Australia - Russell Hill & Carol Clay Murdered While Camping - Wonnangatta Valley, 2020 #8

[TootsieFootsie]

Less than 10 minutes to the official court finish for the day time in Victoria.
Looking like deliberations will continue on Monday.

 

[SouthAussie]

The prosecution may have had difficulty proving their case. But Lynn sure as heck didn't show his case very well. Because he destroyed all of the evidence.

So the jury has to decide whose story is more believable.

The prosecution's story that Lynn destroyed all the evidence - every single little piece of it - because he murdered Russell and Carol.
Or Lynn's story that he destroyed all of the evidence because he was scared of being blamed.

I think the jury also need to decide is it reasonable to think that two people died violent deaths 'accidently' - and differently - in a short period of time.

imo

 

[drsleuth]

Have faith guys & girls, the jury has barley had time to begin deliberations

As for the judges comments re there was "one narrow path to a unanimous verdict of guilty, but any number of paths to a unanimous verdict of not guilty".

Remember the jurors only really need one path to a unanimous verdict of guilty!

'One narrow path to unanimous' guilty verdicts in Greg Lynn trial, jurors told

Deliberations in the murder trial of Greg Lynn, accused of killing two Victorian campers, will begin next week.

www.abc.net.au

 

[PIMaz]

From the Age "But with trials only sitting for half a day on Fridays — and not at all on weekends — the first full day of deliberations will not take place until next week." I guess the 1/2 a day would be instructing the jury, they probably did not have time to deliberate. If they take all of Monday to come to a verdict then I think the "one narrow path to a unanimous verdict of guilty" could be hard to reach. Let see what happens on Monday..... I never would have thought I would be saying let the weekend go quickly.

 

[emirates1957]

The only chance I can see of that happening is if one juror, for whatever reason, just won't budge and it ends up locked at 11-1. It happens. Let's just hope it doesn't happen here.

There were 14 jurors 8 men and 6 women.

 

[JBowie]

As for the judges comments re there was "one narrow path to a unanimous verdict of guilty, but any number of paths to a unanimous verdict of not guilty".

Once again, I am extremely unimpressed by this judge. Seems to me he's hellbent on talking the jury into a not guilty decision.

 

[emirates1957]

Trying to remember, because I've never been a drinker.
I seem to remember anything alcoholic was off limits to us.

Geeez….I’ve been known to have a vodka on the treadmill !! No Jury service for me.

 

[BreakingNews]

There were 14 jurors 8 men and 6 women.

But aren't the last 2 to be empanelled just there in case of illness. Jury only has 12. The last 2 can't comment.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

ABC 5 hours ago, updated 24 minutes ago

'One narrow path to unanimous' guilty verdicts in Greg Lynn trial, jurors told

Deliberations in the murder trial of Greg Lynn, accused of killing two Victorian campers, will begin next week.

www.abc.net.au

Jurors in the double murder trial of alleged camper killer Greg Lynn have been sent out to consider their verdicts.

But with the trial sitting for half a day on Friday — and not at all on weekends — the first full day of deliberations will not take place until next week.

Two reserve jurors — who were empanelled as a precaution in case of sickness or other issues — were discharged before the remaining 12 were sent to consider their verdicts.

"Take as little or as much time as you need," the judge said.

They were instructed on the four elements that comprise a charge of murder.

Those elements are:

• A person's death was caused by an act performed by the accused
• The act causing death was performed consciously, voluntarily and deliberately by the accused
• The accused performed the act causing death intending to kill the other person or intending to cause that person at least really serious injury; and
• The accused performed the act causing death while not acting in self defence

The 12 people in whose hands Mr Lynn's fate rests will consider whether those elements have been met from Monday.



Me>>> I wonder how much time they consider "little"

 

[JBowie]

They were instructed on the four elements that comprise a charge of murder.

Those elements are:

• A person's death was caused by an act performed by the accused

TRUE

• The act causing death was performed consciously, voluntarily and deliberately by the accused

TRUE

• The accused performed the act causing death intending to kill the other person or intending to cause that person at least really serious injury; and

TRUE

• The accused performed the act causing death while not acting in self defence

TRUE


GUILTY!

 

[discostu]

But aren't the last 2 to be empanelled just there in case of illness. Jury only has 12. The last 2 can't comment.

That’s correct, there was a ballot and 2 of them were excused before they were sent off to deliberate. There are now 6 men and 6 women left to decide.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/next-steps-for-jury-in-former-jetstar-captains-double-murder-trial-over-russell-hill-and-carol-clay-deaths/news-story/9bc5d4c3a1ffa55b63a592182ee1caaa?amp

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Greg Lynn trial: jury retires to consider verdict in high country murders of Russell Hill and Carol Clay

Jury expected to return on Monday to deliberate over former pilot who has pleaded not guilty to double murder

www.theguardian.com

Greg Lynn trial: jury retires to consider verdict in high country murders of Russell Hill and Carol Clay​

I don't think the Judge is too happy with the Prosecutions case.

 

[JudgeJudi]

As it's an important and difficult trial, I've transcribed the following (some verbatim).

PART 1 OF 2
Prosecution’s closing address to the jury (most relevant parts)
GL says they died accidentally in separate, instantaneous or near fatal instances, both brought about by RH’s conduct. It is a complete fiction and you can and should readily reject it beyond reasonable doubt. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. That onus never shifts even when an accused has given a version of events. However, just because an accused has provided responses in an interview and evidence in the witness box, that does not mean you have to accept his account. It’s entirely for you to decide whether you accept or reject anything he said in his interview and evidence. However, if you do reject what he said, you still have to determine whether the prosecution has proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

If RH’s plan was to confiscate the firearm, then he would have put it in his Landcruiser cabin, canopy or tent, so why load it? On GL’s account, RH was loading it and struggling with the magazine when GL realised what was going on, and it’s loaded before he confronts RH about it? RH hasn’t grabbed the magazine and loaded it once GL confronts him. He was loading it anyway according to GL. If you’re a person concerned about firearm safety, you’ve snuck up to GL’s campsite to confiscate his gun and you’re trying to do that without him knowing, why are you loading it when all you’re looking to do is take it back to your campsite? RH’s taking it back to his campsite. It’s going to remain there with him and CC for some period of time. They’re not leaving immediately. GL thinks they’ve gone to bed. Even if they haven’t, they’re not leaving the valley at night because GL’s account is that it’s dark by now. At some point, GL is going to turn the music off and shut the car for the night, and when he does, he’s going to notice that the gun and magazine are missing, and once that happens, he’s going to know it’s been taken by either RH or CC. They’re the only ones at the campsite.

RH is supposed to have taken the Barathrum arms but has left GL with another gun and ammunition. If you’re going to confiscate the gun of a person you’re not on the best terms with, who you’ve allegedly been provocative towards and you’re doing it to eventually report him to the police, don’t you think you’d made sure he wasn’t left with another gun?

In the face of all that, GL’s account makes no sense. It didn’t happen. GL then gives that description of the altercation with RH. Think about this when you’re considering that explanation. GL says that he approaches RH and asks for his gun back. RH refuses and says he’s taking it to the cops. Shoots off 2 or 3 warning shots into the air. RH tells him to fu*k off. On GL’s account he effectively does just that and stops engaging with RH.

He ducks out of sight of the driver’s side of the Landcruiser and says it’s because he doesn’t want to get shot in the back. Yet RH’s apparently not satisfied with that, not satisfied just by only having fired warning shots, on GL’s account RH is suddenly out for blood because the next thing GL says happens is that he sees RH approaching the side of the Landcruiser where he’s hiding and sees the barrel of the firearm appear over the bonnet with the gun already cocked and ready to fire. Mr Griffiths’ evidence was that you had to re- the firearm every time you want to fire it. On GL’s account, RH has been able to successfully able to load a firearm that he’s unfamiliar with, cocked it, let off a couple of warning shots, cocked it again, let off another warning shot and then cocked it a third time and pointed it over the bonnet towards GL. That you might think has to be part of the story because it gives GL an opportunity to grab the gun so he can engage in a struggle over it and for it to accidentally discharge. But then after GL finally lets go of the gun, which it seems he’s only going to do once CC has been killed and GL gets it back, what’s the first thing GL says he does? He clears the magazine of the bullets by shooting one over the river. He’s finally got in a position of advantage over RH, the man who on his account was only moments before approaching him in his hiding spot with that gun ready to fire, and he’s immediately rendered the firearm unusable.

The prosecution closes

 

[JudgeJudi]

PART 2 OF 2
Prosecution’s closing address to the jury (most relevant parts)

[Rifle and shotgun]
There are certain points where GL, a man you might think is very careful and methodical, falls down on the detail, things he claims not to be able to remember or where he gives an inconsistent answer. One such inconsistency is how he describes the gun. He’s a shooting enthusiast and told you he’s been shooting since the age of 16 when he went shooting with his father. He explained to you how his Barathrum arms was set up. He was very keen on correcting Mr Griffiths about how to hold it, explained what sort of shooting the rifle is good for versus the shotgun, told you how to use the laser point on the gun, to point the dot on the deer, how to focus on its heart and lungs. Yet look at how he describes the firearm that RH is said to have confiscated. Remember, it’s a shotgun yet, yet, at answer 369 he said he approaches RH to retrieve the rifle and RH tells him to fu*k off. At answer 373 in his interview he says he saw the rifle popping up over the bonnet. At answer 693 he says while they’re struggling at the bonnet, RH’s hands were on the rifle. At answer 774 describes the so-called struggle with the knife where he grabbed RH’s wrist again, the same as like he did with the rifle, and he made the same error in his evidence before you. He started to say he put the shotgun away after hunting, then corrected himself and said the rifle. The reason that might have been given for those sorts of inconsistencies – panic, stress. Yet the time, on his account, he’d been most panicked would have been during the incident itself.

The prosecution alleges that all the relevant circumstances, including the violent deaths of 2 people in close proximity, point to each of RH and CC being killed deliberately and without lawful justification. The prosecution does not need to prove motive. What we do say it is likely GL bore some animosity towards RH and CC, and most probably towards RH. There is no evidence that these people had a pre-existing relationship with one another. The only contact they had was as campers, so it is commonsense to assume that there must have been a disagreement regarding events at the campsite. It may possibly have been over RH’s drone or footage on the drone because the drone was one of the items that was taken from the campsite. The photos of the model 10 (ui) drone show it had a cradle for a mobile phone to be used as its camera or viewfinder. RH’s mobile appears to have been on at the same time he was murdered, given it reconnected to the network the following morning when driven in GL’s car. As he and CC had been in the valley, a place with no mobile reception for more than a day before they were murdered, you can infer that the phone had been on because he was using it in the drone.

The prosecution alleges that RH was killed first, in part this is because CC is very unlikely to have provoked a violent confrontation involving the firearm with which she was killed, or to have posed any threat to GL other than having been a witness to RH’s violent death. Also, if he had been alive when CC was shot, he would have called for help using his radio. It was in working order on the night as he had used it on the 6pm net. In fact, it was in working order when it was tested afterwards. Mr Francis said that if you make a call for help on any amateur radio at any time of the day or night, even outside usual net hours, you’d be likely to get someone answer who could provide help or at least call for help. If you are satisfied that RH was killed first, you can find that CC was killed because she was a witness to RH’s violent death. In other words, she was eliminated because she was a witness.

You might think that the act of burning of the bodies is conduct that is so extreme that it could only have been done after their murders. In other words, if they were accidental or unintentional, why would you go to the extreme and extraordinary step of burning the bodies.
Incinerating their remains is so disproportionate to an accidental or unintentional killing. You can use this evidence together with all other incriminating conduct evidence to reason that GL murdered RH and CC.

The evidence needed to determine cause of death had been obliterated by the apparent decomposition and the burning and fragmentation of the remains. All the testing that forensic pathologists might do to assist in establishing the cause of death was not possible in this case. Whatever had caused their deaths had been masked by the changes that had been brought about to their bodies by the burning and fragmentation.

The prosecution closes

 

[TootsieFootsie]

@JudgeJudi

I hope someone like you is on the jury.

 

[SouthAussie]

@JudgeJudi

I hope someone like you is on the jury.

As the foreperson, in particular.

 

[JudgeJudi]

@JudgeJudi

I hope someone like you is on the jury.

I always wanted to be on a jury, but was only called up once. Unfortunately because of where I worked, I wasn't eligible. I could have wept.

 

[Kemug]

I always wanted to be on a jury, but was only called up once. Unfortunately because of where I worked, I wasn't eligible. I could have wept.

I feel for you, sister

 

[JudgeJudi]

There's still that one giant elephant in the room. What happened to the trailer? They searched high and low for it and said they'd keep looking right up until the trial. The prosecution must have had a good reason for not asking him about it.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Jurors in the double murder trial of alleged camper killer Greg Lynn have been sent out to consider their verdicts.

"Take as little or as much time as you need," the judge said.

Me>>> I wonder how much time they consider "little"

In a murder trial where a unanimous decision is required, IMO I'd consider half a day to be "little". Counsel really sweat on jury verdicts no matter how experienced they are.