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.'

 

[Pies1990]

I heard GL wanted to sell 8 venison legs for $100 from his shoot but everyone said it was just 2 deer

 

[apivapieah]

What’s your thoughts apivapieah?

All true unfortunately

 

[Lady O]

I’m sure these deer would have been horny though

View attachment 1361714

That's a boy deer, not a girl deer.

 

[Tony Harrison]

That's a boy deer, not a girl deer.

You discriminating?

 

[Lady O]

You discriminating?

I guess so. Maybe he isn't?

 

[Tony Harrison]

I guess so. Maybe he isn't?

No, I meant you were insinuating that male deers couldn’t be involved in Greg’s alleged exploits.

 

[Lady O]

No, I meant you were insinuating that male deers couldn’t be involved in Greg’s alleged exploits.

Yes, I was assuming he would be gender specific to female (does). I apologise to the male (or buck) sector for my failure to consider bisexual necrobestiality.

 

[yodellinhank]

D'oh

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Fair dinkum...

 

[Kurve]

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]

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?

 

[Terrafirma]

When is the next court date....it was in May isn't it?

Yep May 31st at Sale Magistrates Court

 

[ms finch]

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.

 

[Terrafirma]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ms finch]

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.

I hope they have more than what we know, that's for sure.

I don't think he confessed anything significant, but I do think they were able to establish the location of the remains based on technology associated with him. It might not even have been GPS or car navigation or phone tracking. They might have found something on his computer at home, which I presume will have been thoroughly searched. Depending on how close the technology got them, that is pretty significant circumstantial evidence. There's a difference between it giving them a radius of a couple of kms to search, and an area of about 50m, and depending how close it is to tracks and camp sites.

There might be other stuff on a computer as well. Search history could be interesting. For example: if he came home and googled their names before they were even publically known to be missing. That would be significant circumstantial evidence that is hard to explain. We don't know if he knew their names of course, if he didn't rifle through their ID or anything.

They will have questioned his family and anyone close to them, especially about his behaviour before and after that weekend, and what reasons he gave for changing the car colour and selling the trailer. Even if he told three people three different things that might be relevant.

Given I think it's more likely the bodies were in the trailer and never went near the car, finding the trailer would be a big deal for police because that's where any DNA evidence is most likely to be. They might find some in the car, of course, because it would be on him, but the trailer has a higher chance.

Actually, on that point, I have been thinking about something that I don't think has been discussed a lot. If they were killed with a weapon (as opposed to strangulation or suffocation), they will have bled. In moving the bodies, which the perpetrator had to do, that will have gotten on clothes and skin. Aside from the possible transfer of DNA to the car in this situation, at some point he's also got to have cleaned up. My best guess is that he stopped at a river, washed and changed clothes, and then burnt the clothes he was wearing with the bodies. So he's also come home with clothes missing, which is something that might have been noticed by his wife.

I personally think that he's either going for a straight not guilty or he'll plead, which means that if the evidence against him is significant we might see a change in plea once his lawyers have gone through it all. There might be an agreement to plead to a lesser charge/s - such as manslaughter plus interfering with a corpse, perverting the course of justice. But I really don't see how you'd actually run a self-defence or accident story here. I can see how it could be claimed for the initial act, but the level of effort to conceal what happened doesn't support it. I don't see how panic can explain loading the bodies into a vehicle, burning a campsite, taking evidence, carting the bodies a long way away, and burning the bodies at a different location. Dissociative state, maybe, but still seems a stretch, and very complicated to prove.

 

[ms finch]

There was some discussion a bit back about the coronial investigation into Greg Lynn's first wife's death. I have dealt with a coronial matter in Tasmania and I didn't see this information in here so thought I might be able to provide some insight.

There are specific provisions for when a death is referred to the Coroner, and it's more common than you think. Essentially if it is not a clear health issue that an appropriate medical professional can attest to, the cause of death will be determined by the Coroner. Not all coronial matters progress to a formal inquest. Most are decided "on the papers", which is that the police do an investigation to gather the relevant information in the form of written statements and photographs and physical evidence and send it to the Coroner to make a decision. Inquests are when the matter has particularly complicated circumstances, context, lots of competing theories or is hard to determine, and also when there is significant public interest. This is why you sometimes see families and/or friends petitioning for an inquest, because they believe there is more to the story that needs to be examined and that police are not doing it. Inquests are public; decisions "on the papers" are not usually.

As far as I can tell, Lisa Lynn's death was determined "on the papers". The Coroner determined she died from a concoction of alcohol and sleeping tablets, family photos were found scattered around her loungeroom, and she was being treated for depression. The Coroner could not determine whether she intended suicide or if it was an accidental overdose. The police investigation did not reveal suspicious circumstances or the involvement of anyone else. The police did look into the relationship enough for the Coroner to conclude it was "abusive" but no specifics were detailed, nor was any conclusion on which party was the perpetrator. (I am not making judgements here; I am just stating what the coroner decided.)

Two things. First, we have no idea of the breadth of the police investigation at the time. Maybe they actually looked at whether someone else could have been involved (ie whether Greg was in Tasmania or had been in contact with her in the hours beforehand); maybe the circumstances appeared clear cut enough that they didn't. We know they at least looked at the relationship, so you'd presume they checked the basics such as asking whereabouts. This is important because, as I'll explain, unless he was actually physically there it will be extremely difficult to the point of nearly impossible to hold him accountable for her death.

Because, second, it is very, very hard to bring criminal charges against someone for a suicide. We have no good samaritan law or duty to rescue in Australia. You can stand in a room with someone suiciding and not do anything and you are guilty of nothing (well, you're probably an a**hole). You would have to be, for example, handing them the rope or directly encouraging them to do it. Abuse that drives someone's mental wellbeing into the ground in such a way that contributes to or results in them suiciding is not a criminal matter, either. Where it may cross the line is if you are telling someone to kill themselves, advising them on ways to do it - actively encouraging and participating in their plan. This is still a high threshold and prosecutions worldwide have been rare. A couple of scattered instances of this (such as yelling at someone in an argument "well go kill yourself") are not enough; it has to be significant enough that you are clearly involved in that suicide.

It makes sense for police to revisit this matter in light of what Greg has been charged with. You're not leaving any stone unturned in that situation. But finding anything that establishes even a whiff of legal culpability is going to be extremely difficult. If he wasn't there or didn't supply her with the drugs they'd have to be able to prove a phone call or similar that directly incited her to do this in a reasonable timeframe before she did, and even then it would be a challenge. Plus the details of any interactions would be far more sparse and dependent on witnesses back then because mobile phone and email usage wasn't as common, and social media didn't exist. There may be a huge, decade long pattern of abuse, but that won't be considered relevant in terms of direct involvement in death.

They may, however, uncover something that can be brought into this matter, to show pattern of behaviour. A stretch but not impossible.

 

[Pies1990]

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.

Excellent info, this reminds me of the current state of investigations into William Tyrrell. 7 years have gone by investigating other POI’s and now they’re back with foster parents. They must have a fair idea of what happened but need to be so thorough in their preparation to taking it to court, or with good lawyers the crown prosecution will get carved up.

Shandee Blackburn case is a good example of a case where the crown prosecution was pretty weak

 

[ms finch]

Excellent info, this reminds me of the current state of investigations into William Tyrrell. 7 years have gone by investigating other POI’s and now they’re back with foster parents. They must have a fair idea of what happened but need to be so thorough in their preparation to taking it to court, or with good lawyers the crown prosecution will get carved up.

Shandee Blackburn case is a good example of a case where the crown prosecution was pretty weak

Thanks. One of the things I ask myself in very circumstantial cases is "how would I perceive it if the person was a different apparent personality?" - in this case if everyone was apparently saying that Lynn was a wonderful bloke. There have certainly been people who have been wrong place, wrong time, wrong personality and had nothing to do with the situation (Lance Williams always jumps to mind, although I think the circumstantial evidence here is stronger than with Williams). Devil's advocate stuff.

I definitely think police have a firm theory - whether they can put together enough to prove it is, as you say, a completely different matter. They have certainly gone to the effort. They obviously suspected him for a long time but waited to see if they could get more before jumping to a charge. That is something that makes me wonder how much they have. We're pretty certain that they released the photos of the car even though they knew whose it was to try to put pressure on him. Perhaps that was because they didn't have much at that point, although it could also have been that they had things but were hoping he'd lead them to the remains. There's also the pretty credible theory that they acted that day because they perceived he might have been at risk of self harm, so perhaps they arrested earlier than they would have liked. On the other hand, they had enough to get warrants to track him and put him under formal surveillance, and to get a search warrant on his house, although that's not necessarily as high a bar as people sometimes think. We also know that when they first found that CCTV footage they didn't rule him out but rather ended up honing in on him as the primary POI.

As for William Tyrrell, I most definitely do not want to derail this thread with a discussion about that, because those threads make my eyes water in a way that even the CSK didn't manage, but I don't think police have a damn clue about what happened there and are moving from one witch hunt to another. They might get lucky because the way that case is going they'll eventually do a witch hunt on the right person. It reminds me so much of the initial CSK investigation.

 

[Pamcake1]

We are at the last days of April now, with the information that he would be appearing at trial at Sale Magistrates Court in May, I can see no listings. Does anyone out there know when we can expect the trial to commence?

 

[Terrafirma]

We are at the last days of April now, with the information that he would be appearing at trial at Sale Magistrates Court in May, I can see no listings. Does anyone out there know when we can expect the trial to commence?

May 31st

 

[Kurve]

Voting has swung to now favour the theory that Greg Lynn did not tell the police where he buried Carol and Russell.

At 6th February, 2022.



At 28th April, 2022.