I don't dispute the inference, but I don't think that would be what was meant.I would say it means the side of the vehicle where Carol was murdered. Not the other side of the vehicle.
I don't dispute the inference, but I don't think that would be what was meant.I would say it means the side of the vehicle where Carol was murdered. Not the other side of the vehicle.
It also helps a person of interest draw scene depictions to explain what they are saying.He used that paper in the same manner as a defendant at a trial uses a pad of paper. To distract themselves from reacting adversely to a testimony of facts and witness statements. imo
(By former law school professor on Quora forum)
- It helps the defendant to look like he’s attentive and engaged.
- It gives the defendant something to do so that he doesn’t get bored and fidgety.
- It gives the defendant a task that helps him to remain focused and not lose his temper if a witness says something that harms his case.
Lynn didn't burn that mirror to help fuel the fire. He burned it because it was evidence.Are you able to supply proof of what exact precise condition the passenger side rear vision mirror was in and the positioning of such when forensic and ballistic testing took place and what positioning the mirror was left in when GL departed the scene and when police first arrived on the scene and when they took their first forensic photos of the scene?
I don't dispute the inference, but I don't think that would be what was meant.
Congratulations @TootsieFootsie, for you have surely won the internet today!I know! Now first remember this is sarcasm on my part
What if not making eye contact is part of his custom or traditional beliefs, handed down from generations before ?
Well, does it mean on the tent side?What do you think it meant, if not that?
Well, does it mean on the tent side?
Quick Google first thing seen:What do you think it meant, if not that?
BUT when DD questioned the police expert witness (re trajectory testing) he admitted he had included false information in his own statement in that he had NOT used GL firearm during the test!; and that evidence was clearly after the date of the appeal judgement link you provided.He said it was most unlikely, according to the interlocutory appeal judgement. BBM
A ballistics expert examined the respondent’s 12-gauge shot gun and found that the only manner in which it could be discharged was the normal method of applying pressure to the trigger. He also concluded through shot trajectory testing that the version given by the respondent in the record of interview as to how Mrs Clay was shot was most unlikely.
Very hard to make eye contact with persons sitting on the opposite side of a table, when you are drawing them diagrams of scene depictions and pointing to places on maps they have asked you about. Very difficult indeed. Actually impossible. IMOI know! Now first remember this is sarcasm on my part
What if not making eye contact is part of his custom or traditional beliefs, handed down from generations before ?
Mr Dann would then need to present evidence as to how a different 12-gauge shotgun would make a difference to trajectory analysis. I can't see how it would either.BUT when DD questioned the police expert witness (re trajectory testing) he admitted he had included false information in his own statement in that he had NOT used GL firearm during the test!; and that evidence was clearly after the date of the appeal judgement link you provided.
Shotgun alleged to have killed Carol Clay shown to jurors in Greg Lynn murder trial
Police ballistics specialist Paul Griffiths told the court he conducted tests to test the plausibility of Mr Lynn's account of events, but had not watched the police interview with the accused.www.abc.net.au
View attachment 514335
‘Extreme heat in Victoria’ - that has to be sarcasm surely?Could be he found white too glaring in the extreme heat in Victoria.
It was changed to beige after March 2020I recall it was 2 or 3 years before April 2020 which is when he changed colour from blue to beige.
The trajectory testing was based on a ‘version of events given by Mr Lynn in his police interview’ - the testing focused on whether his account (see your post for the in brackets part) was plausible’BUT when DD questioned the police expert witness (re trajectory testing) he admitted he had included false information in his own statement in that he had NOT used GL firearm during the test!; and that evidence was clearly after the date of the appeal judgement link you provided.
Shotgun alleged to have killed Carol Clay shown to jurors in Greg Lynn murder trial
Police ballistics specialist Paul Griffiths told the court he conducted tests to test the plausibility of Mr Lynn's account of events, but had not watched the police interview with the accused.www.abc.net.au
View attachment 514335
I cannot find any official information that solar panel film is used on rear vision mirrors of LandCruiser 70 series GXL vehicles. Are you able to locate any information? The ash debris at Bucks Camp wasn't picked up by police until some 8-months later by a Parks Victoria employee. Parks Victoria apparently had collected it in the first place. Absolutely shocking!In pieces.
Ash debris from the burnt campsite at Bucks Camp was found to contain pieces of glass and solar panel film from a vehicle side mirror. . . .
If a gun barrel is even the slightest measurement off, that would affect the trajectory. No rocket science involved there IMO.The trajectory testing was based on a ‘version of events given by Mr Lynn in his police interview’ - the testing focused on whether his account (see your post for the in brackets part) was plausible’
“It makes no impact what gun I used for that exercise. no impact whatsoever”
There were no witnesses to be called, only the person that was at the scene and that person, put himself at great risk giving evidence. How a person behaved on another date, at any time, or at any place, is not relevant to the case IMO. Hearsay does not belong in any trial.The defence unusually takes every opportunity to not only demonstrate reasonable doubt but also to show their client in the best possible light to the jury.
Dann could hardly be blamed for failing on both counts there as Lynn's story was just too far fetched and his history too checkered, to risk calling any witnesses.
The evidence was not disputed by the defence and it was accepted by the appeal judges. That's enough for me. However, the site was attended by police from 28 March 2020 and forensically examined 1 April 2020. We don't know what was documented as being there. Why are you concerned about the mirror anyway? If the mirror wasn't struck by a bullet the trajectory becomes even less possible.I cannot find any official information that solar panel film is used on rear vision mirrors of LandCruiser 70 series GXL vehicles. Are you able to locate any information? The ash debris at Bucks Camp wasn't picked up by police until some 8-months later by a Parks Victoria employee. Parks Victoria apparently had collected it in the first place. Absolutely shocking!
* 15 October, 2020: On police request, Parks Victoria rangers collect the remaining fire debris from Bucks Camp and kept it stored in three bags.
* 6 January, 2021: The bags of debris gathered from Bucks Camp are forensically examined. Heavy glass, solar panels and clothing is among the items found.
The "pieces of glass" in the Austlii document may not even refer to rear mirror glass!
The proposition that Victoria Police would leave this crucial evidence out in the open for nearly seven months leaves me totally numb. Just shoved into three bags; with no forensic handling procedures. hmmmm makes me think those bits of rear vision mirror glass might not have been that small to begin with. It makes it a real possibility, even probability, that crucial evidence like the slug found at Bucks Camp could have been moved about by whoever was the person that was tasked with physically collected the debris.
Edited to remove incorrect information.
Were these three bags, in pristine, un-used condition when they were used to contain the burnt debris from Bucks Camp?
How was this debris left at the scene after RH vehicle was removed? What date was RH vehicle removed? What date was the vehicle returned to the address of RH?