Found Deceased Australia - Russell Hill, 74, & Carol Clay, 72, Wonnangatta Valley, 20 March 2020 #3

[Bats]

I would agree with you, except for the controlled tent fire. And the locking of the vehicle. That wasn't a couple of idiots. That was calculated.

Yeah, i think its neither here nor there with locking of the vehicle... the controlled fire is very suspicious though. When i say a couple of idiots, and i do believe there is more than one, i mean idiots for what they've done. They may be fairly intelligent individuals normally... but idiots

 

[Bats]

I would agree with you, except for the controlled tent fire. And the locking of the vehicle. That wasn't a couple of idiots. That was calculated.

Yeah, i think its neither here nor there with locking of the vehicle... the controlled fire is very suspicious though. When i say a couple of idiots, and i do believe there is more than one, i mean idiots for what they've done. They may be fairly intelligent individuals normally... but idiots

 

[Marchalot]

What we have heard (I think it was on Under Investigation) is that the locals think Russell came across a drug crop.

And they said no drug crops were found in the area, nor a place where drug crops might have been.

If it was drug crops, could it be in another area from where the camp was ? Another place RH was interested in , Then followed? .... the scene looks like hunters though

 

[Marchalot]

What we have heard (I think it was on Under Investigation) is that the locals think Russell came across a drug crop.

And they said no drug crops were found in the area, nor a place where drug crops might have been.

If it was drug crops, could it be in another area from where the camp was ? Another place RH was interested in , Then followed? .... the scene looks like hunters though

 

[SouthAussie]

Yeah, i think its neither here nor there with locking of the vehicle... the controlled fire is very suspicious though. When i say a couple of idiots, and i do believe there is more than one, i mean idiots for what they've done. They may be fairly intelligent individuals normally... but idiots

I dunno. It all seems very weird for a happenchance event. And very soon after arrival.

Russell (and probably Carol, too?) was at Wonnangatta Station at 6pm.
A clear ham radio transmission. "Gotta go now and set up camp".
Drive to the camp location.
Sunset at 7:24pm.
Gone.
The burned tent/fire was cold at 2pm next day (IIRC).

 

[Bats]

I dunno. It all seems very weird for a happenchance event. And very soon after arrival.

Russell (and probably Carol, too?) was at Wonnangatta Station at 6pm.
A clear ham radio transmission. "Gotta go now and set up camp".
Drive to the camp location.
Sunset at 7:24pm.
Gone.
The burned tent/fire was cold at 2pm next day (IIRC).

Yep, i totally agree...this is definitely a weird one!

I think there's a lot we (us armchair investigators), don't know about with what happened between the last radio call and when someone would have been due to have a toilet break.

One point, whomever rummaged through a wallet or purse that was inside the car didn't really hide that. So, IMO whether the car door was locked or unlocked doesn't make much difference.

 

[SouthAussie]

One point, whomever rummaged through a wallet or purse that was inside the car didn't really hide that. So, IMO whether the car door was locked or unlocked doesn't make much difference.

The difference it makes is that locking the vehicle made sure no-one else could access the vehicle easily.

What bearing that has on the case (if any) is not clear. To stop Carol and/or Russell quickly escaping? To stop Carol and/or Russell quickly locking themselves in the vehicle? To stop someone else from stealing the vehicle?

It is unclear if the wallet(s) in the vehicle was rummaged through prior to Carol and Russell's demise or after their demise.

 

[Bats]

The difference it makes is that locking the vehicle made sure no-one else could access the vehicle easily.

What bearing that has on the case (if any) is not clear. To stop Carol and/or Russell quickly escaping? To stop Carol and/or Russell quickly locking themselves in the vehicle? To stop someone else from stealing the vehicle?

It is unclear if the wallet(s) in the vehicle was rummaged through prior to Carol and Russell's demise or after their demise.

I think all of your points there are possible scenarios SouthAussie...

Though IMO, the tampering with the belongings in car must have happened after their demise ... whatever happened...

 

[4Erica]

New theory: no hitman
All BBM

SouthAussie -
"I dunno. It all seems very weird for a happenchance event. And very soon after arrival.

Russell (and probably Carol, too?) was at Wonnangatta Station at 6pm.
A clear ham radio transmission. "Gotta go now and set up camp".
Drive to the camp location.
Sunset at 7:24pm.
Gone.
The burned tent/fire was cold at 2pm next day (IIRC)."


“I think they’ve been murdered”
"Over the years, the pair had camped together regularly with their wives and other radio club members.

They had even spent time in the Wonnangatta Valley, which was a favorite spot of Mr Hill’s.

... unwritten rule about checking in via radio at 6pm each night."

Police to take another look at vehicle of missing camper | Daily Mail Online
"That was our communication because the phones don't work out there in Wonnangatta. Normally radios would get out because that's what they would use when they were logging up there,' Mrs Hill said."
"They all get on at the same time and once I heard Russell I knew, on the Friday, that he was fine. But then I didn't hear him again,' she said.
'I'm just cleaning up now. It's just all the radio stuff - the antennas,' she said"
"Some days are better than others,' she said. '(Family) have been coming up a little bit, but the virus is keeping people away. I'm a bit of a loner so it's not to bad."

Wife of missing camper Russell Hill found out via a news report that police believe he was murdered | Daily Mail Online
"Two days later, a woman was seen at Black Snake Creek waiting to use a long-drop toilet, police said.

An older couple were also seen driving from Black Snake Creek hut, with the woman described as wearing lipstick and 'looked out out of place'."

“I think they’ve been murdered”
"On the Monday night, when Mr Hill still hadn’t made contact, it was Mr Ashlin who advised Mr Hill’s wife, Robyn, it was out of the ordinary and to call the police.

“I thought I’m sniffing a bad rat here,” Mr Ashlin said."


If you knew how to operate a ham radio and took it with you to track your prey, powered by a white Ute possibly (?) sneaking up on an illuminated tent at night (especially if they were preoccupied setting up camp) would be like shooting fish in a barrel. And an angry spouse IMO would want to look through things. Who knows what was really missing from the vehicle?More than bank cards, phones an a drone IMO - but that would be a great red herring to chase around. Be sure to lock up though! Either through habit or because you know it will be coming back to you and you want it in good condition!
Motive, motive, motive - JMHO etc, etc

 

[DianeElaine]

I’ve been wondering about the how and when of the setting of the fire at the camp site—-dealing with Carol and Russell first, rifling through the vehicle and tent, assembling the items the culprit(s) wanted to burn, then setting the fire. I believe I’ve read there was evidence the fire had been “tended”—-meaning it had not just been set and allowed to burn without any interference, due to the probability the fire could have spread to the surrounding areas if not stopped. The culprit(s) doused the fire before it could spread, but only after consuming the tent contents to their satisfaction.

So we’ve got those activities going on, and if this took place at night in the dark, it stands to reason it would have taken a bit longer perhaps to rifle through the tent and environs looking for valuables, as compared to doing these things during daylight hours. Rifling through the vehicle, being such a small and enclosed space, probably wouldn’t have taken much longer in the dark as opposed to in the light. And the fact the vehicle was rifled through leads me to think it’s probable the tent was rifled through, too, looking for valuables.

Then the “tending” of the fire idea—-I really have no idea how long it would have taken for the fire to consume the tent, to the satisfaction of the culprit(s), before the fire was stopped. But it wouldn’t have been just a few minutes, right?

So here are some questions that have been bothering me:

—if the burning of the tent happened at night, it seems to me the fire becomes a beacon to everyone in the area who’s not asleep who happens to look in their direction. That tent fire would not look like a typical camp fire, right? Now maybe the trees and bushes surrounding the camp site were thick enough and tall enough to obscure the flames—-is that possible? Without knowing that, I keep thinking anyone not asleep in that area was likely to see the fire or smell the smoke. And then, what are the chances someone would try to find out where the fire is and go to the site to find out what’s going on? I really don’t know but it’s got to have been something the culprit(s) were afraid of, namely attracting attention to what they were doing while they were doing it.

—how long did the culprit(s) wait after setting the fire before they doused it and left the area?

If all these activities happened during daylight hours (before sunset at 7:31 pm), but after Russell’s radio call about 6:00 pm, it’s possible the culprit(s) could have completed their nasty work and gotten out of there more quickly, maybe before sunset or soon after. I really don’t know. Sure, smoke from the fire would have wafted about in the area and been the same cause for attention as if the flames and smoke had been noticed during the nighttime hours. And in the daytime hours, more local folks would have been awake and more likely (?) to come sniffing around if their suspicions had been aroused. Could the culprit(s) have posted a sentry outside the camp to alert them if unwanted ‘neighbors’ came nosing around while the crime was taking place? How many culprits were there anyway?

Just a quick thought: in order to see the flames of the fire, people would have to be looking at or in that area. But no one needs to be looking in any particular area in order to smell smoke from a fire. Would the smoke from the burning of items in the tent have smelled different from a typical wood fire? Maybe. Is it likely there were a number of wood fires burning in other peoples’ camp fires at times during the day and night in the area? Definitely. It might have even been something the perpetrator(s) counted on.

Meanwhile, the fact that Russell’s portable toilet appears not to have been used leads me to think the crime occurred soon after his radio call, when we know all was well.

So while I’ve been going on and on here, a few things have gotten a bit clearer to me. If the crime was committed between 6:00 pm and 7:31 pm, it seems quite unlikely to me that it was a random crime. It would have taken all or most of 90 minutes or maybe even more for the culprit(s) to commit the crime, wait for the tent contents to be completely destroyed, then put out the fire (with water or something else they brought with them??) and skedaddle, leaving no time for a random “happening”. Add to that the lack of “street lights” on the road (I’m assuming here as I don’t live in Australia and have no familiarity with the area) to and from the camp would have made it slow going for the escape vehicle after sunset, presumably with the deceased in the back and adrenaline running high.

So, did the culprit(s) follow Russell and Carol to their camp, wait for him to complete the radio call at 6:00 pm (because they knew it would delay discovery of the crime) then swoop in, murder them quickly in cold blood, do the rifling in the tent and vehicle, set the fire and wait for it to consume the contents before dousing it, and then escape the crime scene with their bodies? And then, because no one wants to ride around with dead people in their vehicle, presumably the culprit(s) would have gone to a pre-selected grave site that night to bury them, or more likely early the following day, when they could see what they were doing. Sounds like “organized” thinking on the part of the perpetrator(s) to me, if that’s what happened. And as someone else recently posted, I also think there was more than 1 perpetrator.

Thanks for bearing with me. This is an atrocious crime and my heart goes out to their loved ones and friends. Let’s hope the police are able to solve the crime and bring those responsible to justice.

 

[Theodora]

We know that Carol had a daughter. My impression from this article, if the information is correct, is that she had no other children. "Ms Clay, 73, who has a daughter,..." I assume this information was provided by the friend of Carol who's quoted in the story.
Mystery-elderly-friends-vanished-remote-camping-trip.html
I've also seen Carol described as a grandmother, so it appears her daughter has at least one child, so her immediate family would probably consist of the daughter, grandchild(aren) and daughter's partner/spouse plus any of Carol's siblings, nieces and nephews.
I think it's quite likely Carol confided in her daughter and others close to her about her relationship with Russell but she may not have said she was going to be with him on that weekend. It's hard to imagine she would say she was going camping alone, although she might not have told her family she was camping. If I recall correctly. her friendly neighbour knew she was going camping with Russeel because he saw him collect her.

I have found it very difficult to ascertain a viable motivation for murderers (as I think there must have been two) to do away with two people such as Carol and Russell. It appears that in the above article the media found out that some of Carol's family were aware even though another article stated that she told them she was going away alone. I have found it very difficult to believe that Russell's side of the family did not know or at least suspect it after so many years. Therefore, IMO, two people from either family could have followed Russell and Carol (or even paid others to do so) because they were angry with the secrecy and wanted to confront them about it as their inheritance was at stake or even Carol's ex-husband could have been angry that Carol divorced him to marry Russell but it had not happened and he felt deceived. There could have been an argument at the campsite when they were discovered together and the rest is history. Fire represents passion.

No representatives of either family have ever come out to give an interview on TV or shown any concern for them ever since. I wonder why that is? Russell's wife just called him a "silly old bugger".

 

[SouthAussie]

We know that Carol had a daughter. My impression from this article, if the information is correct, is that she had no other children. "Ms Clay, 73, who has a daughter,..." I assume this information was provided by the friend of Carol who's quoted in the story.
Mystery-elderly-friends-vanished-remote-camping-trip.html
I've also seen Carol described as a grandmother, so it appears her daughter has at least one child, so her immediate family would probably consist of the daughter, grandchild(aren) and daughter's partner/spouse plus any of Carol's siblings, nieces and nephews.
I think it's quite likely Carol confided in her daughter and others close to her about her relationship with Russell but she may not have said she was going to be with him on that weekend. It's hard to imagine she would say she was going camping alone, although she might not have told her family she was camping. If I recall correctly. her friendly neighbour knew she was going camping with Russeel because he saw him collect her.

"Both of these people have large and loving families who are grieving at the moment, and they want answers about where their loved ones are."
Police say drone could hold vital clues about disappearance of elderly campers


I agree that Carol would have told someone(s) where she was going. And I doubt it would have been enough for her own child to not know a few details ... like who Carol would be with, and where she was staying, and how/when they would communicate so they would know Carol was safe.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think all of your points there are possible scenarios SouthAussie...

Though IMO, the tampering with the belongings in car must have happened after their demise ... whatever happened...

I am not sure that the tampering had to happen after their demise. For example, there are far too many accounts of people who are restrained and have to watch/hear horrible things happening to their loved ones.

 

[4Erica]

I am not sure that the tampering had to happen after their demise. For example, there are far too many accounts of people who are restrained and have to watch/hear horrible things happening to their loved ones.

That's an excellent point South Aussie. Who says they were dead when they left the campsite. Burn down the thing Russell loved (while he was made to watch?) except the valuable Land Rover, take them elsewhere and let them know how you really feel...

 

[trixie_au]

I’ve been wondering about the how and when of the setting of the fire at the camp site—-dealing with Carol and Russell first, rifling through the vehicle and tent, assembling the items the culprit(s) wanted to burn, then setting the fire. I believe I’ve read there was evidence the fire had been “tended”—-meaning it had not just been set and allowed to burn without any interference, due to the probability the fire could have spread to the surrounding areas if not stopped. The culprit(s) doused the fire before it could spread, but only after consuming the tent contents to their satisfaction.

So we’ve got those activities going on, and if this took place at night in the dark, it stands to reason it would have taken a bit longer perhaps to rifle through the tent and environs looking for valuables, as compared to doing these things during daylight hours. Rifling through the vehicle, being such a small and enclosed space, probably wouldn’t have taken much longer in the dark as opposed to in the light. And the fact the vehicle was rifled through leads me to think it’s probable the tent was rifled through, too, looking for valuables.

Then the “tending” of the fire idea—-I really have no idea how long it would have taken for the fire to consume the tent, to the satisfaction of the culprit(s), before the fire was stopped. But it wouldn’t have been just a few minutes, right?

So here are some questions that have been bothering me:

—if the burning of the tent happened at night, it seems to me the fire becomes a beacon to everyone in the area who’s not asleep who happens to look in their direction. That tent fire would not look like a typical camp fire, right? Now maybe the trees and bushes surrounding the camp site were thick enough and tall enough to obscure the flames—-is that possible? Without knowing that, I keep thinking anyone not asleep in that area was likely to see the fire or smell the smoke. And then, what are the chances someone would try to find out where the fire is and go to the site to find out what’s going on? I really don’t know but it’s got to have been something the culprit(s) were afraid of, namely attracting attention to what they were doing while they were doing it.

—how long did the culprit(s) wait after setting the fire before they doused it and left the area?

If all these activities happened during daylight hours (before sunset at 7:31 pm), but after Russell’s radio call about 6:00 pm, it’s possible the culprit(s) could have completed their nasty work and gotten out of there more quickly, maybe before sunset or soon after. I really don’t know. Sure, smoke from the fire would have wafted about in the area and been the same cause for attention as if the flames and smoke had been noticed during the nighttime hours. And in the daytime hours, more local folks would have been awake and more likely (?) to come sniffing around if their suspicions had been aroused. Could the culprit(s) have posted a sentry outside the camp to alert them if unwanted ‘neighbors’ came nosing around while the crime was taking place? How many culprits were there anyway?

Just a quick thought: in order to see the flames of the fire, people would have to be looking at or in that area. But no one needs to be looking in any particular area in order to smell smoke from a fire. Would the smoke from the burning of items in the tent have smelled different from a typical wood fire? Maybe. Is it likely there were a number of wood fires burning in other peoples’ camp fires at times during the day and night in the area? Definitely. It might have even been something the perpetrator(s) counted on.

Meanwhile, the fact that Russell’s portable toilet appears not to have been used leads me to think the crime occurred soon after his radio call, when we know all was well.

So while I’ve been going on and on here, a few things have gotten a bit clearer to me. If the crime was committed between 6:00 pm and 7:31 pm, it seems quite unlikely to me that it was a random crime. It would have taken all or most of 90 minutes or maybe even more for the culprit(s) to commit the crime, wait for the tent contents to be completely destroyed, then put out the fire (with water or something else they brought with them??) and skedaddle, leaving no time for a random “happening”. Add to that the lack of “street lights” on the road (I’m assuming here as I don’t live in Australia and have no familiarity with the area) to and from the camp would have made it slow going for the escape vehicle after sunset, presumably with the deceased in the back and adrenaline running high.

So, did the culprit(s) follow Russell and Carol to their camp, wait for him to complete the radio call at 6:00 pm (because they knew it would delay discovery of the crime) then swoop in, murder them quickly in cold blood, do the rifling in the tent and vehicle, set the fire and wait for it to consume the contents before dousing it, and then escape the crime scene with their bodies? And then, because no one wants to ride around with dead people in their vehicle, presumably the culprit(s) would have gone to a pre-selected grave site that night to bury them, or more likely early the following day, when they could see what they were doing. Sounds like “organized” thinking on the part of the perpetrator(s) to me, if that’s what happened. And as someone else recently posted, I also think there was more than 1 perpetrator.

Thanks for bearing with me. This is an atrocious crime and my heart goes out to their loved ones and friends. Let’s hope the police are able to solve the crime and bring those responsible to justice.

This is really, really well thought out, and you’ve got an excellent point re the fire. My expectation, from experience, is that pretty much everyone else camping up there would’ve had their own campfires going by the time RH made his radio call. That would be their strongest smell in their own camp, and could’ve easily masked any wafting smell of nylon burning in the distance.

 

[Kemug]

I asked this question months ago, but nobody understood what I was really getting at. I'll try again - did anyone apart from RA and RH hear Russell's last radio call?

 

[Sher Lock]

I asked this question months ago, but nobody understood what I was really getting at. I'll try again - did anyone apart from RA and RH hear Russell's last radio call?

I'm guessing that the other radio club members would have been contributing to the conversation as I think this was a daily occurrence between them all.

 

[Kemug]

No, you're not getting my meaning.

 

[Sher Lock]

No, you're not getting my meaning.

Ok. Take 2.
RH's wife, Robyn heard that call according to newspaper reports.

 

[Kemug]

Nope, not even close. I really mean (OK I'll come out and say it) if noone else at all heard it, how do we know that Friend and Wife aren't making it up? JMO, MOO, and all that.