Australia - Russell Hill & Carol Clay Murdered While Camping - Wonnangatta Valley, 2020 #7

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Less focus on why RH was seeing CC ‘on the side’ and more focus on why GL killed these two people.

I was reading one article which was just one gossip piece. Press always go for the gossip first. What about focusing on the case at hand, the bloke who killed two innocent people and went to great lengths to avoid detection.

Let’s see if the narrative can get back on track, the focus is on GL and why he killed two people and went to ridiculous lengths to hide it.
 
It seems like a lot of is coming from the prosecution? I’m so confused at their strategy right now.

It is coming from prosecution witnesses, but it may be coming on cross examination by the defence and not in direct testimony. We are not hearing what questions are producing these answers.

A defence strategy can be to smear the victim(s) to the jury. Whether or not the information has anything to do with the crime. I think the strategy is used in rape cases at times.

imo
 
Respectively edited....

I think it's possible that GL also shot RH. Unless he wanted to remove the bullet from his body, burning it to fragments might be one way of tampering with thedited evidence.

IMO
It's possible....though...
I don't believe GL would change the story of what actually happened to something that is completely fictional. GL's defence has stated that Russell was stabbed by a knife during a physical argument....he was stabbed by his own knife, if you could believe that...

My opinion is that the prosecution won't include a completely different scenario whereby Russell was killed by a gun.

GL has probably tried to adjust his story to what has actually, physically, happened... maintaining a lie of a different circumstance would be extremely difficult and he'd know that given how long he had to work it all out!

We haven't heard any scientific forensic evidence as yet. ... That will be interesting!
 
Last edited:
It is coming from prosecution witnesses, but it may be coming on cross examination by the defence and not in direct testimony. We are not hearing what questions are producing these answers.

A defence strategy can be to smear the victim(s) to the jury. Whether or not the information has anything to do with the crime. I think the strategy is used in rape cases at times.

imo

Exactly!
Who cares... the charge is for the murder of two people. And in this case, has almost nothing to do with their personal lives. JMO
 
"The jury tasked with deciding the murder trial of former Jetstar captain Greg Lynn are set to hear from forensic officers, police investigators and a molecular biologist.

On Wednesday, the jury was told the prosecution planned to call six witnesses to give evidence on Thursday, including two police officers, a fire investigations scientist, a crime scene examiner and molecular biologist Dadna Hartman for “DNA analysis”. "

 
Agreed, but this was actual evidence from Robin Hill when she was in the witness box. Not made up by the newspaper. Just seems to a weird line of inquiry.
Yes I realised this afterwards. How much of that was really necessary? What did that have to do with Greg Lynn? So bloody ridiculous!!
 
Forensic officer George Xydias, re: Union Spur track near Dargo ....

Under the rootball of a large felled tree, Mr Xydias said a “significant amount of intensely heat-affected biological material” was located, including bone, teeth and the partial remains of an older wrist watch.
“The items were burnt somewhere else and appeared to have been thrown into that location …. or somehow transferred to that location,” he told the jury.
Pictures shown to the jury, he said, depicted small chucks of bone scattered among leaves.



re: Russell and Carol's campsite ...

.. he concluded there was no accidental sources of ignition, suggesting the fire began with a portable gas stovetop or direct ignition from a lighter, match or cigarette.

 
Daily Mail is a rag as it is but I'm not even going to click that... this is just another reason people will be laughing at the victims and the family :rolleyes:
Stacey, I realise this must be terribly distressing for you, but I'd be most surprised if people were laughing at the victims. Robyn said that Russell had suffered from depression. We weren't in court so don't know how she came to disclose his very personal medical condition. Dann may have asked her under cross-examination why he had been depressed and that's when she disclosed that information.

At most, and this is just my opinion, some may have snickered about his condition. I discussed this with my husband and he said words to the effect, "Well, some men may jokingly say 'I wish I had that problem' without really meaning it".

They were brutally murdered and their bodies disposed of in a sickening manner. With all the lies that GL has told, IMO people will empathise with the victims.
 
Daily Mail is a rag as it is but I'm not even going to click that... this is just another reason people will be laughing at the victims and the family :rolleyes:
Stacey, from what I've been reading across various media's, people are outraged & disgusted that many aspects of RH & CC's personal lives have been brought into scrutiny and they see it as unnecessary and nothing to do with the case. Also, unfortunately, journalism always goes for the salacious bits first to get peoples attention. It's called gutter journalism and not worthy to be read. I hope this helps a little.
 
JudgeJudi, Sher Lock. Thanks for your input. I realise my opinions are biased but I read some really terrible comments on the Facebook comments to the Daily Mail article links. Not just a couple but probably 20-30 per article. Some really horrible things... I know I am sensitive but things I would never say about anyone. I also understand this forum is based largely on speculation but it did bring me a fresh perspective on how to be a bit more sensitive when crimes occur, because one day it could be your family. News outlets will always be the way they are. But we as regular people can be in control of what we say.
Just my two cents.
 
JudgeJudi, Sher Lock. Thanks for your input. I realise my opinions are biased but I read some really terrible comments on the Facebook comments to the Daily Mail article links. Not just a couple but probably 20-30 per article. Some really horrible things... I know I am sensitive but things I would never say about anyone. I also understand this forum is based largely on speculation but it did bring me a fresh perspective on how to be a bit more sensitive when crimes occur, because one day it could be your family. News outlets will always be the way they are. But we as regular people can be in control of what we say.
Just my two cents.
I think the poor wife was just trying to be honest about the facts and was probably ambushed by the defence ... I totally get it it's unfair to the victims and their families :)
 
Seems the defence is trying to portray Russell and Carol in the most unsympathetic way they can.

I think the poor wife was just trying to be honest about the facts and was probably ambushed by the defence ... I totally get it it's unfair to the victims and their families :)
I'm fairly sure the prosecution was the one to ask Robynne Hill about his health.She was asked about his depression, and it was then that she talked about his physical problem. It was quite unexpected. She could have answered without mentioning his penis size.She could have been briefed better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
451
Total visitors
532

Forum statistics

Threads
608,249
Messages
18,236,824
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top