Found Deceased Australia - Russell Hill, 74, & Carol Clay, 72, Wonnangatta Valley, 20 March 2020 #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was wondering if any of the containers there would fit a body in. Plus the thought of being dissolved in acid :(

I didn't realise the river was so close. Maybe one fell in or had a medical episode, the other tried to help and they were carried away by the waters.
Re the fire, I saw some articles on how fires were started in homes by the sun concentrating on an object on the window sill which ended up catching the curtains alight. Maybe they hadn't meant to be gone long and some object like a mirror caught the beams of the sun and set the tent or some bedding or fabric from a chair alight.
 
I was wondering if any of the containers there would fit a body in. Plus the thought of being dissolved in acid :(

I didn't realise the river was so close. Maybe one fell in or had a medical episode, the other tried to help and they were carried away by the waters.
Re the fire, I saw some articles on how fires were started in homes by the sun concentrating on an object on the window sill which ended up catching the curtains alight. Maybe they hadn't meant to be gone long and some object like a mirror caught the beams of the sun and set the tent or some bedding or fabric from a chair alight.
yes, very good point about sunlight being reflected by an object that then causes a fire. This article talks about how a glass table top started a home on fire--plus how batteries are also dangerous--perhaps RH's table top was glass, and it looks like he had a 12 volt battery close by the tent.
Glass and mirrors linked to house fires – plus tips on fire prevention in hot weather
 
Maybe smoking fish? I think where they were camping is protected from hunters.

They definitely would have needed some contraption for cooking. They had planned to stay for a week.
As well as a way to keep food edible. Filling up the esky with ice every day would likely not have been possible.

Very good point - something like this perhaps.

upload_2020-9-13_22-13-31.pngupload_2020-9-13_22-13-31.png
 
Hi, just making a few comments re some posts - not in any particular order. First, someone was perhaps worried about missing out on an inheritance - I've certainly seen this several times in real life (not murder, but resentment towards a second wife, who is much younger, and so the adult children see their inheritance set back until they are maybe in nursing homes.) But that shouldn't apply here, with RH and CC being much the same age.

Secondly, I like (well, not like, but you know what I mean) the idea that someone tossed some sort of flame into the tent - revenge? to bring them out? And then forced them into another vehicle at gunpoint.

Thirdly, I certainly wouldn't want any sort of cooker (let alone an incinerator) in my tent - I would have put it in the truck if I thought it needed to be kept safe or whatever. And tents are usually crowded enough without adding more stuff.

Fourthly, someone suggested drowning in the nearby river - but someone else suggested that same thing a long way back, which led to yet another someone saying that in March you would be lucky to get your feet wet in that river. (Yes, I know I should be more specific, but I told you before that I'm lazy!)

Fifthly, re murder/suicide: Those who like this theory seem to always cast Russell in the role of gravedigger - but what about his heart condition?

Sixth, the remains of a mysterious circular object in the tent - my first thought (due to my own camping experience) was a covered bucket to serve as a toilet (assuming the little tent is a shower) - but then that would probably be plastic wouldn't it, and wouldn't survive a fire.

And lastly, seventh - the sun shining onto something which started the fire - I don't know if their tent had a window, but it certainly wouldn't be glass, and I don't think sun shining through thick plastic would work the same, would it? Does anyone know?
 
Or a home made version of something similar - RH seems the type of guy who could knock a backyard version up without too much trouble.

The cut out's in the burnt out drum look unique, and could of been a cleaning access point for his homemade smoker.
yes, agree--where I am from they cook entire pigs in cut out drums.
 
<RSBM>
Fourthly, someone suggested drowning in the nearby river - but someone else suggested that same thing a long way back, which led to yet another someone saying that in March you would be lucky to get your feet wet in that river. (Yes, I know I should be more specific, but I told you before that I'm lazy!)

The pics I have seen of the river suggest it is not a big, fast flowing river. In one pic, Russell is sitting in a very low river in a chair ... presumably staying cool.
I guess there could be certain sections where fishing is okay, but I don't see drowning or floating down the river being high up in the possibilities. If they were, I imagine the police would have considered that in their searches.

Regarding the circular/cylindrical objects among the fire remnants, I think I was more thinking that (if they are for cooking) they would have been tossed/moved there before the fire started, perhaps.
And if that is the case, why? Because there could be DNA on them? Someone else was helping with cooking? The objects were touched during a struggle?
 
I wasn't thinking it was anything the tent was made out of, more a portable object like Carol's mirror that she would have taken with her.
I'm not a huge camper but like Carol I would still like to look nice wherever I was.
If I was going camping I would take a mirror with me. In fact I have taken an A4 size mirror when we used to camp.
Just a tiny one in my bag wouldn't be enough.
The glass or mirror object could have been anything, a mirror, or anything made of glass, even a glass mug.

Also even if the river was thought to be shallow, there may have been a few spots where it was deeper than expected.

And lastly, seventh - the sun shining onto something which started the fire - I don't know if their tent had a window, but it certainly wouldn't be glass, and I don't think sun shining through thick plastic would work the same, would it? Does anyone know?
 
Respectfully sniped and bolded by me.

I've made it known that I take the unpopular stance and suspect murder suicide in this case. Sometimes people like to cover up their own crimes so that their family doesn't think poorly of them. I think it might make the act easier to carry out.

I just can't get past the fact that he visited the site alone a week before (for a day or two) and it was such a long drive. The remoteness makes me think that perhaps he was scouting a 'good location' or perhaps even began digging. He also had health problems so might have thought he didn't have much to lose. :(. All just my opinion and as always...hope I'm wrong and that this was an accident.
i also instantly felt this may be a m/s when i first heard of the case,
and have now added the 2nd possibility it could be murder by someone close who burnt the tent to disguise all evidence after a struggle while they slept,
if they were murdered it seems too unlikely it was by a stranger
 
The pics I have seen of the river suggest it is not a big, fast flowing river. In one pic, Russell is sitting in a very low river in a chair ... presumably staying cool.
I guess there could be certain sections where fishing is okay, but I don't see drowning or floating down the river being high up in the possibilities. If they were, I imagine the police would have considered that in their searches.

Regarding the circular/cylindrical objects among the fire remnants, I think I was more thinking that (if they are for cooking) they would have been tossed/moved there before the fire started, perhaps.
And if that is the case, why? Because there could be DNA on them? Someone else was helping with cooking? The objects were touched during a struggle?
Adding to your post...here are some thoughts. Re: the river...yes, I agree. Since the river is not fast moving and had they drowned on their own accord--it would seem likely they would have been found and not traveled down stream getting stuck somewhere. I listened again to crime sleuth Andrew Rule's video on RH and CC's disappearance that he posted 5 months ago; he seems confident that RH and CC's disappearance is based on misadventure with a pack of dogs consuming their cadavers and not leaving any trace evidence. I am skeptical about that hypothesis--namely, having had two sets of two large 100 pound Rottweilers over a 25 year span and having watched them chew on fresh over a foot long pig arms with hoofs--seeing first hand what was left behind after a week or two of constant chewing--bone fragments could always be found in the dirt... bone pieces the size of a dime, and some like broken pieces of a popsicle stick. I doubt a pack of dogs would break down and eat an entire human skull, or the femur bone. And any of the other large bones the dogs chewed on, imo, would have left some bone fragments--even if the dogs eventually dragged all the remains back to a den area. Re: RH's truck key. In the video AR also states that RH's truck was locked when found...making it seem like RH and CC locked their truck when they left their campsite. IMO, since they were within close walking distance to the river, and had they decided to go to the river to sit or fish--they probably wouldn't have locked their truck. I think the locked vehicle indicates an excursion further from their campsite, as well as the likelihood that they left and never returned to the campsite. The burnt out campsite appears to have had a few things in and around it suggesting to me that they only planned to be away from the campsite for a few hours...which in turn led to a flash fire occurring...something was left cooking, turned on, or as Tootsie pointed out--a refracted sunlight heat related fire started off of some object in or around the tent area. I recall one poster saying months ago they thought it possible that RH, CC, and a companion with a vehicle all got lost in their vehicle somewhere. The only problem with that theory is RH built the roads in that area decades ago, and knew them well. A predator stalking or coming upon RH and CC at their campsite seems problematic because of their locked truck, unless they locked their truck while sleeping--but why would they do that? As we all noted, the tent canopy appeared to be tied to the truck roof racks and the tent was very close to the truck. I think had the truck been unlocked when found, it would support someone entering their campsite while they were there--cooking, eating, or sleeping and abducting them. My conclusion to what might have happened...RH and CC met someone that was camping close by or someone drove up to their campsite. This person(s) could have followed them to their campsite having seen RH camping there several weeks in a row before bringing CC back to the campsite, they might have observed RH and CC traveling in their truck or seen them at the Wonnangatta Station when RH made his last radio call, or they possibly listened in on RH's last radio call to his friends, and decided to track RH and CC to their campsite. Since no indication exists as to happened to RH and CC--more than likely, imo, RH and CC locked their vehicle, took the drone, and willing left with someone in a vehicle. What happened after that is anyone's guess. I don't think I have ever pondered a case as much as this one--wanting some resolution to make sense. Not sure if even this story fits the bill.
 
I also doubt someone experienced in camping would put anything burning or even flammable inside a tent. Not just fire risk but also carbon monoxide poisoning.

Perhaps there was a large metal water bucket or similar?
 
Adding to your post...here are some thoughts. Re: the river...yes, I agree. Since the river is not fast moving and had they drowned on their own accord--it would seem likely they would have been found and not traveled down stream getting stuck somewhere. I listened again to crime sleuth Andrew Rule's video on RH and CC's disappearance that he posted 5 months ago; he seems confident that RH and CC's disappearance is based on misadventure with a pack of dogs consuming their cadavers and not leaving any trace evidence. I am skeptical about that hypothesis--namely, having had two sets of two large 100 pound Rottweilers over a 25 year span and having watched them chew on fresh over a foot long pig arms with hoofs--seeing first hand what was left behind after a week or two of constant chewing--bone fragments could always be found in the dirt... bone pieces the size of a dime, and some like broken pieces of a popsicle stick. I doubt a pack of dogs would break down and eat an entire human skull, or the femur bone. And any of the other large bones the dogs chewed on, imo, would have left some bone fragments--even if the dogs eventually dragged all the remains back to a den area. Re: RH's truck key. In the video AR also states that RH's truck was locked when found...making it seem like RH and CC locked their truck when they left their campsite. IMO, since they were within close walking distance to the river, and had they decided to go to the river to sit or fish--they probably wouldn't have locked their truck. I think the locked vehicle indicates an excursion further from their campsite, as well as the likelihood that they left and never returned to the campsite. The burnt out campsite appears to have had a few things in and around it suggesting to me that they only planned to be away from the campsite for a few hours...which in turn led to a flash fire occurring...something was left cooking, turned on, or as Tootsie pointed out--a refracted sunlight heat related fire started off of some object in or around the tent area. I recall one poster saying months ago they thought it possible that RH, CC, and a companion with a vehicle all got lost in their vehicle somewhere. The only problem with that theory is RH built the roads in that area decades ago, and knew them well. A predator stalking or coming upon RH and CC at their campsite seems problematic because of their locked truck, unless they locked their truck while sleeping--but why would they do that? As we all noted, the tent canopy appeared to be tied to the truck roof racks and the tent was very close to the truck. I think had the truck been unlocked when found, it would support someone entering their campsite while they were there--cooking, eating, or sleeping and abducting them. My conclusion to what might have happened...RH and CC met someone that was camping close by or someone drove up to their campsite. This person(s) could have followed them to their campsite having seen RH camping there several weeks in a row before bringing CC back to the campsite, they might have observed RH and CC traveling in their truck or seen them at the Wonnangatta Station when RH made his last radio call, or they possibly listened in on RH's last radio call to his friends, and decided to track RH and CC to their campsite. Since no indication exists as to happened to RH and CC--more than likely, imo, RH and CC locked their vehicle, took the drone, and willing left with someone in a vehicle. What happened after that is anyone's guess. I don't think I have ever pondered a case as much as this one--wanting some resolution to make sense. Not sure if even this story fits the bill.

For me, it comes down to whether their disappearance and the campsite fire are coincidence, or linked.

Normally, I'm very comfortable with coincidence in cases that I follow. I think we often attribute connections between things that aren't connected at all.

I've tried to convince myself that it could be: they disappeared, then their campsite spontaneously, accidentally burned. But my gut says no, no, no, that's one too many mysterious, inexplicable occurrences in a short space of time.

What about: their campsite accidentally caught fire, then they disappeared. Grabbed the drone and car keys, and ran away, because the truck was at risk of catching fire at that moment. Then something happened to them and they never made it back?

Otherwise, it seems to me, if someone made them disappear, the same someone set the campsite on fire. Though the motive is very hard to fathom. I would need to know whether any relatives had the type of vehicle and navigation skills to have been able to go out there and find them.
 
i also instantly felt this may be a m/s when i first heard of the case,
and have now added the 2nd possibility it could be murder by someone close who burnt the tent to disguise all evidence after a struggle while they slept,
if they were murdered it seems too unlikely it was by a stranger
The stranger murder theory sort of seems more possible to me, just because of my doubt about someone known to them actually being able to find them in such a short period of time. But the stranger would have to be a very predatory, dangerous person. For eg, a robber who feels no compunction in killing two elderly people for the sake of some cash and a (sellable) drone and phone. Not sure I'd feel safe camping in that area, now.
 
The stranger murder theory sort of seems more possible to me, just because of my doubt about someone known to them actually being able to find them in such a short period of time. But the stranger would have to be a very predatory, dangerous person. For eg, a robber who feels no compunction in killing two elderly people for the sake of some cash and a (sellable) drone and phone. Not sure I'd feel safe camping in that area, now.

Yes, I can see a stranger being involved as well.

Two elderly people would not have much of a chance against a hyped up person who sees them in an isolated situation, and takes advantage of that.

The one thing that I don't understand is why the vehicle keys were not taken from Russell (it is said they think he had his main set of keys on him as they couldn't find them) ... the vehicle then gone through, and other valuables taken. If that had happened, would any perp have bothered locking the vehicle again?

And if the tent was burned purely to rid the tent of a perp's dna, and then the perp did go through the vehicle looking for other valuables, why did they not burn the inside of the vehicle to get rid of possible residual dna there?

That is one of the things that makes me wonder if some other motive is involved - besides theft.

Could it have been a sexually-motivated motive? Or a you-have-both-seen-something-you-shouldn't-see motive? Or a you-are-trespassing-on-my-place motive, and I have told you before?
 
Yes, I can see a stranger being involved as well.

Two elderly people would not have much of a chance against a hyped up person who sees them in an isolated situation, and takes advantage of that.

The one thing that I don't understand is why the vehicle keys were not taken from Russell (it is said they think he had his main set of keys on him as they couldn't find them) ... the vehicle then gone through, and other valuables taken. If that had happened, would any perp have bothered locking the vehicle again?

And if the tent was burned purely to rid the tent of a perp's dna, and then the perp did go through the vehicle looking for other valuables, why did they not burn the inside of the vehicle to get rid of possible residual dna there?

That is one of the things that makes me wonder if some other motive is involved - besides theft.

Could it have been a sexually-motivated motive? Or a you-have-both-seen-something-you-shouldn't-see motive? Or a you-are-trespassing-on-my-place motive, and I have told you before?
Yes, it goes round and round and doesn't make sense. Can only hope LE have more clues than they're revealing, such as how they believe the fire was set. IMO, they wouldn't reveal that if it was suspicious.

I guess in November people will be back in the area, here's hoping someone stumbles across something.
 
My theory on the burn markings on the vehicle canopy is that any breeze coming down from the front/left of the vehicle may have caused the cab not to be touched and caused the fanning toward the back.

I think the shower/portapotty/whatever-it-is didn't catch alight for that reason as well. Likely unnecessary to individually burn it if there was no evidence of a crime and no dna left in that spot.

The esky under the vehicle shows no signs of being fire affected, while it has a strange straight line down it ... possibly some kind of melting of plastic in a specific line?

The fire seemed more intense in the tent area, while there are several half burned poles at the front, the completely burned poles are at the back. Indicating, to me, that the half burned poles may have been in canopied areas with less tent material to burn.

I don't get what those large cylindrical objects are in the burned area. Very large for a camping trip, whatever they are.

(If you save the pic and zoom in, it is a lot easier to see the detail)
View attachment 263396

High Country mystery deepens as police investigate 'new sightings' of missing campers

One of the large cylindrical objects looks like a bin. Quite possibly (and Russell being so methodical) he used that to put a bin liner in to put rubbish in. That way, the rubbish bag doesn't get blown about. When we go camping, we hang a plastic bag on a tree for rubbish but I can't see Russell being that "sloppy".

The other one looks exactly like what I have outside. A 44 gallon drum with part cut out to use as a fire pit. You put a plate on top and use it to cook. A bit like a barbecue. I did wonder previously if that is what caused the fire, if it was used under a tarp and wasn't properly extinguished. However, I wouldn't have thought Russell would set it up under a tarp, as the smoke would float inside the tent area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
1,338
Total visitors
1,498

Forum statistics

Threads
605,766
Messages
18,191,844
Members
233,531
Latest member
issy565
Back
Top