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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
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
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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

 
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.
 
Last edited:
(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
1721451932796.png

 
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
1721452124664.png

There was NO mention of the word NO!
 
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.
We know Greg Lynn is a liar. He initially told the police he had never met Russell Hill and Carol Clay.

Lynn then provided the police and the court with his little fantasy story of how Hill and Clay died and we saw how well that went with the jury.

Lynn is a liar and a murderer.
 
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.
BBM
Hello @changintimes,
Now don't that go to show how dumb the master-of-the-universe *truly* was & is!
GL's self-serving actions & statements have only ever been for him & about him, why on earth do you think he's in this slight pickle sweetheart?

At the end of the day - a dumb petty thief & a murderer, with a receding chin, what an unfortunate - ugly - combination!

MOO, MOO, MOO
Gregory Lynn is a convicted murderer awaiting sentencing. Anything outside of that is just plain wishful thinking.
Hi Cliff Hardy,
Accompanied by the wail of a 1000-poorly-tuned-tiny-violins - screeching out the 'woe-is-me' score played by a convicted-lying-murderer-with-a-receding-chin.
He's a player - in more ways than one & a very, very dangerous individual.

Roll on sentencing & justice.

My thoughts remain with the Clay & Hill families, I wish them all the strength in the universe.
MOO
 
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.
no apology needed.

These days I’m not so quick to believe someone claiming they’ve told zero lies, as I’ve learnt that narcissists often believe their lies, they can’t admit they’ve done wrong, they have to protect their fragile ego at all costs. They are very good at arguing, twisting the blame, and coming up with all sorts of excuses to justify their behaviour.
 
You have to be joking the make this comparison! The comment made by Dann was
View attachment 519079

There was NO mention of the word NO!

You have to be joking the make this comparison! The comment made by Dann was
View attachment 519079

There was NO mention of the word NO!
No mention of the word no was my point. There’s a reason he deliberately avoids using it, and as we know from the court case he has actually lied.
 
These days I’m not so quick to believe someone claiming they’ve told zero lies,
Thanks I just wanted to say that I've never believed him either.

I wasn't defending him.

It was just what the words meant, and I now can see what you meant.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
1,958
Total visitors
2,014

Forum statistics

Threads
600,139
Messages
18,104,580
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top