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

Did Greg Lynn tell police where he buried the bodies?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

highcountry

Rookie
Nov 30, 2021
27
128
AFL Club
Collingwood
On another forum one of his ex-wife's friends explained how they had a pet pig at one stage, and after an argument, GL stabbed the pig and cut it's throat. Then later on after an argument with a neighbour, the neighbour's German shepherd got the same treatment.
Correct.
 

Raisedeyebrow

Debutant
May 13, 2020
61
91
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Ask anyone in aviation and who who knew his first wife Lisa, who died on the front lawn of hypothermia. Or in Doha who knew the woman he was dating. It is alleged she ended up dead in the desert after last being seen at dinner with Lynn, after it is said he had discovered she was having an affair. Or the incident in Vegas where someone died after falling out of a window which it is alleged might also be linked in someway to this case.

Within my circles, that being aviation and people who knew Lisa and Lynn, seven seems to be a conservative number and one we fear will grow. There is also a dead pig and a dog in the mix too which would be a red flag to any criminal psychologist.
What’s your thoughts apivapieah?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lady O

Team Captain
Dec 8, 2021
539
795
AFL Club
Essendon

Awakening

All Australian
Oct 23, 2021
662
1,759
AFL Club
West Coast
Maybe the deer died after the ummm violation or he murdered them so they wouldn't tweet about it afterwards.
 

Awakening

All Australian
Oct 23, 2021
662
1,759
AFL Club
West Coast
Necrobestiality.

Internet Im Out GIF
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
19,337
43,193
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I don't know whether there's any truth in the latest horror of what Russell's drone might have captured but I think we need not get too carried away with it before someone lobs something in that is beyond what most of us can cope with.

Not long to go now before we should get more information.
 

Pies1990

Senior List
Dec 9, 2021
215
478
AFL Club
Collingwood
I don't know whether there's anything in the latest horror of what Russell's drone might have captured but I think we need not get too carried away with it before someone lobs something in that is beyond what most of us can cope with.

Not long to go now before we should get more information.
When is the next court date....it was in May isn't it?
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,787
AFL Club
St Kilda
So I've tried to read through this whole thread from where I previously got up to, but my brain was starting to struggle to recall everything said.

On Channel 9's Under Investigation (I don't know if it has aired yet or not), they'll name Milat as the worst serial killer. Now that he's dead they can add to the list all the ones the police thought were him but couldn't prove and throw in speculation about a lot of others. In the books I've read about it there are about another five - ten (depending on what I'm reading) that police realistically think could have been him, for various reasons - crime scene, type of victim, location that tallies with his whereabouts. I believe there were three murders in Queensland over a period of a few years where Milat happened to be working at the time. I hope whatever they raise they are working from a solid foundation because the last thing that is needed is unsolved missing persons or murders being attributed to Milat when they aren't. People will stop paying any attention to them.

Back to the topic at hand, my two cents is that if someone is an extremely nasty, short tempered, aggressive, physically abusive, entitled individual, they can probably do a lot of harm to a lot of people that isn't pre-meditated. It wouldn't take much to set them off, especially if they are in a heightened state of anger already at the time. Where most people would probably just have a screaming match - unpleasant, but no harm done - someone like that would escalate dramatically, and could also probably stew in their anger after a minor confrontation and act on it later out of revenge/being vindictive. The motive could seem quite trivial to everyone else. If a gun is involved then things can head south pretty quickly - we can see that with the amount of people shot in the US over minor disputes.

From all accounts, Russell seems like an experienced camper. He might not be the kind of guy to back down from a fight, but I'd balance that with his experience and sensibility, and also the circumstances. We went camping a lot as kids, and my parents have camped into their older age. My dad is the kind of guy who could take down most people pretty easily, but in a remote situation like that he would err on the side of "say whatever to keep the person calm and just leave". You never know who you are dealing with, and it isn't going to be easy to deal with if something goes wrong. This is particularly the case with people to protect, such as us as kids or Carol here. Pretty much every experienced camper I know is like this. So I think there's a good chance Russell would have been similar.

I think it was a minor disagreement and the personality of the other party was such that they went over the edge very fast.

One thing that stands out to me is that killing two people is going to be harder than killing one. It either has to be quick (although their ages counted against them here) or by stealth. Given I think this is a situation where it escalated, I think it had to be a gun, and both of them were gone without much chance to even react.

I doubt the police were told the location of the remains by Lynn. I think the timing was such that they were able to obtain data from a phone, or once they impounded the car they got it from the GPS. They probably identified patterns in the locations that gave them likely places to search.

ETA: I don't think there was any reason for Lynn to reveal the bodies, if he is indeed responsible. Everything they have on him that we know of is circumstantial. Even if they could identify that he'd been to the location where the bodies were found, there are theoretical explanations for that given he goes camping in that country a lot. But if he tells them and they find them then that's game over. Unless they had some forensic evidence to present, and even then it might be something that could be disputed, there is no benefit to him revealing anything. He's had dealings with police before (he would have during the coronial matter related to Lisa's death), and he does have some training to remain calm under pressure. He could have assessed the situation and recognised all this.

I would also add that I don't believe police had any firm idea of the location of the bodies until they searched and found them. There is no way if they had a lead they're leaving the remains out in the elements for any longer than they have to. It is THE most crucial piece of evidence, the most likely way to establish a forensic link. And what that tells me is that over the time they had the tracker on his car, and they suspected him, he didn't visit that location. He might have done so that day. I'm 50/50 on that one. I can see him actually making the calculated decision to do so thinking he was not at risk of being found out. I can also see him doing it because he was under huge stress and felt the net was closing in, and then regaining his calm after the arrest itself. Equally I can see him not and just heading out into the bush for some peace and quiet.
 
Last edited:

Terrafirma

Team Captain
May 21, 2010
318
557
AFL Club
Collingwood
So I've tried to read through this whole thread from where I previously got up to, but my brain was starting to struggle to recall everything said.

On Channel 9's Under Investigation (I don't know if it has aired yet or not), they'll name Milat as the worst serial killer. Now that he's dead they can add to the list all the ones the police thought were him but couldn't prove and throw in speculation about a lot of others. In the books I've read about it there are about another five - ten (depending on what I'm reading) that police realistically think could have been him, for various reasons - crime scene, type of victim, location that tallies with his whereabouts. I believe there were three murders in Queensland over a period of a few years where Milat happened to be working at the time. I hope whatever they raise they are working from a solid foundation because the last thing that is needed is unsolved missing persons or murders being attributed to Milat when they aren't. People will stop paying any attention to them.

Back to the topic at hand, my two cents is that if someone is an extremely nasty, short tempered, aggressive, physically abusive, entitled individual, they can probably do a lot of harm to a lot of people that isn't pre-meditated. It wouldn't take much to set them off, especially if they are in a heightened state of anger already at the time. Where most people would probably just have a screaming match - unpleasant, but no harm done - someone like that would escalate dramatically, and could also probably stew in their anger after a minor confrontation and act on it later out of revenge/being vindictive. The motive could seem quite trivial to everyone else. If a gun is involved then things can head south pretty quickly - we can see that with the amount of people shot in the US over minor disputes.

From all accounts, Russell seems like an experienced camper. He might not be the kind of guy to back down from a fight, but I'd balance that with his experience and sensibility, and also the circumstances. We went camping a lot as kids, and my parents have camped into their older age. My dad is the kind of guy who could take down most people pretty easily, but in a remote situation like that he would err on the side of "say whatever to keep the person calm and just leave". You never know who you are dealing with, and it isn't going to be easy to deal with if something goes wrong. This is particularly the case with people to protect, such as us as kids or Carol here. Pretty much every experienced camper I know is like this. So I think there's a good chance Russell would have been similar.

I think it was a minor disagreement and the personality of the other party was such that they went over the edge very fast.

One thing that stands out to me is that killing two people is going to be harder than killing one. It either has to be quick (although their ages counted against them here) or by stealth. Given I think this is a situation where it escalated, I think it had to be a gun, and both of them were gone without much chance to even react.

I doubt the police were told the location of the remains by Lynn. I think the timing was such that they were able to obtain data from a phone, or once they impounded the car they got it from the GPS. They probably identified patterns in the locations that gave them likely places to search.

ETA: I don't think there was any reason for Lynn to reveal the bodies, if he is indeed responsible. Everything they have on him that we know of is circumstantial. Even if they could identify that he'd been to the location where the bodies were found, there are theoretical explanations for that given he goes camping in that country a lot. But if he tells them and they find them then that's game over. Unless they had some forensic evidence to present, and even then it might be something that could be disputed, there is no benefit to him revealing anything. He's had dealings with police before (he would have during the coronial matter related to Lisa's death), and he does have some training to remain calm under pressure. He could have assessed the situation and recognised all this.

I would also add that I don't believe police had any firm idea of the location of the bodies until they searched and found them. There is no way if they had a lead they're leaving the remains out in the elements for any longer than they have to. It is THE most crucial piece of evidence, the most likely way to establish a forensic link. And what that tells me is that over the time they had the tracker on his car, and they suspected him, he didn't visit that location. He might have done so that day. I'm 50/50 on that one. I can see him actually making the calculated decision to do so thinking he was not at risk of being found out. I can also see him doing it because he was under huge stress and felt the net was closing in, and then regaining his calm after the arrest itself. Equally I can see him not and just heading out into the bush for some peace and quiet.
There can be a lot of reading in these forums to catch up to with regards to the latest thinking on this case. It is worth nothing that the Police have been onto Lynn from early days, long before the 60 minutes Special was aired etc. They knew he was in the area at the time. So early on they had him as their lead suspect and perhaps some circumstantial evidence and left him alone with the hope of getting him to incriminate himself as time went past. So yes it is believed that they had placed a tracker on his car and were getting phone pings and the like. There is no phone reception in the Valley so not sure what they would have obtained from his phone. It is thought he may have returned to the site of the remains. It is not known if he went back to burn the bodies later or this happened on the night of the crime but it has been said the bodies were burnt. We know Forensic Police were only able to locate bone fragments, dentures and a ring but they did so in a 20 square meter radius that they obtained via Tracker or other means. It was initially thought he may have cracked after 3 days of questioning and gave them a location but it now seems this was obtained by other means with the announcement of a crime scene straight after his questioning was completed. He was also using a GPS based Navigator in his vehicle either as a standalone or via an Ipad etc as it was seen on his dashboard via his FB page before it was taken down. So a digital footprint will be a big part of the evidence brief. We can also take note from his Defense Lawyer Chris McLennan's comments that he was presented with a very large brief of evidence on Lynn by the Police which suggests that the case against him has been accumulated over a long period and is very detailed. We are not aware of the trailer being located as of yet after Lynn sold it via Gumtree and this may or may not reveal further evidence. End of May is when the trial begins so let's see what is unearthed when the time comes.
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,787
AFL Club
St Kilda
There can be a lot of reading in these forums to catch up to with regards to the latest thinking on this case. It is worth nothing that the Police have been onto Lynn from early days, long before the 60 minutes Special was aired etc. They knew he was in the area at the time. So early on they had him as their lead suspect and perhaps some circumstantial evidence and left him alone with the hope of getting him to incriminate himself as time went past. So yes it is believed that they had placed a tracker on his car and were getting phone pings and the like. There is no phone reception in the Valley so not sure what they would have obtained from his phone. It is thought he may have returned to the site of the remains. It is not known if he went back to burn the bodies later or this happened on the night of the crime but it has been said the bodies were burnt. We know Forensic Police were only able to locate bone fragments, dentures and a ring but they did so in a 20 square meter radius that they obtained via Tracker or other means. It was initially thought he may have cracked after 3 days of questioning and gave them a location but it now seems this was obtained by other means with the announcement of a crime scene straight after his questioning was completed. He was also using a GPS based Navigator in his vehicle either as a standalone or via an Ipad etc as it was seen on his dashboard via his FB page before it was taken down. So a digital footprint will be a big part of the evidence brief. We can also take note from his Defense Lawyer Chris McLennan's comments that he was presented with a very large brief of evidence on Lynn by the Police which suggests that the case against him has been accumulated over a long period and is very detailed. We are not aware of the trailer being located as of yet after Lynn sold it via Gumtree and this may or may not reveal further evidence. End of May is when the trial begins so let's see what is unearthed when the time comes.
Thanks. I think I got all the main points, plus I'd read most of them in the media. It's the nuances of discussions that are overwhelming to remember, and who said what. So apologies if I miss any of that.

I don't know if I agree that police have a lot on him. A huge brief of evidence can simply be indicative of the painstaking work they had to do even to get tiny snippets of information, and while police will be hoping that everything they have will be admissible, it may not turn out that way. In the CSK, police actually had very very little that linked Edwards to the crimes, but it was the breadth of the investigation and the detailed work that had to be done to link things that resulted in such an enormous case load.

Obviously on here we discuss things to death and bring in background and even get little snippets of information from sources. But when I look at it, what do we know for sure that police have?

He was at the campsite that night and left suddenly: "Yeah I was camping there and I wanted to be alone so when they turned up I left to find another campsite. Ended up going down a dead end road and by the time I got myself out of there I just wanted to head home."

He drives a blue patrol that he had repainted: It works against them that he did this before they released the picture: "I changed my car colour. So what? Happens all the time."

He frequented the area near the remains: "I like camping in that area. I've always gone there a lot."

Why didn't you come forward about your whereabouts and having the same car as in the photos?: "I don't trust the police"

IF that is all they have then there's a chance they won't even get this past the Committal. They're certainly not getting a murder conviction out of just that, or, whatever I think of this particular situation, something is incredibly wrong with our justice system.

His history is not necessarily going to come into play. Much of it will be challenged by the defence as highly prejudicial, and they've got a good chance of succeeding on a lot of points. I don't think, for example, that they have any hope of bringing in suspicions about the death of his wife Lisa at this stage, because the official finding is suicide. They may be able to incorporate, for example, if happened right when he had been stood down as a pilot due to the pandemic, because that is a possible causal link.

Now maybe, because they were surveilling him and recording him, they have incriminating evidence in his commentary, and they held off acting on that because they wanted to see if they could find the remains. Maybe now that he has been arrested and charged people who know him have come forward with information that is useful. Maybe he said some things in the interview that support their case. Maybe they have forensic information about which we are unaware.

His defence lawyer won't advise him fully until he has had a chance to go through the entire brief so that doesn't tell us anything.
 

Terrafirma

Team Captain
May 21, 2010
318
557
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thanks. I think I got all the main points, plus I'd read most of them in the media. It's the nuances of discussions that are overwhelming to remember, and who said what. So apologies if I miss any of that.

I don't know if I agree that police have a lot on him. A huge brief of evidence can simply be indicative of the painstaking work they had to do even to get tiny snippets of information, and while police will be hoping that everything they have will be admissible, it may not turn out that way. In the CSK, police actually had very very little that linked Edwards to the crimes, but it was the breadth of the investigation and the detailed work that had to be done to link things that resulted in such an enormous case load.

Obviously on here we discuss things to death and bring in background and even get little snippets of information from sources. But when I look at it, what do we know for sure that police have?

He was at the campsite that night and left suddenly: "Yeah I was camping there and I wanted to be alone so when they turned up I left to find another campsite. Ended up going down a dead end road and by the time I got myself out of there I just wanted to head home."

He drives a blue patrol that he had repainted: It works against them that he did this before they released the picture: "I changed my car colour. So what? Happens all the time."

He frequented the area near the remains: "I like camping in that area. I've always gone there a lot."

Why didn't you come forward about your whereabouts and having the same car as in the photos?: "I don't trust the police"

IF that is all they have then there's a chance they won't even get this past the Committal. They're certainly not getting a murder conviction out of just that, or, whatever I think of this particular situation, something is incredibly wrong with our justice system.

His history is not necessarily going to come into play. Much of it will be challenged by the defence as highly prejudicial, and they've got a good chance of succeeding on a lot of points. I don't think, for example, that they have any hope of bringing in suspicions about the death of his wife Lisa at this stage, because the official finding is suicide. They may be able to incorporate, for example, if happened right when he had been stood down as a pilot due to the pandemic, because that is a possible causal link.

Now maybe, because they were surveilling him and recording him, they have incriminating evidence in his commentary, and they held off acting on that because they wanted to see if they could find the remains. Maybe now that he has been arrested and charged people who know him have come forward with information that is useful. Maybe he said some things in the interview that support their case. Maybe they have forensic information about which we are unaware.

His defence lawyer won't advise him fully until he has had a chance to go through the entire brief so that doesn't tell us anything.

Cheers for the reply. Nowadays Police won't charge someone with murder unless they believe they have the necessary evidence. They have had to learn the hard way so it is my belief they have substantial evidence against him. By the way you mentioned in the CSK case Police had very little against Mr Edwards? Incorrect.! They had his DNA under the fingernails of Ciara Glennon.! That is as big a piece of evidence as you can get to incriminate someone. You can't get anymore linked than that. It is also worth mentioning that in the CSK case they couldn't convict Edwards of Sarah Spiers murder because they couldn't locate the body but the Judge said quote "He was 95% sure it was Edwards who committed the crime. In the case of Edwards he was found guilty without a doubt and I am of the belief Police will have a similar evidence brief against Mr Lynn.
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,787
AFL Club
St Kilda
Cheers for the reply. Nowadays Police won't charge someone with murder unless they believe they have the necessary evidence. They have had to learn the hard way so it is my belief they have substantial evidence against him. By the way you mentioned in the CSK case Police had very little against Mr Edwards? Incorrect.! They had his DNA under the fingernails of Ciara Glennon.! That is as big a piece of evidence as you can get to incriminate someone. You can't get anymore linked than that. It is also worth mentioning that in the CSK case they couldn't convict Edwards of Sarah Spiers murder because they couldn't locate the body but the Judge said quote "He was 95% sure it was Edwards who committed the crime. In the case of Edwards he was found guilty without a doubt and I am of the belief Police will have a similar evidence brief against Mr Lynn.
Mmmmm........not really that simple. Police can and will charge someone if they believe they have enough evidence to justify a charge, but the decision to prosecute rests with the OPP. The threshold for what justifies a charge is much lower than what is required to prosecute, for which the OPP has a series of guidelines. And also, the threshold for prosecuting someone is entirely different to securing a conviction, which is what I was talking about. I can see they have enough evidence for a charge, but that's not saying much really in terms of how much they actually have, because it's a low threshold by comparison. Charges are not infrequently dropped and while you'd hope that they wouldn't do that with something this serious and high profile, it wouldn't be the first time police have charged someone to hold them longer and/or in the hopes that more evidence will subsequently come together.

The fact that they are proceeding with a prosecution at this stage suggests they have more, but how much is an extremely wide spectrum to consider. To give an example, from memory they charged him before they had located the remains, which they found a few days later. Now if the finding of those remains was in some way linked to information they gathered from him and his technology, that increases the body of evidence against him and goes some way to explaining the decision to prosecute. If on the other hand it didn't lead to the bodies then I think the charges may have been dropped. I personally think the evidence is at the lower end of this spectrum required for prosecution, but I could be wrong and of course this may change as the investigation continues. IF police have the right person it quite often does all come together after the person has been charged because they can then focus on that individual, people come forward, links begin to appear.

You can take what I'm saying either way: that they don't have much and this is a risky prosecution, or they do have more and that's why they are willing to prosecute. But the charges themselves don't mean much in terms of evidence.

As for the CSK, if it was an open and shut situation they wouldn't have needed such a long trial with so many witnesses and painstakingly weaving together all the evidence. Though the DNA was obviously crucial (and in my view the necessary component to get it over the line) it was not enough on its own. The other evidence wasn't clear cut and straightforward and instead required complex explanations and presentations. For that matter the DNA itself wasn't clear cut as they had to go through the extremely long process of demonstrating its veracity due to the technology that was relied upon (the reliability of which has been questioned). It wasn't a huge bloodstain of Edwards'. My point was that large briefs don't mean lots of significant evidence, but often (usually) mean a painstaking process to get small amounts of evidence and link them all together. And that this was the same with the CSK - there was lots of small evidence that was difficult to acquire and had to be put together.

Edwards was not found not guilty about Sarah Spiers because they didn't have a body. We have no idea whether a body would have achieved anything in her case or whether other evidence might have been enough (eg if there had been an eyewitness to her with Edwards). He was found not guilty because based on the evidence available he could not be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. We have no idea if the remains in this case provide any direct evidence, either. (Also that 95% comment is not a quote from Justice Hall. He didn't say that. He spoke about probability and likelihood being different to the threshold beyond all reasonable doubt.)
 

Terrafirma

Team Captain
May 21, 2010
318
557
AFL Club
Collingwood
Mmmmm........not really that simple. Police can and will charge someone if they believe they have enough evidence to justify a charge, but the decision to prosecute rests with the OPP. The threshold for what justifies a charge is much lower than what is required to prosecute, for which the OPP has a series of guidelines. And also, the threshold for prosecuting someone is entirely different to securing a conviction, which is what I was talking about. I can see they have enough evidence for a charge, but that's not saying much really in terms of how much they actually have, because it's a low threshold by comparison. Charges are not infrequently dropped and while you'd hope that they wouldn't do that with something this serious and high profile, it wouldn't be the first time police have charged someone to hold them longer and/or in the hopes that more evidence will subsequently come together.

The fact that they are proceeding with a prosecution at this stage suggests they have more, but how much is an extremely wide spectrum to consider. To give an example, from memory they charged him before they had located the remains, which they found a few days later. Now if the finding of those remains was in some way linked to information they gathered from him and his technology, that increases the body of evidence against him and goes some way to explaining the decision to prosecute. If on the other hand it didn't lead to the bodies then I think the charges may have been dropped. I personally think the evidence is at the lower end of this spectrum required for prosecution, but I could be wrong and of course this may change as the investigation continues. IF police have the right person it quite often does all come together after the person has been charged because they can then focus on that individual, people come forward, links begin to appear.

You can take what I'm saying either way: that they don't have much and this is a risky prosecution, or they do have more and that's why they are willing to prosecute. But the charges themselves don't mean much in terms of evidence.

As for the CSK, if it was an open and shut situation they wouldn't have needed such a long trial with so many witnesses and painstakingly weaving together all the evidence. Though the DNA was obviously crucial (and in my view the necessary component to get it over the line) it was not enough on its own. The other evidence wasn't clear cut and straightforward and instead required complex explanations and presentations. For that matter the DNA itself wasn't clear cut as they had to go through the extremely long process of demonstrating its veracity due to the technology that was relied upon (the reliability of which has been questioned). It wasn't a huge bloodstain of Edwards'. My point was that large briefs don't mean lots of significant evidence, but often (usually) mean a painstaking process to get small amounts of evidence and link them all together. And that this was the same with the CSK - there was lots of small evidence that was difficult to acquire and had to be put together.

Edwards was not found not guilty about Sarah Spiers because they didn't have a body. We have no idea whether a body would have achieved anything in her case or whether other evidence might have been enough (eg if there had been an eyewitness to her with Edwards). He was found not guilty because based on the evidence available he could not be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. We have no idea if the remains in this case provide any direct evidence, either. (Also that 95% comment is not a quote from Justice Hall. He didn't say that. He spoke about probability and likelihood being different to the threshold beyond all reasonable doubt.)

So agree the CSK case wasn't an open and shut case but nevertheless despite the complex trial, the fibre analysis etc etc they got him, he was found guilty. It's not meant to be simple in cases like these. As for Edwards DNA the defence lawyer tried to argue that the DNA got under Glennon's fingernails via contamination which we all know to be utter nonsense. She fought for her life and that in the end played a big part in the conviction. The Police have already stated the case against Lynn came about after a long and painstaking process, thousands of Police hours, the list goes on. For me there could be similarities between Edwards and Lynn once the trial begins. Justice Hall said Edwards was most likely Sarah Spier's killer and my apologies he didn't say 95% but he made it clear he believed Edwards was the killer. I believe in WA they have since introduced a law that no body no chance of parole for the offender. And while large briefs don't necessarily mean large amounts of significant evidence I am trying to paint the picture that I believe they do have more rather than less in terms of the prosecution. Having said that it does concern me that Lynn has undoubtedly gone above and beyond to conceal evidence and to cloak the manner of death and the remains. What we don't know yet is was he successful or did this in the end someway help his conviction if he is found guilty. DNA and modern DNA techniques will play a crucial role. I am more interested in the outcome rather the complexity of the trial because at the end of the day that's what matters.