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

New Posts

k-mac said:
Haven't followed this case closely but keeping an eye on the news and loosely the thread.
Not sure what I expected from his pictures but was quite suprised at how well spoken Greg Lynn is.

I mean I did judge him harshly when he first came to light that I couldn't believe he was a jetstar pilot. :D Not that you expect Tom Cruise but ...they ususally have swag.:cool: (even jetstar!!)

He just seems so.....undashing/ unprofessional lol.
So it brings me to I was surprised then to hear his voice, because without a visual I could assume he was a professional person.

Such a senseless crime for everybody involved. :(
Click to expand...
I too was surprised at the sound of his voice. I actually expected somewhat of an Aussie 'yobbo' tone.

Although now it seems about right, that GL would have a certain calm, articulate persuasiveness to his speech.

An intelligent person, but not quite as clever as he believed himself.
 
SouthAussie said:
I am happy to hear that you are settled with the verdict. It was probably the most reasonable outcome, considering there was no real way to analyse Russell's death ... due to all of the destroyed evidence.

It is important to remember, though, 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' is not the legal requirement.
Click to expand...

I understand it's not the legal requirements, but to spend the rest of my life knowing I contributed to such a conviction that's the standard I would set to be comfortable with my decision. That's why I ask all those additional questions and do the extra analysis.

Reasonable doubt is a lot more subjective than I thought
 
Cliff Hardy said:
The only surprise with this guy is he hasn't murdered anybody earlier. Then again, from what we have heard since his guilty verdict, perhaps he has?
Click to expand...
If not, IMO he spent a lot of time imagining what he would do to cover up and therefore commit the 'perfect crime'.

To me, his decision to burn everything in the campsite, and remove both bodies, is very unusual. IMO, that wouldn't occur to 99% or more of people who 'accidentally' killed someone. They'd remove the weapons, and pack up the evidence of their own presence, and high-tail it out, but who in their right mind would think of setting everything on fire, and how to even do that effectively without it either fizzling out because plastics don't burn well, or burning themselves in the process?

And dragging the dead bodies onto his trailer? IMO, that takes some kind of psychopathic tendencies, to want to take TWO victims away to dispose of them later, drive around with them, and then, again, destroy them by fire...think of the smell, the deliberate handling of the remains...

IMO this was not a panicked reaction, this was someone who enjoyed his competence in this escapade...

JMO
 
Cedars said:
If not, IMO he spent a lot of time imagining what he would do to cover up and therefore commit the 'perfect crime'.

To me, his decision to burn everything in the campsite, and remove both bodies, is very unusual. IMO, that wouldn't occur to 99% or more of people who 'accidentally' killed someone. They'd remove the weapons, and pack up the evidence of their own presence, and high-tail it out, but who in their right mind would think of setting everything on fire, and how to even do that effectively without it either fizzling out because plastics don't burn well, or burning themselves in the process?

And dragging the dead bodies onto his trailer? IMO, that takes some kind of psychopathic tendencies, to want to take TWO victims away to dispose of them later, drive around with them, and then, again, destroy them by fire...think of the smell, the deliberate handling of the remains...

IMO this was not a panicked reaction, this was someone who enjoyed his competence in this escapade...

JMO
Click to expand...
I think he was a deer hunter so he probably has experience dealing with heavy bodies and processing. He definitely took his time to plan and execute the disposing off. I wouldn't be surprised if he killed before.

My question is why didn't they charge him for tampering with the remains? This is something they have evidence for and would ensure prison time.
 
Cedars said:
If not, IMO he spent a lot of time imagining what he would do to cover up and therefore commit the 'perfect crime'.

To me, his decision to burn everything in the campsite, and remove both bodies, is very unusual. IMO, that wouldn't occur to 99% or more of people who 'accidentally' killed someone. They'd remove the weapons, and pack up the evidence of their own presence, and high-tail it out, but who in their right mind would think of setting everything on fire, and how to even do that effectively without it either fizzling out because plastics don't burn well, or burning themselves in the process?

And dragging the dead bodies onto his trailer? IMO, that takes some kind of psychopathic tendencies, to want to take TWO victims away to dispose of them later, drive around with them, and then, again, destroy them by fire...think of the smell, the deliberate handling of the remains...

IMO this was not a panicked reaction, this was someone who enjoyed his competence in this escapade...

JMO
Click to expand...
A very dangerous and extremely devious individual whom society is well rid of.
 
acehard said:
My question is why didn't they charge him for tampering with the remains? This is something they have evidence for and would ensure prison time.
Click to expand...

In Victoria, tampering with the remains only covers sexual activity with a corpse. They need to up their game in respect of their law about tampering with a corpse.

@JudgeJudi referred to it in this post. There are also other links out there about it.


JudgeJudi said:
Interfere with Corpse of a Human Being is found in section 34B of the Crimes Act 1958 in Victoria. It is a criminal offence that is committed by a person who was found to have intentionally engaged in a sexual activity involving a corpse of a human being.

Interfere with Corpse of a Human being

I’ve been unable to find anything relating to hiding a body away from the crime scene. However, South Australia has made a big change. IMO all states should introduce this as it’s becoming more and more common.

Click to expand...
 
AussieIan said:
I understand it's not the legal requirements, but to spend the rest of my life knowing I contributed to such a conviction that's the standard I would set to be comfortable with my decision. That's why I ask all those additional questions and do the extra analysis.

Reasonable doubt is a lot more subjective than I thought
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. However, it means you should probably not be chosen to be a jury member. During voir dire it would need to be something that was mentioned, to give the prosecutor and the defence (and the judge) the opportunity to seat you or exclude you.

It is important to have jury members who can follow the law, and the judge's instructions, in their decisions. That avoids a hung jury and (potentially) weeks of a trial without a clear verdict.

imo
 
k-mac said:
Haven't followed this case closely but keeping an eye on the news and loosely the thread.
Not sure what I expected from his pictures but was quite suprised at how well spoken Greg Lynn is.

I mean I did judge him harshly when he first came to light that I couldn't believe he was a jetstar pilot. :D Not that you expect Tom Cruise but ...they ususally have swag.:cool: (even jetstar!!)

He just seems so.....undashing/ unprofessional lol.
So it brings me to I was surprised then to hear his voice, because without a visual I could assume he was a professional person.

Such a senseless crime for everybody involved. :(
Click to expand...
Just proves that there is no one look, or speech, nor dress nor behaviour of who a murderer is. They walk among us. 'Never judge a book by its cover'.
 
SouthAussie said:
Yes, I understand. However, it means you should probably not be chosen to be a jury member. During voir dire it would need to be something that was mentioned, to give the prosecutor and the defence (and the judge) the opportunity to seat you or exclude you.

It is important to have jury members who can follow the law, and the judge's instructions, in their decisions. That avoids a hung jury and (potentially) weeks of a trial without a clear verdict.

imo
Click to expand...
Exactly. I've been on a jury 4 times. Only once had 'difficult' person who said guilty first day of trial. They think with their emotions, not their head and the law.
Most jurors do their due diligence.
 
AussieIan said:
I understand it's not the legal requirements, but to spend the rest of my life knowing I contributed to such a conviction that's the standard I would set to be comfortable with my decision. That's why I ask all those additional questions and do the extra analysis.

Reasonable doubt is a lot more subjective than I thought
Click to expand...
It is not subjective when you are in the jury room. Jury's are given directions but the judge what the law is and what you can and can't base your decision on. The pretrial is where the judge will decide what is admissible in the trial. A jury spends a lot of time in the jury room where legal discussions go on in the court. Only what is relevant to this trial can be used, and all evidence has to be legally obtained. Innocent until proven guilty. Guilt tripping a juror is not helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 169 more.
Total: 2,328 (members: 170, guests: 2,158)

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
2,158
Total visitors
2,328
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
598,055
Messages
18,075,080
Members
230,514
Latest member
soraxtm
Back
Top