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

[Panda]

yes, and I find it strange that Victoria Detective Inspector Andrew Stamper stated that his investigators were investigating who started the fire and then later extinguished it...that would imply that it was a controlled fire--not a quickly set on fire and run away type of arson. It was deliberate and someone remained at the scene while everything burned.

I don't recall anything about the fire being intentionally extinguished. Only that it was extinguished by the time it was discovered. Where did you find that information?

 

[Black-Cat]

This I struggle with... He logged up there for how many years? Knows the place like the back of his hand, yet has never been, and doesn't have a map of the area? decides to hope he gets contact with one of his HAM radio friends for directions instead of buying a map at any number of service stations on his drive up? didn't download the google maps map of the area? no satnav amongst his electronic toys?

Yes and I read somewhere he had asked for directions to Dargo, which I also thought he’d know if he new the place like the back of his hand! I actually wonder if he was the experienced bushman that people claimed, I got the feeling he thought he was.

 

[Black-Cat]

This I struggle with... He logged up there for how many years? Knows the place like the back of his hand, yet has never been, and doesn't have a map of the area? decides to hope he gets contact with one of his HAM radio friends for directions instead of buying a map at any number of service stations on his drive up? didn't download the google maps map of the area? no satnav amongst his electronic toys?

Yes and I read somewhere he had asked for directions to Dargo, which I also thought he’d know if he new the place like the back of his hand! I actually wonder if he was the experienced bushman that people claimed, I got the feeling he thought he was.

Russell H. spent years working/camping in the Wonnagatta Valley--he was not a novice visitor to the area...nearly every news article about him states that "he knew the area well." He was a highly skilled ham radio operator, as well. His truck was also described as being well fitted for traveling/camping in the valley..."He was very prepared." It makes no sense whatsoever that he would have needed to ask someone for driving directions, imo. He traversed through the valley roads while logging and camping for what appears to be decades...why would he suddenly not know his way around??

Yes I thought that was weird I thought he asked for directions to Dargo which is really well known ... and if you knew the area you’d definitely know Dargo.

 

[Panda]

yes, and I find it strange that Victoria Detective Inspector Andrew Stamper stated that his investigators were investigating who started the fire and then later extinguished it...that would imply that it was a controlled fire--not a quickly set on fire and run away type of arson. It was deliberate and someone remained at the scene while everything burned.

I don't recall anything about the fire being intentionally extinguished. Only that it was extinguished by the time it was discovered. Where did you find that information?

 

[Panda]

It appears to me that it's possible that RH and CC were sitting on their chairs next to their table in front of their tent when something happened...creating microscopic evidence to splatter everywhere...which in turn resulted in their chairs, table and everything else close by to be heaped up on a bonfire. Even the scorched side of their truck seems suspect to me--perhaps, it was purposely burnt to destroy blood splatter evidence.

If you look at the picture of the burned campsite, everything isn't heaped up on a bonfire. The table and chairs are on the outer perimeter of where the tent would have been and the table appears only partly damaged - it can clearly be seen on its side. The scorched marks on the vehicle look to be made from the tent poles which would have fallen against the vehicle, which was originally pointed out from someone else (Ramjet I think, from memory).

 

[SouthAussie]

There are a bunch of images here of various tents on fire. The flames can get pretty high and can stretch in different directions.

tent on fire - بحث Google

 

[Midwestmom2019]

There are a bunch of images here of various tents on fire. The flames can get pretty high and can stretch in different directions.

tent on fire - بحث Google

I love fire. Playing with it. Cooking on it. Starting it. Spreading it around on the ground with whatever I have handy. Shovel. Poking stick. Metal rod. Rake. In a fireplace. Outside. In plant pots to burn files. Every chance I get. Fire destroys everything you feed it. The remains of this fire led me to believe wherever it started, whether human or accident, had a little help keeping it going. A slight breeze or human direction. Bc it burned so much. Just enough to do what the fire wanted to do. But not everything. And it was cold when discovered. If it was set by attackers to cover blood, it would not look like this. Attackers would be in a frenzy get it burned ASAP. They would be moving everything around to help the fire burn as fast as possible. Nothing would be standing up. Everything would have been flattened out to help spread it horizontally. I can’t explain it any better than that except that I kind of get that impression. That’s all.

 

[Kemug]

I was a bit confused about TIA.
I've only seen it used as an abbreviation for Thanks in Advance.
But it didn't fit with what was written here.
Had to google. I see it's what I and my friends would say is a mini stroke.

I need to apologise for using "TIA", but not explaining it. I am used to saying "TIA" in my (somewhat elderly) circles!

 

[Kemug]

I was going to ask if anyone knows where Carol was on the previous weekend when Russell was camping on his own (or not?) - but I suppose she would have been moving into her new home? If I sound confused, it's because I am

Another post I need to apologise for. I was thinking that Carol moved into her new home a week before, but no, she had "settled on a new home" a week before - so she was still living in her old home when Russell picked her up for the trip, and of course her neighbour knew who he was. And of course LE found that address on her drivers licence. So sorry!

 

[JLZ]

Another post I need to apologise for. I was thinking that Carol moved into her new home a week before, but no, she had "settled on a new home" a week before - so she was still living in her old home when Russell picked her up for the trip, and of course her neighbour knew who he was. And of course LE found that address on her drivers licence. So sorry!

It's confusing . . . was she already living there before settlement?

Ms Clay, a mother of three who separated from her partner several years ago, had for several months been living by herself in a new Pakenham home when she left with Mr Hill to go camping.

The property, built in the past year and close to Pakenham shops and train station, settled on March 12, seven days before the pair left.

Those close to Ms Clay say she was happy and content in her new home.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...days-before-camping-trip-20200422-p54m7y.html

 

[Midwestmom2019]

It's confusing . . . was she already living there before settlement?

Ms Clay, a mother of three who separated from her partner several years ago, had for several months been living by herself in a new Pakenham home when she left with Mr Hill to go camping.

The property, built in the past year and close to Pakenham shops and train station, settled on March 12, seven days before the pair left.

Those close to Ms Clay say she was happy and content in her new home.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...days-before-camping-trip-20200422-p54m7y.html

We’re not confused. The media is confused.

 

[Tinker Taylor]

Another post I need to apologise for. I was thinking that Carol moved into her new home a week before, but no, she had "settled on a new home" a week before - so she was still living in her old home when Russell picked her up for the trip, and of course her neighbour knew who he was. And of course LE found that address on her drivers licence. So sorry!

In this country, when you "settle" on a property, it means ownership transfers to you. So that is the date of sale, not the date of signing a contract.

What is a little confusing is that she was there "for several months". Sometimes people will rent until settlement or there is a agreement with the vendor that the purchaser can move in once the contracts are signed.

If we can believe the quote from The Age posted by JLZ above, then this is what happened. So she had already been living in the house prior to settlement and did not move in the week before.

 

[neesaki]

neesaki--TIA is a mini-stroke. As of now, there is no known motive for using the drone.
TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack)

Well , as a retired RN I am actually aware of that, lol. But in this case, TIA is “thanks in advance”.... Websleuths lingo. Thanks for looking out for me though.
Why did he say they know the motive? I have no idea, so just asking.

 

[neesaki]

I was a bit confused about TIA.
I've only seen it used as an abbreviation for Thanks in Advance.
But it didn't fit with what was written here.
Had to google. I see it's what I and my friends would say is a mini stroke.

Why is there for confusion about saying “thanks in advance” when you ask someone a question? You guys are confusing me, or maybe I just don’t know WTH is going on, LOL.

 

[Panda]

In this country, when you "settle" on a property, it means ownership transfers to you. So that is the date of sale, not the date of signing a contract.

What is a little confusing is that she was there "for several months". Sometimes people will rent until settlement or there is a agreement with the vendor that the purchaser can move in once the contracts are signed.

If we can believe the quote from The Age posted by JLZ above, then this is what happened. So she had already been living in the house prior to settlement and did not move in the week before.

I was thinking along the same lines. What confused me, is that the article says the property was built in the last year and she had been living there for several months, and yet it didn't settle until March the 12th. So she must have moved in (if the accuracy of the article is to be believed) shortly after it was built. So why would it take until the 12th of March to settle? Unless she bought it from someone who had just built it, after renting for some months, which is pretty unusual, as usually they would continue to rent it. Not that it really makes any difference I suppose.

 

[Kemug]

Oh dear, I need to apologize again When I wrote "TIA" originally I certainly meant a mini-stroke - I don't believe I have ever used TIA to mean "thanks in advance". I must be more careful in future. And I am still confused about the house, and I probably always will be!

 

[Tinker Taylor]

I was thinking along the same lines. What confused me, is that the article says the property was built in the last year and she had been living there for several months, and yet it didn't settle until March the 12th. So she must have moved in (if the accuracy of the article is to be believed) shortly after it was built. So why would it take until the 12th of March to settle? Unless she bought it from someone who had just built it, after renting for some months, which is pretty unusual, as usually they would continue to rent it. Not that it really makes any difference I suppose.

It was most likely a spec home, built to sell. Looks like it took a while to sell so there was no one previously living there. Builder was probably also the owner and was happy to have her living there from the time she signed the contract and paid the deposit to settlement, which usually takes 6-8weeks.

 

[Satchie]

It appears to me that it's possible that RH and CC were sitting on their chairs next to their table in front of their tent when something happened...creating microscopic evidence to splatter everywhere...which in turn resulted in their chairs, table and everything else close by to be heaped up on a bonfire. Even the scorched side of their truck seems suspect to me--perhaps, it was purposely burnt to destroy blood splatter evidence.

IMO if there had been significant evidence in the tent, there would probably have been evidence outside the tent, because the couple were not found in the tent, they would have left a trail in leaving it. Also, it seems to me fire is a very random method of trying to get rid of forensic evidence in this circumstance. If you wanted to conceal evidence on the side of a vehicle, for eg, you would wipe it down, not set fire to something nearby.

It further strikes me, that arson is a very atypical crime. IMO it doesn't even occur to a petty thief to also set fire to something. They just want to get away from the scene. Arsonists are specifically wanting to destroy by fire, because of anger, or for thrills. Inside an Arsonist's Mind But if that were the case here, a tent is hardly satisfying to an arsonist when they could also set fire to the vehicle, or the forest.

I just can't currently see a link between the fire and the disappearances, and yet, how could it just have been pure coincidence?

 

[Tinker Taylor]

I just can't currently see a link between the fire and the disappearances, and yet, how could it just have been pure coincidence?

Yes, yes, yes.

 

[Kemug]

I've also been trying to make sense of the fire, and narrow the options down to just a few that I can believe are possible. This is where I've got so far:

*accidental, caused by RH and CC
*accidental, caused by someone or something unknown

*deliberate, caused by someone to destroy evidence, or to mislead, or to intimidate
*deliberate, caused by someone acting out of anger, revenge, etc.
*deliberate, caused by RH and CC to mislead (in the fairly unlikely but still possible) event that they have embarked on a new life together.