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

[SouthAussie]

He has experience hunting himself.

I wouldn't assume that Russell was a hunter. Or familiar with how to load and fire that shotgun, in the dark, as he was 'walking away from just stealing it'. Even Dermot Dann didn't try to allude to that kind of familiarity.

The reason that Russell knew that area well is because he was a former logger. And he had helped build the Zeka Spur Track.


Police said Mr Hill, a former logger who knew the area well ....

Russell Hill was a bushman, a former contract logger who helped to build one of the main tracks into the valley.

Police say drone could hold vital clues about disappearance of elderly campers

Police say a Victorian man who went missing, along with a close friend, during a camping trip a month ago was "meticulous" in the bush. But they still haven't worked out what started the fire that destroyed the pair's campsite.

www.abc.net.au

Could police be close to learning the secrets buried in this remote corner of the Victorian high country?

It's been a long 18 months for the family of Russell Hill and Carol Clay as they wait to find out exactly what happened out in the remote high country where they disappeared.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Bats]

There is reasonable doubt about how most of the confrontation took place.

The confrontation is GL's story....and yes, you're right...there's reasonable doubt how most of it took place.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

It's like a completely one sided wild west shootout, where only one side brought guns.
And only one side was in on what was about to happen to them.

I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't fantasized about a wild west type shootout.

 

[JLZ]

We have been deliberating this case for 4 years. The jury has been deliberating it for a week.

I certainly hope no-one digs their heels in .. that they are all considering their different points of view, and forming the most reasonable conclusion ... as most of us have tried to do.

There may be some doubt, but is it reasonable doubt?

Eg: Is it reasonable to think that Russell was familiar with this firearm? That he could slip the magazine in, c@ck the shotgun, release the safety, and fire into the air a couple of times ... in the dark? He hated people putting others at risk with a gun.

Another Eg: Is it reasonable to think that Lynn heard Russell "rustling around" in his vehicle, over irritatingly loud music?

I don't care how many times a person has seen disagreeable, intoxicated people. There are things in this case that seem highly unreasonable ... and highly unlikely.

imo

I did follow the case (many hours comparing different maps) years ago, but had been working to a deadline over May and early June, and I'm not across the trial. I remember having a bit of time afterwards and thinking I'd just read the latest on Websleuths and not post because I'd missed so many threads as well as daily reports on the trial. I guess I'll refrain from saying anything about Lynn; only that you're always persuasive. As to reasonable doubt though, the courts won't explain what it means. I wonder myself whether 'reasonable' means a reasonable amount of doubt, or any doubt so long as it's reasonable in quality--the outcome of reasoning, not just a feeling. Ultimately juries and jurors have to decide for themselves what reasonable doubt means for them.

 

[angelalansbury]

So, I am thinking it should surely come back as hung jury on one count and guilty on other.
My theory would be that he probably got in a heated fight with Russell and killed him but proving intent and motive are hard (hung), but after Russell was obviously dead, he had motive and intent to remove Carole.
At minimum I hope the jury deliver one guilty verdict.
Still confuses me as to why manslaughter is off the table.

 

[JLZ]

So, I am thinking it should surely come back as hung jury on one count and guilty on other.
My theory would be that he probably got in a heated fight with Russell and killed him but proving intent and motive are hard (hung), but after Russell was obviously dead, he had motive and intent to remove Carole.
At minimum I hope the jury deliver one guilty verdict.
Still confuses me as to why manslaughter is off the table.

Is there any evidence which supports a manslaughter scenario? On the two accidents version, he's not guilty at all. I think it's favourable to the prosecution that manslaughter has been excluded.

 

[angelalansbury]

Is there any evidence which supports a manslaughter scenario? On the two accidents version, he's not guilty at all. I think it's favourable to the prosecution that manslaughter has been excluded.

Well my thought is that there is little to no evidence beyond reasonable doubt for an initial murder.
Two unfortunate accidents in one go is statistically ridiculous, so it would be very reasonable to conclude that atleast one intentional killing took place.

 

[SouthAussie]

I did follow the case (many hours comparing different maps) years ago, but had been working to a deadline over May and early June, and I'm not across the trial. I remember having a bit of time afterwards and thinking I'd just read the latest on Websleuths and not post because I'd missed so many threads as well as daily reports on the trial. I guess I'll refrain from saying anything about Lynn; only that you're always persuasive. As to reasonable doubt though, the courts won't explain what it means. I wonder myself whether 'reasonable' means a reasonable amount of doubt, or any doubt so long as it's reasonable in quality--the outcome of reasoning, not just a feeling. Ultimately juries and jurors have to decide for themselves what reasonable doubt means for them.

A lawyer friend once said to me that many things in court are based on the word "reasonable". He said that would mean what a "reasonable" person would do (or not do) in a given situation, or is it reasonable to think that a person would do that thing again (in sentencing).

I imagine that reasonable can mean different things to different people. But it, for sure, doesn't mean no doubt at all.

One thing that stands out to me in this case, is it reasonable to think that Lynn had to burn and shatter Russell's and Carol's remains completely in order to free himself of this alleged crime? Or is it reasonable to think that he did that because someone(s) did not die in the way in which he describes?

So the jury must decide if it is reasonable that an innocent person would reasonably commit all of the actions that Lynn committed. imo


It is important to note that although the court must find a person guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”, there can still be doubt. However, such doubt will need to be found to be unreasonable in order to satisfy this standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not require that all doubt be eliminated as this would make meeting this threshold incredibly difficult.

What Does “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Mean?

Criminal law in Australia is underpinned by the the presumption of innocence, which does not apply in the civil jurisdiction. Read more now.

www.gotocourt.com.au

 

[Cliff Hardy]

There is no room for assumptions and any feelings of gut in the jury decision, you can't assume Russell wasn't familiar with the firearm. He has experience hunting himself. Or assume anything that happened that night if there is no evidence for it. There is reasonable doubt about how most of the confrontation took place.
There is no way a guilty verdict will happen. Lynn was safe as soon as murder was the only thing considered.

Lynn has offered the jury a story consisting of many unlikely things. For his story to hold together all those unlikely things need to be believed. They are like links in a chain and they all need to hold up or the chain breaks.

We were all taught 'The Laws of Probability' at school. So let's not fall for the trap of ignoring the fact that each time you add in another unlikely thing the overall probability of all the things occurring together, falls.

 

[BreakingNews]

I am glad that the families of Russell and Carol would be given something, even though nothing will bring them back

But i'm sad to think that GLs wife and son would seemingly be punished for what he did.

Victims of crime often pay out. It's not usual to try to get money out of the accused unless they are owed money from fraud etc

Applying for financial assistance from Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal

Victims of violent crime in Victoria may be able to apply for financial assistance from VOCAT to help them with costs.

www.victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au

 

[Bats]

Well my thought is that there is little to no evidence beyond reasonable doubt for an initial murder.
Two unfortunate accidents in one go is statistically ridiculous, so it would be very reasonable to conclude that atleast one intentional killing took place.

I know what you are saying, and that's part of how a logical mind works however, juries won't normally receive statistical evidence and the judge has specifically told the jury to ignore the fact that the probability of two accidental deaths would be slim.

"He said Mr Lynn was to be presumed innocent and for the jury to think two accidental deaths was improbable, was “fundamentally flawed”."

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/jury-in-former-jetstar-captains-double-murder-trial-sends-note-requesting-evidence/news-story/6cf7b2326d662dd7e14e2fe6bc117c5e

 

[SouthAussie]

I know what you are saying, and that's part of how a logical mind works however, juries won't normally receive statistical evidence and the judge has specifically told the jury to ignore the fact that probability of two accidental deaths would be slim.

"He said Mr Lynn was to be presumed innocent and for the jury to think two accidental deaths was improbable, was “fundamentally flawed”."

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/jury-in-former-jetstar-captains-double-murder-trial-sends-note-requesting-evidence/news-story/6cf7b2326d662dd7e14e2fe6bc117c5e

I think he likely said that because there are two separate murder charges. So he wants each charge considered pretty much in isolation.

Is it reasonably probable that Lynn and Russell were struggling over a firearm, and the gun somehow discharged in exactly Carol's direction and shot cowering Carol in the head.
Is it reasonably probable that Russell went after Lynn with a kitchen knife, they struggled, Russell fell, and the knife went into Russell's heart area and killed him.

The prosecution has definitely tried to show that the first scenario (gun discharging) is unlikely. Nor is it likely that the alleged struggle happened at the front of Russell's vehicle, due to the guy rope.
And I think they have tried to show that Russell's death was reasonably probable not to have happened the way Lynn describes - due to the fact that Lynn destroyed the remains and the knife completely.

imo

 

[Bats]

I think he likely said that because there are two separate murder charges. So he wants each charge considered pretty much in isolation.

Yes, I also think the judge is telling the jury to use the evidence they've been presented logically rather than base their thoughts on a preconceived idea that the probability of two fatal accidents wood be slim.

 

[JLZ]

One thing that stands out to me in this case, is it reasonable to think that Lynn had to burn and shatter Russell's and Carol's remains completely in order to free himself of this alleged crime? Or is it reasonable to think that he did that because someone(s) did not die in the way in which he describes?

(snipped) The impulse might have been to make the bodies disappear completely. A shot to the head and a stab to the heart don't suggest accidental deaths.

 

[SouthAussie]

(snipped) The impulse might have been to make the bodies disappear completely. A shot to the head and a stab to the heart don't suggest accidental deaths.

And Lynn carrried out the complete destruction months after the deaths. Maybe had a good think about it, and decided he didn't know enough about forensics to leave the remains intact? There might be some clue among the remains that the deaths didn't happen in the way in which he has described.

imo

 

[Cliff Hardy]

And Lynn carrried out the complete destruction months after the deaths. Maybe had a good think about it, and decided he didn't know enough about forensics to leave the remains intact? There might be some clue among the remains that the deaths didn't happen in the way in which he has described.

imo

There's a very strong chance of that. Something like a bullet hole in Russell Hill's head would be best burned than tried to be explained away to police and then a jury.

 

[jjleroche]

I am glad that the families of Russell and Carol would be given something, even though nothing will bring them back

But i'm sad to think that GLs wife and son would seemingly be punished for what he did.

Yes, his wife must surely be mortified that he's been charged with murder, and will be even more so if he's found guilty,
I imagine.

If he is guilty of the murders, he's been living a double life in essence, heading back to the scene several times in order to completely destroy Russell and Carol's remains and other evidence.

I agree - it is sad that she and her son would be seemingly punished for his actions.

JMO

 

[JLZ]

There's a very strong chance of that. Something like a bullet hole in Russell Hill's head would be best burned than tried to be explained away to police and then a jury.

Was GL ever in a position to pretend that he wasn't in the valley at the time?

 

[AussieIan]

Is it reasonably probable that Lynn and Russell were struggling over a firearm, and the gun somehow discharged in exactly Carol's direction and shot cowering Carol in the head.
Is it reasonably probable that Russell went after Lynn with a kitchen knife, they struggled, Russell fell, and the knife went into Russell's heart area and killed him.

The prosecution has definitely tried to show that the first scenario (gun discharging) is unlikely. Nor is it likely that the alleged struggle happened at the front of Russell's vehicle, due to the guy rope.
And I think they have tried to show that Russell's death was reasonably probable not to have happened the way Lynn describes - due to the fact that Lynn destroyed the remains and the knife completely.

imo

The guy rope would not have stopped 2 men arguing at RH camp from moving around to the front of the car as it was secured to the far side of the car leaving the entire front of the car and the side of the car carol was allegedly shot open and accessible from their camp-site.

You can see in the below pic it allows full travel around that side and front of the car.




Prosecutions example of the gun not being able to fire by accident was dropping it and seeing if it fired.... if 2 people are struggling over a firearm and you grab it it's certainly possible one of the twenty fingers on it makes contact with the trigger and as we've seen a 4kg trigger pull won't offer much resistance in that scenario.

Is it reasonably probable Russell attacked the guy that he considered responsible for his long time loves death? Yeah, pretty reasonable reaction to me. He would have been completely justified in thinking he might be next.

 

[SouthAussie]

Prosecutions example of the gun not being able to fire by accident was dropping it and seeing if it fired.... if 2 people are struggling over a firearm and you grab it it's certainly possible one of the twenty fingers on it makes contact with the trigger and as we've seen a 4kg trigger pull won't offer much resistance in that scenario.

As I posted before, the forensic expert did a drop test AND tested two approx 6 foot men struggling over the shotgun at the front of the vehicle.

I am guessing that is why the jury wanted to re-listen to his testimony. And re-listen to Lynn's testimony.

Lynn said Russell pulled the trigger while "pressed upon the bullbar" of the vehicle. Which means Russell would have had to have been facing the front of his vehicle, pressed against the bullbar - in order to have shot Carol.
Why would he have had his back to Lynn if they were struggling over the shotgun? Think about the angles required for Carol, who was "crouching by the rear wheel", to have been shot in the head - through the side mirror.

And Lynn "didn't see" the guy rope? Russell must have "lifted it up". Really? While he was struggling over a shot gun ... "hey, stop for a minute so I can lift up this guy rope so that it doesn't get in our way".

Hopefully the jury were shown a video of the test of two men struggling over the shotgun.

imo