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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
changintimes said:
There were no witnesses to be called, only the person that was at the scene and that person, put himself at great risk giving evidence. How a person behaved on another date, at any time, or at any place, is not relevant to the case IMO. Hearsay does not belong in any trial.
Click to expand...
changintimes, I agree that "hearsay does not belong in any trial" unless of course it is stated as hearsay specifically, but another factor is context.

Example:

Prosecution question to witness: "Does the gentleman who resides at no. 12 in your street always put the household
bin at the kerb for collection every week?"

Witness response: "No."

Prosecution question: "Are you absolutely certain of this?"

Witness response: "Yes"

Prosecution question: "How could you be absolutely certain of this, when it's previously been confirmed
in photo images that there is not a clear view from your house."

Witness response: "His wife told me. She said he hardly ever puts the bin out."

Above example demonstrates "hearsay".

Regarding your comment "How a person behaved on another date, at any time, or at any place, is not relevant to the case IMO..." whilst that is, as you've stated, your opinion, a presiding judge may not necessarily agree with you.

Questions could be legitimately raised regarding someone's behaviour at a different time or place in order to establish behavioural patterns, or a witness may be called to testify about what they observed when an incident occurred for example. If it is not relevant, opposing counsel will object, and the judge will rule as to it's relevance or otherwise.

I'm somewhat puzzled by your comment that "that person, put himself at great risk giving evidence" - are you saying that it was unfair that he was required to testify?

Two innocent people - Carol Clay and Russell Hill - have been murdered. They have lost their lives, and their loved ones have undoubtedly experienced agonising emotional distress, the likes of which, fortunately, most of us will never have to experience. Added to this, the initial uncertainty of not knowing what had happened to the victims, and and then the fact that they couldn't even lay the victims' bodies to rest, (as the accused, by his own admission had deliberately destroyed them) will in all likelihood stay with them forever.

Regarding your concern re GL putting himself at great risk giving evidence, from my observations, there appeared to be robust security in evidence at the trial. Additionally, IIRC consideration is being given to GL being held in a section of prison separated from the main prison population for security purposes, should any appeal be unsuccessful and he is required to serve a sentence.

IMO whichever way you look at it, he's in a much better situation than Carol Clay and Russell Hill.
 
Last edited:
changintimes said:
How do you know about RH right arm position and firearm position as you have described?
Click to expand...
Hi changintimes, Are there any other forums you follow on WS or is it just this one? Would be interested in your inputs to others. Curious as to your occupation as you appear very smart and certainly have a very inquiring mind. Do you know anyone involved with this case or are you writing a book?
 
JLZ said:
South Aussie or someone else, can you tell me where was the guy line?

The Landcruiser is parked with its front to the toilet, tent proper to the left. GL's story is that he and Russell are either side of the bonnet, both holding the gun. Without releasing it, they wrestle themselves to the front of the vehicle, face to face--Russell facing the toilet. GL manages to push the gun around so that Russell's right arm is crossing in front of his body until the gun points behind him--GL must have giant size arms--and Russell is still facing the toilet and his finger is still on the trigger. The bullet turns a corner but never mind that. Where does the guy line go, exactly? Is it from the Landcruiser and if so to which part is it tied, and does it connect to the tent proper or the toilet tent?
Click to expand...

Bullbar to toilet tent. You can see it in this pic I posted earlier. (The red lines are mine).

a.jpg Link
 
Last edited:
SouthAussie said:
Bullbar to toilet tent. You can see it in this pic I posted earlier. (The red lines are mine).

View attachment 514388
Click to expand...
Thanks. It looks like it's tied with a bit of the end hanging over the headlight. Or is that something else? Considering possibilities, such as they began the struggle both to the same side of the line--then if the barrel came over the bonnet it was diagonally with Russell initially standing by the passenger door. It comes back to the absurdity of GL hiding from the man with his gun in the man's own campsite.
 
wallyworld said:
IMO there will be 12 very angry people watching 60 min tonight.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I disagree. The jury would know they can only deliberate on the evidence presented to them at the time. Unless you have been on a jury, you can never understand. My bet is those 12 people will be so sick of hearing about Lynn, that dinner at Nanna's will be much more exciting tonight.
 
changintimes said:
We all use memory recall and that's what all humans (and elephants) are extremely good at. It is actually extremely difficult for a human to recall a lie told, exactly as told in 'a connected string' as it was told, in the 1st instance. IMO from personal and professional experience.
Click to expand...
In Australia, lie detector tests aren't used. Because a narcissistic person can believe their own lies.
 
BreakingNews said:
Sorry, I disagree. The jury would know they can only deliberate on the evidence presented to them at the time. Unless you have been on a jury, you can never understand. My bet is those 12 people will be so sick of hearing about Lynn, that dinner at Nanna's will be much more exciting tonight.
Click to expand...
Yes have been on a Jury before and was left very disappointed following the verdict when the accused past record and impending charges were released in the media.
IMO the Jury members are possibly feeling short-changed with what wasn't disclosed to them. BUT, that's our Justice System isn't it :(
 
drsleuth said:
The bit I really find hard to believe , that after the gun fight & CC is apparently shot, than the fight with the knife, that RH was able to push GL over!

GL would have been raging IMO & he's not a small man, ie not a push over pardon the pun ;)


@ 6:10ish mark in this video
Click to expand...

Not a small man, built like a brick s-house (according to emirates), and 20 years younger than Russell.

I don't think Russell or Carol stood a chance.

BTW There is definitely an interview with Russell's daughter included in the 60 Minutes segment tonight. I just saw a bit more of a promo about it.
 
wallyworld said:
Yes have been on a Jury before and was left very disappointed following the verdict when the accused past record and impending charges were released in the media.
IMO the Jury members are possibly feeling short-changed with what wasn't disclosed to them. BUT, that's our Justice System isn't it :(
Click to expand...
Of course that is the justice system. Each crime has to be dealt with individually. Otherwise it is unfair on the defendant. Just because someone might be guilty of murder on one case does not mean that same person robbed a bank a few years before.
As a member of the jury, you are making a decision on what the judge tells you and you only hear about that one case. Not good that you feel short changed. Jury members can only make decisions with the information they are given under the law. Other things don't relate to the incident you were dealing with.
 
There are a couple of things in the interview with GL that stood out and I'm trying to make sense of:

1) GL stated that CC was shot in the back of her head and then fell forward (he found her face down)
The blood spatter went predominantly onto the tent/chairs/table and a little hit the side canopy of RH's vehicle.
My query is: Why was CC looking/standing or crouched in the opposite direction to where GL & RH were fighting on the bonnet of the car. Doesn't make sense at all (same as most of his story).

2) GL stated at one point, that the camp area was dark however each campsite did have light. GL's site had the ambient light from the campfire and RH's site had light from his vehicle (on the tent side) and that the side canopy was also open (I assume the light was from within the side canopy).
At another much further into the interview, the police asked if he thought RH & CC were in bed to which he replied yes.
My query is: Why would RH leave the light on and the side canopy open if he and CC were in bed. Doesn't make sense!
 
SouthAussie said:
He used that paper in the same manner as a defendant at a trial uses a pad of paper.
Click to expand...
Lynn knew if he used a pen and paper he could avoid looking into his interrogator's eyes while he lied to them. Even for a seasoned liar it is much more difficult telling porky pies when you are looking into someone's eyes.
 
BreakingNews said:
Of course that is the justice system. Each crime has to be dealt with individually. Otherwise it is unfair on the defendant. Just because someone might be guilty of murder on one case does not mean that same person robbed a bank a few years before.
As a member of the jury, you are making a decision on what the judge tells you and you only hear about that one case. Not good that you feel short changed. Jury members can only make decisions with the information they are given under the law. Other things don't relate to the incident you were dealing with.
Click to expand...
The trial related to child sexual assault with the accused being acquitted. We were not made aware of other pending matters including sexual assault and possessing child sexual abuse material.
 
JLZ said:
Character evidence is a thing. It's risky because if the defence plans to claim that the accused is of good character and hence unlikely to have committed the offence with which he's charged, the prosecution is allowed to call character evidence to the contrary. Arguably it's possible to dig up dirt on anyone. It would not be hearsay on either side. It would be testimony as to the witness's experience of the accused.
Click to expand...
Good character evidence speaks for itself, so this only relates to bad, but you can read the finer details about both here.

Character Evidence (Vic)
Evidence of the accused’s bad character is generally inadmissible as it is unfairly prejudicial.

There are three circumstances in which bad character can be admissible:
1. Where evidence has been adduced to establish the accused’s good character, the prosecution ... can adduce evidence to contradict this;
2. …
3. Where evidence of bad character is admissible under Part 3.7 of the Evidence Act, as evidence pertaining to the credibility of a witness.

If the prosecution wishes to cross-examine an accused about matters arising out of character evidence, it requires the leave of the court (Section 112, Uniform Evidence Act).

Use of bad character evidence
Bad character evidence can only be used to contradict good character evidence. It cannot be used to establish guilt. The court can limit the use of bad character evidence if it risks being unfairly prejudicial for a party or if it is likely to be misleading or confusing for the jury.

Bad character evidence cannot be used to impute that the accused has a propensity to behave in a way that makes it likely they committed the offence. In this way, bad character evidence cannot be used in the same way as good character evidence, which can be used for a sort of propensity reasoning in establishing that the accused would have been unlikely to have committed the offence.

Evidence is not inadmissible simply because it shows the bad character of the accused, if it is adduced for another purpose. Such evidence may be admitted, but the jury must be warned that it should not be used for an irrelevant or prejudicial purpose.
 
The 60 Minutes segment was only small.

Greg Lynn had a small pig and it dug up a bit of his garden. What did he do? Killed it by hitting it in the head with an axe.

He said his first wife was drinking too much. He bound her wrists with duct tape, took her outside, hosed her down and left her there all night. [Note that the family said she didn't drink]

Is there any doubt he's a monster and a psychopath.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 127 more.
Total: 641 (members: 128, guests: 513)

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
513
Total visitors
641
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,267
Messages
18,237,003
Members
234,327
Latest member
EmilyShaul2
Back
Top