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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JudgeJudi said:
Forensic officer Mark Gellatly said he was asked to examine inside the canopy of RH’s car for the “possible presence of blood” in February 2022. He found 6 small “apparent” bloodstains and 3 “jelly-like” fatty deposits in a compartment on the passenger side but was unable to confirm the stains were blood. Testing couldn’t confirm the stains were blood, but his conclusion was they “most likely” were. He noted that testing can return a false negative when heat-affected.

Justice Croucher told the jury he had good news and bad news for them.
The bad news is there are no more witnesses available this week.
The good news is they’ll be having a long weekend as the next witness, Det. Sgt. Florence was ”crook”.

The trial has been delayed until Monday but the Judge said the case was running “ahead of schedule”.

https://www.news.com.au/national/co...s/news-story/cc0b1dcbbb143c6b6979f6c4c2fb0d02
Click to expand...
Jelly like fatty deposits? Why would those be in RH's car?
 
www.abc.net.au

Greg Lynn's barrister accuses police witness of introducing 'half-baked' theory during murder trial

The defence barrister of former Jetstar pilot and alleged double murderer Greg Lynn has accused a police witness of lying during a Victorian Supreme Court trial.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

The defence barrister of former Jetstar pilot and alleged double murderer Greg Lynn has accused a police witness of lying during a Victorian Supreme Court trial.

In a fiery exchange, Mr Dann accused Victoria Police forensic officer Mark Gellatly of lying and introducing a "half-baked theory" in the third week of a murder trial.
 
TootsieFootsie said:
Yeah... Nah
Click to expand...
Toots you don't think of the 230,000 people on a crime forum that no one has been involved in an incident causing serious injury to someone and left without handing themselves in? I know what I'd be betting on. It's human instinct to protect yourself.
 
SouthAussie said:
This article states that Carol was shot from 3-4 metres away. Just mentioning it here because I wondered about the distance (if it is true)

Click to expand...
Yes, according to the defendent. Whose story is that a bullet ricocheted off the vehicle mirror and hit Carol as she was crouching behind it at the front end of the vehicle, crying out 'no, Russell, stop'.

Which was such an affecting story that, naturally, just like any normal person, he'd incinerated both the scene and the remains of the people, but now of course he's a perfectly honorable citizen, so naturally his lawyer throws a complete temper tantrum when anyone dares to cast doubt on his story. And shouts liar, liar! And of course, when he shouts that, he's not talking about the defendent. No, it's only government scientists who lie, I mean none of us who are routinely going around covering up all the people we've killed would ever (gasp!) lie, and how dare the police hint that to the jury!


Wah79 said:
Jelly like fatty deposits? Why would those be in RH's car?
Click to expand...

I interpret that as being found under the canopy, which was outfitted with compartments for storage of camping supplies and presumably left open while they were in camp.

31ebb5eb3d2b3e26d6d21801f3e093f9.webp.jpg

So, if Carol's blood and tissue were found in there, it casts doubt on the tale of the crouching behind the mirror at the front of the vehicle.

JMO
 
Cedars said:
Yes, according to the defendent. Whose story is that a bullet ricocheted off the vehicle mirror and hit Carol as she was crouching behind it at the front end of the vehicle, crying out 'no, Russell, stop'.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Carol did call him Russell? Not Russ or Rusty or some other name that only she used for him
 
On the ‘missing campers’ podcast they talked about the position of the 2 men fighting at the front of the car? With the scientist being quizzed on their position exactly (what part of the bull bar were they near) is that right? If so, CC may have been under the canopy and they were fighting at the front near where the ensuite tent is?
Or did I mishear in the podcast?
 
Detective Willy said:
No doubt the GL defence team will push, push and push the self defence angle in the absence of any witnesses and evidence that is not circumstantial. This is the only (and very predictable) way they can go.

The problem is that a reasonable person can see what happened here.

The extremes that he went to afterwards are very telling IMO:

1) DOUBLE murder not SINGLE
2) Burning the campsite
3) "Staging" a robbery in Russells vehicle
4) Moving the bodies a substantial distance away
5) Going back to the burial location at a later date to grind, burn and bury the bones
6) Respraying his Nissan Patrol (twice not once)

All of these elements show that he had plenty of time to think about what he had done and did his very very best to cover it up and not to get caught. No remorse whatsoever.

This was not a scared and desperate man accidentally thrown into an unimaginable situation.

This was a highly intelligent, calm, planning, cunning and calculating man.

IMO he is a true monster who will NEVER EVER tell the truth.

Remember he is (was) the smartest guy in the room, right up to the point to where he got caught.

Russell and Carol were NOT a threat to him. Prosecution should not have difficulty proving this IMO.
Click to expand...
Umm YES
 
Detective Willy said:
The extremes that he went to afterwards are very telling IMO:

1) DOUBLE murder not SINGLE
2) Burning the campsite
3) "Staging" a robbery in Russells vehicle
4) Moving the bodies a substantial distance away
5) Going back to the burial location at a later date to grind, burn and bury the bones
6) Respraying his Nissan Patrol (twice not once)
Click to expand...

7) Disposing of the trailer.

IMO, the jury members are not so stupid as to swallow any self defence story. The facts of his actions speak for themselves to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
 
Cedars said:
Yes, according to the defendent. Whose story is that a bullet ricocheted off the vehicle mirror and hit Carol as she was crouching behind it at the front end of the vehicle, crying out 'no, Russell, stop'.

Which was such an affecting story that, naturally, just like any normal person, he'd incinerated both the scene and the remains of the people, but now of course he's a perfectly honorable citizen, so naturally his lawyer throws a complete temper tantrum when anyone dares to cast doubt on his story. And shouts liar, liar! And of course, when he shouts that, he's not talking about the defendent. No, it's only government scientists who lie, I mean none of us who are routinely going around covering up all the people we've killed would ever (gasp!) lie, and how dare the police hint that to the jury!
Click to expand...
Actually, I wasn't wondering if GL was being truthful or not. I have wondered for a long time how far away from Carol the weapon was when she was killed.
And this is the first time I have seen any distance mentioned.
It may be that the evidence from the canopy, the burned mirror, and the fragments found at the scene corroborate that kind of distance - so Lynn made his claim about the distance.

Or the evidence might allude to another kind of distance. And he will be shown to have lied. Maybe it was at point blank range.
They can interpret some pretty amazing things by blood and other spatter patterns these days.
 
TootsieFootsie said:
In a fiery exchange, Mr Dann accused Victoria Police forensic officer Mark Gellatly of lying and introducing a "half-baked theory" in the third week of a murder trial.
Click to expand...

Desperate theatrics. My bet is that the jury was not impressed.

And as for 'lying and introducing a "half-baked theory"' sounds to me as though he's projecting his client's actions onto the witness.
 
JBowie said:
Desperate theatrics. My bet is that the jury was not impressed.

And as for 'lying and introducing a "half-baked theory"' sounds to me as though he's projecting his client's actions onto the witness.
Click to expand...
The other day he was chucking a defence fruity because the ballistics expert hadn't listened to Lynn's police interview.

Completely irrelevant. The expert was testifying about the weapon and its propensities.

imo
 
SouthAussie said:
The other day he was chucking a defence fruity because the ballistics expert hadn't listened to Lynn's police interview.

Completely irrelevant. The expert was testifying about the weapon and its propensities.

imo
Click to expand...
Wouldn't not listening to what GL had to say be a good thing. Being the expert only putting forward a conclusion with the physical evidence that is available.
 
Doesitmakesense said:
Wouldn't not listening to what GL had to say be a good thing. Being the expert only putting forward a conclusion with the physical evidence that is available.
Click to expand...
Yes. Of course it is a good thing. Untainted and impartial testimony.
But it seems that making the police investigation appear flawed, to a person who doesn't use common sense, might be one of the defence strategies.

imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 57 more.
Total: 2,559 (members: 58, guests: 2,501)

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
2,501
Total visitors
2,559
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,777
Messages
18,113,281
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top