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

Did Greg Lynn tell police where he buried the bodies?


  • Total voters
    80
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

  • 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



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.'
 
Last edited:
At risk of getting derailed, it's very clear cut - the only person wrecking lives is the one who is cheating, not the person who is put in a difficult situation. The neighbour could have been a friend of RH wife, in which case their loyalty wouldn't have been with RH. Or they may have just said, I know about it and I won't cover for you if it comes up....tell her before she finds out from someone else. Remember, the media will spin it to sell... it's been described as an ultimatum, but it may not have been that cut and dried.
Again I can see the relevance of the wife giving evidence. His mood? Agitated etc
But in this context the affair is irrelevant.
Both sides agree CC and RH were there together.
Both agree GL was there.
Get forensics and ballistics in as well as CSI to.go over the crime scenes and what they piece together.
If the prosecution keeps going the way it is it is a not guilty verdict. As there narrative is matching GLs. They haven't got to the details of the deaths.
 
The first cousin lie testimony is something I could imagine the prosecution would want to suppress. Anything that can paint RH as the possible antagonist who may actually have started a confrontation with GL over his hunting / gun.
The prosecution is calling these witnesses thou. Yes call the wife if you must (establish mood etc) but so far it's backfired.
A low percentage play. Both sides already agree all 3 parties were present
 
The prosecution is calling these witnesses thou. Yes call the wife if you must (establish mood etc) but so far it's backfired.
A low percentage play. Both sides already agree all 3 parties were present

The only possible angle is what others said - establish RH is a prick and provide a plausible scenario for RH's alleged murder by GL leading to the alleged murder of CC because she was a witness.

It's a bit of a gamble if the prosecution can't convince the jury of GL's motive to murder RH because that's the only way their story of CC being killed second because she was allegedly a witness works.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Another possible GL motive - RH admitted to him over a discussion he was having an affair with CC leading to a fight, RH going for his gun, GL gets it, shoots RH and then goes on to dispose of CC as a witness.
Anything possible but I doubt it.
If after a few round the camp fire rh said guess what she's a mistress why would gl give a shit?
 
The only relevance I can see is that it was further evidence to link the two of them together. Russell's name on a prescription label in her bathroom bin. Agreed, that they didn't need to highlight what the medication was, but if it were photographed, it would be hard to hide that and the media will have access to those photos. The prosecution might not have even asked about the medication specifically. Again, the media will pull out the details from evidence tendered - that includes in person witness accounts, written statements and photographs. Just because it in an article, doesn't mean they've been questioned about it and just because it isn't doesn't mean they weren't.
IMO:
As far as the medication goes and I'm not talking about the Viagra here.
The testimony from the wife of Hill says two things of interest 1/that he was on long term antidepresants and 2/that he took a good amount of alcohol with him. the third thing she said that he was moving slower and thinking slower as in getting old.
Taking antidepresents and then drinking is a no no, it is unadvisable as the two don't combine well and they would interreact having a more sedative affect on each other, add to that that he was slowing down with age, he would be even less of a threat to a fitter man ten years younger.
I think this testimony will be made more of in that Hill was not likely to get physically aggressive given his health and habits.
 
Last edited:
In the Daily Mail article below there are what looks like marked up crime photos. Go to the one showing the front cabin of Hills vehicle and you will see it says view gallery +8 in a blue box to the bottom right and there is a photo of the burnt tent marked up with items and also a front view of the passanger side damage marked up:


Just looking at this picture of the toyota.
1716361885962.png

Are we to assume that the shotgun with pellets or a slug was fired from the back of the vehicle? If so, wouldn't there be holes/a hole in the toilet tent?

If the toilet tent has no damage, then the shotgun must have been fired from the front of the Toyota. So, in this scenario, it looks like GL sneaked up on them and fired when they were sitting under their awning, and the pellets damaged the front passenger side. Notice how close it is.
1716362288779.png
 
Just looking at this picture of the toyota.
View attachment 1996940

Are we to assume that the shotgun with pellets or a slug was fired from the back of the vehicle? If so, wouldn't there be holes/a hole in the toilet tent?

If the toilet tent has no damage, then the shotgun must have been fired from the front of the Toyota. So, in this scenario, it looks like GL sneaked up on them and fired when they were sitting under their awning, and the pellets damaged the front passenger side. Notice how close it is.
View attachment 1996943

IMO:

Kurve suggested about 8 pages ago, that it looks like the gun was fired from the front of the vehicle.
Everyone is keen to know the balistics the forensics and the hard evidence.
I wouldn't be 'assuming' anything until we hear that evidence.

Approximating the toliet tent as a target, it takes up about 20-25 degrees of the range of 270 degrees of possible field range. It may be close but logically it would also be easy to miss from a wide range of angles.
It is therefore not safe to assume anything at all.

Ps. You are seeming to forget to put in the 'alledged' or the IMO part in your writing, that we have all been asked to use because of subjudice.
It is so very important to remember that, so please don't forget.
 
Just looking at this picture of the toyota.
View attachment 1996940

Are we to assume that the shotgun with pellets or a slug was fired from the back of the vehicle? If so, wouldn't there be holes/a hole in the toilet tent?

If the toilet tent has no damage, then the shotgun must have been fired from the front of the Toyota. So, in this scenario, it looks like GL sneaked up on them and fired when they were sitting under their awning, and the pellets damaged the front passenger side. Notice how close it is.
View attachment 1996943

That the shot was taken from the front of the ute might be why in part, the prosecution alleges Hill was killed first then Lynn snuck up on Carol and took his shot from the front of the ute.

That the shot was taken from the front of the ute makes sense with the blood and matter blowing back to spray under the canopy. And she probably did have her head down or it would have sprayed all over the sides and top.

Lynn might say he was wrestling for the gun near the toilet somewhere, over the other side.
 
The latest from the Guardian:
nothing much new.


I’m not getting the relevance of this. Surely there are agreed facts that they were having and affair, had been doing so for some time and RH’s wife didn’t know it was continuing.

It’s into the second week of an estimated six week trial I’d have thought the prosecution would have wanted to be further into the forensic evidence by now.
 
I’m not getting the relevance of this. Surely there are agreed facts that they were having and affair, had been doing so for some time and RH’s wife didn’t know it was continuing.

It’s into the second week of an estimated six week trial I’d have thought the prosecution would have wanted to be further into the forensic evidence by now.
Welcome to the world of consulting - charge (and get paid) by the hour.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Again I can see the relevance of the wife giving evidence. His mood? Agitated etc
But in this context the affair is irrelevant.
Both sides agree CC and RH were there together.
Both agree GL was there.
Get forensics and ballistics in as well as CSI to.go over the crime scenes and what they piece together.
If the prosecution keeps going the way it is it is a not guilty verdict. As there narrative is matching GLs. They haven't got to the details of the deaths.
What was RH's daughter's testimony about? Presumably not his affair with Clay or his penis problem(s).
 
I’m not getting the relevance of this. Surely there are agreed facts that they were having and affair, had been doing so for some time and RH’s wife didn’t know it was continuing.

It’s into the second week of an estimated six week trial I’d have thought the prosecution would have wanted to be further into the forensic evidence by now.

They're trying to discredit Hill's character and I think the prosecution might want to try and pull that up a bit.

That Hill was having a seedy affair behind his wife's back doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether Hill was up for stealing Lynn's gun out of his car then rage charging at him with a knife.
 
That the shot was taken from the front of the ute might be why in part, the prosecution alleges Hill was killed first then Lynn snuck up on Carol and took his shot from the front of the ute.

That the shot was taken from the front of the ute makes sense with the blood and matter blowing back to spray under the canopy. And she probably did have her head down or it would have sprayed all over the sides and top.

Lynn might say he was wrestling for the gun near the toilet somewhere, over the other side.
I can't see why he would be firing from in front of the ute, unless it was an ambush. It doesn't look to me to be any damage to the toilet tent.

1716366187134.png
 
They're trying to discredit Hill's character and I think the prosecution might want to try and pull that up a bit.

That Hill was having a seedy affair behind his wife's back doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether Hill was up for stealing Lynn's gun out of his car then rage charging at him with a knife.
Exactly and Lynn would not have know anything about it if it hadn't been released to the media after the event.
 
From my point of view, the prosecution did the right thing by leading the affair early ... it was common knowledge to anybody who has consumed any media since they went missing.

By leading it early and examining in depth, the prosecution controls the narrative, rather than the defence trying to attack it later on

So, we have an working man, who is slowing down as age catches up with him, who is using drugs to assist in maintaing a sexual relationship and is possibly on anti depressants as the intimations of his mortality catch up with him.

I'd suggest a whole lot of people could have the empathy to relate to this scenario in their own family sphere.

Basically a relative harmless old fart, who has a well set up and expensive 4WD in the bush, playing with his radio and drone who is enjoying the outdoors with his partner (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

The prosecution have set an impression of the man and his partner at the camp site

I'd suggest the group of witnesses will start to tell the evidence of why the prosecution have laid murder charges
 
They're trying to discredit Hill's character and I think the prosecution might want to try and pull that up a bit.

That Hill was having a seedy affair behind his wife's back doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether Hill was up for stealing Lynn's gun out of his car then rage charging at him with a knife.

Feel for the family. Russ might not have been the best bloke but these details are hugely embarrassing and some of it just does not seem to be relevant. But hey what would I know.
 
The latest from the ABC detailing the evidence in court of tracking the car through the mobile phones to the fixed cameras and how it could have only been the one car.
Much better quality image than the bait they sent out in the media to sniff GL out!
 
Much better quality image than the bait they sent out in the media to sniff GL out!
Yes you can see it is him. Way back in the thread there was speculation that they had a better photo and here it is!
 
The latest from the ABC detailing the evidence in court of tracking the car through the mobile phones to the fixed cameras and how it could have only been the one car.

Amazing it took them a year to arrest GL after identifying his car being the “one” consistent with being in the area at the same time RH’s phone pinged the closest tower.
 
Back
Top