Perhaps someone has noted this already, but the ABC reported that "Five unmarked police cars were seen travelling to the remote search site early on Tuesday".
Here is a screen grab of the comment about bone:
Perhaps someone has noted this already, but the ABC reported that "Five unmarked police cars were seen travelling to the remote search site early on Tuesday".
Very sorry for your lossThank you to all the super sleuths out there for your good wishes. We (the camping group) have long held the belief that we would never see Russell again. So todays news is a bit of a double edged sword. If the remains are infact those of Russell and Carol (we don't really know yet but the chances are very likely that they are) at least we have closure, but it also means that the last glimmer of hope has been extinguished.
Just because it's interesting to me how police activities are covered by the media: I don't believe police would conduct an initial search for bodies by using an excavator (unless they knew the perp had used an excavator to bury them.)This HS article says that the remains were found 5 hours after the excavator was brought in. The excavator was brought to them (by a local) on Tuesday ... no mention of what time on Tuesday.
The remains were found in a 'very shallow' area of bushland.
Detectives are looking for bones. They have not called in cadaver dogs.
Any remains may have been covered by 'lush growth' since March 2020.
No Cookies | Herald Sun
Not sure this means he's going to plead guilty. Would you spend money on a top defence lawyer if you're going to plead guilty? Or are you trying to get mitigation/reduced sentence?.
I read that Mr Lynn had retained as legal counsel the same lawyer who represented Pusey - the Porsche driver who speeding led to a police stop that created the circumstances for an accident in which four police officers were killed. You know the one who filmed the dying officers and berated them for spoiling his sushi.
Hi SatchieWhat I get from analyzing the news sources is that AAP were invited onto the search site on Tues where they filmed/photographed one of several simultaneous searches (the images are all credited to AAP photographer, Jason Eamon, the video footage is not credited but is obviously all by one camera at the same scene).
At some point, AAP were told remains had been found. They broke the story about 3 pm Australia time, and all the other news agencies are based on that story (AAP is a wire service that shares stories rather than publishes themselves).
There can't have been any kind of press conference, or there would be footage of that.
The remains must have been found well before AAP were told, in order to ensure all the family members had been officially informed through police channels. Police don't want anyone involved to find out through the news media.
Therefore, I think the remains were found early in the morning, and that's what brought out the detectives in the unmarked police cars.
I believe they invited AAP into the area after remains were found, and brought them to a minor search area. Because no way do police want the media on site, taking photos, when actual victim's remains are found.
I really don't think anything can be deduced at this point from the news coverage. The reporters, IMO, don't know any more than we do. The police show what they want to show, they say what they can say, without jeapardizing the case by revealing anything to the suspect that might interfere with their interrogation, or prejudicing a potential jury, etc.
JMO
I was not suggesting he would. I have no idea what he plans to do. I just thought it was interesting who he retained.Not sure this means he's going to plead guilty. Would you spend money on a top defence lawyer if you're going to plead guilty? Or are you trying to get mitigation/reduced sentence?
AAP is often selected; sometimes the journalists decide among themselves. What has been interesting here is that VicPol have used free to air and readily available news outlets - ch.9/Fairfax (the one stable now) and ABC. News has not been used, because they live behind paywalls.
I agree. I must confess that the use of an excavator also puzzled me, given they had a 20m sq area identified - and which proved correct. [Quite how they did that, we will have to wait for the trial, the Committal Hearing or a police announcement.] It's a bit like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Watching the TV show Time Team, when they excavate they may use a machine, but only if they believe the artefacts they are seeking are deep down. As they approach the depth, then the archaeologists get into the hole with their trowels and brushes.Just because it's interesting to me how police activities are covered by the media: I don't believe police would conduct an initial search for bodies by using an excavator (unless they knew the perp had used an excavator to bury them.)
That would completely destroy the crime scene and the forensic evidence. It might actually damage the remains, and they can't reconstruct what the site was like before being scooped up and dumped.
IMO, only after they had found enough to learn what forensics were going to be available, and to determine there would be no significant/meaningful damage to evidence, would they bring in excavators.
JMO
Only if you do not clear your cache. New Ltd titles are almost always if not actually always.Fairfax news articles are quite often behind paywalls too.
Some folks are not morning people and don't look their best until they brush their hair and apply a little lippy!I'm getting to dislike the photo of him with the straps over his shoulders, which someone said were waders.
It's not all photos, but that one has made me jump a few times when it popped up full size on my laptop, when I was reading news about the story. Happened heaps of times now with different articles.
Only if you do not clear your cache. New Ltd titles are almost always if not actually always.
I didn't mean to take you up! Sorry for the poor wording. I was just speculating purely for myself as to why he has retained such counsel and what it means.I was not suggesting he would. I have no idea what he plans to do. I just thought it was interesting who he retained.
In this case like the Ristevski case - I think if you commit a serious crime, then hide this crime and try to get away with it and only "confess" after you have already been caught then Murder should automatically apply. The Perpetrator should have to prove if it was anything less and why they did not confess to the crime IMO.To get a conviction for murder or manslaughter the Crown does not need a body or to identify exactly how the person died, only that the person did die by the hand of another person and that that other person's action was deliberate and not the result of some defect of mind (i.e. they were insane, delusional, talking to God and so on). There is a complex and quite fascinating body of law around all this. Typically, the Crown will set out to establish certain facts of the case ( a person is actually dead and the death was "unnatural"), and oftentimes the defence will actually agree to some of those facts. The argument then focuses on the accused's involvement (e.g. the possibility of the crime - Cardinal Pell; or I didn't kill them; I disposed of the bodies...; I was cleaning my rifle and I did not know it was loaded and it went off shooting the victim and I panicked and disposed of the body...), state of mind and responsibility (e.g. My neighbour's dog told me to do it - Son of Sam) and the circumstances that led to the accused's actions (e.g. long standing antipathy, such as in neighbourhood disputes, provocation and so on). On some of these the burden of proof is on the defence, as in insanity pleas; on others, it is on the prosecution.
So, it will be the accused's account of events against the forensic evidence. Whether the Judge permits the accused's prior history or evidence of his behaviour to be admitted, is a matter of judicial discretion and in part will depend on the relevance to the case and whether it is more prejudicial than probative.
Unless the accused enters a plea of guilty, this trial is going to be really interesting as the only living witness is also the accused.