Australia - Russell Hill & Carol Clay Murdered While Camping - Wonnangatta Valley, 2020 #9

[Bats]

“He maintains that he’s never killed any person at any time at any place, anywhere, ever.”

Interesting, in an appeal against a murder conviction for one person - Carol Clay, Greg feels the need to clarify that he's never killed anyone "anywhere, ever".

Also interesting that he's calling out unfair tactics by the prosecution. Gee Greg, would have been nice if you had have played fair in the first place by not destroying evidence that may have been your alibi.

It's so clear that the only reason he's not guilty of the murder of Russell is because the jury were missing vital evidence. It wasn't the other way around where the jury may have taken a bit of a guess that he murdered Carol.

 

[SouthAussie]

He said prosecutors "conducted the trial unfairly" when they broke rules of procedural fairness by making claims about GL to the jury without giving him an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

IIRC the judge told the jury to disregard that part of the prosecution's closing argument. Not appealable. imo

 

[MIG214222]

Prison Slang Dictionary that may be useful in the future, as there are a few upcoming cases on WS from Victoria.

http://www.iexpress.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/17092019_The_Dictionary_of_Victorian_Prison_Slang.pdf

Excellent resource @Marg944 - TYSVM

 

[sapphire blue]

‘He maintains he told zero lies’: Greg Lynn to appeal conviction in high country murder case, court hears

Jury had found former Jetstar pilot guilty of killing Carol Clay, but not of murdering Russell Hill

www.theguardian.com

He said Lynn maintained his innocence in respect to both murder charges.

“He maintains that he told zero lies in that [police] interview … that was played to the jury,” he told the court on Friday.

“He maintains that he’s never killed any person at any time at any place, anywhere, ever.”

Note he says zero rather than no lies. He’s manipulating

 

[sapphire blue]

Oh SA you must have missed that I gave you this exact link before you posted your link.

Granting a stay over art fraud is rather different to that of a convicted killer

 

[Cliff Hardy]

‘He maintains he told zero lies’: Greg Lynn to appeal conviction in high country murder case, court hears

Jury had found former Jetstar pilot guilty of killing Carol Clay, but not of murdering Russell Hill

www.theguardian.com

He said Lynn maintained his innocence in respect to both murder charges.

“He maintains that he told zero lies in that [police] interview … that was played to the jury,” he told the court on Friday.

“He maintains that he’s never killed any person at any time at any place, anywhere, ever.”

Ironic that Lynn is using overkill in trying to claim the exact opposite.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Note he says zero rather than no lies. He’s manipulating

“He maintains that he told zero lies in that [police] interview … that was played to the jury,” he told the court on Friday.

Notice too that he applies the distinction to that interview as the one "that was played to the jury", knowing full well he lied in police outside of that interview.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Also interesting that he's calling out unfair tactics by the prosecution. Gee Greg, would have been nice if you had have played fair in the first place by not destroying evidence that may have been your alibi.

He would never have destroyed the evidence if it was going to be his alibi. What he did was intentionally and systematically destroy evidence of murder.

 

[changintimes]

Granting a stay over art fraud is rather different to that of a convicted killer

Perhaps you need to take the opportunity to read a bit of background regarding the case so here is a link

Brett Whiteley art fraud conviction quashed against two Victorian men

Prosecutors says there was a ‘significant possibility’ the art restorer and the dealer might be innocent of faking the paintings

www.theguardian.com

It basically is not about the offense, but about the law.

 

[changintimes]

He would never have destroyed the evidence if it was going to be his alibi. What he did was intentionally and systematically destroy evidence of murder.

At the time of the (self admitted) destruction of the deceased persons, GL was not aware that his (later) intended drive route would include cctv cameras that would capture image of his vehicle and trailer and number plates. He was also not aware that the RH and CC mobile telephones were still switched on (and later) and would ping to local towers. Therefore, IMO, his statement about reasons for his actions were to protect his family and himself make sense.

 

[changintimes]

Note he says zero rather than no lies. He’s manipulating

perhaps you need to read a very important paragraph included in media coverage. What this indicates clearly IMO is that the deliberate campaign and accusations against GL since the conviction have supported the future natural cause of justice and have the reverse affect of what had obviously been intended by the source behind such media coverage, including social media.

Camper killer Greg Lynn’s extraordinary plan to have murder conviction quashed

To clear their client of Carol Clay’s murder the former pilot’s lawyers are considering using a law successfully applied in the state only once before.

www.theage.com.au

The following is a quote of what was said by Dermot Dann KC:

 

[SouthAussie]

Granting a stay over art fraud is rather different to that of a convicted killer

If you google 'stay of a convicted killer', all that comes up is multiple (short-term) stays of death row executions in the US.
And Chris Dawson applying for a stay in NSW. It was denied.

imo

 

[Cliff Hardy]

At the time of the (self admitted) destruction of the deceased persons, GL was not aware that his (later) intended drive route would include cctv cameras that would capture image of his vehicle and trailer and number plates. He was also not aware that the RH and CC mobile telephones were still switched on (and later) and would ping to local towers. Therefore, IMO, his statement about reasons for his actions were to protect his family and himself make sense.

He destroyed evidence. Evidence of murder not an alibi. That's the point l was making.

 

[BreakingNews]

I think many people do not have grounds for an appeal, they just think they do.

And during the pretrial Dann would have agreed what could and could not be allowed during the trial. So why is he crying fowl now?