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

[Cliff Hardy]

Of course I've been following it. I want to know what evidence you think clearly points to a double murder because it seems even the jury is struggling to see with your clarity.

I'm sure I have made over 100 posts on this case by now and made my opinions on the various aspects of it very clear. Feel free to challenge any or all of those opinions - they are all recorded - but I'm not going to the trouble of recreating them for you.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Im curious how it can so obviously be double murder to you when circumstantial evidence is by nature not proof of anything.

Perhaps you should have a chat with Chris Dawson about circumstantial evidence.

 

[Bats]

Try to remember the judges own instruction to the jury that not believing Lynn just because it's improbable is fundamentally flawed.

That's not correct. The judge has told jurors that... to think two accidental deaths was improbable is "fundamentally flawed".

To not believe Lynn's improbable story is not fundamentally flawed.

 

[MIG214222]

From his own account GL must be blessed with extraordinary perceptual strengths with regards to sight and sound, as well as possessing remarkable sensorimotor aptitudes….

Ah, but those same super-human strengths did not prevent him chundering as he callously & deviously 'disposed' of any evidence of the existence of Carol Clay & Russell Hill, now did they @ProfCluezo?

What a coward.

Kills two innocent humans (imo)

Can't face the consequences (imo)

One thing I know to be true, his actions not only destroyed two lives but have also destroyed the life he knew & any life he has moving forward. He's a liar & not a good one.

My thoughts remain with the loved ones of Carol Clay and Russell Hill.

All MOO.

 

[Bats]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference
EG: if an assault happened on O'Connell Street at 6.15pm, you can give evidence that you saw the accused walking down O'Connell Street at 6pm

Im curious how it can so obviously be double murder to you when circumstantial evidence is by nature not proof of anything.

Jurors can use inference to prove someone is guilty.
For example, in cards, if 3 aces have been dealt, one can infer beyond doubt that there is one ace left in the deck (excuse my poor analogy).

In this case...
GL either murdered them or he didn't.
GL is either telling the truth about how R & C died, or he's not.
So, he is either telling the truth or he murdered them.
If the Jury don't believe GL is telling the truth about how they died then the obvious inference is he murdered them.

 

[Bats]

I don't believe we'll see a hung jury. Normally this would happen if the decision is split 50/50 or there about.

I suspect there is a person that is digging their heels in. It's been a very long trial and this will be starting to weigh heavily on the jury now. Hopefully that person sees the importance of being unanimous.

Personally, I don't see how you could find GL guilty of one and not the other. If you don't believe GL's story about how Carol died then how could you believe the story of how Russell died?

I am a little nervous but expect we'll see a verdict of 2 murders in the coming days.

 

[SouthAussie]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference

I think we have to wonder why the change in thinking.

Immediately after the deaths.
"I didn't hide the bodies. I placed them there. I expected them to be found," the accused man replied. Link

After Lynn realised that HE was on the police radar.
"I realised it was unravelling," Lynn said.
"I realised I had to go back ...
Lynn told police in November 2020 he returned to the Union Spur track where he set fire to the remains of Hill and Clay. Link

It is reasonably certain that something about those remains pointed to murder.
Because Lynn destroyed the remains, then later showed the police where the place of destruction was.

imo

 

[AussieIan]

By putting the pieces together and concluding that there's no other rational explanation.

An accident resulting in the death of a loved one caused a fight between their partner and the killer.

You can question details of Lynn's account but the base premise is a logical sequence of events, including the disposing of the bodies, and the total destruction.

Perhaps you should have a chat with Chris Dawson about circumstantial evidence.

Chris also had eyewitness statements regarding her disappearance. There was a plethora of evidence against him thst there isnt here against Lynn.

Hopefully that person sees the importance of being unanimous.

A scary view to hold.

 

[emirates1957]

It's also interesting how both victims alleged died instantly, so GL had no reason to question whether they might survive if he went and got help. No groans or movement?

Most victims of accidental shootings and knife wounds are transported to hospital before officially declared dead.

Did GL have practise assessing whether people who were alive mere moments before, were now dead, with 100% certainty?

JMO

As an Emergency Procedures Instructor for over 20 year’s licensed by CASA ..GL knew.

 

[ScottToorak]

I am confused by this case. Did the police forensically examine the supposed scene of the crime. Surely the vehicle would have had bullet damage if CC died by ricochet off the mirror of the vehicle?. Also, there surely would have been blood or evidence of blood being cleaned at the site that could have given a clearer explanation of what occurred at the scene. Lynn might be using a concocted story but if what Lynn say's happened didn't happen then how did it happen? If Lynn muredered them both then why wouldn't he just have coaxed them away from their campsite and killed them rather than be left with having to concoct a doubtful story?. Or is this part of the game a serial killer plays?

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Chris also had eyewitness statements regarding her disappearance. There was a plethora of evidence against him thst there isnt here against Lynn.

It is increasingly hard to take you seriously.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

If either one was still alive, would he have tried to get help for them.
I doubt it. I have more than a reasonable doubt about it.

Russell may very well have still been alive on his enforced trip to his and Carol's burial site

 

[Cliff Hardy]

If either one was still alive, would he have tried to get help for them.
I doubt it. I have more than a reasonable doubt about it.

Russell may very well have still been alive on his enforced trip to his and Carol's burial site

Where's the proof either was immediately dead anyway? Greg Lynn said?

 

[AussieIan]

Where's the proof either was immediately dead anyway? Greg Lynn said?

Brain matter doesn't usually splatter itself against the side of a landcruiser.

Without causing immediate death anyway.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Where's the proof either was immediately dead anyway? Greg Lynn said?

Exactly.

Though I was thinking of the piece of Carol's skull. She may have been still alive, even with a piece of her skull missing. Horrible to think about
I think GL said her head was gone.
But I have a hard time believing anything he says.

He went to great lengths to not get caught... He's still on the not get caught path in my opinion.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

I am confused by this case. Did the police forensically examine the supposed scene of the crime. Surely the vehicle would have had bullet damage if CC died by ricochet off the mirror of the vehicle?. Also, there surely would have been blood or evidence of blood being cleaned at the site that could have given a clearer explanation of what occurred at the scene. Lynn might be using a concocted story but if what Lynn say's happened didn't happen then how did it happen? If Lynn muredered them both then why wouldn't he just have coaxed them away from their campsite and killed them rather than be left with having to concoct a doubtful story?. Or is this part of the game a serial killer plays?

Credit where it is due. Lynn did everything he possibly could to destroy every single shred of the evidence.

Why didn't he coax them away? He didn't need to. There was nobody around. Taking them somewhere else would have taken time and risked someone else might see what he was up to.

 

[SouthAussie]

Brain matter doesn't usually splatter itself against the side of a landcruiser.

Without causing immediate death anyway.

We don't even know if Carol was shot once, or if she was shot more than once. The shot to the head may not have been the first shot.

Lynn has described that there were several shots. He 'says' some were in the air. Were they? How would we know with Carol's and Russell's remains being completely destroyed?

 

[SouthAussie]

He went to great lengths to not get caught... He's still on the not get caught path in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more. He didn't suddenly think "oh okay, I will fess up honestly to everything". He is trying to avoid a lifetime in prison. He even showed where the obliterated remains were to avoid the no body no parole thing.

imo

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I've heard of people losing a part of their brain and skull due to accidents and they ended up surviving.

 

[sapphire blue]

Brain matter doesn't usually splatter itself against the side of a landcruiser.

Without causing immediate death anyway.

Are you speaking from personal experience?

This is a victim friendly forum, you could have a bit more respect for the victims instead of the accused killer