Current Trial Russell Hill & Carol Clay Pt 2 *Pilot Greg Lynn Guilty for the Murder of Carol Clay

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1 Russell Hill & Carol Clay - Wonnangatta *Pilot Greg Lynn Pleads Not Guilty to Murder

The Greg Lynn Police Interview Tapes

DPP v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 (12 April 2024) INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL​

R v Lynn (Rulings 1-4) [2024] VSC 373 (28 June 2024)​

R v Lynn (Rulings 5 & 6) [2024] VSC 375 (28 February 2024)

R v Lynn (Ruling 7) [2024] VSC 376 (8 May 2024)

 

[Kurve]

Murder OR manslaughter or any crime within that, ie assault, recklessly cause injury, threat to kill, etc, etc. Double jeopardy

Whether he can be charged now separately for any offence AFTER RH died, ie, 'interfering with a corpse' I am not sure.

My guess would be no, as the facts that make up that offence were part of the Crown case of murder. So I don't think he can be presented on that again under a different charge.

Again, double jeopardy

Not unless there is fresh and compelling new evidence.

Lynn might yet be charged with interfering with a corpse and destruction of evidence or similar but I'm not sure they'd bother unless it's to try and get something by way of conviction for the Hill family, subject to statute of limitation.

 

[Percel]

Lot's of people have said he was grumpy. The weed sprayers called him a grumpy looking old man who sped past them from memory and Dermot Dann did as well. He struggled with retirement and I think was quoted as telling people about flying the drone illegally that he didn't give a f___k. He struggled with some issues that may have given people this perception.

I know you’re not shocked that Dann called him grumpy…

 

[Kurve]

Sorry but it just doesn't happen like that in Australia

Yeh, it can and it does.

Sue for damages​

You may also be able to make a civil claim against the offender to get compensation for the injury you have suffered. This will depend on whether the offender has any assets (money or other things they own). The offender does not have to have been convicted or found guilty in a criminal court for this to happen. You can include the loss, destruction or damage of your property in your claim. Get other support for victims of crime.

Financial assistance and compensation​

Victims of crime may be able to get financial assistance from the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, or compensation from the person who committed the crime.

www.legalaid.vic.gov.au

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Lot's of people have said he was grumpy. The weed sprayers called him a grumpy looking old man who sped past them from memory and Dermot Dann did as well. He struggled with retirement and I think was quoted as telling people about flying the drone illegally that he didn't give a f___k. He struggled with some issues that may have given people this perception.

But how is that relevant? Not saying you are victim-blaming but Hill's demeanour or facial expression doesn't mean he "asked for it", which Lynn and the defence were hinting at. Many people are unfairly judged on the way they look at a given time. He probably wasn't a bit grumpy when he was around his friends. There are plenty of people, young and old, who don't give a **** about doing what they want, and struggle with personal issues such as unemployment.

It's really irrelevant to the case. Unless we're talking provocation, which itself is no defence. Someone reacting badly to a situation, either verbally or by passive-aggressive actions, shouldn't result in them being killed.

 

[Dirh Semaj]

Ironic, he was cooking steak and mushrooms when he got arrested.

Beef Wellington?

 

[Analysis Reactor]

No such thing as "suing an estate for damages" in Australia

Lynn has already lost his house to Dann. Dann is on holidays sipping on a martini by the beach thinking “I need a few more clients like old mate Lynn”

 

[Zidane98]

But how is that relevant? Not saying you are victim-blaming but Hill's demeanour or facial expression doesn't mean he "asked for it", which Lynn and the defence were hinting at. Many people are unfairly judged on the way they look at a given time. He probably wasn't a bit grumpy when he was around his friends. There are plenty of people, young and old, who don't give a **** about doing what they want, and struggle with personal issues such as unemployment.

It's really irrelevant to the case. Unless we're talking provocation, which itself is no defence. Someone reacting badly to a situation, either verbally or by passive-aggressive actions, shouldn't result in them being killed.

It would be relevant in the likelihood that RH initiated a confrontation with GL so in that manner it was definitely relevant to the case. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that could have been the case with RH. Being a grumpy bastard, his tendency to tell hunters off etc. Setting up camp right next door in the Wonnangatta itself is not what a camper would typically do. This was his territory in his eyes. That probably played a large part in the jury acquitting GL of murder, they may have formed the view that RH did accost GL and ended up dead in a fight.

Whatever the result of that altercation the facts are that CC died from GL's gun and she in no way as a third party to an altercation should be killed. Therefore the only reasonable explanation left is murder.

 

[Zidane98]

Lynn has already lost his house to Dann. Dann is on holidays sipping on a martini by the beach thinking “I need a few more clients like old mate Lynn”

Wonder how GL's unfair dismissal case with Jetstar is going.

 

[Terrafirma]

I know you’re not shocked that Dann called him grumpy…

I guess we can all get grumpy at times. Dann was obviously trying to setup Hill as the aggressor.

 

[Terrafirma]

Wonder how GL's unfair dismissal case with Jetstar is going.

I don't think it went any further because Jetstar would of had a clause in his employment contract that said "Thou Shall Not __________" He would of been in breach of that even though at that point in time he was Not Guilty.

 

[Terrafirma]

If the gate to the north was open he would have got away with it.

If he didn't take the phone he would have got away with it - this to me is so odd considering everything else he did. Why did he keep it? Was he hoping it would ping to create a red herring, I assumed since the Adrian Bailey case it was well understood what phones, even turned off could do.

Heck, if he didn't crack on day 3 of the police interview would they have been able to convict him of anything? Given that it was only his admission that connected his firearm to the ballistic and forensic evidence.

There is still the chance even with the gate open that he gets done on another camera somewhere else at the same time Hill's phone pings.

 

[Terrafirma]

We had a big discussion about how many phones there was because partnered/married men who keep mistresses usually have a sly phone they keep hidden in their car.

I'd figured this spare phone was on Hill's body and Lynn had two in his hand, which might have explained why he didn't know one was turned on to ping in Hotham.

Turns out there was a third mobile phone but Lynn missed it leaving it behind in Hill's vehicle and he just didn't realise he was travelling with an active phone.

Yeah thought that but well explained. This makes sense. Cheers

 

[Analysis Reactor]

Wonder how GL's unfair dismissal case with Jetstar is going.

Jetstar? The only thing Lynn will be flying is paper aeroplanes in his jail cell

 

[Zidane98]

The timeframe is supported by Hill’s radio call to his friends and the road cameras that captured Lynn’s vehicle. So he did have to clean up hurriedly and in the dark. Hence things got inevitably missed.

Also supported by him being heard raising a huge racket at the Abbeyard gate, time taken to get to Union Spur track from Wonnangatta in the dark with a trailer and the time taken from Union Spur to the resort cameras. I'd say GL's timeline was probably mostly accurate.


I presume RH's phone must have connected to the network in the trip to Union Spur as well as there is always reception on the peaks in the VHC. And also in some places along the Dargo HP road. I don't remember hearing evidence that GL's phone was picked up in the case, maybe he disabled his phone while forgetting to disable RH's phone. If he threw the phone in the burn pile every chance he would have gotten away with it.

 

[Terrafirma]

Not necessarily, a conviction isn't always required to secure a payment from VOCAT. Actioning a civil case against doesn't require a conviction either.

Civil is a whole different ball game IMO and is like opening Pandora's Box. For example in a civil scenario the house is in Melanie's name and so I don't believe they could go for the house. They can go for Lynn the man but what if he has no assets and no employment salary coming in etc.

 

[Terrafirma]

Also supported by him being heard raising a huge racket at the Abbeyard gate, time taken to get to Union Spur track from Wonnangatta in the dark with a trailer and the time taken from Union Spur to the resort cameras. I'd say GL's timeline was probably mostly accurate.


I presume RH's phone must have connected to the network in the trip to Union Spur as well as there is always reception on the peaks in the VHC. And also in some places along the Dargo HP road. I don't remember hearing evidence that GL's phone was picked up in the case, maybe he disabled his phone while forgetting to disable RH's phone. If he threw the phone in the burn pile every chance he would have gotten away with it.

Referring to the 2nd phone that Lynn didn't realise Hill had. It was the 2nd phone that pinged at Hotham not his other phone that Lynn took possession of IMO. He simply wasn't aware Hill had 2 x Phones.

 

[Badd0g]

The timeframe is supported by Hill’s radio call to his friends and the road cameras that captured Lynn’s vehicle. So he did have to clean up hurriedly and in the dark. Hence things got inevitably missed.

What I'm talking about is there is a gap of time in I dependant witness from 6:40ish (end of radio call) to around midnight (heard doing U turn) where all this could have occurred.
He says 930ish/10/11 in some reports.... But I don't believe that gave him time enough to pick up after himself as well as he did. Yeah he missed a slug and some blood splatter but it was a pretty clean sweep otherwise. You don't do that and everything else, that thoroughly, that quickly. I believe the PJs story might have lent weight to his timeline and story of doing it all in a panicked state, rather than the slow, methodical manner than I imagine it actually was done it.

 

[GrayRanga]

It would be relevant in the likelihood that RH initiated a confrontation with GL so in that manner it was definitely relevant to the case. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that could have been the case with RH. Being a grumpy bastard, his tendency to tell hunters off etc. Setting up camp right next door in the Wonnangatta itself is not what a camper would typically do. This was his territory in his eyes. That probably played a large part in the jury acquitting GL of murder, they may have formed the view that RH did accost GL and ended up dead in a fight.

Whatever the result of that altercation the facts are that CC died from GL's gun and she in no way as a third party to an altercation should be killed. Therefore the only reasonable explanation left is murder.

Mind reader are you?

Jury's deliberations are private and will forever remain private.

Provacation is not a defence in Victoria and even the death of someone even as a result of self defence can attract Gaol time.

Self defence was never raised by anybody and therefore the jury would not have considered it.

We, and the jury, don't know how Hill died. We do know he's dead as his DNA was extracted from fragments of bone at the burn site

What is the evidence presented at trial that Lynn murdered Hill under Common Law definition?

The Jury obviously didn't believe Lynn's carefully concocted narrative of that night to find him guilty of the murder of Clay.

They couldn't find him guilty of the murder of Hill beyond reasonable doubt; there's too many ways that he might have died not at the hands of Hill

A fall, a heart attack, a stroke could all could raise issues of reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.

They may have believed that Lynn killed Hill, but the evidence was not sufficient to erase all reasonable doubt

Being a grumpy old bugger is not an excuse for murder (or I'd be dead years ago)

Attempting to place the blame for the events of that night upon Hill is victim blaming

 

[Terrafirma]

Mind reader are you?

Jury's deliberations are private and will forever remain private.

Provacation is not a defence in Victoria and even the death of someone even as a result of self defence can attract Gaol time.

Self defence was never raised by anybody and therefore the jury would not have considered it.

We, and the jury, don't know how Hill died. We do know he's dead as his DNA was extracted from fragments of bone at the burn site

What is the evidence presented at trial that Lynn murdered Hill under Common Law definition?

The Jury obviously didn't believe Lynn's carefully concocted narrative of that night to find him guilty of the murder of Clay.

They couldn't find him guilty of the murder of Hill beyond reasonable doubt; there's too many ways that he might have died not at the hands of Hill

A fall, a heart attack, a stroke could all could raise issues of reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.

They may have believed that Lynn killed Hill, but the evidence was not sufficient to erase all reasonable doubt

Being a grumpy old bugger is not an excuse for murder (or I'd be dead years ago)

Attempting to place the blame for the events of that night upon Hill is victim blaming

The interesting part of this story is that Dann was trying to paint Hill as the aggressor via being grumpy or having a temper. In reality the Police already knew of Lynn's temper via all of the allegations made against him whilst married to Lisa Lynn. It was on the Coroners record. Yet we know the Police weren't allowed to use any of this during the trial. So what makes it ok for Dann to do and not the Pros. My point being the system favors the accused IMO.

We really do need a criminal law expert within these threads LOL

 

[GardenGnome]

Jetstar? The only thing Lynn will be flying is paper aeroplanes in his jail cell

Wonder how GL's unfair dismissal case with Jetstar is going.

Yeah that one’s likely been grounded, after encountering some turbulence; a bit of a bumpy ride. Did that case even take off?

 

[Zidane98]

Mind reader are you?

Jury's deliberations are private and will forever remain private.

Provacation is not a defence in Victoria and even the death of someone even as a result of self defence can attract Gaol time.

Self defence was never raised by anybody and therefore the jury would not have considered it.

We, and the jury, don't know how Hill died. We do know he's dead as his DNA was extracted from fragments of bone at the burn site

What is the evidence presented at trial that Lynn murdered Hill under Common Law definition?

The Jury obviously didn't believe Lynn's carefully concocted narrative of that night to find him guilty of the murder of Clay.

They couldn't find him guilty of the murder of Hill beyond reasonable doubt; there's too many ways that he might have died not at the hands of Hill

A fall, a heart attack, a stroke could all could raise issues of reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.

They may have believed that Lynn killed Hill, but the evidence was not sufficient to erase all reasonable doubt

Being a grumpy old bugger is not an excuse for murder (or I'd be dead years ago)

Attempting to place the blame for the events of that night upon Hill is victim blaming

All of this is the reason why GL was found guilty of murder for CC, she clearly wasn't party to the confrontation between GL & RH.

No bone fragments were found of RH at the bucks camp scene - a likelihood if he was blown away considering GL pissed off in the dark. None of his blood found on the outside of his car like CC which eliminates the possibility he shot them together next to the car. Also, his blood & DNA was recovered from the accommodation that GL stayed at on his clothes. That suggests he could we have died from bleeding out in a close quarter fight with GL - the only issue being there is no way to prove how he bled out other than GL's word.

My take is the jury probably formed the opinion from the above evidence that RH was killed in an altercation with GL without being able to conclude how or why that happened. But rather than CC's shooting being an accident he murdered her to cover the whole thing up. They didn't buy the accidental shooting of CC story.

 

[Terrafirma]

What I'm talking about is there is a gap of time in I dependant witness from 6:40ish (end of radio call) to around midnight (heard doing U turn) where all this could have occurred.
He says 930ish/10/11 in some reports.... But I don't believe that gave him time enough to pick up after himself as well as he did. Yeah he missed a slug and some blood splatter but it was a pretty clean sweep otherwise. You don't do that and everything else, that thoroughly, that quickly. I believe the PJs story might have lent weight to his timeline and story of doing it all in a panicked state, rather than the slow, methodical manner than I imagine it actually was done it.

So you think it happened earlier? And he did clean up in a slow and methodical manner? If that's the case he'd be pissed off he made a mistake. I'm of the belief it happened over the drone and it was sunset at 7.25 meaning last light would of been around 7.45pm. I'm thinking Hill has landed the drone at around sunset meaning he flew it between 6.40pm last radio call to Sunset or just after, he may of had 1 hours fly time and I think he wanted it landed by dark. Lynn's story says he went to Hill as the drone landed and asked him why he was flying it? So it could of occurred at at around 7.30 to 7.45pm giving him the crucial time to clean everything methodically? How do you see it?

 

[champagnegirl]

Unravelling Lynn's story is the major challenge to coming to the truth of the events on that fateful day. It seems like there are so many lies, half truths and truths that Lynn has woven into his version that it's impossible to know when one begins and one ends.
If Hill and Clay were in their pj's per Lynn's story I don't believe the phone was in Hill's pocket. And if he had a jacket on as Dogs_ R_ Us suggests Lynn probably would have noticed that rather than the pj's and Hill surely would have put his boots on. If the pj wearing was a complete fabrication by Lynn I have no idea how it contributes to his defense, in fact it detracts from it. It baffles me that he didn't find and turn Hill's phone off earlier unless he saw Hill's other phone in the car and assumed he only had one.
Such an interesting case. I'm happy he's been convicted of at least one of the murders and here's hoping the Judge doesn't go lightly on the sentence.

From memory, his usual radio check in time was around 6.30pm. I seem to remember they spoke at 6.40pm ? So even if you allowed extra time, they could have been commitment free from say 7.15/7.30pm even earlier. So if the attack occurred earlier than PJ wearing hours, to me that gave him a lot more time to clean up. The time his vehicle was clocked after leaving the camp just means it took him longer to remove and destroy all evidence and get out to that location.

 

[Zidane98]

Yeah that one’s likely been grounded, after encountering some turbulence; a bit of a bumpy ride. Did that case even take off?

Turbulence similar to the recent SQ incident for sure.

 

[Underarrest_]

So you think it happened earlier? And he did clean up in a slow and methodical manner? If that's the case he'd be pissed off he made a mistake. I'm of the belief it happened over the drone and it was sunset at 7.25 meaning last light would of been around 7.45pm. I'm thinking Hill has landed the drone at around sunset meaning he flew it between 6.40pm last radio call to Sunset or just after, he may of had 1 hours fly time and I think he wanted it landed by dark. Lynn's story says he went to Hill as the drone landed and asked him why he was flying it? So it could of occurred at at around 7.30 to 7.45pm giving him the crucial time to clean everything methodically? How do you see it?

I kind of think the timing of GL’s version would be right re the time of the gun shots in case someone heard