Current Trial Russell Hill & Carol Clay Pt 2 *Pilot Greg Lynn sentenced 32 yrs with a non-parole period of 24 yrs

[Kurve]

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

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)

The Greg Lynn Police Interview Tapes (Shortened Version)

The 3.5 HR Police Interview

R v Lynn [2024] VSC 635 (18 October 2024)​

THREADS FOR THE HIGH COUNTRY DISAPPEARED
High Country Disappearance of Prison Boss David Prideaux
The Disappearance of Warren Meyer

2008 - Warren Meyer (23 March 2008) not found
2010 - Japp and Annie Viergever (29 March 2010) both shot & 3 dogs, house burnt.
2011 - David Prideaux (5 June 2011) not found
2017 - Kevin Tenant (17 February 2018) shot 3 times, played dead.
2019 - Conrad Whitlock (29 July 2019) not found
2019 - Niels Becker (24 October 2019) not found
2020 - Russell Hill and Carol Clay (20 March 2020) murdered

Lynn's first wife Lisa, was found dead on 26 October 1999.

 

[faible]

Other than what is known publicly and from the trial is there anything in the book that stands out as particularly noteworthy?

Has a fair bit about how the police investigation unfolded, including details about surveillance and some of the interviews that weren't allowed to be aired at trial.

 

[Lady O]

Has a fair bit about how the police investigation unfolded, including details about surveillance and some of the interviews that weren't allowed to be aired at trial.

I'm reading it at the moment. A bit surprised about the hidden recording device used at witness interviews without the knowledge of the interviewee. I thought Gary Jubelin was in trouble for doing this? Sounds like it's common practice.

 

[Kurve]

I'm reading it at the moment. A bit surprised about the hidden recording device used at witness interviews without the knowledge of the interviewee. I thought Gary Jubelin was in trouble for doing this? Sounds like it's common practice.

It is pretty common practice.

Lynn was Melbourne based, Spedding Savage NSW but they're even more lax in NSW so I've always been pretty sure the illegal recordings were the thing they used to get him off the force but he'd done something else and they don't want the public to know what it was.

He compromised the case in some other way IMO.

Not saying this happened but for example, he got way too close to the FM and was feeding her information. That might do it.

 

[Lady O]

It is pretty common practice.

Lynn was Melbourne based, Spedding NSW but they're even more lax in NSW so I've always been pretty sure the illegal recordings were the thing they used to get him off the force but he'd done something else and they don't want the public to know what it was.

He compromised the case in some other way IMO.

Not saying this happened but for example, he got way too close to the FM and was feeding her information. That might do it.

Well, actually it turns out they aren't illegal after all. Otherwise the writer of the book wouldn't have been able to include them.

 

[Kurve]

Well, actually it turns out they aren't illegal after all. Otherwise the writer of the book wouldn't have been able to include them.

Vic Police v NSW Police rules

 

[GrayRanga]

Vic Police v NSW Police rules

I would suggest they're not illegal as such, the question is whether they can be entered into evidence.

If the approriate warnings are not given, the recordings were unable to be entered into evidence.

Doesn't stop the Police for using any comments heard to guide their future investigations

The iniial interview with Lynne at his house couldn't be entered into evidence in his trial as the correct forms wern't followed, but his answere guided the subsequent investigation

 

[Lady O]

I would suggest they're not illegal as such, the question is whether they can be entered into evidence.

If the approriate warnings are not given, the recordings were unable to be entered into evidence.

Doesn't stop the Police for using any comments heard to guide their future investigations

The iniial interview with Lynne at his house couldn't be entered into evidence in his trial as the correct forms wern't followed, but his answere guided the subsequent investigation

See, I don't understand this. In days past, a Police had a notebook and a pencil. They wrote down (in point form) what they interpreted a witness said.

If a witness can be recorded and their evidence transcribed word for word, that surely has to be better than an unreliable "shorthand" longhand version?

 

[Royces Hart]

Nope. Book basically describes him as a shit campaigner which is all true. That’s about it.

Awww man, I could have done that.

Missed opportunity to finally be an author

 

[GrayRanga]

See, I don't understand this. In days past, a Police had a notebook and a pencil. They wrote down (in point form) what they interpreted a witness said.

If a witness can be recorded and their evidence transcribed word for word, that surely has to be better than an unreliable "shorthand" longhand version?

There is a general hierarchy of evidence that a Court can accept without dispute or challenge.

A video of a interview in the presence of a legal representative after all the required warnings have been advised (and recorded), is held in high regard.

Remove the solicitor, but get a recorded agreement that the interviewee has had access to legal representation and is acting in accordance with the advice received has a lesser degree of regard

A written and signed statement is (made without duress) is lower again on the hierarchy

The cops written contemporaneous notes in their note books is lower again

I have worked in a job where I had to advise people in a phone call that I was taking contemporaneous notes and at the end of the call read my notes back to them and edit them as need be

Remember, Police have been known edit their note books at a later stage, and even signed statements have been known to be doctored or the statement subject to being verballed

There have been cases where uneducated and functionally illiterate interviewees have signed statements that written with a greater command of the English language than they were capable of writing let alone reading

You have to remember that there is a stark division between the investigation process and the Court, the evidence that the Police use to further their investigation (such as heresay) may not be accepted by a Court with their precedents that find their origins in Dane Law

 

[Lady O]

There is a general hierarchy of evidence that a Court can accept without dispute or challenge.

A video of a interview in the presence of a legal representative after all the required warnings have been advised (and recorded), is held in high regard.

Remove the solicitor, but get a recorded agreement that the interviewee has had access to legal representation and is acting in accordance with the advice received has a lesser degree of regard

A written and signed statement is (made without duress) is lower again on the hierarchy

The cops written contemporaneous notes in their note books is lower again

I have worked in a job where I had to advise people in a phone call that I was taking contemporaneous notes and at the end of the call read my notes back to them and edit them as need be

Remember, Police have been known edit their note books at a later stage, and even signed statements have been known to be doctored or the statement subject to being verballed

There have been cases where uneducated and functionally illiterate interviewees have signed statements that written with a greater command of the English language than they were capable of writing let alone reading

You have to remember that there is a stark division between the investigation process and the Court, the evidence that the Police use to further their investigation (such as heresay) may not be accepted by a Court with their precedents that find their origins in Dane Law

I have witnessed an officer reading his contemporaneous notes in court, so they certainly ARE taken into consideration and are read out loud to the jury. Much more reliable than the memory of an officer several years after the event.

 

[Lady O]

I am quite impressed so far with the book "In The Dead of the Night". I am only up to the arrest, but am finding it quite interesting. I was dubious that, having followed the case from the beginning, it would have enough value, however I can say that so far, I can't fault it. In fact, I'm reading it as if I don't know how it ends. There are quite a few extra "facts" that haven't been made public and some others he hints at that cannot be revealed at this time. While we were here discussing it, the Police were working hard behind the scenes.

 

[Percel]

I have witnessed an officer reading his contemporaneous notes in court, so they certainly ARE taken into consideration and are read out loud to the jury. Much more reliable than the memory of an officer several years after the event.

He didn’t say they weren’t, it was an explanation of the hierarchy of submissable evidence

 

[GrayRanga]

I have witnessed an officer reading his contemporaneous notes in court, so they certainly ARE taken into consideration and are read out loud to the jury. Much more reliable than the memory of an officer several years after the event.

Missed the phrase "accept without dispute or challenge"?

One of the basics of conducting an investigation is voluminous notes, detailing every jot and iota of the process, ordered chronologically

I'm not saying that the Court may not accept contemporaneous notes, but they can be challenged by either the prosecution or defence and, after due deliberation from the Court, be excluded from evidence heard by the jury.

As this case has proved with the amount of evidence that was excluded, one of the major issues of the investigation was the Police failed to cover their arses correctly by losing sight of the proper forms of collection of evidence that the Court would eventually allow.

Imagine how the Crown case would have been strengthened if the Police had have given him the correct warnings on their initial interview and the jury was able to hear of his duplicity from that early point of the investigation

Imagine if the Prosecution asked for the cop's investigator's note book for his contemporaneous notes and heard "Fair cop Guv, I was the one that done it"

 

[Lady O]

Missed the phrase "accept without dispute or challenge"?

One of the basics of conducting an investigation is voluminous notes, detailing every jot and iota of the process, ordered chronologically

I'm not saying that the Court may not accept contemporaneous notes, but they can be challenged by either the prosecution or defence and, after due deliberation from the Court, be excluded from evidence heard by the jury.

As this case has proved with the amount of evidence that was excluded, one of the major issues of the investigation was the Police failed to cover their arses correctly by losing sight of the proper forms of collection of evidence that the Court would eventually allow.

Imagine how the Crown case would have been strengthened if the Police had have given him the correct warnings on their initial interview and the jury was able to hear of his duplicity from that early point of the investigation

Imagine if the Prosecution asked for the cop's investigator's note book for his contemporaneous notes and heard "Fair cop Guv, I was the one that done it"

He made a statement at the time, quite willingly and it was subsequently checked with him at least twice, so no doubt it was accurate according to GL's version of events.
I'm not sure why, or even if, it was not allowed. So they had the recording, but also his signed statement to corroborate. It's not like he was only semi-literate or would not have understood the implications of telling lies to the Police.

 

[GrayRanga]

He made a statement at the time, quite willingly and it was subsequently checked with him at least twice, so no doubt it was accurate according to GL's version of events.
I'm not sure why, or even if it, was not allowed. So they had the recording, but also his signed statement to corroborate. It's not like he was only semi-literate or would not have understood the implications of telling lies to the Police.

I'm talking about the original Door Front interview at his home.

Didn't know he signed a written statement of his movements over the weekend to that effect to the police at that time

Was he warned that that any answer he gave would be recorded and could be used and that they already had evidence that a car matching the description of his was photographed

It doesn't matter in the long run, because the evidence obtained during that interview didn't meet the requirements of the Court to be admitted into evidence

I hate to break it to you, but it not unknown for Police to perjure themselves in attempting to achieve a result.

Legislation and Court precedents have evolved over the years to minimise this and Police procedures and practices have also changed as each case has been lost

Been pulled over recently for a licence check, fpr a traffic offence or an RBA?

Ever wonder why the cops turn on their cameras when they talk to you?

Covers their arse for any allegations of misconduct on their behalf and it beats contemporaneous notes of the discussion should it ever go near a Court

 

[Lady O]

I'm talking about the original Door Front interview at his home.

Didn't know he signed a written statement of his movements over the weekend to that effect to the police at that time

Was he warned that that any answer he gave would be recorded and could be used and that they already had evidence that a car matching the description of his was photographed

It doesn't matter in the long run, because the evidence obtained during that interview didn't meet the requirements of the Court to be admitted into evidence

I hate to break it to you, but it not unknown for Police to perjure themselves in attempting to achieve a result.

Legislation and Court precedents have evolved over the years to minimise this and Police procedures and practices have also changed as each case has been lost

Been pulled over recently for a licence check, fpr a traffic offence or an RBA?

Ever wonder why the cops turn on their cameras when they talk to you?

Covers their arse for any allegations of misconduct on their behalf and it beats contemporaneous notes of the discussion should it ever go near a Court

No, I haven't been pulled over for anything lately. However, they don't usually warn you that anything you say can be used in evidence against you and ask if you want to speak to a lawyer. They just ask.

 

[GrayRanga]

No, I haven't been pulled over for anything lately. However, they don't usually warn you that anything you say can be used in evidence against you and ask if you want to speak to a lawyer. They just ask.

But you're not being accused of a crime.

If you were pinged doing 100kph through a school zone i would guarantee that you would be warned before the discussion commenced

 

[Lady O]

But you're not being accused of a crime.

If you were pinged doing 100kph through a school zone i would guarantee that you would be warned before the discussion commenced

But GL wasn't being "accused of a crime", he was just being interviewed as a potential witness. The same as all the people camping at Wonnangatta had been (most had already come forward).

In my case, it was 2.30am and there had been a crime committed earlier in the night (where I later found out), a female accomplice was driving a similar car to mine. I was asked for license and questioned about my movements. This is the same thing.

 

[faible]

Was he warned that that any answer he gave would be recorded and could be used and that they already had evidence that a car matching the description of his was photographed

It doesn't matter in the long run, because the evidence obtained during that interview didn't meet the requirements of the Court to be admitted into evidence

He wasn’t cautioned, thus why it was excluded from evidence presented at trial.

They almost had the full police interview evidence thrown out as well due to some questionable behaviour from the police, except the Defence wanted some of it in there so I think around half was permitted.

The police may have done what was ‘necessary’ but they crossed some lines along the way and it almost cost them the conviction.

 

[Lady O]

He wasn’t cautioned, thus why it was excluded from evidence presented at trial.

They almost had the full police interview evidence thrown out as well due to some questionable behaviour from the police, except the Defence wanted some of it in there so I think around half was permitted.

The police may have done what was ‘necessary’ but they crossed some lines along the way and it almost cost them the conviction.

I'm yet to read that part, so I'll let you know. They did say the questions they planned to ask him were discussed in depth before hand with a psychologist, so they weren't "off the cuff" and would have, I'm thinking, been approved by their superiors.

 

[faible]

I'm yet to read that part, so I'll let you know. They did say the questions they planned to ask him were discussed in depth before hand with a psychologist, so they weren't "off the cuff" and would have, I'm thinking, been approved by their superiors.

The reason behind the initial contact at his home being excluded (not cautioned) is different from the content of the police interview.

It’ll make sense once you’ve read that bit, but the police definitely knew they were right on the line of what they could or couldn’t get away with during the interview.