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

[Cliff Hardy]

I bet those jurors can't turn off from thinking about the case over the weekend.
I know I couldn't.

I'd be constantly going over everything, in my mind.

They wouldn't be human if they weren't and the hardest part is they can't share anything with anyone else. It is their burden to carry. Alone.

 

[discostu]

I’ve been reading about some of Dermot Dann’s past cases and it’s making me think that when it came to instructing the jury the judge was likely being very mindful to not give Dann anything that he could potentially use for an appeal down the track. Not to say there wouldn’t be other possible avenues for appeal but I suspect he was being careful to avoid being one of them himself..

 

[JudgeJudi]

And when I saw parts of the judge's summing up, I was surprised to see ... (4th item)
Haven't got my head around how this can apply in this case. Could the judge have erred, or is there something I am missing?

The judge explained to the jury it was not up to Mr Lynn to prove he was innocent.
Instead, he said, for Mr Lynn to be guilty of murder they needed to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the following four elements were true:

• That Mr Lynn caused the campers' deaths
• That Mr Lynn carried out the acts consciously, voluntarily and deliberately
• That Mr Lynn performed the acts intending to kill or to cause really serious injury
• That Mr Lynn was not acting in self-defence

Insults fly in the courtroom as Greg Lynn's double-murder trial nears its final chapter

It's murder or acquittal — after five weeks of evidence and arguments, the jury in Greg Lynn's murder trial over the deaths of two Victorian campers only have two options to choose from.

www.abc.net.au

As I'm not a lawyer, I won't go down that rabbit hole, but I will say this:
I've never heard a judge go into the detail that Croucher did. Judges usually tell the jury that it's their duty to decide the facts of the case and his job is to explain the law. IMO he went a step too far.

He said the prosecution’s “circumstantial” case was asking the jury to infer the only reason GL would burn the campsite, dispose of the couple’s belongings and bodies and paint his car and trailer was because he “believed” he had murdered RH and CC. The jury are entitled to infer whatever they like.

Isn't it equally possible it's because he knew he'd murdered them? Neither GL nor anyone else said other people were at that campground between 6:40 and when he left Bucks Camp with the bodies in the trailer. So between, say, 7:00pm and midnight, after getting over his so-called panic, he had to dismantle his own campsite, totally burn RH's campsite, clean blood and tissue from RH's car, remove the large pool of blood where CC was crouching, remove the credit cards etc. from RH's car, load the bodies and remove all other incriminating evidence into trailer and drive by the shortest route to exit the valley. DI Stamper said, “We know that on midnight of the Friday night, there was a car that sounded like a petrol motor towing a trailer at that gate". [Myrtleford].

His car was also spotted on two cameras at the top of Mount Hotham, consistent with where a vehicle would exit the valley given the closure of the Myrtleford gate.”

I don't buy his story of being in a panic and didn't report it to the police that night because he thought he would be blamed. More likely it was because he knew the evidence would prove he was guilty.

 

[JBowie]

IMO he went a step too far.

Ditto that!

 

[SouthAussie]

That's what I thought too until a day or two ago. Not so, according to the journalism from 'The Australian', covering the case. They explained it just as I have above.

Maybe it is different in different states.

I just read The Australian article that you referenced, and it does say that earlier two male jurors were removed from the jury in a random ballot process.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/jury-deliberating-in-former-jetstar-captains-double-murder-trial-over-russell-hill-and-carol-clay-deaths/news-story/9fbe8f8434878bf5abb3bbaffab83c61?amp

There is also a difference between reserve jurors and additional jurors.

5.10 The distinction between additional and reserve jurors is that reserve jurors are selected in the knowledge that they may not have to deliberate, whereas additional jurors are equal in status to the other jurors. This distinction is discussed further at [5.57] below.

5.57 The main difference between additional jurors and reserve jurors is that reserve jurors know from the beginning of the trial that they may not be needed, whereas additional jurors do not, as the ballot to reduce the jury does not occur until just before the jury retires to consider its verdict.

5. Additional jurors - Victorian Law Reform Commission

5.1 The terms of reference ask the Commission to give consideration to section 48 of the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) (Juries Act) and whether it is necessary or desirable for the jury to be reduced to 12 (or six for civil trials) before the jury retires to consider its verdict. The Commission is to...

www.lawreform.vic.gov.au

 

[CyberHound]

In my opinion, if the intervention to destroy evidence had the effect of trading down to a less serious charge, then the charge he traded down from can only be murder.

 

[discostu]

Dermot Dann was the defence lawyer in that horrible Karen Chetcuti case.

He handled the appeal, and lost.

Found Deceased - Australia - Karen Chetcuti, 49, Whorouly, Vic, 12 Jan 2016 *Arrest*

Ashlee Aldridge‏ @Ashlee_Aldridge 38m The mother of Michael Cardamone has just arrived in #Wangaratta for sentencing @WINNews_Alb

www.websleuths.com

I was just reading about another totally unrelated case from 2017 tonight and discovered he was the defence lawyer and later appealed the conviction (and lost). I wonder what it’s like to work with these kinds of people..?

Wife killer Fernando Paulino's evil plan to check out of jail early

Wife killer Fernando Paulino is so desperate to get out of his Victorian jail he plans to achieve it dead or alive.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Bats]

As I'm not a lawyer, I won't go down that rabbit hole, but I will say this:
I've never heard a judge go into the detail that Croucher did. Judges usually tell the jury that it's their duty to decide the facts of the case and his job is to explain the law. IMO he went a step too far.

He said the prosecution’s “circumstantial” case was asking the jury to infer the only reason GL would burn the campsite, dispose of the couple’s belongings and bodies and paint his car and trailer was because he “believed” he had murdered RH and CC. The jury are entitled to infer whatever they like.

Isn't it equally possible it's because he knew he'd murdered them? Neither GL nor anyone else said other people were at that campground between 6:40 and when he left Bucks Camp with the bodies in the trailer. So between, say, 7:00pm and midnight, after getting over his so-called panic, he had to dismantle his own campsite, totally burn RH's campsite, clean blood and tissue from RH's car, remove the large pool of blood where CC was crouching, remove the credit cards etc. from RH's car, load the bodies and remove all other incriminating evidence into trailer and drive by the shortest route to exit the valley. DI Stamper said, “We know that on midnight of the Friday night, there was a car that sounded like a petrol motor towing a trailer at that gate". [Myrtleford].

His car was also spotted on two cameras at the top of Mount Hotham, consistent with where a vehicle would exit the valley given the closure of the Myrtleford gate.”

I don't buy his story of being in a panic and didn't report it to the police that night because he thought he would be blamed. More likely it was because he knew the evidence would prove he was guilty.

J Croucher, in the same fashion, went into the intricate details of how to apply the law to the evidence in the trial I was a juror in. Also, manslaughter and attempted murder were dropped in exactly the same way. At the time, I remember being a bit gobsmacked after his charge but i now know the reasons and why it was correct. I suspect every judge do very similar things in their trials, we just don't often hear about the nuts and bolts of the way they work like we have with this one.

 

[Andieinsyd]

Can the jury find guilty of murder for Carol but not guilty for Russel? I’m thinking if they do have dissent it may be because some may feel they haven’t seen enough evidence of intent to kill for Russel.

 

[wallyworld]

Dermot Dann was the defence lawyer in that horrible Karen Chetcuti case.

He handled the appeal, and lost.

Found Deceased - Australia - Karen Chetcuti, 49, Whorouly, Vic, 12 Jan 2016 *Arrest*

Ashlee Aldridge‏ @Ashlee_Aldridge 38m The mother of Michael Cardamone has just arrived in #Wangaratta for sentencing @WINNews_Alb

www.websleuths.com

I was not aware of this case and only managed to get halfway through reading the article. I don't want to have nightmares tonight.
As we are seeing time and time again these violent offenders are either on Bail or as in this case Parole (having previously been jailed for raping a 15-year-old girl).

"His lawyer Dermot Dann QC agreed on Thursday that his crimes were horrific but said Justice Lasry had failed to give adequate weight to the guilty plea when he denied Cardamone the possibility of parole.
He questioned where the incentive to plead guilty was without a visible sentencing discount."
AGGGGGH! Dermott Dann makes me want to scream!!!

 

[wallyworld]

Can the jury find guilty of murder for Carol but not guilty for Russel? I’m thinking if they do have dissent it may be because some may feel they haven’t seen enough evidence of intent to kill for Russel.

I belive they can, but am happy to be corrected.

 

[Bats]

Can the jury find guilty of murder for Carol but not guilty for Russel? I’m thinking if they do have dissent it may be because some may feel they haven’t seen enough evidence of intent to kill for Russel.

Definitely possible for verdict of guilty of one and not the other.

 

[JBowie]

AGGGGGH! Dermott Dann makes me want to scream!!!

IMO: Dann be damned.

 

[emirates1957]

@emirates1957

Do you still have contacts in Jetstar?
If GL is acquitted, do you think they'd re-employ him again?
Even if he's acquitted, would they want one of their pilots who dealt with the bodies the way he did working for them?

I also wonder how he'll be treated at his exclusive sporting clubs. IMO he's a now a social pariah.

Aviation is a tough business to remain profitable. There would be an uproar of crew that would not want to fly with GL even if he was a passenger let alone Pilot. Jetstar could not risk their reputation should GL walk and be reemployed. I’ve gone through a few Pilot shortages over the decades…airlines would rather aircraft sit on the ground than employ such.

 

[Kemug]

Aviation is a tough business to remain profitable. There would be an uproar of crew that would not want to fly with GL even if he was a passenger let alone Pilot. Jetstar could not risk their reputation should GL walk and be reemployed. I’ve gone through a few Pilot shortages over the decades…airlines would rather aircraft sit on the ground than employ such.

Good.

 

[ScottToorak]

Can GL be found guilty of one murder and not the other?

 

[Bats]

Can GL be found guilty of one murder and not the other?

Yes, that can definately happen. Probably less likely than both or neither, in my opinion.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

An affair, a hunting trip and two people dead at a high country camp: how the Greg Lynn case unfolded – a timeline

The former Jetstar pilot pleaded not guilty to murdering Russell Hill and Carol Clay in the Wonnangatta Valley in 2020. Here’s everything you need to know in the lead-up to the verdict

www.theguardian.com

The former Jetstar pilot pleaded not guilty to murdering Russell Hill and Carol Clay in the Wonnangatta Valley in 2020. Here’s everything you need to know in the lead-up to the verdict

 

[AussieIan]

TRUE


TRUE



TRUE


TRUE



GUILTY!

• The act causing death was performed consciously, voluntarily and deliberately by the accused
• The accused performed the act causing death intending to kill the other person or intending to cause that person at least really serious injury;

You really think so? They haven't proven either of the above beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

The prosecution has literally no account of his actions during the deaths. I don't know if it's some morbidity thing but a lot of people are scary quick to vote guilty. I certainly wouldn't want you on my jury if I was innocent in an unlikely scenario, which can and do happen all the time.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

• The act causing death was performed consciously, voluntarily and deliberately by the accused
• The accused performed the act causing death intending to kill the other person or intending to cause that person at least really serious injury;

You really think so? They haven't proven either of the above beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

The prosecution has literally no account of his actions during the deaths. I don't know if it's some morbidity thing but a lot of people are scary quick to vote guilty. I certainly wouldn't want you on my jury if I was innocent in an unlikely scenario, which can and do happen all the time.

I know they are very different cases but how much account of Chris Dawson's actions during the death did they have in his case?