Australia - Russell Hill & Carol Clay Murdered While Camping - Wonnangatta Valley, 2020 #8

[TootsieFootsie]

Well, the jury would only just have got the videos late today. So I imagine it will take the rest of the week to go through them ... stopping and starting them, making notes, comparing testimony, etc.


However, he said it could take the court until the end of Wednesday to edit the videos before they were given to them.

“You will see it in three files on a USB. Apparently it’s taking some time to download because it’s big, because of the nature of the recording,” Croucher said.

“But it’ll be with you pretty shortly, so you’ll be able to play that in the jury room at your leisure.”

Maybe not tomorrow (for a verdict)

 

[Sabex]

The jury have to decide if the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

I think this is something that a lot of us are missing here. If there is reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors that the accused did it, then the jury must acquit.

Is there any evidence that the accused actually committed the crime? It doesn't seem like there is much, if any. The only evidence is of disposing the bodies.

Some jurors might believe that even if the story is implausible, there is still reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

He might walk.

MOO

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I'm pretty sure most of us here know what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

 

[SouthAussie]

The jury have to decide if the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

I think this is something that a lot of us are missing here. If there is reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors that the accused did it, then the jury must acquit.

Is there any evidence that the accused actually committed the crime? It doesn't seem like there is much, if any. The only evidence is of disposing the bodies.

Some jurors might believe that even if the story is implausible, there is still reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

He might walk.

MOO

Nobody is missing anything. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is not 'beyond the smallest bit of doubt'.

Perhaps some are missing that his guilt doesn't have to be an absolute certainty, it has to be reasonably certain. So that anything else is far fetched and unbelievable.

Far fetched and unbelievable certainly seems to apply to Lynn's story.

imo

 

[ScottToorak]

3 days in to the Jury's deliberations after many weeks of trial. If this doesn't say " doubt" I do not know what would. If found guilty their will be an appeal and he will walk no doubt about it imo. If found not guilty will he walk from the dock or can police lay charges in relation to the manner in which he disposed of the bodies?

 

[SouthAussie]

3 days in to the Jury's deliberations after many weeks of trial. If this doesn't say " doubt" I do not know what would. If found guilty their will be an appeal and he will walk no doubt about it imo. If found not guilty will he walk from the dock or can police lay charges in relation to the manner in which he disposed of the bodies?

Did Justin Stein's verdict go any quicker?

We are supposed to believe that an apparently intelligent pilot destroyed all the evidence - every little bit of it - because he was scared of being blamed? When said evidence could have shown his innocence, if he was innocent.

 

[Sabex]

I'm pretty sure most of us here know what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

I dunno, I'm hearing a lot of "who could believe this story?!" type questions.

The jury doesn't need to believe it or not. It depends on the story the prosecution put forward and if it's more plausible to the jury, and if the prosecution has managed to disprove the accused's.

I just worry we aren't going to see the outcome that we all seem to want.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I think what most people want is a verdict that is as close to the truth as possible.

 

[SouthAussie]

I dunno, I'm hearing a lot of "who could believe this story?!" type questions.

The jury doesn't need to believe it or not. It depends on the story the prosecution put forward and if it's more plausible to the jury, and if the prosecution has managed to disprove the accused's.

I just worry we aren't going to see the outcome that we all seem to want.

No, the prosecution don't have to manage to disprove the accused's story. They don't even have to show a motive.
They need to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that the thoroughly cleaned shotgun, the burned side mirror, the burned campsite, the picked up shotgun shells, the burned and smashed bodies, the disposal of the phones and drone (never found, why?), the disposal of the trailer (never found, why?) ... all go a long way to proving the prosecution's case.

That this man destroyed everything because it would show that Russell did not steal his weapon, nor struggle with him over it, and that Russell did not fall on his own knife after he "came at" Lynn.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

I think, in this case, the resounding evidence is that there is no evidence. Not even one little bit of it.

And I truly hope the jury can see that.

imo

 

[solari]

3 days in to the Jury's deliberations after many weeks of trial. If this doesn't say " doubt" I do not know what would. If found guilty their will be an appeal and he will walk no doubt about it imo. If found not guilty will he walk from the dock or can police lay charges in relation to the manner in which he disposed of the bodies?

I believe the Jury are just doing their due diligence, conviction of murder should not be made in a second especially in a case with complexities, 12 people, 12 different lives, minds, and 12 lots of many different questions and discussion points regarding the case at hand. A good jury takes their time and does a thorough job.

 

[Barbie05]

Charlise muttens step father was just found guilty and the jury took a week and a half to deliberate

3 days of deliberating shouldn't be of concern, shows the jury are doing their due diligence

 

[AussieIan]

Did Justin Stein's verdict go any quicker?

We are supposed to believe that an apparently intelligent pilot destroyed all the evidence - every little bit of it - because he was scared of being blamed? When said evidence could have shown his innocence, if he was innocent.

Not sure why people struggle to understand this.

It doesn't matter if the evidence showed he was innocent, there would still be a lengthy investigation, questions raised, probably stood down from work, possibility of any number of charges being laid, his family under a microscope, national attention etc etc.

Or.

Try cover it up and potentially......NOTHING.



Was anything mentioned about why the manslaughter charges were removed last week? Seems risky not to give a jury that option if there are uncertainties.

 

[SouthAussie]

Was anything mentioned about why the manslaughter charges were removed last week? Seems risky not to give a jury that option if there are uncertainties.

Because the prosecution didn't try to show manslaughter. They didn't try to show Lynn might have accidently killed Russell and Carol. What they have seen leads them to believe this is murder. (Personal opinion, I haven't looked for an explanation.)

Do you think that the prosecution also "struggle" to see your personal point of view? Because it seems that many of us are not alone in our thoughts. The DPP thinks this, too.

The prosecution may or may not "win" this case. But they believe (due to the very fact that they prosecuted) that there is a good chance of conviction. And the public deserves to be protected against this alleged murderer and others who may think to follow his example.

imo

 

[Bats]

Was anything mentioned about why the manslaughter charges were removed last week? Seems risky not to give a jury that option if there are uncertainties.

The prosecution have put forward their case for 2 murder convictions. In this particular case, manslaughter would probably mean you would need to believe parts of Lynn's story, which the prosecution say is a lie.

 

[Bats]

Not sure why people struggle to understand this.

It doesn't matter if the evidence showed he was innocent, there would still be a lengthy investigation, questions raised, probably stood down from work, possibility of any number of charges being laid, his family under a microscope, national attention etc etc.

Or.

Try cover it up and potentially......NOTHING.



Was anything mentioned about why the manslaughter charges were removed last week? Seems risky not to give a jury that option if there are uncertainties.

So you're saying...
If you were driving down the road and someone ran in front of the car and you accidentally killed them, it would be quite reasonable to put their body in your boot, drive to some bushland and dump it so you could avoid a lengthy investigation, questions, and the potential to be stood down from your job for a while?
Wow.

 

[madoodi]

Definitely not.
And the BIG question is why on earth would Russell have prepared the gun for firing???
Answer: He wouldn't have. imo


He took the jury through how to manually load the magazine, rack the bolt-action firearm and c@ck it before releasing the safety mechanism and pulling the trigger.
He noted it had a cross-bolt safety mechanism.

(from my paraphrased previous post)

SouthAussie, do you remember if GL testified that the gun was loaded or not?
It makes absolutely no sense that RH would take the gun AND the ammunition (which I think should be stored separately) and then prepare that gun for fire. I totally agree with you, I don't see him doing that.

IMOO

 

[AussieIan]

Because the prosecution didn't try to show manslaughter. They didn't try to show Lynn might have accidently killed Russell and Carol. What they have seen leads them to believe this is murder. (Personal opinion, I haven't looked for an explanation.)

Do you think that the prosecution also "struggle" to see your personal point of view? Because it seems that many of us are not alone in our thoughts. The DPP thinks this, too.

The prosecution may or may not "win" this case. But they believe (due to the very fact that they prosecuted) that there is a good chance of conviction. And the public deserves to be protected against this alleged murderer and others who may think to follow his example.

imo

Ahh. Very confident of them then.

I know the trial I'm attending atm the jury was given the option to find them guilty of manslaughter if they weren't convinced it was murder, which is what they are charged with.

I thought that was standard practice. Seems very risky if it's murder or he walks.

I mean, I don't believe Lynn's story as he tells it either, but how boring would this thread be if we all just circlejerked about him being guilty. Theres plenty out there to sow doubt imo, no harm in bringing it up.

 

[madoodi]

I think, in this case, the resounding evidence is that there is no evidence. Not even one little bit of it.

And I truly hope the jury can see that.

imo

This is so true and in my opinion speaks volume. That a supposed innocent person would destroy absolutely every shred of evidence he can, not even maintaining some dignity for the deceased and their remains, which at least should have proven that one was shot and one was stabbed (according to his version). Ok fair enough, you felt you had to destroy the campsite etc, but their bodies, to a reasonable person, or an innocent person, I just cannot comprehend what he did to their remains, if he is indeed innocent.

Even though he destroyed all the evidence, or most of it, his actions speak volumes to his guilt.

This is all JMO of course.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

This is so true and in my opinion speaks volume. That a supposed innocent person would destroy absolutely every shred of evidence he can, not even maintaining some dignity for the deceased and their remains, which at least should have proven that one was shot and one was stabbed (according to his version). Ok fair enough, you felt you had to destroy the campsite etc, but their bodies, to a reasonable person, or an innocent person, I just cannot comprehend what he did to their remains, if he is indeed innocent.

It really does defy logic, if you didn't murder them.