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

[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

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.'

 

[Iworkthecircus]

Can I ask you a question.

Go for it champ .

 

[craffles]

Go for it champ .

Thanks, and you don’t need to answer it if you don’t want to.

You tend to post a lot of pretty wild theories on here. Wondering what your background is, EG have you been in trouble with the law, in prison, a victim of serious crime etc. just wondering what drives your unique thinking.

As mentioned previously no need to reply if you think it’s distasteful I’m just curious.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Thanks, and you don’t need to answer it if you don’t want to.

You tend to post a lot of pretty wild theories on here. Wondering what your background is, EG have you been in trouble with the law, in prison, a victim of serious crime etc. just wondering what drives your unique thinking.

As mentioned previously no need to reply if you think it’s distasteful I’m just curious.

You could have PM’d this. It’s not Perfect Match

 

[Awakening]

You could have PM’d this. It’s not Perfect Match

Showing your age. I think the young ones like Love Island these days.

 

[Iworkthecircus]

“Are you a

Thanks, and you don’t need to answer it if you don’t want to.

You tend to post a lot of pretty wild theories on here. Wondering what your background is, EG have you been in trouble with the law, in prison, a victim of serious crime etc. just wondering what drives your unique thinking.

As mentioned previously no need to reply if you think it’s distasteful I’m just curious.

Not theories unfortunately it’s based on fact & experience.
Unfortunately it’s not unique thinking some of these things have been rammed into my face . Other times it’s done on the sly .
I’m not a criminal, victim of gang stalking yes .
Crooked police and crappy government.
Never been to jail .

 

[craffles]

Showing your age. I think the young ones like Love Island these days.

MAFS or GTFO

 

[MiguelM]

And then, after you kill two old people “in self defence”, because your life was in danger, and it was just lucky you’d thought to bring your gun along that very weekend, you don’t want to have to go through inconvenient s**t like reporting what happened, so the best thing to do, logically, would be burn the camp and take those messy bodies up into the remote bush and bury ‘em.

Is a judge seriously going to accept that?

It would be a stretch.

The calculating way he tried to cover up everything was fairly precise too. If not for the photo of the car & trailer he might have got away with it. Not how any reasonable person would act, in a panic, there would be traces everywhere.

 

[CD Xbow]

Thanks for that explanation. And given their remains were burnt and possibly dismembered, that could be hard to determine?

In regards to Carol, someone on here suggested he could claim he accidentally shot Carol, and then in a rage Russell started to attack him, and so shot him in self defence.

Self defence against two unarmed old folks really isn't credible. Can anyone save me from reading the previous 150+ pages and tell me has any potential motive come to light?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Self defence against two unarmed old folks really isn't credible. Can anyone save me from reading the previous 150+ pages and tell me has any potential motive come to light?

Glad you asked

didn’t he end up in hospital because of a bee sting? Story goes something like this;

becomes a bee keeper. Doesn’t realise he’s allergic to bee stings

gets stung tending to his hive. Has an anaphylactic reaction ends up in hospital.

Life’s passion of bee keeping now in turmoil. Comes to resent bees.

takes off to clear his head and try and forget about his lifelong passion of bee keeping

Sets up camp. Hears the drone which triggers his bee sting PTSD. Takes out the 12 gauge has a pop at it. Doesn’t check his background and takes out both Russ and Carol.

flips out. Realises no one is going to believe this story. He hardly believes it himself.Burns down the camp, gets rid of the bodies and gets the hell out of there.

seems plausible

 

[CD Xbow]

Glad you asked

Are you his defence lawyer?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Are you his defence lawyer?

Dennis Denuto at your service

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Short of denying he was anywhere near the area at that time, there’s going to have to be some interesting mental gymnastics applied to the defence.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Short of denying he was anywhere near the area at that time, there’s going to have to be some interesting mental gymnastics applied to the defence.

The problem is the publicly available evidence has him there at the same time and is pretty compelling. And that’s without the detail the prosecution has.

He can’t deny he wasn’t there. That’s why I agree that his only hope is some sort of mitigation defence. It might be futile and he’ll cop the top end range of the sentence if he loses. But he’s not in great health apparently so he’s completely rolling the dice IMHO.

 

[Terrafirma]

I believe he shot them after an argument as Hill wouldn't have backed down. We know Lynn was intolerable to noise so I still suspect the drone was the catalyst. Shooting Clay is the one that can't be explained and I suspect ballistics might prove Lynn's guilt. Jan 16 isn't far off hopefully more will come to light.

 

[Lady O]

The problem is the publicly available evidence has him there at the same time and is pretty compelling. And that’s without the detail the prosecution has.

He can’t deny he wasn’t there. That’s why I agree that his only hope is some sort of mitigation defence. It might be futile and he’ll cop the top end range of the sentence if he loses. But he’s not in great health apparently so he’s completely rolling the dice IMHO.

He can deny he even saw them.

I hope his health improves and it's nothing terminal.

 

[Sir_Loin]

He can deny he even saw them.

I hope his health improves and it's nothing terminal.

Can’t be looked at in isolation. He’ll need to support that position by explaining his post offence behaviour. Which points to a guilty mind in any reasonable person’s book IMO.

 

[Lady O]

Can’t be looked at in isolation. He’ll need to support that position by explaining his post offence behaviour. Which points to a guilty mind in any reasonable person’s book IMO.

Well the thing is he doesn't have to explain anything. The prosecution will need to have enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.

Let's hope they do.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Well the thing is he doesn't have to explain anything. The prosecution will need to have enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.

Let's hope they do.

The defence will have to attempt to counter the evidence with some other story though. That’s what we’re interested in.

 

[Lady O]

The defence will have to attempt to counter the evidence with some other story though. That’s what we’re interested in.

True. But if there is no gun (registered to him or in his possession) that matches the ballistics. If he wasn't seen in the vicinity of their camp and there is no evidence he was there (tyre tracks, fingerprints, dna). If his trailer is never found or if it is found and no forensic evidence ties him to the murders. If there is no evidence at the burial site. Then I think it will be all circumstantial evidence and if his defence counsel can offer alternatives to the existing evidence that introduces a measure of doubt, then it may be difficult to get a conviction. Not impossible though.

However, we don't know the extent of the evidence they may have that places him at the scene of the murder and of the burials. That would make it hard to believe it was coincidential.

 

[NRL Fan]

True. But if there is no gun (registered to him or in his possession) that matches the ballistics. If he wasn't seen in the vicinity of their camp and there is no evidence he was there (tyre tracks, fingerprints, dna). If his trailer is never found or if it is found and no forensic evidence ties him to the murders. If there is no evidence at the burial site. Then I think it will be all circumstantial evidence and if his defence counsel can offer alternatives to the existing evidence that introduces a measure of doubt, then it may be difficult to get a conviction. Not impossible though.

However, we don't know the extent of the evidence they may have that places him at the scene of the murder and of the burials. That would make it hard to believe it was coincidential.

I'm also thinking along similar lines. I've been following this case because I know RH's best mate. What concerned me the most was the police request to delay the hearings and their continued search for the trailer. If all of the evidence is circumstantial and there is no hard forensic evidence, then the case is not a done deal. If you consider the case of Michael Atkins who was charged with the murder of Matthew Leverson, there was significant circumstantial evidence but he still walked free. He even later showed police where he buried his victim as part of an immunity deal.

 

[MiguelM]

I'm also thinking along similar lines. I've been following this case because I know RH's best mate. What concerned me the most was the police request to delay the hearings and their continued search for the trailer. If all of the evidence is circumstantial and there is no hard forensic evidence, then the case is not a done deal. If you consider the case of Michael Atkins who was charged with the murder of Matthew Leverson, there was significant circumstantial evidence but he still walked free. He even later showed police where he buried his victim as part of an immunity deal.

Will be very interesting.

They must have some good evidence placing him at the burial site as they found the bodies in hours. If they were looking blindly it could have taken months in that area. The fact police were in and out very quickly is telling. Hema maps maybe?

 

[Kurve]

I'll close the poll off night before the committal starts, so you have a few days left to change your votes!

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Will be very interesting.

They must have some good evidence placing him at the burial site as they found the bodies in hours. If they were looking blindly it could have taken months in that area. The fact police were in and out very quickly is telling. Hema maps maybe?

Or a confession

 

[Terrafirma]

I'm also thinking along similar lines. I've been following this case because I know RH's best mate. What concerned me the most was the police request to delay the hearings and their continued search for the trailer. If all of the evidence is circumstantial and there is no hard forensic evidence, then the case is not a done deal. If you consider the case of Michael Atkins who was charged with the murder of Matthew Leverson, there was significant circumstantial evidence but he still walked free. He even later showed police where he buried his victim as part of an immunity deal.

Conversely Chris Dawson was convicted or murdering his wife with no body and all circumstantial evidence. Such as they proved he lied to them on multiple occasions etc. They must of been able to track him at the burial site if he didn't confess. That is significant. If he told them where they were that is also significant.

 

[Kwality]

Have only skim read so might have missed it but nfi what the stunning twist is

Ex-Jetstar pilot's self-defence case in alleged camper murders

Former Jetstar pilot Gregory Lynn will return to court over the coming weeks as his Supreme Court of Victoria murder trial pushes ahead.

www.dailymail.co.uk

FWIW:
While Lynn's defence team has never publicly declared how his case would be run, top Melbourne barrister Dermot Dann, QC in November suggested a self-defence argument might be on the cards.

Mr Dann is regarded as one of the best criminal defenders in the country and the man responsible for clearing the name of once convicted killer Katia Pyliotis.
In preparing for January's committal hearing, Mr Dann provided the first public clues as to what happened to the campers.

The badly burnt remains of Ms Clay, 73, and Mr Hill, 74 were located by Victoria Police Missing Persons Squad detectives on November 30 last year - just days after the arrest of Lynn.

Last month, the Melbourne Magistrates' Court heard a ballistics expert would play a crucial role in the alleged killer's upcoming preliminary hearing.

Mr Dann said he was eager to cross examine ballistics expert Paul Griffiths.

'Mr Griffiths is an important witness dealing with the bullet trajectory and so forth,' he said.