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.

 

[Warshawski]

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

With all due respect for your thoughts, it’s my opinion that Greg should be thankful that he is only going down for the murder of 1.

But that’s just my opinion - and it’s as worthless in the scheme of things as is your opinion that ‘he has been wrongfully convicted’.

However, due to the fair & wholesome justice system that exists here in Australia, everyone ( man & their dog) is afforded an opportunity to appeal court decisions - which means that GL has an open avenue in which he can correct any perceived inaccuracies in the previous meeting.

 

[Sir_Loin]

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:
View attachment 520752
A further heading has this information:

View attachment 520754
Here is a link to the correct information. VOCAT stands for Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal
View attachment 520751

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

Nice try

 

[changintimes]

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.

With respect, the Justice system has not run to the fullest extent and has a long way to go until it is concluded, it hasn't even past the sentencing stage. You have no idea what my thoughts on this case are, you may think you know but you may well turn out to be incorrect!

The prosecutors mounted their case on the interview conducted by the two detectives you referred to. Without that interview there would not have been a prosecution. My comments in reply to your original post pointed out some valid weaknesses in the conviction.

I consider it rather odd that people consider the details of this case with such a very narrow perspective. I wonder what would happen if there was new and fresh evidence discovered?

 

[changintimes]

Nice try

Thankyou just trying to be helpful

 

[wallyworld]

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

This information contradicts your original post (with the incorrect link to it)

The following post also has an inaccurate description of who is considered a victim of crime.

I don't believe your explanation is correct. This is what the Victims of Crime website (Victoria) states about seeking compensation from the offender; in the first paragraph it is stated "... of the crime committed against you".

The crime was not committed against any member of the Clay family.

I understand 'victims of crime' to be those persons who are directly and personally involved and affected - not family or extended family members. eg: if I was to punch a person (the victim) and the person (the victim) ended up with ongoing medical treatment for injuries sustained, that person could seek compensation directly from me; no family member of 'the victim' could seek compensation from me under the Victims of Crime legislation (see below as there is other legislation that covers compensation for family members - Compensation for Relatives legislation).

Financial assistance and compensation for victims of crime

If you have been affected by a crime, you may be able to apply for financial assistance or seek compensation from the offender.

www.victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au

View attachment 520495

Compensation for Relatives claims are covered under a totally separate piece of legislation in Victoria
Compensation to relatives claims.

I would expect prior to any compensation claim being mounted, the provisions of appeal processes through the Justice system must first be finalized.

Carol Clay's daughter is indeed a victim of crime.
I take it that you have misunderstood the information that you have provided or failed to see how Carol's daughter is a Victim of Crime. Hopefully, this clarifies it for you....

GREGORY STUART LYNN was found GUILTY of the MURDER of Carol Clay on Tue 25 Jun 2024.

Office of Public Prosecutions - Rights and Entitlements as a Victim Of Crime​

If the accused person is found guilty or pleads guilty to the crime, you can make a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) telling the court about the impact of the crime on you.

The Victim of Impact Statement (VIS) is one of the things that the court will consider when deciding what sentence the offender should receive.
You can make a VIS if you are a victim of a crime.
(GL HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF THE MURDER OF CAROL CLAY - HENCE, HER DAUGHTER IS NOW CONSIDERED TO BE A VICTIM OF CRIME)
A victim is a person who suffers any of these things as a result of a crime:

• injury ​

• loss or damage ​

• grief ​

• distress ​

• trauma ​

• other significant adverse effects. ​

This means that a victim can be:

• the person who was directly affected by the crime

• family members (and in some cases friends) of the person who was directly affected by the crime

• other people who witnessed the crime.

Carol Clay's daughter is a family member of a person who was Murdered!

 

[changintimes]

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

Thankyou so much Cliff, you sent me off looking for your meaning and this is what I discovered, so very kind of you!

What is white noise, and does it help you sleep? — Calm Blog

White noise can be a game-changer for those struggling with sleep. We’re delving into the science, the benefits, and how it compares to the other noise colors.

www.calm.com

 

[changintimes]

This information contradicts your original post (with the incorrect link to it)

The following post also has an inaccurate description of who is considered a victim of crime.

Carol Clay's daughter is indeed a victim of crime.
I take it that you have misunderstood the information that you have provided or failed to see how Carol's daughter is a Victim of Crime. Hopefully, this clarifies it for you....

GREGORY STUART LYNN was found GUILTY of the MURDER of Carol Clay on Tue 25 Jun 2024.

Office of Public Prosecutions - Rights and Entitlements as a Victim Of Crime​

If the accused person is found guilty or pleads guilty to the crime, you can make a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) telling the court about the impact of the crime on you.

The Victim of Impact Statement (VIS) is one of the things that the court will consider when deciding what sentence the offender should receive.
You can make a VIS if you are a victim of a crime.
(GL HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF THE MURDER OF CAROL CLAY - HENCE, HER DAUGHTER IS NOW CONSIDERED TO BE A VICTIM OF CRIME)
A victim is a person who suffers any of these things as a result of a crime:

• injury ​

• loss or damage ​

• grief ​

• distress ​

• trauma ​

• other significant adverse effects. ​

This means that a victim can be:

• the person who was directly affected by the crime
• family members (and in some cases friends) of the person who was directly affected by the crime
• other people who witnessed the crime.

Carol Clay's daughter is a family member of a person who was Murdered!

The information I posted was relevant to "relatives" of a victim so yes, the victim was CC so any of her relatives are able to use the VOCAT processes to seek compensation.

 

[wallyworld]

Thankyou so much Cliff, you sent me off looking for your meaning and this is what I discovered, so very kind of you!

View attachment 520962

What is white noise, and does it help you sleep? — Calm Blog

White noise can be a game-changer for those struggling with sleep. We’re delving into the science, the benefits, and how it compares to the other noise colors.

www.calm.com

You needed to look a little further....

WHITE NOISE - DICTIONARY DEFINITION​

noun​

1: a heterogeneous mixture of sound waves extending over a wide frequency range compare PINK NOISE

2: a constant background noise
especially : one that drowns out other sounds

3: meaningless or distracting commotion, hubbub, or chatter
the white noise of policy and politics in America—Joseph Nocera

IMO the definition Cliff would have been referring to would have been #3

 

[wallyworld]

The information I posted was relevant to "relatives" of a victim so yes, the victim was CC so any of her relatives are able to use the VOCAT processes to seek compensation.

As I said you have contradicted yourself....
this is from your post:

I don't believe your explanation is correct. This is what the Victims of Crime website (Victoria) states about seeking compensation from the offender; in the first paragraph it is stated "... of the crime committed against you".

The crime was not committed against any member of the Clay family.