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

[SouthAussie]

To be fair, in my opinion zero and none, means the same thing.
No lies and zero lies means the same thing.

Not that I believe him, I don't

(Just jumping off your post)

I think it is just really hard to be fair about what Dann is saying now.

He participated in a trial for his client.
He had achieved getting a lot of evidence thrown out.
The judge ruled multiple times in his favour (thank goodness, because that helps against an appeal being accepted).
The judge ruled so much in his favour that we all started wondering what the heck was going on.

Now Dann is having a big whinge because sub judice is over, and all of the dirt about his client is legally allowed to be published.

No doubt he is still trying to do his best for his client, but it all does sound a little preposterous because a KC certainly knows all of the sub judice and other laws. I think Dann probably doesn't have a lot to work with - just attack, attack, attack, and hope for the best.

imo

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Your question could well be proven to be obsolete if a mistral is declared and a permanent stat is then declared. IMO

Gregory Lynn is a convicted murderer awaiting sentencing. Anything outside of that is just plain wishful thinking.

 

[sapphire blue]

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:

View attachment 519039

do you understand how language can be used in deceptive ways?

Saying "he maintains he’s told zero lies" can be deceptive depending on the context and the intent behind the statement.

1. Literal Truth: If someone has truly never told a lie in their life, saying "I've told zero lies" is factually correct. However, it might come across as boastful or overly emphatic, depending on the situation.
2. Deceptive Intent: In everyday conversation, saying "I've told zero lies" could be misleading if the person has actually told lies but is trying to present themselves as completely truthful. This can be a deceptive statement if used to create a false impression of honesty or trustworthiness.

In summary, the truthfulness of the statement depends on the actual history of the person's honesty and the intention behind making such a claim. If there is any doubt or if the statement is made to manipulate perception, it can be considered deceptive.

Intention speaks volumes in this particular case, and this is after all a victim friendly forum and GL is only a victim of his own actions.

 

[sapphire blue]

To be fair, in my opinion zero and none, means the same thing.
No lies and zero lies means the same thing.

Not that I believe him, I don't

They don’t actually mean the same thing.

If you had 2 cookies and ate them they still existed didn’t they? There weren’t zero cookies to begin with. You have no cookies because of your actions.

 

[SouthAussie]

do you understand how language can be used in deceptive ways?

Saying "he maintains he’s told zero lies" can be deceptive depending on the context and the intent behind the statement.

1. Literal Truth: If someone has truly never told a lie in their life, saying "I've told zero lies" is factually correct. However, it might come across as boastful or overly emphatic, depending on the situation.
2. Deceptive Intent: In everyday conversation, saying "I've told zero lies" could be misleading if the person has actually told lies but is trying to present themselves as completely truthful. This can be a deceptive statement if used to create a false impression of honesty or trustworthiness.

In summary, the truthfulness of the statement depends on the actual history of the person's honesty and the intention behind making such a claim. If there is any doubt or if the statement is made to manipulate perception, it can be considered deceptive.

Intention speaks volumes in this particular case, and this is after all a victim friendly forum and GL is a victim of his own actions.

There is also proof that Dann's client directly lied to the police. He told them there was "nothing left" after he burned the remains. He didn't tell them that he had moved the burned watch, a burned ring, the teeth, the fragments of bone to a root ball hole of a fallen tree. The police had to find that for themselves.

imo

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/greg-lynn-trial-jury-in-accused-doublemurder-case-to-hear-from-forensic-anthropologist/news-story/9ef54498f3d18793019b1f2dc8c568a2

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Sorry if I misunderstood.
I wasn't talking or thinking about him when I posted.

I actually held off for awhile, but it niggled at me.

In my opinion most people think of zero and none as the same.

I now see I was the one wrong because it seems they aren't. I've learned something new, to me.

Though If someone said to me they have told zero lies in their life, I would still believe they meant they'd told no lies.

Anyway, thanks for adding to my knowledge.

To add. I don't believe a word he says about anything and never have.

 

[changintimes]

(Just jumping off your post)

I think it is just really hard to be fair about what Dann is saying now.

He participated in a trial for his client.
He had achieved getting a lot of evidence thrown out.
The judge ruled multiple times in his favour (thank goodness, because that helps against an appeal being accepted).
The judge ruled so much in his favour that we all started wondering what the heck was going on.

Now Dann is having a big whinge because sub judice is over, and all of the dirt about his client is legally allowed to be published.

No doubt he is still trying to do his best for his client, but it all does sound a little preposterous because a KC certainly knows all of the sub judice and other laws. I think Dann probably doesn't have a lot to work with - just attack, attack, attack, and hope for the best.

imo

‘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

 

[changintimes]

They don’t actually mean the same thing.

If you had 2 cookies and ate them they still existed didn’t they? There weren’t zero cookies to begin with. You have no cookies because of your actions.

You have to be joking the make this comparison! The comment made by Dann was

‘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

There was NO mention of the word NO!