Anonymous

As of the release of this episode, Victoria's Court of Appeal have yet to decide whether to hear Lynn's appeal, which means he could face a new trial in 2025. Addressing Lynn's intent to appeal, his barrister flagged several grounds, focusing especially on the jury's inconsistent verdict.

He questioned how Lynn could be found guilty of murdering Carol, but not Russell, when the prosecution's case hinged on Carol being killed to cover up Russell's murder. This contradiction, the defence argued, could undermine the entire verdict. The verdict did cause some initial confusion among members of the public who had been following the case.

He questioned how Lynn could be found guilty of murdering Carol, but not Russell, when the prosecution's case hinged on Carol being killed to cover up Russell's murder. This contradiction, the defence argued, could undermine the entire verdict. The verdict did cause some initial confusion among members of the public who had been following the case.

He questioned how Lynn could be found guilty of murdering Carol, but not Russell, when the prosecution's case hinged on Carol being killed to cover up Russell's murder. This contradiction, the defence argued, could undermine the entire verdict. The verdict did cause some initial confusion among members of the public who had been following the case.

The jury's acquittal of Lynn for Russell Hill's murder indicated they hadn't been convinced by the prosecution's case. But their conviction of him for Carol Clay's killing pointed to them not believing Lynn's claims either. He had always insisted Carol had died first following an accidental shooting by Russell, yet the jury found Lynn responsible for her murder.

The jury's acquittal of Lynn for Russell Hill's murder indicated they hadn't been convinced by the prosecution's case. But their conviction of him for Carol Clay's killing pointed to them not believing Lynn's claims either. He had always insisted Carol had died first following an accidental shooting by Russell, yet the jury found Lynn responsible for her murder.

The jury's acquittal of Lynn for Russell Hill's murder indicated they hadn't been convinced by the prosecution's case. But their conviction of him for Carol Clay's killing pointed to them not believing Lynn's claims either. He had always insisted Carol had died first following an accidental shooting by Russell, yet the jury found Lynn responsible for her murder.

As Australian juries are not permitted to speak publicly about their deliberations, people could only speculate as to how they had reached their verdict.

As Australian juries are not permitted to speak publicly about their deliberations, people could only speculate as to how they had reached their verdict.

As Australian juries are not permitted to speak publicly about their deliberations, people could only speculate as to how they had reached their verdict.

Crime journalist John Sylvester interpreted the verdict to his readers in an article for The Age, writing, It would appear the jury concluded that Russell was killed in unprovable circumstances, but Lynn then murdered Carol because she was a witness to the death.

Crime journalist John Sylvester interpreted the verdict to his readers in an article for The Age, writing, It would appear the jury concluded that Russell was killed in unprovable circumstances, but Lynn then murdered Carol because she was a witness to the death.

Crime journalist John Sylvester interpreted the verdict to his readers in an article for The Age, writing, It would appear the jury concluded that Russell was killed in unprovable circumstances, but Lynn then murdered Carol because she was a witness to the death.

With the option of manslaughter off the table, the jury had to conclude whether Russell was murdered, a deliberate act, not just unlawfully killed, a reckless act.

With the option of manslaughter off the table, the jury had to conclude whether Russell was murdered, a deliberate act, not just unlawfully killed, a reckless act.

With the option of manslaughter off the table, the jury had to conclude whether Russell was murdered, a deliberate act, not just unlawfully killed, a reckless act.

With no forensic evidence, it was impossible for the jury to establish the exact circumstances of Russell's death, but they apparently concluded it was so damning that Lynn chose to kill Carol and destroy the crime scene in the cover-up.

With no forensic evidence, it was impossible for the jury to establish the exact circumstances of Russell's death, but they apparently concluded it was so damning that Lynn chose to kill Carol and destroy the crime scene in the cover-up.

With no forensic evidence, it was impossible for the jury to establish the exact circumstances of Russell's death, but they apparently concluded it was so damning that Lynn chose to kill Carol and destroy the crime scene in the cover-up.

Sylvester noted that it's unusual for a random gunshot to hit someone ducking from the line of fire, and even more so for a ricocheted shot to hit someone in the head. This made Lynn's claims about Carol's death highly unlikely, although there was evidence that she had been shot.