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.'

 

[MrsBlueSky]

No doubt he killed them.

How did the two campers die in your opinion?
If you aren't certain how they died then how can you be so sure GL killed them?

 

[Zidane98]

Truth is stranger than fiction. This is Lynn's story as best I can interpret it.

Lynn is hunting deer too close to camp. Hill warns him of the dangers.

Lynn afraid of losing his job and his gun license decides to move a few metres away. That should do it! Phew! “Thanks for telling me mate, sorry I didn’t know I was that close.” Lynn can now hunt safely. Hill flies his drone to spy on Lynn. Lynn hears the buzzing and thinks it is a mozzie so he continues shooting.

“Gotcha now” Hill thinks to himself. As Lynn, whistling a happy tune returns to his car a smirking Hill shows Lynn the drone and tells him, “Your finished mate”. Hill goes back to his camp and settles down for the night with his lover. Lynn meanwhile is far from settled. Oh well, what can he do now, his career and hobby are all flushed down the toilet. He’s smart, he’ll think of a plan. Of course! His plan is to annoy them.

He puts his shotgun in the car, forgets to take the shells out and put the safety on. Winds the windows down or leaves the car doors open and turns the radio on full blast to annoy the campers.

It's about 10.00PM. Lynn’s genius plan worked. An annoyed Hill grabs a torch and heads to Lynns car. Lynn doesn't see him coming. Hill doesn't turn the radio down, but steals Lynns shotgun and heads back to his own camp. Lynn realises what has happened and goes to retrieve his gun. But Hill will not give it to him.

A series of tragic unforeseen circumstances unfold. Hill and Lynn are fighting for the loaded shotgun (with safety off). How could they have known the dangers! Bang! There goes poor Clay.

Hill lets go of the gun. Lynn now has it and empties it by firing in the air. The shooting doesn’t intimidate Hill, he picks up a knife from his camp table and charges at Lynn. They fight and fall to the ground. Hill is dead!

Right! Need another plan. First, don’t lose your s**t mate. Think! What should he do now? Ok, start by cleaning the mess. “I was never here” he thinks to himself as he cleans up. Good plan.

That, IMO, is how it played out. Why not? Makes perfect sense. IMO.

It's a shame forensics weren't done the day the coppers got there (Mar 28th) as that would have told the story if this is the way it went down. It also could have gone a long way to debunking GL's story if it were bs. Perhaps recent lockdowns and the remote location of the campsite didn't help. We have CC's DNA on the inside of the Landcruiser canopy which sort of fits with GL's story. If a sweep was done within say 100m of the vehicle that would have picked up traces of RH's DNA (and probably some blood) on the ground at GL's campsite if that is actually the way it went down.

I don't find GL's version of events particularly convincing but I also don't buy the prosecution saying they don't know how and why RH died but it was definitely murder and it was followed by GL murdering CC because of her being a witness. That part I can buy if the prosecution can sell the how and why of RH's death.

 

[FrankGrimes]

can you explain your thoughts?
I am just saying that he needs to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and i think there must be some doubt there.

Well could be just say some random bloke walked into camp blew them
Away and left? Then he panicked thinking he was to blame? they can prove it almost by using common sense and logic, the odds of 2 dying as an accident is a million to one..
Burning bodies, returning to burn everything, tells you it’s not an accident. Just my opinion of course but it’s well beyond above reasonable that he murdered 1 at least

 

[10571z]

Even evidence that would support his version of events.

Eg the mirror and many other things.

Well exactly. If it happened as he said forensics would have been able to somewhat established that. Yes she was shot in the head, yes this knife was fallen on…

Instead he burnt everything to a crisp and took away absolutely every slither of evidence and it’s just a story now.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Hill shows Lynn the drone and tells him, “Your finished mate”. Hill goes back to his camp and settles down for the night

Mrs Black Cat,
I agree with your all story except for one thing.
When you wrote: "Your finished mate", it should have been "You're finished, mate".
It's those small details that will be important when GL's team give their evidence because if the prosecution haven't done their homework then reasonable doubt can arise.
And this trial will not be like the Claremont Serial Killer trial where the alleged murderer offered absolutely no defence apart from questioning the temperature on a particular day.
For example, the prosecution will have to be certain and make no doubt that the bullet fragment contains the skull fragment and DNA from CC.
Have a good day.
Mrs Blue Sky

 

[Lady O]

It's a shame forensics weren't done the day the coppers got there (Mar 28th) as that would have told the story if this is the way it went down. It also could have gone a long way to debunking GL's story if it were bs. Perhaps recent lockdowns and the remote location of the campsite didn't help. We have CC's DNA on the inside of the Landcruiser canopy which sort of fits with GL's story. If a sweep was done within say 100m of the vehicle that would have picked up traces of RH's DNA (and probably some blood) on the ground at GL's campsite if that is actually the way it went down.

I don't find GL's version of events particularly convincing but I also don't buy the prosecution saying they don't know how and why RH died but it was definitely murder and it was followed by GL murdering CC because of her being a witness. That part I can buy if the prosecution can sell the how and why of RH's death.

We have CC's DNA on the inside of the Landcruiser canopy which sort of fits with GL's story.

Depends. If the DNA was tissue from being shot in the head, it just proves she was outside when shot. However, if it's simply DNA from touch or even a small amount of blood (that could be from a cut finger) it doesn't tell us anything except that Clay had been in contact with the inside of the canopy, just as you would expect if she was doing the cooking.

 

[Badd0g]

Believe the poster meant GL was an avid high country enthusiast. He was a regular visitor to the high country but it is a vast place. Ironically just as RH was. There is nobody that knows all areas of it thoroughly. Perhaps he had only been to the "Gatta a few times before hence asking advice on what the best campsite was.

I've spent time travelling through this area on foot, nothing else gives you an appreciation for how vast and remote it is. I would agree he was familiar with at least the Dargo end of the valley as the question was regarding a good camp site at "this end of the valley". The fact he took their bodies to Grants confirms that he went somewhere he was familiar with. But anyone who is familiar with or has an interest in the area would have been acutely aware of the extent of the Abbeyard fire and the road closure. I was following it closely as our ski lodge was close to being threatened and it was obvious "to blind freddy" to borrow from Robbie Ashlin, that none of the roads leading north were open.

 

[Badd0g]

Mrs Black Cat,
I agree with your all story except for one thing.
When you wrote: "Your finished mate", it should have been "You're finished, mate".
It's those small details that will be important when GL's team give their evidence because if the prosecution haven't done their homework then reasonable doubt can arise.
And this trial will not be like the Claremont Serial Killer trial where the alleged murderer offered absolutely no defence apart from questioning the temperature on a particular day.
For example, the prosecution will have to be certain and make no doubt that the bullet fragment contains the skull fragment and DNA from CC.
Have a good day.
Mrs Blue Sky

I'm the first to admit being a grammar nazi, but really? I doubt GL's future rests on simple grammatical error.

 

[Zidane98]

We have CC's DNA on the inside of the Landcruiser canopy which sort of fits with GL's story.

Depends. If the DNA was tissue from being shot in the head, it just proves she was outside when shot. However, if it's simply DNA from touch or even a small amount of blood (that could be from a cut finger) it doesn't tell us anything except that Clay had been in contact with the inside of the canopy, just as you would expect if she was doing the cooking.

Do we have the exact testimony?. A forensic expert would know the difference between simple touch DNA or DNA deposited from her blood being spattered over the inside of the canopy and then presumably wiped away by GL which would still leave large amounts of DNA.

Surely tests could have been performed on what was the remains of the mirror to confirm if it was consistent with being blown off by a shotgun?

 

[Badd0g]

We have CC's DNA on the inside of the Landcruiser canopy which sort of fits with GL's story.

Depends. If the DNA was tissue from being shot in the head, it just proves she was outside when shot. However, if it's simply DNA from touch or even a small amount of blood (that could be from a cut finger) it doesn't tell us anything except that Clay had been in contact with the inside of the canopy, just as you would expect if she was doing the cooking.

It was reported as blood and fat - kinda suggests it was a bit more than touch transfer of DNA

 

[theouthouse]

My take on events.

I am going to assume that GL was aware of RH history in regards to having a family member killed by a hunting accident.

RH and CC set up camp close to GL. They exchange pleasantries where the hunting incident comes up. GL is pissed as he wants the place to himself. This is RH and CCs special area so they are fond of it and not put off by another camper nearby.

GL tries to scare them off by hunting in close proximity so they'll move on. RH defiant sends his drone up to see whats going on. The scare tactic doesn't work but there is a heated exchange and threats are made re drones and footage.

Then either:

GL cranks his music up to piss them off and disturb the quiet. RH approaches GL and asks him to turn the music down. An argument develops where RH ends up dead by knife wound.

GL then hunts down CC, kills her and tidies up his loose ends.

Or:

GL hunts them down and kills them.

Or:

GL version of events unfolds.

A side note. If this happened at 10pm, why would GL fire the rest of the bullets if he is aware that hunting after dark is illegal without a permit. I can't see how deliberately firing a weapon can be distinguished from 'hunting' in terms of responsible gun use after dark. Would this statement potentially cause him issues with his gun license?

Just random thoughts.

 

[Zidane98]

It was reported as blood and fat - kinda suggests it was a bit more than touch transfer of DNA

In that case any theories about the couple being murdered while asleep in their tent can be officially put to be bed. Couldn't have happened that way with CC's blood/fat tissue being discovered on the underside of the canopy.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

My take on events.

I am going to assume that GL was aware of RH history in regards to having a family member killed by a hunting accident.

RH and CC set up camp close to GL. They exchange pleasantries where the hunting incident comes up. GL is pissed as he wants the place to himself. This is RH and CCs special area so they are fond of it and not put off by another camper nearby.

GL tries to scare them off by hunting in close proximity so they'll move on. RH defiant sends his drone up to see whats going on. The scare tactic doesn't work but there is a heated exchange and threats are made re drones and footage.

Then either:

GL cranks his music up to piss them off and disturb the quiet. RH approaches GL and asks him to turn the music down. An argument develops where RH ends up dead by knife wound.

GL then hunts down CC, kills her and tidies up his loose ends.

Or:

GL hunts them down and kills them.

Or:

GL version of events unfolds.

A side note. If this happened at 10pm, why would GL fire the rest of the bullets if he is aware that hunting after dark is illegal without a permit. I can't see how deliberately firing a weapon can be distinguished from 'hunting' in terms of responsible gun use after dark. Would this statement potentially cause him issues with his gun license?

Just random thoughts.

You're certainly welcome to have an opinion on how things went.
Just on the shotgun shell thing. How do know GL fired them all off. Were the shells left on the ground?
And the loud music. How do we know that. Did police test whatever it was to see how loud it can get?
The knife. What knife?
Where's the much talked about drone.
We seem to be making up our stories based only on what GL allegedly told police.
Did GL ask the police first "Was there anyone else around at the time?" They would say "No".
Then he would rattle off his story to fit something that's possibly not murder.
If police had told a white lie and said "possibly", GL's story could have been completely different.

 

[Kurve]

No doubt he killed them.
But there has to be SOME doubt that it was murder. And the prosecution needs to prove it....GL doesn't need to prove anything.
Manslaughter though.....absolutely.

Maybe one of each. Manslaughter for Hill and murder for Clay.

 

[jason_recliner]

Did GL ask the police first "Was there anyone else around at the time?" They would say "No".

No, they wouldn't.

 

[10571z]

As much as GL story doesn’t add up did he really just murder 2 people for the hell of it? That’s the most perplexing part.

What we can establish is it feels quite unplanned and it was the result of an altercation.

 

[Zidane98]

Maybe one of each. Manslaughter for Hill and murder for Clay.

That for me is the only realistic way GL is convicted going off what we know so far.

 

[LeChatNoir]

Mrs Black Cat,
I agree with your all story except for one thing.
When you wrote: "Your finished mate", it should have been "You're finished, mate".
It's those small details that will be important when GL's team give their evidence because if the prosecution haven't done their homework then reasonable doubt can arise.
And this trial will not be like the Claremont Serial Killer trial where the alleged murderer offered absolutely no defence apart from questioning the temperature on a particular day.
For example, the prosecution will have to be certain and make no doubt that the bullet fragment contains the skull fragment and DNA from CC.
Have a good day.
Mrs Blue Sky

lol, thanks for pulling me up on my typo. You are absolutely right. The Devil is in the detail. Lynn certainly did pay great attention to detail as he "embarked on a series of actions" to remove all evidence. IMO

 

[Zidane98]

As much as GL story doesn’t add up did he really just murder 2 people for the hell of it? That’s the most perplexing part.

What we can establish is it feels quite unplanned and it was the result of an altercation.

I don't see the jury buying that theory at all.

 

[10571z]

I don't see the jury buying that theory at all.

Which theory? GL story?

 

[Zidane98]

Which theory? GL story?

The theory he simply decided to blow away 2 people for the hell of it.

 

[Kurve]

I don't see the jury buying that theory at all.

Lynn was definitely up to something.

It's his story to tell and he was helped along by the press and social media buzzing with the possibility the drone was involved and with many not agreeable of course that anybody deserves to die over it, but offering a more sympathetic view because drones are so annoying.

It may not have been the drone at all but their phones potentially recording images and sound.

His story will be manipulated with elements of projection, he'll blame Hill for things he is guilty of himself.

Rather than Hill stealing his gun which IMO is highly unlikely, it might be Lynn sneaking around trying to steal their drone and phones after he thought they were down for the night, for example.

He might have been caught by Hill creeping around their campsite.

 

[Zidane98]

Lynn was definitely up to something.

It's his story to tell and he was helped along by the press and social media buzzing with the possibility the drone was involved and with many not agreeable of course that anybody deserves to die over it, but offering a more sympathetic view because drones are so annoying.

It may not have been the drone at all but their phones potentially recording images and sound.

His story will be manipulated with elements of projection, he'll blame Hill for things he is guilty of himself.

Rather than Hill stealing his gun which IMO is highly unlikely, it might be Lynn sneaking around trying to steal their drone and phones after he thought they were down for the night, for example.

He might have been caught by Hill creeping around their campsite.

That's a good theory. GL went over to their campsite with a gun saying hand over your drone / phones right now, RH instead of doing so goes for the gun and GL shoots him on impulse, than subsequently CC for being a witness.

 

[Kurve]

That's a good theory. GL went over to their campsite with a gun saying hand over your drone / phones right now, RH instead of doing so goes for the gun and GL shoots him on impulse, than subsequently CC for being a witness.

Lynn was already packed up to go at that point, his last job was to get the drone and phones on the sneak if possible but it went bad. imo.

If it was later at night, I think Clay was probably trying to run or take cover, maybe get to the radio. If no evidence of her wearing a bra at the time she died could be found in metal underwires at the burn site, I'd think they were down for the night when it happened.

 

[CredibleSauce]

My take on events.

I am going to assume that GL was aware of RH history in regards to having a family member killed by a hunting accident.

RH and CC set up camp close to GL. They exchange pleasantries where the hunting incident comes up. GL is pissed as he wants the place to himself. This is RH and CCs special area so they are fond of it and not put off by another camper nearby.

GL tries to scare them off by hunting in close proximity so they'll move on. RH defiant sends his drone up to see whats going on. The scare tactic doesn't work but there is a heated exchange and threats are made re drones and footage.

Then either:

GL cranks his music up to piss them off and disturb the quiet. RH approaches GL and asks him to turn the music down. An argument develops where RH ends up dead by knife wound.

GL then hunts down CC, kills her and tidies up his loose ends.

Or:

GL hunts them down and kills them.

Or:

GL version of events unfolds.

A side note. If this happened at 10pm, why would GL fire the rest of the bullets if he is aware that hunting after dark is illegal without a permit. I can't see how deliberately firing a weapon can be distinguished from 'hunting' in terms of responsible gun use after dark. Would this statement potentially cause him issues with his gun license?

Just random thoughts.

Also if you were in such fear of losing your job/hobby over someone's threat to report you for hunting irresponsibly (with footage as proof), would a reasonable course of action really be to turn music up and annoy them further? Or play nice and hope they don't follow through, hell even apologise and invite them for a drink to try and patch things up?
Nah aggravate the situation and see what happens. What could go wrong??