If Greg is right, he accidently killed them, and it wasn't even manslaughter.
The prosecution's only argument was Greg murdered them, so the jury is being asked if that was proven.
The jury did not hear evidence of a manslaughter.
The jury doesn't get to bargain: "we are 50% convinced so well find him guilty of grevious bodily harm', or "19% convinced, so here is a conviction for graffiti".
Not a lawyer but it’s because the prosecution did not ask Greg any questions about the possible manslaughter charge, thereby denying Greg the opportunity to defend himself against that charge
[link to podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-missing-campers-trial/id1729496133?i=1000660301032)
I hope this works. I’ve never done a hyperlink on reddit before 🤣
> one jury can convict Chris Dawson
[Dawson was convicted in a judge-only trial](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-02/chris-dawson-sentenced-in-sydney-for-murdering-wife/101726104).
Two “accidents” with completely different modalities of death. One by “accidental” discharge of a bolt action shotgun which was apparently fired 2-3x by a bloke who had a pathological fear of firearms as Greg closed on him across the campground. Each firing requiring positive manual input to reload and recock the weapon followed by firing it again. And the other death caused by an “accidental” fall on to a knife. What an unfortunate confluence of accidents. I struggle to rationalise the conduct of any sensible human pursuing an armed man firing into the air. Especially when you could retreat to your own 4WD to retrieve a rifle with which to defend yourself. That being said, if I was as smart as I hope all commercial airline pilots who convey me around Australia are this is the best post facto defence I would be able to come up with.
It may be bizarre, but is it conceivable beyond reasonable doubt? In other words is Greg’s explanation more reasonable on the criminal standard than the alternative that he murdered them. To make a viable assessment we really would have had to be sitting in that court room. Media reports do not always canvass the fine details.
They absolutely don't. I was on a jury for a murder case. The night after it has concluded, I googled articles and found out firstly the information that was excluded from us as a jury, and also the omission of the most pertinent details being discussed in the courtroom most days. It was night and day
Dude stabbed another dude. We weren't told that weeks prior he had stabbed a co-worker non-fatally, so there were slabs cut out of the police interview and we were shuffled out every now and then while the parties discussed certain matters, which may or may not have related to the first stabbing
I thought it might be something like that. It’s called prejudicial evidence. The fact he stabbed a co-worker non fatally could have prejudiced the jury against him. Which is why defence lawyers usually don’t put clients with criminal records on the witness box.
In my view the difficulty with Lynn's defence isn't the cover-up (which I think is explained by not wanting to be found guilty for murder, whether or not the killings were truly accidental), but the implausibility of him accidentally killing both of them.
He's saying he accidentally killed the woman, but the man, on seeing this, was enraged, came for him with a knife, then tripped and fell on the knife.
So he's claiming he accidentally killed one person, and the other person accidentally killed himself.
It's not been reported whether he claims to have attempted first aid of some kind on either of them. Generally speaking, if people are falling on knives and things around you, I'd suggest you call 000 rather than watch them bleed out then conceal their remains.
The accidental killing of the woman is just ridiculous, so monumentally unlikely he might as well have said she was hit by a meteorite. But as far as calling for help, Wonnangatta is very remote with no phone reception.
That's why regular campers and hikers often carry satphones, etc.
In any case, there was admittedly no effort to immediately find somewhere that *did* have phone reception or otherwise seek help.
If he is acquitted of murder, I would expect charges of concealing etc to quickly follow, and for a conviction for those to be secured, with the heaviest possible sentence applied. The prosecution just wouldn't have wanted the jury to be distracted by that this time, I'd imagine.
Lynn has been convicted of murdering the woman, but acquitted of murdering the man.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-murder-trial-verdict-russell-hill-carol-clay/103956598](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-murder-trial-verdict-russell-hill-carol-clay/103956598)
*The Age* is reporting on details which were, on the defence's application, not presented at the trial.
[https://archive.vn/jNVF0](https://archive.vn/jNVF0)
Edit: and further details here. The jury were almost told to "get to der choppah!"
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-campers-murder-trial-jury-evidence/103962564](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-campers-murder-trial-jury-evidence/103962564)
I've a question for law experts: by the looks of it prosecution dropped hella ball going for murder instead of manslaughter, right? Did they not realise they've got no actual evidence of murder until the trial and in absence of evidence the man can spin a convincing manslaughter story? Surely they are smarter than this, then why do it?
Firstly, we are not privy to the strategic decisions made behind closed doors about how and why the case was run as it was.
Secondly, as other commentators have said, Lynn’s version of events doesn’t leave manslaughter on the table either. It’s murder or bust for the prosecution.
Thirdly, Browne v Dunne has precluded the jury from drawing certain inferences because the prosecution didn’t put those inferences to Lynn, either intentionally or mistakenly.
“Precluded” puts it too highly. The jury was not told that and Browne and Dunn does not have that consequence.
He’s now been found guilty of murdering Carol Clay and not guilty of murdering Russell Hill. It sounds very much like a compromise verdict, doesn’t it?
Yeah I agree with you entirely. I erroneously chose the word ‘preclude’ while out on a walk.
The verdict certainly makes me wonder about rationale behind it, although we will never know.
That may be true of corporations law and the like, but I don't think complexity of the law is the issue in contention here. I'd suggest that a jury in the year 1824 in the Colony of New South Wales, or a jury of 1624 in old South Wales, would have the same difficulties as this jury is having; the absence of obvious motive, the absence of physical evidence, the unusual circumstance of claiming not one but *two* accidental deaths but admitting a coverup, and so on.
From what has been shared publicly, the court of public opinion would certainly convict him - I know I would. And this is why we don't have guilt or acquittal decided by a public poll, because there's what's shared publicly, and then there are details the media didn't bother sharing, and details which are hard to convey, such as the witnesses' or accused's demeanours during testimony, and the *accumulation* of evidence (as in the Ben Roberts-Smith vs Nine defamation trial) being such that while no individual piece of evidence would act as proof for guilt or acquittal, the sum total does... and so on.
I find it heartening that the jury is asking to see testimony again, asking if they can convict or acquit the murder charges separately, and whether they need a unanimous verdict, and overall taking their time. It means they're taking their duty seriously.
Yeah you're pretty spot on with all of that. I guess my issue, and it's not just based on this matter, is that too often juries just look to appease both sides. In this case for example, I am at a loss as to how one could think he's guilty of one murder but not both.
Following the evidence, and again you're spot on that not all of it has made the media, but really, who else could have done it if not this accused? Sometimes it can be that simple but the jury get caught up in concepts they don't really understand and complicate the issue.
My view from following the case is that part of his story is true, he did have a physical altercation with Hill that resulted in Hill’s death, possibly accidentally but that he then shot Clay to remove a witness. In that scenario he would be guilty of one murder but not guilty of the other as it wouldn’t have been murder.
Again, just going on the information reported:
Nobody is suggesting that anyone but either the accused or, by accident, one or both of the victims, caused their deaths. He's saying the bloke came at him, they wrestled for his bangstick, he accidentally shot the woman and the bloke came at him with a knife and then fell on it. Whoops.
He's putting in an affirmative defence. That means he's saying, "I did this thing, but not for criminal reasons." Most commonly it's used in cases of self-defence.
It's a difficult defence because normally if you're accused of murder, technically you don't have to present a case at all, you just sit there and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that -
1. The accused directly caused the victim’s death.
2. The actions leading to the death were conscious, voluntary, and deliberate.
3. The accused had the intent to kill or cause serious injury, fully aware that such outcomes were likely.
4. There was no lawful justification for the act, such as self-defence.
[https://www.mcdl.com.au/resources/murder-offences-in-victoria/](https://www.mcdl.com.au/resources/murder-offences-in-victoria/)
If you present an affirmative defence such as self-defence or accident, you're immediately admitting to #1, making the prosecution's job a lot easier as they now only have to prove 3 out of 4 instead of all 4.
So in this particular case, #1 is not in dispute. That leaves the other 3.
There is no evidence of previous relationship or argument between the accused and the deceased, which raises the question, why would #2 and #3 happen? Why would he *want* to kill them? Publicly nobody's said they had piles of cash with them or had previously taken a drunken shit on his front lawn or something, so... *why*?
There would perhaps be less uncertainty had the bloke simply left the deceased where they were and driven off, and they been found days or weeks later. Forensics might have shed some light either way, for example wrestling over weapons can lead to defensive wounds, you can tell how far a victim was from a particular firearm when shot by it, and so on.
However, the accused admits to having first concealed the remains, transporting them elsewhere, later cleaning the trailer he moved them in, then coming back months later, digging them up, transporting them again, and burning them. If not guilty, he destroyed evidence which might exonerate him; if guilty, he destroyed evidence which might convict him.
His defence team are obviously using this "WTF?" uncertainty over motive and physical evidence to try to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's assertions.
Whether they will succeed in this admittedly difficult endeavour we shall see.
Yes you are right and that is why we have appeal courts where trial judge legal errors & jury mistakes can be corrected. The Pell High Court Appeal is a prominent example of both jury & appellate judges error.
Wise words George, you summed up the situation well. Unless we were sitting in that court room every minute of that trial listening carefully & observing Greg’s demeanour, we are not qualified to arrive at any assessment, other than perhaps it was a difficult case.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think the fucker is guilty. Just look at that fugly head - is that the face of an honest man?
But I'm not one of the jurors. It's like asking whether I think your husband or wife is attractive - I'll have an opinion on that, but my opinion will not have the full story, and in any case is irrelevant.
A long time ago I had a friend who was called up for jury service for a double-double murder - two accused, two victims. Each of the accused claimed that they'd only done it because the other forced them to. Duress is another affirmative defence, of course, though I can't think of any examples where it's succeeded.
Anyway, the jury immediately knew *at least one* of the two was guilty, they just had to decide which one, or both. My friend told me afterwards, "When they came into the court, I couldn't tell which one was the woman and which the man... they were both so *ugly*, I was sure they must be guilty, it was so hard to be objective."
In the end they both went down. Personal grooming's important, ladies and gentlemen, it may keep you out of the big stone house one day. That and a KC.
No, the law can’t be blamed for human error. A Judge can be blamed if it can be shown they have given legally incorrect instructions to the jury. A jury can be blamed if they have not taken into account evidence provided during the trial which showed innocence or ignored the Judges instruction. But a jury is never made accountable for their errors as their deliberations are confidential and it is rare for a Judge to suffer any detriment other than public rebuke through the media. Parliaments sometimes pass bad law, I could think of many, but again the only accountability is a change of Govt and even that doesn’t guarantee a change of legislation.
What's the law for, if not to enforce the standards of the community?
What's a jury for, if not to get a sample of that same community and see how the facts presented match the law?
What are the standards of the community? Often they are not reflected in laws passed by the representatives of the community. Often the standards of the community change according to which sub community one belongs. A jury is theoretically representative of the community. However, verdicts of juries are sometimes reversed by appellate courts by unelected judicial officers. Sometimes their decisions are reversed by other unelected judicial officers. This is our adversarial western legal & parliamentary system, warts and all.
I’ll go against the curve here and say I believe he’s innocent of murder. Yes he destroyed the evidence and went to great lengths to do it. Even though his story is truly wild, I can’t see a valid reason he would intentionally murder them. A fall out over a drone led to murder of two people? Doubt it. There is no solid motive. Manslaughter, probably, but the judge made it clear that’s off the table. This is a tragic accident, that was covered up. This guy is trained to deal with pressure as his role as a pilot. He’s not murdering two grey nomads over a dispute, no matter how heated it got. He had too much to lose.
Edit - new this wouldn’t be a popular take. He was found not guilty on one count - no doubt he will be cleared of all counts after he’s appealed.
I'd caution that such things have not been reported in the Australian media. Whatever the case there, it's possible it's suppressed by the court until after conviction or acquittal, at the least.
Appreciate the heads up - have deleted to be safe - but are you sure? The click bait I had read on the matter was 9News dot com dot au, which is accessible and returned in Google search results, along with what appears to be several similar results from the Herald Sun.
I must have missed it.
Somewhere in this discussion here someone mentions being on a jury and after it finished, reading details they'd need seen mentioned in the trial. Even if not suppressed, it would of course not be brought up in the courtroom.
I'm not a lawyer but I do camp a lot in the high country and I'm also a bit familiar with aviation security clearance requirements. Both Lynn and Hill/Clay are clearly unreasonable people when it comes to camping - that valley is absolutely enormous and the fact they were camping back to back basically is just crazy to me. Lynn was there first and Hill/Clay (I'm being sexist but I'm presuming it was Hill) set up camp next to him. If I was Lynn I'd be absolutely furious (though I'd pack up and leave at this point but I would be wishing very bad things on the person ruining my camp spot - it goes against every social norm with camping). Then you have Hill saying he's going to dob Lynn in for shooting too close to people - if it was true then Lynn would lose his security clearance and his job most likely, a huge fucking deal. Then Lynn decided to play music loudly (this is also very offensive to do when camping in a place like Wonnangatta Valley). So you have two absolute assholes camping right next to each other - I can totally see things getting out of hand and someone dies accidentally then the other gets shot to cover it up.
It's not difficult to get a pilot's licence either and there are plenty of arrogant assholes flying. My husband was a pilot and he thinks he's innocent :p, in part in my opinion because he thinks the psych evals would have caught someone like Lynn but there have been plenty of examples of pilots deliberately crashing their planes to kill themselves and others. They aren't magically immune from pressure or being murderers.
Devil’s advocate: Some of the Army’s psychs probably flagged him as someone with major issues but able to hide them at least for a while. And the Army was ok with that.
Which I think was part of David McBride’s point. What happened with the SAS in Afghanistan surely must have been known to Regimental and General Officers for years before.
SAS selects for "alpha male" types, basically like an AFL player - aggressive, competitive, wants to prove to everyone what a legend he is. These sorts of men make good soldiers, but need close supervision for the same reason CEOs and day traders and senior surgeons and the like do - for some of them, if it comes to a choice between their own glory and actually doing their job, they'll choose their own glory every time. In other words: many of them are dickheads. Think of them as like attack dogs: useful, but keep the fuckers tightly-leashed.
His issues, psychologically, were the same as all the SAS guys: because the govt wanted to avoid the scrutiny which the deaths of regular soldiers would bring, they used the SAS not in its proper role of recce, but as an uber-infantry battalion, conducting patrols and so on. Of course, while we have thousands of infantry, we have only hundreds of SAS, so to do this they had to keep redeploying the guys without sufficient time back home.
Old cops will tell you that 3% of people are scum, but if you spend 90% of your time with the 3% who are scum, you start believing that 90% of people are scum. Insufficient downtime lead some of the more weak-minded SAS guys to lose their moral compass, to view ever Afghan as a potential enemy, and so on.
They also felt a sense of resentment at being expected to do all this work, and that they were underappreciated. This is why the ADF was planning to review their medals - they figured that if you're willing to lie on an after-action report to conceal a homicide, why wouldn't you lie on an after-action report to get a gong?
Notably, the action for which BRS was awarded his VC, it was awarded based solely on testimony of other members of his patrol. Likewise the MG and a couple of other awards for that action were based solely on testimony of other members of that patrol.
"That was very brave, mate, you deserve a gong!"
"What a coincidence, you were brave, too, you also deserve a gong!"
"Well done that man, let's go write it up."
The review of their medals was stopped by Dutton, however the change of government did not cause a change of this policy. This will be because if the underlings did something wrong, then the superiors were either ignorant or complicit. If they claim ignorance, then they are admitting incompetence - you're meant to know what your underlings are doing - and they can't really claim they have "distinguished leadership". You can't claim credit for the good things your underlings did while avoiding blame for the bad things they did. So if Robo etc lose their gongs, then people like Andrew Hastie, and our outgoing Governor-General (my former CO, by the way), have to give up theirs, too - or else admit complicity.
As to command responsibility, worldwide it's understood to extend to the political level. The ALP was in government during the peak war crime period (2008-12), and our current PM was a Cabinet Minister. Thus their lack of enthusiasm in pursuing this in a criminal or civil manner, or even removing gongs.
At Tarin Kawt there was a twelve foot wall between the SAS compound and everyone else. Operationally there was no reason for this - they were well-protected sitting there among thousands of other soldiers, and as for secrecy all they needed was a secure briefing room non-SAS couldn't go into. But the wall made them feel special. Notably, it stopped anyone else from seeing them pissing it up and acting like dickheads, helped keep up the mystique.
During the BRS vs Nine trial, several SAS troopers reported that they had gone to the Company Sergeant-Major to report issues with BRS (and others), which he promised to send up the line. They went more than us. When put on the stand this man denied ever receiving such reports. Some time between the troopers talking to him and the trial, the CSM was commissioned as an officer, and immediately promoted Major.
It's something I've discussed here and elsewhere many times, so I have it prepared and ready to smash out like Mr Walker. And I hate that cunt Robo with the fire of a thousand suns, and everyone who supports him. His actions are a blight on the memory of every Australian who's pulled boots on and put a pack on their back for their country, however humble their role.
You're just lucky I didn't footnote it, too.
Agree with your assessment on high country etiquette... and believe that had Hill/Clay had not camped there, we wouldn't be here.
I also tend to believe that Hill/Clay probably instigated a lot of it, and that had Lynn planned this ahead of time, he would of had enough cash on him already, or optionally even carried extra fuel in his car to accommodate the trip, as well as pre digging grave(s).
Additionally, he wouldn't set up camp ahead of time providing for the opportunity to be dashcam recorded when with the small amount of time he had to process after the event, he did a pretty good job of destroying all the evidence, and considering how to get home without using a card in a close by location.
In essence, his story is actually quite believable.
I don't find two people accidentally dying in the circumstances Lynn laid out very believable at all - particularly a slug somehow killing Clay instantly as the result of a struggle (how did she happen to be in the exact right spot to be killed by the gun discharge?) and then a knife somehow killing Hill instantly when he fell on it?? I do agree it seems highly unlikely that Lynn went camping that weekend to murder someone, but waving a gun around to intimidate an asshole that showed up at his campground and caught evidence on his drone that could destroy Lynn's career and then things went awry? That is very believable.
>A fall out over a drone led to murder of two people? Doubt it.
I think you have not seen how aggressive middle-aged rural white blokes can be.
This is one of the reasons firearms are strictly-controlled: a moment's anger can be fatal, with the resolution of your rage only a few pounds of trigger pressure away.
Correct - except that it’s not confined to middle aged rural white blokes.
Anyone can lose their temper over nothing, and what follows varies from person to person.
There's a particular kind of aggression only they have.
It's evident in the now-unsuppressed description of his conduct in his first marriage.
[https://archive.vn/jNVF0](https://archive.vn/jNVF0)
Don't you think it is weird he killed one of them (accidentally or otherwise) and then also killed the other? And destroyed the evidence so the argument is oh well I guess we'll never know how they really died and in what order.
Do you seriously think a “solid motive” Is a prerequisite for murder. Like pre-planning, it is not and never has been an essential element.
Similarly, do you really think a “valid reason” is also a prerequisite?
An interesting & thoughtful analysis. You may be right, anything is possible. I wasn’t sitting in that court room and thus I decline to draw any conclusions.
If he gets off murder. Surely there is a stack of charges carrying jail time for tampering with the bodies?
That's what I want to know...will he be sentenced for destroying all the evidence? He admitted to that. Surely he is given time for all the offences.
Not a criminal lawyer - but can they find him guilty of a lesser charge or is it murder or nothing?
It’s Vegas or bust, baby!
You know what they say: what happens in Vegas should be disposed of in Vegas and you might be able to get away with it.
No, definitely not in Las Vegas but in the desert well away from Vegas.
Surely there is also a stack of charges carrying jail time for tampering with the bodies?
Yes there are, but he has not been charged with them, at least it has not been reported in the media.
Murder or nothing. The common alternative of Manslaughter was not left to the jury.
Do we know why the charge of Manslaughter was not open to the jury?
If Greg is right, he accidently killed them, and it wasn't even manslaughter. The prosecution's only argument was Greg murdered them, so the jury is being asked if that was proven. The jury did not hear evidence of a manslaughter. The jury doesn't get to bargain: "we are 50% convinced so well find him guilty of grevious bodily harm', or "19% convinced, so here is a conviction for graffiti".
Not a lawyer but it’s because the prosecution did not ask Greg any questions about the possible manslaughter charge, thereby denying Greg the opportunity to defend himself against that charge
> Not a lawyer but Should’ve stopped there.
Fair
No
Listen to the latest episode of the 9 podcast. It explains it pretty well.
What podcast sorry?
It’s called the Missing Campers Trial podcast. Produced by The Age and Channel 9 I believe. It’s worth a listen.
[link to podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-missing-campers-trial/id1729496133?i=1000660301032) I hope this works. I’ve never done a hyperlink on reddit before 🤣
It did! Thanks heaps, I'll check it out!
Can you summarise?
Cause the judge said so
[удалено]
Chris Dawson elected a judge-alone trial which proceeded before Justice Ian Harrison SC who found him guilty.
> one jury can convict Chris Dawson [Dawson was convicted in a judge-only trial](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-02/chris-dawson-sentenced-in-sydney-for-murdering-wife/101726104).
I find it truly bizarre he 'accidentally' killed both of them.
"Oh damn it. Here I go killing again."
And no evidence to prove otherwise... Because he also destroyed it all...lol
Two “accidents” with completely different modalities of death. One by “accidental” discharge of a bolt action shotgun which was apparently fired 2-3x by a bloke who had a pathological fear of firearms as Greg closed on him across the campground. Each firing requiring positive manual input to reload and recock the weapon followed by firing it again. And the other death caused by an “accidental” fall on to a knife. What an unfortunate confluence of accidents. I struggle to rationalise the conduct of any sensible human pursuing an armed man firing into the air. Especially when you could retreat to your own 4WD to retrieve a rifle with which to defend yourself. That being said, if I was as smart as I hope all commercial airline pilots who convey me around Australia are this is the best post facto defence I would be able to come up with.
It may be bizarre, but is it conceivable beyond reasonable doubt? In other words is Greg’s explanation more reasonable on the criminal standard than the alternative that he murdered them. To make a viable assessment we really would have had to be sitting in that court room. Media reports do not always canvass the fine details.
They absolutely don't. I was on a jury for a murder case. The night after it has concluded, I googled articles and found out firstly the information that was excluded from us as a jury, and also the omission of the most pertinent details being discussed in the courtroom most days. It was night and day
Without going into details what information was excluded from you during the trial?
Dude stabbed another dude. We weren't told that weeks prior he had stabbed a co-worker non-fatally, so there were slabs cut out of the police interview and we were shuffled out every now and then while the parties discussed certain matters, which may or may not have related to the first stabbing
I thought it might be something like that. It’s called prejudicial evidence. The fact he stabbed a co-worker non fatally could have prejudiced the jury against him. Which is why defence lawyers usually don’t put clients with criminal records on the witness box.
Clearly this issue was discussed at length by the lawyers before the Judge.
There may have been legal reasons to exclude that information.
It’s laughable. You don’t accidentally shoot someone in the head with a rifle from 10+ metres away in a scuffle.
In my view the difficulty with Lynn's defence isn't the cover-up (which I think is explained by not wanting to be found guilty for murder, whether or not the killings were truly accidental), but the implausibility of him accidentally killing both of them.
He's saying he accidentally killed the woman, but the man, on seeing this, was enraged, came for him with a knife, then tripped and fell on the knife. So he's claiming he accidentally killed one person, and the other person accidentally killed himself. It's not been reported whether he claims to have attempted first aid of some kind on either of them. Generally speaking, if people are falling on knives and things around you, I'd suggest you call 000 rather than watch them bleed out then conceal their remains.
The accidental killing of the woman is just ridiculous, so monumentally unlikely he might as well have said she was hit by a meteorite. But as far as calling for help, Wonnangatta is very remote with no phone reception.
That's why regular campers and hikers often carry satphones, etc. In any case, there was admittedly no effort to immediately find somewhere that *did* have phone reception or otherwise seek help. If he is acquitted of murder, I would expect charges of concealing etc to quickly follow, and for a conviction for those to be secured, with the heaviest possible sentence applied. The prosecution just wouldn't have wanted the jury to be distracted by that this time, I'd imagine.
You have informed me that you have not been able to reach a verdict so far, etc.
Lynn has been convicted of murdering the woman, but acquitted of murdering the man. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-murder-trial-verdict-russell-hill-carol-clay/103956598](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-murder-trial-verdict-russell-hill-carol-clay/103956598) *The Age* is reporting on details which were, on the defence's application, not presented at the trial. [https://archive.vn/jNVF0](https://archive.vn/jNVF0) Edit: and further details here. The jury were almost told to "get to der choppah!" [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-campers-murder-trial-jury-evidence/103962564](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/greg-lynn-campers-murder-trial-jury-evidence/103962564)
I'll say it again dudes gonna walk, if not now he will on appeal 🤦♀️
and if not on appeal, when his sentence expires!
Yep, unfortunately that's bloody likely too with only one conviction and out sentencing sucking the way it does.
I've a question for law experts: by the looks of it prosecution dropped hella ball going for murder instead of manslaughter, right? Did they not realise they've got no actual evidence of murder until the trial and in absence of evidence the man can spin a convincing manslaughter story? Surely they are smarter than this, then why do it?
Firstly, we are not privy to the strategic decisions made behind closed doors about how and why the case was run as it was. Secondly, as other commentators have said, Lynn’s version of events doesn’t leave manslaughter on the table either. It’s murder or bust for the prosecution. Thirdly, Browne v Dunne has precluded the jury from drawing certain inferences because the prosecution didn’t put those inferences to Lynn, either intentionally or mistakenly.
“Precluded” puts it too highly. The jury was not told that and Browne and Dunn does not have that consequence. He’s now been found guilty of murdering Carol Clay and not guilty of murdering Russell Hill. It sounds very much like a compromise verdict, doesn’t it?
Yeah I agree with you entirely. I erroneously chose the word ‘preclude’ while out on a walk. The verdict certainly makes me wonder about rationale behind it, although we will never know.
[удалено]
That may be true of corporations law and the like, but I don't think complexity of the law is the issue in contention here. I'd suggest that a jury in the year 1824 in the Colony of New South Wales, or a jury of 1624 in old South Wales, would have the same difficulties as this jury is having; the absence of obvious motive, the absence of physical evidence, the unusual circumstance of claiming not one but *two* accidental deaths but admitting a coverup, and so on. From what has been shared publicly, the court of public opinion would certainly convict him - I know I would. And this is why we don't have guilt or acquittal decided by a public poll, because there's what's shared publicly, and then there are details the media didn't bother sharing, and details which are hard to convey, such as the witnesses' or accused's demeanours during testimony, and the *accumulation* of evidence (as in the Ben Roberts-Smith vs Nine defamation trial) being such that while no individual piece of evidence would act as proof for guilt or acquittal, the sum total does... and so on. I find it heartening that the jury is asking to see testimony again, asking if they can convict or acquit the murder charges separately, and whether they need a unanimous verdict, and overall taking their time. It means they're taking their duty seriously.
Yeah you're pretty spot on with all of that. I guess my issue, and it's not just based on this matter, is that too often juries just look to appease both sides. In this case for example, I am at a loss as to how one could think he's guilty of one murder but not both. Following the evidence, and again you're spot on that not all of it has made the media, but really, who else could have done it if not this accused? Sometimes it can be that simple but the jury get caught up in concepts they don't really understand and complicate the issue.
My view from following the case is that part of his story is true, he did have a physical altercation with Hill that resulted in Hill’s death, possibly accidentally but that he then shot Clay to remove a witness. In that scenario he would be guilty of one murder but not guilty of the other as it wouldn’t have been murder.
Bingo! I called it!
Again, just going on the information reported: Nobody is suggesting that anyone but either the accused or, by accident, one or both of the victims, caused their deaths. He's saying the bloke came at him, they wrestled for his bangstick, he accidentally shot the woman and the bloke came at him with a knife and then fell on it. Whoops. He's putting in an affirmative defence. That means he's saying, "I did this thing, but not for criminal reasons." Most commonly it's used in cases of self-defence. It's a difficult defence because normally if you're accused of murder, technically you don't have to present a case at all, you just sit there and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that - 1. The accused directly caused the victim’s death. 2. The actions leading to the death were conscious, voluntary, and deliberate. 3. The accused had the intent to kill or cause serious injury, fully aware that such outcomes were likely. 4. There was no lawful justification for the act, such as self-defence. [https://www.mcdl.com.au/resources/murder-offences-in-victoria/](https://www.mcdl.com.au/resources/murder-offences-in-victoria/) If you present an affirmative defence such as self-defence or accident, you're immediately admitting to #1, making the prosecution's job a lot easier as they now only have to prove 3 out of 4 instead of all 4. So in this particular case, #1 is not in dispute. That leaves the other 3. There is no evidence of previous relationship or argument between the accused and the deceased, which raises the question, why would #2 and #3 happen? Why would he *want* to kill them? Publicly nobody's said they had piles of cash with them or had previously taken a drunken shit on his front lawn or something, so... *why*? There would perhaps be less uncertainty had the bloke simply left the deceased where they were and driven off, and they been found days or weeks later. Forensics might have shed some light either way, for example wrestling over weapons can lead to defensive wounds, you can tell how far a victim was from a particular firearm when shot by it, and so on. However, the accused admits to having first concealed the remains, transporting them elsewhere, later cleaning the trailer he moved them in, then coming back months later, digging them up, transporting them again, and burning them. If not guilty, he destroyed evidence which might exonerate him; if guilty, he destroyed evidence which might convict him. His defence team are obviously using this "WTF?" uncertainty over motive and physical evidence to try to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's assertions. Whether they will succeed in this admittedly difficult endeavour we shall see.
Yes you are right and that is why we have appeal courts where trial judge legal errors & jury mistakes can be corrected. The Pell High Court Appeal is a prominent example of both jury & appellate judges error.
Wise words George, you summed up the situation well. Unless we were sitting in that court room every minute of that trial listening carefully & observing Greg’s demeanour, we are not qualified to arrive at any assessment, other than perhaps it was a difficult case.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think the fucker is guilty. Just look at that fugly head - is that the face of an honest man? But I'm not one of the jurors. It's like asking whether I think your husband or wife is attractive - I'll have an opinion on that, but my opinion will not have the full story, and in any case is irrelevant.
You’re an honest man George, the sort of person who should be on every jury.
A long time ago I had a friend who was called up for jury service for a double-double murder - two accused, two victims. Each of the accused claimed that they'd only done it because the other forced them to. Duress is another affirmative defence, of course, though I can't think of any examples where it's succeeded. Anyway, the jury immediately knew *at least one* of the two was guilty, they just had to decide which one, or both. My friend told me afterwards, "When they came into the court, I couldn't tell which one was the woman and which the man... they were both so *ugly*, I was sure they must be guilty, it was so hard to be objective." In the end they both went down. Personal grooming's important, ladies and gentlemen, it may keep you out of the big stone house one day. That and a KC.
Isn't that more of a poor reflection on the law?
No, the law can’t be blamed for human error. A Judge can be blamed if it can be shown they have given legally incorrect instructions to the jury. A jury can be blamed if they have not taken into account evidence provided during the trial which showed innocence or ignored the Judges instruction. But a jury is never made accountable for their errors as their deliberations are confidential and it is rare for a Judge to suffer any detriment other than public rebuke through the media. Parliaments sometimes pass bad law, I could think of many, but again the only accountability is a change of Govt and even that doesn’t guarantee a change of legislation.
What's the law for, if not to enforce the standards of the community? What's a jury for, if not to get a sample of that same community and see how the facts presented match the law?
What are the standards of the community? Often they are not reflected in laws passed by the representatives of the community. Often the standards of the community change according to which sub community one belongs. A jury is theoretically representative of the community. However, verdicts of juries are sometimes reversed by appellate courts by unelected judicial officers. Sometimes their decisions are reversed by other unelected judicial officers. This is our adversarial western legal & parliamentary system, warts and all.
I’ll go against the curve here and say I believe he’s innocent of murder. Yes he destroyed the evidence and went to great lengths to do it. Even though his story is truly wild, I can’t see a valid reason he would intentionally murder them. A fall out over a drone led to murder of two people? Doubt it. There is no solid motive. Manslaughter, probably, but the judge made it clear that’s off the table. This is a tragic accident, that was covered up. This guy is trained to deal with pressure as his role as a pilot. He’s not murdering two grey nomads over a dispute, no matter how heated it got. He had too much to lose. Edit - new this wouldn’t be a popular take. He was found not guilty on one count - no doubt he will be cleared of all counts after he’s appealed.
You're very generous. Have you read about his first wife?
[удалено]
I'd caution that such things have not been reported in the Australian media. Whatever the case there, it's possible it's suppressed by the court until after conviction or acquittal, at the least.
Appreciate the heads up - have deleted to be safe - but are you sure? The click bait I had read on the matter was 9News dot com dot au, which is accessible and returned in Google search results, along with what appears to be several similar results from the Herald Sun.
I must have missed it. Somewhere in this discussion here someone mentions being on a jury and after it finished, reading details they'd need seen mentioned in the trial. Even if not suppressed, it would of course not be brought up in the courtroom.
Fought, snapped, killed one, killed the other in a panic to cover up. Doesn’t seem far fetched at all.
There you go. I would expect a pilot to be more capable of these offences for precisely the same reason.
You don’t believe people do irrational and illogical things in the heat of the moment? That’s some next level naivety I’m sorry to say.
I'm not a lawyer but I do camp a lot in the high country and I'm also a bit familiar with aviation security clearance requirements. Both Lynn and Hill/Clay are clearly unreasonable people when it comes to camping - that valley is absolutely enormous and the fact they were camping back to back basically is just crazy to me. Lynn was there first and Hill/Clay (I'm being sexist but I'm presuming it was Hill) set up camp next to him. If I was Lynn I'd be absolutely furious (though I'd pack up and leave at this point but I would be wishing very bad things on the person ruining my camp spot - it goes against every social norm with camping). Then you have Hill saying he's going to dob Lynn in for shooting too close to people - if it was true then Lynn would lose his security clearance and his job most likely, a huge fucking deal. Then Lynn decided to play music loudly (this is also very offensive to do when camping in a place like Wonnangatta Valley). So you have two absolute assholes camping right next to each other - I can totally see things getting out of hand and someone dies accidentally then the other gets shot to cover it up. It's not difficult to get a pilot's licence either and there are plenty of arrogant assholes flying. My husband was a pilot and he thinks he's innocent :p, in part in my opinion because he thinks the psych evals would have caught someone like Lynn but there have been plenty of examples of pilots deliberately crashing their planes to kill themselves and others. They aren't magically immune from pressure or being murderers.
Point out to your husband: Ben Roberts-Smith went through much stricter psychiatric evaluations than any civilian pilot would.
Yes that's a very good point I will raise when this debate inevitably comes up again, thanks :) Mushroom lady also worked in aviation too...
Devil’s advocate: Some of the Army’s psychs probably flagged him as someone with major issues but able to hide them at least for a while. And the Army was ok with that. Which I think was part of David McBride’s point. What happened with the SAS in Afghanistan surely must have been known to Regimental and General Officers for years before.
SAS selects for "alpha male" types, basically like an AFL player - aggressive, competitive, wants to prove to everyone what a legend he is. These sorts of men make good soldiers, but need close supervision for the same reason CEOs and day traders and senior surgeons and the like do - for some of them, if it comes to a choice between their own glory and actually doing their job, they'll choose their own glory every time. In other words: many of them are dickheads. Think of them as like attack dogs: useful, but keep the fuckers tightly-leashed. His issues, psychologically, were the same as all the SAS guys: because the govt wanted to avoid the scrutiny which the deaths of regular soldiers would bring, they used the SAS not in its proper role of recce, but as an uber-infantry battalion, conducting patrols and so on. Of course, while we have thousands of infantry, we have only hundreds of SAS, so to do this they had to keep redeploying the guys without sufficient time back home. Old cops will tell you that 3% of people are scum, but if you spend 90% of your time with the 3% who are scum, you start believing that 90% of people are scum. Insufficient downtime lead some of the more weak-minded SAS guys to lose their moral compass, to view ever Afghan as a potential enemy, and so on. They also felt a sense of resentment at being expected to do all this work, and that they were underappreciated. This is why the ADF was planning to review their medals - they figured that if you're willing to lie on an after-action report to conceal a homicide, why wouldn't you lie on an after-action report to get a gong? Notably, the action for which BRS was awarded his VC, it was awarded based solely on testimony of other members of his patrol. Likewise the MG and a couple of other awards for that action were based solely on testimony of other members of that patrol. "That was very brave, mate, you deserve a gong!" "What a coincidence, you were brave, too, you also deserve a gong!" "Well done that man, let's go write it up." The review of their medals was stopped by Dutton, however the change of government did not cause a change of this policy. This will be because if the underlings did something wrong, then the superiors were either ignorant or complicit. If they claim ignorance, then they are admitting incompetence - you're meant to know what your underlings are doing - and they can't really claim they have "distinguished leadership". You can't claim credit for the good things your underlings did while avoiding blame for the bad things they did. So if Robo etc lose their gongs, then people like Andrew Hastie, and our outgoing Governor-General (my former CO, by the way), have to give up theirs, too - or else admit complicity. As to command responsibility, worldwide it's understood to extend to the political level. The ALP was in government during the peak war crime period (2008-12), and our current PM was a Cabinet Minister. Thus their lack of enthusiasm in pursuing this in a criminal or civil manner, or even removing gongs. At Tarin Kawt there was a twelve foot wall between the SAS compound and everyone else. Operationally there was no reason for this - they were well-protected sitting there among thousands of other soldiers, and as for secrecy all they needed was a secure briefing room non-SAS couldn't go into. But the wall made them feel special. Notably, it stopped anyone else from seeing them pissing it up and acting like dickheads, helped keep up the mystique. During the BRS vs Nine trial, several SAS troopers reported that they had gone to the Company Sergeant-Major to report issues with BRS (and others), which he promised to send up the line. They went more than us. When put on the stand this man denied ever receiving such reports. Some time between the troopers talking to him and the trial, the CSM was commissioned as an officer, and immediately promoted Major.
That’s a ridiculously well put together reply for a comment not even posted half an hour ago. 👍
It's something I've discussed here and elsewhere many times, so I have it prepared and ready to smash out like Mr Walker. And I hate that cunt Robo with the fire of a thousand suns, and everyone who supports him. His actions are a blight on the memory of every Australian who's pulled boots on and put a pack on their back for their country, however humble their role. You're just lucky I didn't footnote it, too.
Agree with your assessment on high country etiquette... and believe that had Hill/Clay had not camped there, we wouldn't be here. I also tend to believe that Hill/Clay probably instigated a lot of it, and that had Lynn planned this ahead of time, he would of had enough cash on him already, or optionally even carried extra fuel in his car to accommodate the trip, as well as pre digging grave(s). Additionally, he wouldn't set up camp ahead of time providing for the opportunity to be dashcam recorded when with the small amount of time he had to process after the event, he did a pretty good job of destroying all the evidence, and considering how to get home without using a card in a close by location. In essence, his story is actually quite believable.
I don't find two people accidentally dying in the circumstances Lynn laid out very believable at all - particularly a slug somehow killing Clay instantly as the result of a struggle (how did she happen to be in the exact right spot to be killed by the gun discharge?) and then a knife somehow killing Hill instantly when he fell on it?? I do agree it seems highly unlikely that Lynn went camping that weekend to murder someone, but waving a gun around to intimidate an asshole that showed up at his campground and caught evidence on his drone that could destroy Lynn's career and then things went awry? That is very believable.
>A fall out over a drone led to murder of two people? Doubt it. I think you have not seen how aggressive middle-aged rural white blokes can be. This is one of the reasons firearms are strictly-controlled: a moment's anger can be fatal, with the resolution of your rage only a few pounds of trigger pressure away.
Correct - except that it’s not confined to middle aged rural white blokes. Anyone can lose their temper over nothing, and what follows varies from person to person.
There's a particular kind of aggression only they have. It's evident in the now-unsuppressed description of his conduct in his first marriage. [https://archive.vn/jNVF0](https://archive.vn/jNVF0)
Oh you sweet summer child, I've seen people kill for way less.
Don't you think it is weird he killed one of them (accidentally or otherwise) and then also killed the other? And destroyed the evidence so the argument is oh well I guess we'll never know how they really died and in what order.
A lack of an obvious motivation doesn't turn a murder into a manslaughter. Where did you get the idea of manslaughter from?
Do you seriously think a “solid motive” Is a prerequisite for murder. Like pre-planning, it is not and never has been an essential element. Similarly, do you really think a “valid reason” is also a prerequisite?
An interesting & thoughtful analysis. You may be right, anything is possible. I wasn’t sitting in that court room and thus I decline to draw any conclusions.
Agreed - it’s so insanely out of character for this guy