Current Trial Wonnangatta - Russell Hill & Carol Clay vanish *Pilot Greg Lynn charged with murder

[Kurve]

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.'

 

[Zidane98]

Sorry to butt in but I listened to some of it.

It's their first episode and they're basically just rabbitting on a bit introducing their pod with very basic information. It didn't get great reviews but I expect it to be a bit punchier as they go along.

I listened. Nothing of any substance, all about how a trial proceeds. They obviously can't report on any information from the preliminary hearings. There's been absolutely zero media discussion about the upcoming DPP appeal related to preliminary hearings either.

 

[Kurve]

Hey Kurve. Found this thread googling button man. Geez it covers a lot of ground. The death of his first wife mentioned in here, do you know if he had an alibi?

Not sure. I believe there was a Coroner's Inquiry, so you might find something in the report. John Silvester did a radio interview about this not long after the arrest where he mentioned the police would need to 'as a matter of thoroughness' revisit that case.

 

[highcountry]

Dear highcountry - could I please give you a buzz?

Sure

 

[Rachy2024]

Sure

Kind thanks! I'll DM you

 

[Kurve]

It had to happen, premieres tomorrow on Binge.

Detective Andie Whitford gets transferred to the High Country, where she is tasked with investigating the mysterious disappearances of five locals lost in the Victorian wilderness.

• Drama
• Australian
• Crime

https://binge.com.au/shows/show-high-country!25478

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

It had to happen, premieres tomorrow on Binge.

Detective Andie Whitford gets transferred to the High Country, where she is tasked with investigating the mysterious disappearances of five locals lost in the Victorian wilderness.

• Drama
• Australian
• Crime

https://binge.com.au/shows/show-high-country!25478

Lemme guess, there is a shady loner known as The Zipper Man??

 

[Hammeroid]

Do we have set date for trial for old grego?

I very much anticipate this one.

 

[Zidane98]

Anyone know what happened with the DPP appeal hearing?

 

[Trucker Tiger]

Do we have set date for trial for old grego?

I very much anticipate this one.

At this stage, I'd be guessing there won't be a trial.

 

[Kurve]

Anyone know what happened with the DPP appeal hearing?

It's too quiet.

 

[GrayRanga]

Do we have set date for trial for old grego?

I very much anticipate this one.

The trial has already slarted; the argument about admisability of evidence is voir dire heard in the absence of the jury and it is not reported because knowledge of this evidence, if not accepted by the Court, may influence the jury's future deliberations

Some witnesses may have been been before the Court and the evidence in their depositions tested by the prosection and the defence

 

[ms finch]

There have been matters where there are suppression orders that even prohibit the reporting of the existence of the matter itself and any suppression orders. There were extremely broad suppression orders in the Pell and Adrian Bayley matters.

However, I suspect this is just because there are current arguments regarding the admissibility of some evidence. They may not be reporting about it precisely due to the risk of revealing evidence that is then deemed admissible, but there may be a suppression order in place until they have resolved it because it is otherwise difficult to prevent the media reporting.

This case has a lot of evidence that could be considered highly prejudicial. The fact that the DPP is appealing suggests to me that at least some was ruled prejudicial, and some that they think is important to their case. While the DPP can obviously appeal any ruling if they have grounds, they often don't if they weren't dependent on the evidence or if they believed getting it in was a long shot anyway (which would usually mean they weren't dependent on it in the first place).

I'd be surprised if we see much propensity evidence in this case. The propensity evidence that might be introduced here seems far more tenuously linked to me than what we saw admitted in the Claremont case; in fact it seems more like the evidence that was ruled inadmissible in the Claremont case, such as the pr0n and stories on the computer and the - errr - odd things found in the garage.

 

[Zidane98]

There have been matters where there are suppression orders that even prohibit the reporting of the existence of the matter itself and any suppression orders. There were extremely broad suppression orders in the Pell and Adrian Bayley matters.

However, I suspect this is just because there are current arguments regarding the admissibility of some evidence. They may not be reporting about it precisely due to the risk of revealing evidence that is then deemed admissible, but there may be a suppression order in place until they have resolved it because it is otherwise difficult to prevent the media reporting.

This case has a lot of evidence that could be considered highly prejudicial. The fact that the DPP is appealing suggests to me that at least some was ruled prejudicial, and some that they think is important to their case. While the DPP can obviously appeal any ruling if they have grounds, they often don't if they weren't dependent on the evidence or if they believed getting it in was a long shot anyway (which would usually mean they weren't dependent on it in the first place).

I'd be surprised if we see much propensity evidence in this case. The propensity evidence that might be introduced here seems far more tenuously linked to me than what we saw admitted in the Claremont case; in fact it seems more like the evidence that was ruled inadmissible in the Claremont case, such as the pr0n and stories on the computer and the - errr - odd things found in the garage.

Surely we can't be far away from the evidentiary hearings being concluded and the trial starting? To my knowledge these hearings started in mid Feb. The DPP appeal was heard over a week ago.

 

[ms finch]

Surely we can't be far away from the evidentiary hearings being concluded and the trial starting? To my knowledge these hearings started in mid Feb. The DPP appeal was heard over a week ago.

That depends on the complexity of the appeal, the other matters the appellate justices are hearing, and the appellate justices themselves.

A week is not a long time at all in the legal process. Could easily take 2-3 months.

 

[Coastie19]

Something happening tomorrow

 

[Pamcake1]

Something happening tomorrow

Any updates?

 

[Zidane98]

If a deal can't be agreed between DPP and GL's defense a trial must surely be starting any day now. I do find the absolute media blackout on a case that was so high profile just a little bizarre.

 

[Zidane98]

Something happening tomorrow

What would this judgment be?

 

[GrayRanga]

If a deal can't be agreed between DPP and GL's defense a trial must surely be starting any day now. I do find the absolute media blackout on a case that was so high profile just a little bizarre.

Read up on Voir Dire in the Courts.

Any discussion or arguement on the admissibilaty of evidence in a Court which is conducted in the absence of a Jury is not to reported on.

It may be discussed when the trial is completed but until then the reporting of this discussion is off limits to prevent the jury decision being affected.

It would appear that the DPP wanted to lead certain evidence to the trial, the defence objected and the Judge leant the defence's way. so the DPP upped the discussion to the Court of Criminal Appeals to appeal the Judges decision.

We punters or the Jury won't know of this until after the case is completed,

The jury makes its decision purely on the evidence presented and tested in the Court

Something like a recent trial which was aborted because a juror did his/her own research as the evidence possibly contained in the private research could not be tested in open Court

 

[Pamcake1]

Read up on Voir Dire in the Courts.

Any discussion or arguement on the admissibilaty of evidence in a Court which is conducted in the absence of a Jury is not to reported on.

It may be discussed when the trial is completed but until then the reporting of this discussion is off limits to prevent the jury decision being affected.

It would appear that the DPP wanted to lead certain evidence to the trial, the defence objected and the Judge leant the defence's way. so the DPP upped the discussion to the Court of Criminal Appeals to appeal the Judges decision.

We punters or the Jury won't know of this until after the case is completed,

The jury makes its decision purely on the evidence presented and tested in the Court

Something like a recent trial which was aborted because a juror did his/her own research as the evidence possibly contained in the private research could not be tested in open Court

Appreciate the update. Thank you.

 

[theyearwas1969]

Something happening today

 

[Terrafirma]

I read the matter was adjourned for a further directions hearing on June 22.?