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

New Posts

Not sure if this has been raised before but I guarantee this will age well.

His defence:
RH used his gun to kill CC, then GL and RH got in a scuffle over the gun and it discharged killing RH.

GL will claim he is only guilty of acts after that- disposing of bodies and trying to cover his tracks in a panic.
 
Kemug said:
I can't see anyone believing that.
Click to expand...
yeah but that doesn't mean it won't be his defence.
How else can you explain two dead and claim you're innocent?
He obviously knows that he is done for the body disposal etc.....so to lessen the sentence and hopefully plea deal down to x1 manslaughter + lesser charges of disposing body etc.
 
angelalansbury said:
yeah but that doesn't mean it won't be his defence.
How else can you explain two dead and claim you're innocent?
He obviously knows that he is done for the body disposal etc.....so to lessen the sentence and hopefully plea deal down to x1 manslaughter + lesser charges of disposing body etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, it may very well be his defence. But I don't think a jury would believe it. They wouldn't believe that Russell would shoot Carol. Plus, Russell hasn't got a dodgy history like GL has, with his first wife's death for instance.
 
Kemug said:
Yes, it may very well be his defence. But I don't think a jury would believe it. They wouldn't believe that Russell would shoot Carol. Plus, Russell hasn't got a dodgy history like GL has, with his first wife's death for instance.
Click to expand...

I hope Lynn is going to act this out in court, especially the part about wrestling over a gun with a much older man in poor health, and then somehow, without getting shot by this blood-thirsty old man, he was forced to stab him to death.

JMO
 
they'll get you said:
Throughout Mr Lynn’s previous court appearances, he has been seen calmly taking notes of the proceedings.
Click to expand...


A common tactic suggested by defence lawyers to help their client from either falling asleep or doing other things considered not helpful to their case.

(This doesn't always work. Some may recall Rolf Harris being sanctioned for drawing cartoons in court.)
 
Kemug said:
Yes, it may very well be his defence. But I don't think a jury would believe it. They wouldn't believe that Russell would shoot Carol. Plus, Russell hasn't got a dodgy history like GL has, with his first wife's death for instance.
Click to expand...
They don’t have to believe this is what happened, from the defence’s POV it’s just about creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

With no witnesses and (as far as we know) no evidence as to the lead up, it’s going to be hard for the crown to _prove_ 2x cases murder rather than manslaughter.
 
marv hucker said:
They don’t have to believe this is what happened, from the defence’s POV it’s just about creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

With no witnesses and (as far as we know) no evidence as to the lead up, it’s going to be hard for the crown to _prove_ 2x cases murder rather than manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I guess the defence does have to come up with something. And perhaps it was manslaughter rather than murder. This is where linking GL to the other disappearances in the area would be useful!
 
marv hucker said:
They don’t have to believe this is what happened, from the defence’s POV it’s just about creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

With no witnesses and (as far as we know) no evidence as to the lead up, it’s going to be hard for the crown to _prove_ 2x cases murder rather than manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I agree here Marv. It's going to be very difficult for the prosecution to show that there was no possibility of this being an act of self defence, since there may not be any witnesses to put forward evidence that points to it being the murder of two people.

Though...I'm also curious...if the defence ask for GLs police interview to be inadmissible evidence, then by doing that they'll be not allowing his story of self defence to be told as well....it cuts both ways!
I doubt that he'll not want his story of self defence to be told to the jurors. So, at least parts of the police interview will need to be shown...

Also, he's going to need to give his account of how Carol died. IMO, he's going to need to deny having anything to do with her death in order for anyone to believe he acted in self defense when killing Russell.
 
Last edited:
No doubt the GL defence team will push, push and push the self defence angle in the absence of any witnesses and evidence that is not circumstantial. This is the only (and very predictable) way they can go.

The problem is that a reasonable person can see what happened here.

The extremes that he went to afterwards are very telling IMO:

1) DOUBLE murder not SINGLE
2) Burning the campsite
3) "Staging" a robbery in Russells vehicle
4) Moving the bodies a substantial distance away
5) Going back to the burial location at a later date to grind, burn and bury the bones
6) Respraying his Nissan Patrol (twice not once)

All of these elements show that he had plenty of time to think about what he had done and did his very very best to cover it up and not to get caught. No remorse whatsoever.

This was not a scared and desperate man accidentally thrown into an unimaginable situation.

This was a highly intelligent, calm, planning, cunning and calculating man.

IMO he is a true monster who will NEVER EVER tell the truth.

Remember he is (was) the smartest guy in the room, right up to the point to where he got caught.

Russell and Carol were NOT a threat to him. Prosecution should not have difficulty proving this IMO.
 
Detective Willy said:
No doubt the GL defence team will push, push and push the self defence angle in the absence of any witnesses and evidence that is not circumstantial. This is the only (and very predictable) way they can go.

The problem is that a reasonable person can see what happened here.

The extremes that he went to afterwards are very telling IMO:

1) DOUBLE murder not SINGLE
2) Burning the campsite
3) "Staging" a robbery in Russells vehicle
4) Moving the bodies a substantial distance away
5) Going back to the burial location at a later date to grind, burn and bury the bones
6) Respraying his Nissan Patrol (twice not once)

All of these elements show that he had plenty of time to think about what he had done and did his very very best to cover it up and not to get caught. No remorse whatsoever.

This was not a scared and desperate man accidentally thrown into an unimaginable situation.

This was a highly intelligent, calm, planning, cunning and calculating man.

IMO he is a true monster who will NEVER EVER tell the truth.

Remember he is (was) the smartest guy in the room, right up to the point to where he got caught.

Russell and Carol were NOT a threat to him. Prosecution should not have difficulty proving this IMO.
Click to expand...
To me, where all the self defence/it was an accident/I just panicked stories fail is: how did the perp know the victims were really dead?

So Carol was shot, many people fall over unconscious and bleed, but survive a gunshot, IF they get medical attention. Same with stabbings, stabbings are survivable if medical aid is given (especially if the stabbing was low key "I just need to defend myself poke, poke" and not jacked up 'I'm going to kill this guy'.)

Afterwards, self defense says 'help' and looks for someone with medical training, or who can contact authorites to send a helicopter.

Self-defense doesn't say 'whew, I'm safe from attack, now I'll drag them around and stuff them in my vehicle/ trailer', etc, etc, as you detailed.
 
I found this link interesting to understand how self-defence is considered by law and am doing my best to keep an open mind since GL's story has not been told.

GL is going to need a story of self-defence that the jury accepts as both possible, and plausible if he is to be aquitted. A prosecution will need to show the story is rubbish.

www.gotocourt.com.au

The Defence of Self-Defence (Vic)

Self-defence has been an ever-evolving common law defence, which was only codified in Victorian legislation in 2005. The legislative defence of self-defence was originally limited to murder and manslaughter, while the common law defence could be argued in relation to other violent offences.
www.gotocourt.com.au www.gotocourt.com.au
 
Cedars said:
To me, where all the self defence/it was an accident/I just panicked stories fail is: how did the perp know the victims were really dead?

So Carol was shot, many people fall over unconscious and bleed, but survive a gunshot, IF they get medical attention.
Click to expand...
They found brain matter and skull fragments at the first crime scene... On Russell's vehicle too. One can assume Carol was quite clearly deceased.
 
stacey_victoria said:
They found brain matter and skull fragments at the first crime scene... On Russell's vehicle too. One can assume Carol was quite clearly deceased.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a deliberate rather than accidental shooting, then.

Still, I believe most people on a jury will view his failure to seek help as a sign of guilt, rather than innocence. And not just running away from the scene, but removing the bodies and concealing all signs of what happened by setting the fire.

JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 150 more.
Total: 2,601 (members: 151, guests: 2,450)

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
2,450
Total visitors
2,601
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,519
Messages
17,970,250
Members
228,791
Latest member
fesmike
Back
Top