The fact that R.H & C.C. were camping together, unknown to his wife & family came out in the media long before G.L. was brought in. He would have been well aware of media accounts of missing couple. In ROI, he did say "they may have been trying to have fun" in what I picked up as sarcastic, or arrogant when originally listening to ROI being played in court.Itwas one of those moments that stood apart... I thought to myself "no love lost there". JMOAnd remember, at that point he had no idea that they weren't a long-married couple.
I haven't got a single doubt he is guilty but it is going to come down to whether the white noise from Lynn's nonsensical account of what he claims took place is enough to put reasonable doubt in the jury's minds. I just can't see them falling for it. So a fairly quickfire guilty verdict is my prediction.Guilty in my book. But I have a feeling he will be acquitted.
D.D. has said Lynn pleads guilty to destruction of evidence.It is now up to the jury to use rational human logic.However if he does per chance walk.. he will still have lost everything he held so dear , that forced him to obliterate the evidence.I feel for the victims families,if this is the case.So no Manslaughter charge. Murder or Acquitted.
Obviously some other charges, but time served I assume will cover that, plus fines.
Guilty in my book. But I have a feeling he will be acquitted.
Not sure why Justice Croucher has seen fit to remove 'manslaughter' when he said earlier it was in play?
This is massive:
Justice Croucher told jurors at the start of the trial that manslaughter was open as an alternative charge to murder.
“Before I embark on the greater detail, it’s necessary to inform you of this ... manslaughter will no longer be available to you as an alternative charge,” he said.
“I as well as counsel agree if you are not satisfied of murder, there will be no basis for an alternative verdict of manslaughter.
“Accordingly, you must put manslaughter out of your minds. The only charges before you are murder.”
And this - especially. Since the prosecution's case relied on Lynns actions after the fact as evidence of his guilt (of murder)
Justice Croucher said jurors would need to put aside their sympathy and morals and view the evidence as objective judges of the facts.
“This is not about Mr Lynn doing a terrible thing by destroying the bodies,” he said.
“Any personal feelings of sympathy or bias … must be put out of your minds as you consider this case.”
I don't recall mention of what might or might not have been found at GL's site either. But what if there was blood over there? I suspect there would have been blood there regardless of whether he murdered them or it was self defence.Hi All, newly registered user, but have been following this forum and case for some time.
Wondering whether anyone has picked up whether GL was ever challenged on the lack of evidence of RH's death at the location he specified (GL's camp)?
To me this is an obvious line of questioning the prosecution should have pursued during GL's testimony which could have settled whether GL's account could be true.
GL claims he set fire to RH/CC's campsite to get rid of the evidence after CC's death (i.e. burnt the blood evidence). But as far as I'm aware, the police found no evidence to support GL's account of RH falling on his knife after pursuing him back to his camp. GL did state that there was a lot of blood over both bodies, so surely that would have been visible and requiring concealment at his camp site. But he didn't set fire to his own camp. Perhaps the police never checked and hence couldn't challenge GL's account?
I've been surprised at how much focus the prosecution made on the circumstances around CC's death but how little they delved into the circumstances around RH's death.
This is massive:
Justice Croucher told jurors at the start of the trial that manslaughter was open as an alternative charge to murder.
“Before I embark on the greater detail, it’s necessary to inform you of this ... manslaughter will no longer be available to you as an alternative charge,” he said.
“I as well as counsel agree if you are not satisfied of murder, there will be no basis for an alternative verdict of manslaughter.
“Accordingly, you must put manslaughter out of your minds. The only charges before you are murder.”
And this - especially. Since the prosecution's case relied on Lynns actions after the fact as evidence of his guilt (of murder)
Justice Croucher said jurors would need to put aside their sympathy and morals and view the evidence as objective judges of the facts.
“This is not about Mr Lynn doing a terrible thing by destroying the bodies,” he said.
“Any personal feelings of sympathy or bias … must be put out of your minds as you consider this case.”
Not sure why Justice Croucher has seen fit to remove 'manslaughter' when he said earlier it was in play?
At times jurors are tempted to opt for a guilty verdict to a lesser charge. So with manslaughter removed, assuming the jury head down the guilty path, Lynn will get the full 'holiday' not the shortened one.
I now have doubts about Croucher's ability. How can he say that manslaughter is an alternative verdict and then reverse himself?
Brief bio:
"The Hon Justice Michael Croucher KC. Amazingly, His Honour dropped out of school in year 10, at the ripe old age of 15, to pursue his dream of becoming a professional motocross rider. Fortunately for us that didn’t work out and he made his way to the law, ultimately becoming a Victorian Supreme Court Justice."
GreensList Site
www.greenslist.com.au
You may be on to something there because, on reflection, I struggle to see how anyone could actually find manslaughter in this case. The type of evidence that might support such a finding just isn't present. This one is murder or it isn't and that's what the judge appears to be implying.I expect that its because the prosecution's allegation is that Lynn committed murder, not manslaughter. It's possible the defence asked for the option to be included initially but now having heard both arguments, it's clear that manslaughter is not on the table for either defence or prosecution.