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

[JLZ]

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.

Subheadings in the Crimes Act 1958:

(5) Corpses
34B Sexual activity with the corpse of a human being
34BA Removal of body parts from the corpse of a human being
34BB Offensive conduct involving human remains
34BC Location of corpse or human remains immaterial
34BD Exceptions
34BE No defence of mistaken but honest and reasonable belief that activity was not sexual or conduct was not offensive

I suggest 34BB would be relevant.

34BB Offensive conduct involving human remains
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally engages in conduct involving human remains; and
(b) the conduct is offensive.
(2) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable to level 7 imprisonment (2 years maximum).
(3) An offence against subsection (1) is a summary offence.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct is offensive if, in all the circumstances, it is likely to arouse significant anger, resentment, outrage, disgust or repulsion in the minds of reasonable persons.
(5) In this section—
human remains has the same meaning as in the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003.

Crimes Act 1958

legislation.vic.gov.au

www.legislation.vic.gov.au

 

[emirates1957]

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'.

Totally agree. Customs and Quarantine Officer’s would always look at the young dude coming back from Bali expecting to find drug’s …. Whilst your little old blue rinse lady was smuggling drugs by the bucket load.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Here's what will happen if Greg Lynn appeals his conviction over the murder of camper Carol Clay

Even for legal minds, Greg Lynn's murder trial over the deaths of two Victorian campers was filled with "unusual" twists and turns. Here's what could come next in the long-running court case.

www.abc.net.au

Greg Lynn was found guilty of murdering camper Carol Clay. What happens if he appeals?

 

[JLZ]

Here's what will happen if Greg Lynn appeals his conviction over the murder of camper Carol Clay

Even for legal minds, Greg Lynn's murder trial over the deaths of two Victorian campers was filled with "unusual" twists and turns. Here's what could come next in the long-running court case.

www.abc.net.au

Greg Lynn was found guilty of murdering camper Carol Clay. What happens if he appeals?

I think this is interesting; BBM.

But the judge found the admissions followed a "withering barrage of oppressive and improper inducements" by the interviewing officers, and initially ruled the interview was inadmissible in the trial.
Some evidence that came from it — like the discovery of bodies at Bucks Camp — was also initially excluded.

Here's what will happen if Greg Lynn appeals his conviction over the murder of camper Carol Clay

Even for legal minds, Greg Lynn's murder trial over the deaths of two Victorian campers was filled with "unusual" twists and turns. Here's what could come next in the long-running court case.

www.abc.net.au

I wonder if it will be a ground for appeal that the discovery of the bodies should have been withheld from the jury. 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Some evidence that came from it — like the discovery of bodies at Bucks Camp — was also initially excluded.

Sounds insane to me.

 

[changintimes]

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

No telephone reception. What town with an active manned police station would have been the closest for GL to travel to in the night of 20th in order to alert police. If he had traveled by car then what was he supposed to do with 2 deceased people given the area was known for packs of wild dogs. Move the bodies to RH car? Or to leave 2 deceased persons in the open for perhaps other travelers to find would have been too shocking to consider. These are thoughts that come to the front of my mind if I try to imagine being involved in a similar case.

I think what GL did was to compartmentalize all the processes he carried out in a self mental protection process that forensic psychiatrists often talk about, in order to move forward like he did IM.

The detectives did not appear to test GL memory recall by a common process that is normally used which I will not detail here for obvious reasons. The process checks explanations given are truthful or made up.

I think he was not as calm as people may consider he was during the police interview. He was scrunched over and wrapped in a doona blanket from chest height area to mid legs. He lifted both arms at the same time at one stage and the armpit areas of his sweatshirt were drenched. His hands were very cold he mentions this in interview just released and it has been mentioned in a few media reports and by Justice Croucher that the room temp was set to a very cold temp too. IMO.

GL comms with detectives appeared to me to be respectful and helpful and detailed IMO.

 

[smellyboong]

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that when truthful accounts are retold it’s usually done with emotions - what the person was feeling during the time eg. “I was scared” or “I was shaken”, but GL’s account was very methodical and mechanical.

 

[changintimes]

DPP v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 (12 April 2024)

DPP v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 (12 April 2024)​

Interlocutory appeal –Respondent charged with two counts of murder – Circumstantial case –Respondent gives account of sequential accidental deaths – Bodies of deceased moved, hidden and ultimately burnt, crushed and scattered by respondent– Ruling that post-offence conduct can be used as evidence of incriminating conduct only as to unlawful killing – Whether prosecution can rely upon post-offence conduct as evidence of incriminating conduct as to murderous intent as well as unlawful killing – Leave to appeal granted– Interlocutory decision set aside.

 

[changintimes]

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that when truthful accounts are retold it’s usually done with emotions - what the person was feeling during the time eg. “I was scared” or “I was shaken”, but GL’s account was very methodical and mechanical

Yes I agree and IMO what he was doing was opening up each compartment and releasing the information each compartnent contained in a truthful manner and that should have been tested.

 

[changintimes]

If the appeal of conviction for murder of CC is granted a retrial on CC. I consider a retrial might include more forensic and perhaps ballistics studies.

 

[OwlHeart]

No telephone reception. What town with an active manned police station would have been the closest for GL to travel to in the night of 20th in order to alert police. If he had traveled by car then what was he supposed to do with 2 deceased people given the area was known for packs of wild dogs. Move the bodies to RH car? Or to leave 2 deceased persons in the open for perhaps other travelers to find would have been too shocking to consider. These are thoughts that come to the front of my mind if I try to imagine being involved in a similar case.

I think what GL did was to compartmentalize all the processes he carried out in a self mental protection process that forensic psychiatrists often talk about, in order to move forward like he did IM.

The detectives did not appear to test GL memory recall by a common process that is normally used which I will not detail here for obvious reasons. The process checks explanations given are truthful or made up.

I think he was not as calm as people may consider he was during the police interview. He was scrunched over and wrapped in a doona blanket from chest height area to mid legs. He lifted both arms at the same time at one stage and the armpit areas of his sweatshirt were drenched. His hands were very cold he mentions this in interview just released and it has been mentioned in a few media reports and by Justice Croucher that the room temp was set to a very cold temp too. IMO.

GL comms with detectives appeared to me to be respectful and helpful and detailed IMO.

Do you believe GL’s story?

 

[Annalize]

I think he was not as calm as people may consider he was during the police interview. He was scrunched over and wrapped in a doona blanket from chest height area to mid legs. He lifted both arms at the same time at one stage and the armpit areas of his sweatshirt were drenched. His hands were very cold he mentions this in interview just released and it has been mentioned in a few media reports and by Justice Croucher that the room temp was set to a very cold temp too. IMO.

GL comms with detectives appeared to me to be respectful and helpful and detailed IMO.

If only he could have been respectful, helpful and detailed towards the people who perished and were obliterated at his hands. MOO
Him being in a very cold room with a very warm doona, might be preferable to being incinerated like refuse. He has left the families of the victims with vile images seared into their minds, forever. Nothing respectful or helpful about that. MOO
IMO he is 100% responsible for monstrous disregard for the comfort, dignity and safety of others, so him suffering some temporary indignity and discomfort does not compare.
He was taken to the Police Station .. he did not go there by choice. So he put on a display of respectability. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Some evidence that came from it — like the discovery of bodies at Bucks Camp — was also initially excluded.

Well, that is a bit confusing. It is a journalist's error. The remains were not found at Bucks Camp.

Just to add, I believe the Court of Appeal already overrode the judge's ruling ... so it isn't fruit of the poisoned tree.

Lots of reasons given, but ultimately ...

1. It is the jury’s role to consider this circumstantial evidence as part of the circumstantial case. It does not equate with treating the incriminating conduct evidence as a confession to murder. It would not engender a miscarriage of justice. It is not to be lightly assumed that a jury would be incapable of following the directions in ss 21 and 22 of the JDA or any other directions.

DPP v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 (12 April 2024)

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Do you believe GL’s story?

I am yet to meet anybody, anywhere who does. Anybody here met anybody who actually believes GL's story?

 

[jjleroche]

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

Really thought-provoking post Cedars.

IIRC ProfCluezo noted that the sleeping bags of Carol Clay and Russell Hill were never found, and pondered the possibility of both victims being shot whilst in their sleeping bags, in their tent.

IMO that theory is very plausible. Given the points in your post, I'm starting to think it's highly probable.

If that scenario had occurred, that would provide a very compelling reason to embark on the massive cleanup which he undertook. If the victims' bodies were discovered in the tent, (or even if just the empty tent were discovered), there could be no ambiguity as to what had occurred - no debate about forensics, whether or not the rifle could discharge in a struggle, whether or not Russell could have fallen on the kitchen knife, sustaining a mortal wound...and so on - much of the trial content was centred around such questions, for which he had answers, (and had had the time to craft such answers).

IMO that is why everything was set on fire - that he would have considered that action the only option to adequately cover his tracks. If he used an accelerant such as petrol, the fire wouldn't fizzle out. IIRC GL had stated that the had used kerosene to start the fire.

JMO

 

[changintimes]

Crime scene to court: Why the jury didn’t buy Greg Lynn’s story

Six men and six women of the jury heard two versions of the events that led to the deaths of Russell Hill and Carol Clay. They agreed there was a third version.

www.theage.com.au

It is unusual for a random shot to hit someone hiding from the line of fire. It is even more unusual for a ricocheted solid shot to hit someone in the head, killing them instantly. We contacted a respected mathematician asking for a calculation of the odds. He said the variables made it impossible to be accurate, but it was “wildly improbable”.

Wouldn't it be great for this article to include the mathematician's workings so that we, the public, could understand how he had reached is 'wildly improbably' conclusion? Circumstances do occur all the time, that break the known 'rules' and that is when new precedents are set. How would a mathematician know this 'It is even more unusual for a ricocheted solid shot to hit someone in the head, killing them instantly'.

Just how many variables there could or would be in such a short distance between where the two men fought over control of the firearm, and where CC was (allegedly) cowering?

 

[OwlHeart]

I am yet to meet anybody, anywhere who does. Anybody here met anybody who actually believes GL's story?

Oh it's clearly a psychopath's fantasy, I was asking @changintimes if they believe GL because I can't see why else they'd be offering any form of defence or explanation to justify his police interview.

Which now as I'm typing makes me question @changintimes character & wonder if they're emotionally invested in this.

Dear mods please simply delete this if it's outside guidelines. I'm merely trying to understand the psychology behind many aspects of this case.

 

[SouthAussie]

Wouldn't it be great for this article to include the mathematician's workings so that we, the public, could understand how he had reached is 'wildly improbably' conclusion? Circumstances do occur all the time, that break the known 'rules' and that is when new precedents are set. How would a mathematician know this 'It is even more unusual for a ricocheted solid shot to hit someone in the head, killing them instantly'.

Just how many variables there could or would be in such a short distance between where the two men fought over control of the firearm, and where CC was (allegedly) cowering?

I think anyone can see - just by studying the photo of Russell's vehicle, noting where and how this "struggle" allegedly took place, noting where Carol allegedly was, noting the condition of the vehicle where Lynn ripped the mirror off (the strongest part of the mirror is still attached) - that there is no way a shot could have accidently killed Carol.

imo

 

[changintimes]

I think anyone can see - just by studying the photo of Russell's vehicle, noting where and how this "struggle" allegedly took place, noting where Carol allegedly was, noting the condition of the vehicle where Lynn ripped the mirror off (the strongest part of the mirror is still attached) - that there is no way a shot could have accidently killed Carol.

imo

Could you please give some explanation as to just how you came to the conclusion it was an impossibility that the shot that killed CC was not accidental? Have you personally really subjected the alleged scene photographs to indepth scrutiny, or are you relying on what has been reported (in written form) in the media? I personally can recall the ballistics 'expert' giving an answer to DD during his evidence, that included the word "plausible". IMO

 

[JLZ]

Well, that is a bit confusing. It is a journalist's error. The remains were not found at Bucks Camp.

Just to add, I believe the Court of Appeal already overrode the judge's ruling ... so it isn't fruit of the poisoned tree.

1. The judge also said:
   while a reasonable jury would be entitled to think that one possible reason [the respondent] engaged in the impugned conduct – including his treatment of the bodies – is because he believed he had committed murder, in the absence of evidence of the circumstances surrounding the deceased’s deaths, I cannot see how a reasonable jury could exclude the inference that he believed he had committed an offence or offences short of murder

DPP v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 (12 April 2024)

I think this is a different issue. The appeal judges ruled that the treatment of the bodies was open to be interpreted as evidence of guilt; and it was for the jury, not the judge, to say whether it counted in that scale or not. 'Fruit of the poisoned tree' is quite a different reason for excluding the evidence; it's saying that police were so unfair in questioning him, none of the information he provided should have been put to the jury, and none of the results of that information--including the discovery of the remains--could be used either. But I don't know what went on behind the scenes over that. Obviously the question was raised.