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

[SouthAussie]

Greg Lynn and trying to pull a rabbit from a legal hat

The defence thought it would win and chose not to push for a new trial. To now say it was a miscarriage of justice is a little like getting a free kick, playing on, hitting the post and then asking for another shot.

www.theage.com.au

July 26 2024 Article by John Silvester.

Behind a paywall, I think. Posting it here for those who subscribe.

Well, that clarifies what happened when Dann broached the bail issue.
Croucher basically told him to not even go there, that the chance of bail is as remote as Croucher winning the Stawell Gift.

(paraphrased from your linked article)

The Stawell Gift is Australia's oldest and richest short-distance running race. Link

 

[sapphire blue]

Nothing masterful about that interview. It was the interviewee that voluntarily gave them ALL the information that was required. It is obvious the two interviewers believed what was being stated to them IMO, so that is what you are calling 'masterful'.

what makes you so sure that they believed what was being stated to them?

IMO they didn’t believe a word of it, he thought he was gaming them, narcs think they are smarter than detectives who have dealt with all manner of slimy lying characters. their ability to discern truth from fiction is far better than GLs pantomime performance.

 

[SouthAussie]

John Silvester (in the latest article that Tootsie linked) said it seems obvious how the jury came to their decisions.

The jury asked for Lynn's testimony and the ballistic expert's evidence.
They overlayed the two to test Lynn's version of events.
And John Sylvester feels that the jury then found Lynn's story wildly improbable, leaving the prosecution's case the version that remained. Guilty.

(paraphrased from The Age article) - it is a good, descriptive article. I wish everyone could read it.

 

[Sir_Loin]

what makes you so sure that they believed what was being stated to them?

IMO they didn’t believe a word of it, he thought he was gaming them, narcs think they are smarter than detectives who have dealt with all manner of slimy lying characters. their ability to discern truth from fiction is far better than GLs pantomime performance.

Spot on. Greg Lynn physically demonstrating the Jackie Chan-esque move he said he pulled on a knife attack in the dark made me laugh out loud.

Of course the police didn’t believe him. They’ve been trained in this stuff. Just imagine them debriefing afterwards and the choice words they would have used.

Little River Raiders, his pistol club, his high country larping, hunts on his own where he never bags anything. Walter Mitty incarnate.

 

[changintimes]

Your link is incorrect and references a NSW law practice quoting NSW legislation

My apologies - I did have the correct link but copied the incorrect link in error.

The below information was connected via Your rights and entitlements - Office of Public Prosecutions

Under the heading:

A further heading has this information:


Here is a link to the correct information. VOCAT stands for Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal

About the Tribunal | Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal

This section provides a brief overview of the role and purpose of the Tribunal, our staff and Tribunal Members.

vocat.vic.gov.au

 

[changintimes]

John Silvester (in the latest article that Tootsie linked) said it seems obvious how the jury came to their decisions.

The jury asked for Lynn's testimony and the ballistic expert's evidence.
They overlayed the two to test Lynn's version of events.
And John Sylvester feels that the jury then found Lynn's story wildly improbable, leaving the prosecution's case the version that remained. Guilty.

(paraphrased from The Age article) - it is a good, descriptive article. I wish everyone could read it.

Nothing obvious in that article whatsoever IMO. What this article details is the writers' impression of what was said and the writer was not present in court as far as I am aware, therefore the 'details' are based on hearsay IMO.

 

[changintimes]

You have avoided the question again.

Why would 'it be great' for the convicted murderer to be anywhere but jail?

Because he has been wrongfully convicted and that is apparent by the total and flagrant disregard the the fair principals of court processes not being adhered to by the details the prosecutor included in his closing address. There has been numerous posts including links to media articles on WS that include what the prosecutor had stated and what the Judge had stated and what the defence counsel had stated as well. IMO

 

[changintimes]

what makes you so sure that they believed what was being stated to them?

IMO they didn’t believe a word of it, he thought he was gaming them, narcs think they are smarter than detectives who have dealt with all manner of slimy lying characters. their ability to discern truth from fiction is far better than GLs pantomime performance.

Pretty basic actually, the prosecutors decided to base their case on the parts of the interview that were permitted by the 3 judges of the Appeals Court. But the prosecutor then overstepped his mission during his closing address.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Because he has been wrongfully convicted and that is apparent by the total and flagrant disregard the the fair principals of court processes not being adhered to by the details the prosecutor included in his closing address. There has been numerous posts including links to media articles on WS that include what the prosecutor had stated and what the Judge had stated and what the defence counsel had stated as well. IMO

Lynn is a convicted murderer awaiting sentencing. The rest is just white noise.

 

[Rocket333]

Pretty basic actually, the prosecutors decided to base their case on the parts of the interview that were permitted by the 3 judges of the Appeals Court. But the prosecutor then overstepped his mission during his closing address.

Wishing you peace & acceptance chang.

 

[sapphire blue]

Pretty basic actually, the prosecutors decided to base their case on the parts of the interview that were permitted by the 3 judges of the Appeals Court. But the prosecutor then overstepped his mission during his closing address.

pretty basic to remember that my comment was about the officers who interviewed him, not the prosecutors.

It’s rather odd to see someone on this victim friendly forum supporting a person who has admittedly committed heinous crimes (murder, destruction of evidence, moving the bodies and also desecrating the bodies) let alone a convicted murderer.