said not to have been Hill's? Wouldn't this point to it being someone else's drone?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Wasn't another drone found in the search for Hill and Clay that was said not to have been Hill's? Wouldn't this point to it being someone else's drone?

Has that been submitted as evidence at the trial? I doubt very much the defence wants to go there given RHs drone is missing.

 

[Terrafirma]

Have any other drone owners in the area come forward to say it was theirs? That would be direct evidence.

So yes it’s indirect evidence which is still evidence. The juries I’ve served on always get the same instruction.

“For example, if a witness said that they saw someone enter the courthouse wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet, that would be indirect or ‘circumstantial’ evidence of the fact that it was raining outside. You can conclude from the witness’s evidence that it was raining, even though they didn’t actually see or hear the rain.

As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. Although people often believe that indirect or circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, that is not true. It can be just as strong or even stronger. What matters is how strong or weak the particular evidence is, not whether it is direct or indirect. And it needs to be considered in context of the totality of the evidence presented”

Heard the same analogy on direction from the magistrate on the juries I served on so it’s factually incorrect to say there’s no evidence to suggest it wasnt Russell’s drone.

You do realise that everyone in the vicinity was interviewed? None of the campers or weed sprayers owned a drone. Hill told Aspen on the HF radio he was going to fly his drone. Police investigations conclude the altercation started ovee a drone. Believe what you want LOL. Hill's precious new drone called Fred was destroyed and burnt along with some of their belingings and thats why it was never found

 

[Sir_Loin]

You do realise that everyone in the vicinity was interviewed? None of the campers or weed sprayers owned a drone. Hill told Aspen on the HF radio he was going to fly his drone. Police investigations conclude the altercation started ovee a drone. Believe what you want LOL. Hill's precious new drone called Fred was destroyed and burnt along with some of their belingings and thats why it was never found

Ah yer that’s the entire point of my post. Lay off the red cordial for a bit amigo

 

[Terrafirma]

Ah yer that’s the entire point of my post. Lay off the red cordial for a bit amigo

LOL

 

[EagleEyes1]

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

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

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.

There’s always a chance of DNA being left behind. Just as it did with the canopy for Clays DNA. A trait which Lynn shows is burning evidence. If Hill was shot twice then one would assume both rounds were necessary and were fired from some distance in the dark. If blood or small bone fragments did contaminate the campsite (which they most likely did) then this would be the main reason for Lynn to burn the campsite/ute canopy and destroy any forensic evidence. For Lynn to change the story would be risky yes, however there are no witnesses and it fits his version for his fight for freedom. Lynn truly cannot be trusted. Everything he has done was premeditated.

IMO

 

[LeChatNoir]

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and it has taken me 4 days to get to page 185.... I have a long way to go yet, but I don't want to miss a thing so I can't skip forward. Amazing posts, some incredible ideas and puzzle solving skills.... have got me hooked to this thread. I'm curious as to why would GL would take RH's car keys? What would be the point? Has this been covered?

 

[EagleEyes1]

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.

This is classic character assassination. The terms I’ve heard so far was that Hill was a grumpy old man who didn’t greet the weed sprayers. He wasn’t happy after retirement and that he was difficult. It suits the defence argument that Hill started the whole incident with his drone. Whether or not he was it does not take from the fact that he was killed along with Clay. Whatever evidence there was on the drone it was enough in Lynn’s mind to murder two people for it.

IMO

 

[Terrafirma]

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and it has taken me 4 days to get to page 185.... I have a long way to go yet, but I don't want to miss a thing so I can't skip forward. Amazing posts, some incredible ideas and puzzle solving skills.... have got me hooked to this thread. I'm curious as to why would GL would take RH's car keys? What would be the point? Has this been covered?

Really good point? Dont know the answer to that

 

[Sir_Loin]

This is classic character assassination. The terms I’ve heard so far was that Hill was a grumpy old man who didn’t greet the weed sprayers. He wasn’t happy after retirement and that he was difficult. It suits the defence argument that Hill started the whole incident with his drone. Whether or not he was it does not take from the fact that he was killed along with Clay. Whatever evidence there was on the drone it was enough in Lynn’s mind to murder two people for it.

IMO

You have Lynn’s testimony that Hill told him he had footage from his drone plus the weedsprayer saying he saw a drone being flown over him which was approx 350 meters from the camp site. Narrows it down a bit.

 

[Terrafirma]

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and it has taken me 4 days to get to page 185.... I have a long way to go yet, but I don't want to miss a thing so I can't skip forward. Amazing posts, some incredible ideas and puzzle solving skills.... have got me hooked to this thread. I'm curious as to why would GL would take RH's car keys? What would be the point? Has this been covered?

Great effort. If you read everything it's a great way to gain some form of perspective to draw your own conclusions especially leading up to the trial as we speak.

 

[Awakening]

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?

I think it’s possible the drone wasn’t flying yet. Why did Lynn take it? Because he didn’t know for sure if it had been flown and had his image or his car image. Same reason he took their phones. Doesn’t mean Hill and Clay were using the phones.

 

[Awakening]

You do realise that everyone in the vicinity was interviewed? None of the campers or weed sprayers owned a drone. Hill told Aspen on the HF radio he was going to fly his drone. Police investigations conclude the altercation started ovee a drone. Believe what you want LOL. Hill's precious new drone called Fred was destroyed and burnt along with some of their belingings and thats why it was never found

I think he probably did fly his drone but where is it said the altercation was about flying a drone?

Everything I’ve read to date is that Lynn says the altercation was about Lynn hunting too close to the campsites. That Hill complained to Lynn about this as he had a relative who died in a hunting accident.

Lynn states the argument was over hunting and guns, nothing about the drone? Unless I’ve missed it?

 

[revo333]

So if there was 2 drones does that mean Lynn is innocent and case closed?

Can't wait until the trail starts again and we can move onto more meaningful parts of the case.

 

[revo333]

Lynn states the argument was over hunting and guns, nothing about the drone? Unless I’ve missed it?

"While that hasn't happened just yet, jurors were told Mr Lynn's police interview details how a disagreement with retiree Russell Hill over drone footage of Mr Lynn deer hunting escalated into a confrontation resulting in two accidental deaths."

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

 

[Terrafirma]

I think he probably did fly his drone but where is it said the altercation was about flying a drone?

Everything I’ve read to date is that Lynn says the altercation was about Lynn hunting too close to the campsites. That Hill complained to Lynn about this as he had a relative who died in a hunting accident.

Lynn states the argument was over hunting and guns, nothing about the drone? Unless I’ve missed it?

Quote ABC

"While that hasn't happened just yet, jurors were told Mr Lynn's police interview details how a disagreement with retiree Russell Hill over drone footage of Mr Lynn deer hunting escalated into a confrontation resulting in two accidental deaths."

Also from ABC " Lynn's Defense Quote

He also said it was NOT IN DISPUTE that Mr Lynn took the drone and the couple’s phones, later disposing of them.

The jury was told Mr Lynn led police to the remains after his arrest in November 2021.

 

[Kurve]

I think he probably did fly his drone but where is it said the altercation was about flying a drone?

Everything I’ve read to date is that Lynn says the altercation was about Lynn hunting too close to the campsites. That Hill complained to Lynn about this as he had a relative who died in a hunting accident.

Lynn states the argument was over hunting and guns, nothing about the drone? Unless I’ve missed it?

My understanding is that it wasn't actually about flying the drone. Hill complained to Lynn about his illegal hunting and said to Lynn that he the proof in drone footage, to which Lynn said that was nonsense.

According to Lynn.

 

[Terrafirma]

My understanding is that it wasn't actually about flying the drone. Hill complained to Lynn about his illegal hunting and said to Lynn that he the proof in drone footage, to which Lynn said that was nonsense.

According to Lynn.

Quote ABC

"While that hasn't happened just yet, jurors were told Mr Lynn's police interview details how a disagreement with retiree Russell Hill over drone footage of Mr Lynn deer hunting escalated into a confrontation resulting in two accidental deaths."

Also from ABC " Lynn's Defense Quote

He also said it was NOT IN DISPUTE that Mr Lynn took the drone and the couple’s phones, later disposing of them.

The jury was told Mr Lynn led police to the remains after his arrest in November 2021.

 

[Terrafirma]

My understanding is that it wasn't actually about flying the drone. Hill complained to Lynn about his illegal hunting and said to Lynn that he the proof in drone footage, to which Lynn said that was nonsense.

According to Lynn.

I think Kurve the disagreement was about Deer Hunting. Then Hill threw in the curve ball and said Ive got you on the Drone. So yes in purity it was a hunting dispute according to Lynn Anyways the drone was destroyed just to make sure.

 

[Awakening]

Thanks all. I thought people were surmising that Hill had footage of Lynn’s illegal hunting activity on his drone. This clears it up.

The argument was allegedly about his hunting, not flying the drone but Hill apparently claimed Lynn’s activity was illegal and that he had footage of it on his drone.

 

[Awakening]

Why did he take their phones and the car keys? Did he want it to look like they’d left? Or did those items have blood on them?

 

[Awakening]

While we are all here, how’s Button Man doing?

 

[Terrafirma]

Thanks all. I thought people were surmising that Hill had footage of Lynn’s illegal hunting activity on his drone. This clears it up.

The argument was allegedly about his hunting, not flying the drone but Hill apparently claimed Lynn’s activity was illegal and that he had footage of it on his drone.

This is what Lynn is claiming if you want to believe him. And yes to his credit it could be a likely scenario if Hill had a friend killed in a hunting accident. You still have to factor in Lynn claims this as the events but then he says Hill went to his car and stole a loaded shotgun. And then Lynn came to get it back. So Hill has in his possession a loaded shotgun and allows Lynn to come and wrestle with him, Carol is then shot. So Hill returns with a knife and he is killed too. It's a bloody lot to process IMO