Australia - Russell Hill & Carol Clay Murdered While Camping - Wonnangatta Valley, 2020 #7


He was caught talking to himself about the deaths of RH and CC before he was accused of their murders.

He had conversations with himself while at various locations - at his home and while camping on his own, at times referring to their deaths.

Prior to his arrest Det. S/C Passingham told the court he heard him speaking in a depressed state. He made comments of his time coming to an end and that his wife had three boys to look after her. Passingham had a feeling he was going to commit suicide.

Why would a man who enjoyed life with his family be talking about these murders if they had nothing to do with him? Why would he also be talking about his time coming to an end and speaking about himself in the past tense. To me that's very incriminating.

ETA: Please click on the post I'm replying to and it will take you to SouthAussie's post. I don't know why it's not showing properly.
 
Last edited:
I think when he talked about the deaths he was trying to either make himself feel better and that it wasn't his fault, or he knew he was being bugged and was putting on an act because he knew sooner or later there would be that knock on the door, especially after seeing the 60 minutes episode which must have freaked him out.

His defence doesn't seem to be saying that he had nothing to do with the deaths of Russell and Carol.

If he and his defence thought that LE had no evidence against him, why not just deny everything.

There doesn't seem any way he's not going to spend time in gaol, even if he's not found guilty of murder.
What he did to the bodies is another crime all on it's own.
 
It was a ping on a mobile phone tower that led police to suspect GL

According to police documents submitted to the Court, a security camera snapped four pictures of GL's Nissan Patrol towing a trailer on Great Alpine Road at 9:48am on March 21, 2020.

RH’s phone had connected to a nearby phone tower at Hotham Heights 10 seconds earlier.

While his phone was switched on, police allege RH was dead.
It would be really helpful if police would publish a timeline of when they made various conclusions.
For instance, police obtained the mobile phone tower records - I have not seen when they did this - and discovered when Mr Hill's phone "pinged" the Hotham Heights phone tower about 9.47am. A Nissan Patrol, later found to belong to Mr Lynn - police have to establish he was driving, is photographed by traffic cameras on the Great Alpine Road at Buckland’s Gap, about 9.48am. The tower is described as being "near by". The vehicle is towing a box trailer. I have not seen when police obtained the photographs from the traffic camera. My understanding is that a phone tower can provide the general direction, from the tower, the phone is located when it "pings" the tower. So, it may be possible to suggest a degree of co-location; that is to say, the phone was in or near the vehicle.
When police linked the two records, that is, the time the phone was communicating with the tower and Mr Lynn's vehicle was photographed, did they know that Mr Hill was dead - and if so how?; or is that something they concluded from other evidence and then, applied that belief to the information about the phone and the vehicle?
It seems to me that police are, quite rightly, alleging that at the time Mr Hill's phone communicated with the cell tower and Mr Lynn's vehicle was photographed, but they cannot use this information as proof that Mr Hill was dead at the time the vehicle was photographed. After all, Mr Hill's phone could have been tossed in the trailer, as an elaborate ruse to blame Mr Lynn. That is the type of conjecture the prosecution will face.
In short, if police allege Mr Hill was dead at the time his phone communicated with the phone tower, how have they reached that conclusion?
I suspect - and this is only conjecture on my part - Police noticed the correlation of Mr Hill's phone pinging the tower and the Mr Lynn's vehicle being in the vicinity - and quite rightly worked to find out if this correlation was connected with Mr Hill and Ms Clay's disappearance. The question would then be: Why was Mr Hill's phone in the vicinity of the cell tower, some kilometers from his camp site?
As a final observation, the police have not said what led them to conclude by mid 2020 that Mr Hill and Ms Clay were dead and had met with foul play at the hands of a third person. Their surveillance of Mr Lynne began in December, 2020.
 
@Satchie posted on Thread 6 p.19 #361

“It's reported he had an argument with her when he left to go camping”.

I referred to it further down the page at #370

“Between the release of the photo and the date he left home following an argument, I believe she saw the photo on TV and recognised it as her husband’s car and trailer. It’s possible she may have confronted him about it and that was the cause of the argument”.

As he continued camping after the murders on 20 March, 2020, I wanted to know when this argument/confrontation took place. In December 2020 listening devices had been placed in his home and car. He and his wife were caught watching the 60 Minutes show and discussing it 6 days later on 13 November 2021.

“9News has revealed that GL had some kind of confrontation with his wife and that’s why he left his Caroline Springs home. He left for a camping trip. … Police followed him there and that is where they pounced and arrested him”. (22 November 2022)

So the police should know what the argument was about, and I want to know too.
 
Warrants can be issued by a Magistrate or Judge. If granted, a warrant will authorise the use of a specific type of device on specified premises. A warrant may allow entry by force, if necessary, to install and later to retrieve the device. Police wouldn't use them if this product was inadmissible. It isn't hearsay. Hearsay is what a person tells the court that someone else saw or heard.

"A law enforcement officer may apply for a surveillance device warrant to record private conversations or activities. A warrant can only be obtained if the police have reason to suspect or believe that:
  • An offence has been, is being, is about to be, or is likely to be committed; and
  • A surveillance device needs to be used in the investigation and collection of evidence of that crime".
Relevance and Admissibility (Vic)
 
It would be really helpful if police would publish a timeline of when they made various conclusions.
For instance, police obtained the mobile phone tower records - I have not seen when they did this - and discovered when Mr Hill's phone "pinged" the Hotham Heights phone tower about 9.47am. A Nissan Patrol, later found to belong to Mr Lynn - police have to establish he was driving, is photographed by traffic cameras on the Great Alpine Road at Buckland’s Gap, about 9.48am. The tower is described as being "near by". The vehicle is towing a box trailer. I have not seen when police obtained the photographs from the traffic camera. My understanding is that a phone tower can provide the general direction, from the tower, the phone is located when it "pings" the tower. So, it may be possible to suggest a degree of co-location; that is to say, the phone was in or near the vehicle.
When police linked the two records, that is, the time the phone was communicating with the tower and Mr Lynn's vehicle was photographed, did they know that Mr Hill was dead - and if so how?; or is that something they concluded from other evidence and then, applied that belief to the information about the phone and the vehicle?
It seems to me that police are, quite rightly, alleging that at the time Mr Hill's phone communicated with the cell tower and Mr Lynn's vehicle was photographed, but they cannot use this information as proof that Mr Hill was dead at the time the vehicle was photographed. After all, Mr Hill's phone could have been tossed in the trailer, as an elaborate ruse to blame Mr Lynn. That is the type of conjecture the prosecution will face.
In short, if police allege Mr Hill was dead at the time his phone communicated with the phone tower, how have they reached that conclusion?
I suspect - and this is only conjecture on my part - Police noticed the correlation of Mr Hill's phone pinging the tower and the Mr Lynn's vehicle being in the vicinity - and quite rightly worked to find out if this correlation was connected with Mr Hill and Ms Clay's disappearance. The question would then be: Why was Mr Hill's phone in the vicinity of the cell tower, some kilometers from his camp site?
As a final observation, the police have not said what led them to conclude by mid 2020 that Mr Hill and Ms Clay were dead and had met with foul play at the hands of a third person. Their surveillance of Mr Lynne began in December, 2020.
If the accused has pleaded not guilty to murder, but has admitted to killing at least one of them, then he most probably will have needed to admit to everything that happened after their deaths.
The ping of RH's phone at Mt Hothem was just part of how the Police linked him to their deaths early on... but that's no longer part of the mystery.
 
Last edited:
It would be really helpful if police would publish a timeline of when they made various conclusions.
For instance, police obtained the mobile phone tower records - I have not seen when they did this - and discovered when Mr Hill's phone "pinged" the Hotham Heights phone tower about 9.47am. A Nissan Patrol, later found to belong to Mr Lynn - police have to establish he was driving, is photographed by traffic cameras on the Great Alpine Road at Buckland’s Gap, about 9.48am. The tower is described as being "near by". The vehicle is towing a box trailer. I have not seen when police obtained the photographs from the traffic camera. My understanding is that a phone tower can provide the general direction, from the tower, the phone is located when it "pings" the tower. So, it may be possible to suggest a degree of co-location; that is to say, the phone was in or near the vehicle.
When police linked the two records, that is, the time the phone was communicating with the tower and Mr Lynn's vehicle was photographed, did they know that Mr Hill was dead - and if so how?; or is that something they concluded from other evidence and then, applied that belief to the information about the phone and the vehicle?
It seems to me that police are, quite rightly, alleging that at the time Mr Hill's phone communicated with the cell tower and Mr Lynn's vehicle was photographed, but they cannot use this information as proof that Mr Hill was dead at the time the vehicle was photographed. After all, Mr Hill's phone could have been tossed in the trailer, as an elaborate ruse to blame Mr Lynn. That is the type of conjecture the prosecution will face.
In short, if police allege Mr Hill was dead at the time his phone communicated with the phone tower, how have they reached that conclusion?
I suspect - and this is only conjecture on my part - Police noticed the correlation of Mr Hill's phone pinging the tower and the Mr Lynn's vehicle being in the vicinity - and quite rightly worked to find out if this correlation was connected with Mr Hill and Ms Clay's disappearance. The question would then be: Why was Mr Hill's phone in the vicinity of the cell tower, some kilometers from his camp site?
As a final observation, the police have not said what led them to conclude by mid 2020 that Mr Hill and Ms Clay were dead and had met with foul play at the hands of a third person. Their surveillance of Mr Lynne began in December, 2020.
I think that kind of police work: determining whether RH had been kidnapped or had voluntarily gotten a ride, had his phone stolen or was it there by accident, was he alive or dead: that's a long process of elimination. As Sherlock Holmes said, 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'

IMO, fairly early on they narrowed down the ping and the vehicle-video connection. Immediately, IMO, they would have been suspicious because GL hadn't come forward voluntarily, to give a story, perhaps such as early poster Ramjet offered, that he'd rushed them to hospital and left them in Emergency...

For an example of eliminating the impossible: the possibility that they ran off together (leaving their truck and ID behind), and started a new life, eventually becomes impossible: given their characters, health, circumstances, previous behaviour, lack of any trace or evidence of planning it, and the passage of a long period of time and widespread publicity that everyone is upset/looking for them...if LE were to continue to keep that open as a possibility, they would be deservedly fired and replaced with more responsible people who took their job seriously.

Similarly, they ruled out the involvement of every other person who had been at the campground that night, and so on, and so on, any other possibility is eliminated.

Plus, their suspicions are reaffirmed by incidents such a GL painting his truck, etc.

Altho they were satified, I think they wanted the smoking gun: forensic evidence. They invested enormous resources into listened to him for months, if they had found solid proof, they wouldn't have wasted so much manpower on that. But they couldn't wait any longer, and fortunately, appear to have gotten the evidence they needed, after arrest.

What I can't get over is, why GL left RH's phone on? Thank goodness he made that mistake.

JMO
 
My very brief summary:

GL murdered Russell firstly, then Carol.
Efficiently in quick succession 2-3 minutes maybe 1 minute
He spent 1-2 hours planning murders after agitation from drone or camping spot argument.
Post mortem went to work to cover up I SO seriously cannot believe that this was the first time he moved and disposed of bodies. He did bloody well covering the initial crime scene up and going back and forth.

I have not seen 1 report of him panicking or acting irrationally after a double homicide.

Everything seems completely controlled, calculated, efficient with magnificent efforts to cover up.

Where is the trailer?

GL is so full of sh$t IMO.

Fall on your sword you loser.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
944
Total visitors
1,094

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,846
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top