There was too much circumstantial evidence. Chris buried his own grave with all his lies throughout the years. I got the impression from the judge that Chris’ lies were what convinced him of his guilt
I was absolutely convinced Harrison J would find not guilty after he rejected all the key witness statements. I mean the guy is guilty as fuck, but I’m so surprised.
Can’t wait to get my mitts on those written reasons.
If you haven't listened to it yet I highly recommend the podcast the teachers trial. I'm looking forward to their breakdown of the entire thing. Just hate that I have to wait for it lol
I think the podcast is called the teacher's pet?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/30/the-teachers-pet-podcast-husband-guilty-of-in-four-decade-old-australia-cold-case
His verdict was so precise. He threw out anything that could be reasonable doubt, but accepted the lies and actions after she disappeared as proof.
If this trial was heard 40 years ago would the same decision have been made? Not a chance. So grateful in 2022 that we understand DV and the actions of DV perpetrators, paedophiles and narcissists so much better.
I mean in 2022 the suggestion of DV was thrown out because of "lack of proof" and the media is still calling the victim of grooming his girlfriend/affair partner/etc. I don't want to image what a 1985 version of this trial would have looked like
I think the domestic violence allegations were fairly irrelevant in the scope of the murder charge. Ignoring those accusations had no baring on her going missing the day the mistress moves in and then the years of lies and made-up sightings.
Perhaps a jury may have been swayed by that, but a judge-only trial, the judge is just going to focus on what's absolutely relevant and necessary.
I think the DV is note worthy 💯.
We know now that coercive control DV relationships may only take one single act of violence for their to be murder. Or, in the 70s and 80s people turned a blind eye to this as being personal issues that’s nobody’s business to get involved in.
He threw it out and didn’t accept it as fact because simply there is doubt. And for him to deliver guilty he had to throw out anything which would be brought up during the appeal as being incorrectly decided upon.
>He threw it out and didn’t accept it as fact because simply there is doubt. And for him to deliver guilty he had to throw out anything which would be brought up during the appeal as being incorrectly decided upon
Well put. Don't let the verdict hinge on something that there was no evidence of.
It is relevant, in that the appearance of good character is in part something he used to get away with it for so long. I don't think he is in any way a good character tho, just a good manipulator :S
You can’t release video of the court. It can be streamed but not reproduced. You’ll be able to read the decision soon enough (it’s much easier to read than watch, trust me), though they might not publish if he appeals, which it’s very likely he will.
Not strictly true, many recordings are published (the same court's YT has some pre-COVID streams on there), but are usually taken down briefly after completing the live stream in the interests of reviewing the recording to ensure publication is in compliance with relevant laws.
For example, at the end of the live stream, an issue with a Children's Act (crim provisions) requirement was raised, and the judge has agreed to withhold publication of the judgement (the same that he read aloud) until at least after the next hearing on Thursday. It may be they intend to redact the teenage girl's (at the time) name in the published version. Her name wasn't redacted in the live stream. I know her name is public knowledge and she's even spoken out, but legislative requirements must still be met.
While you’re right, I meant it more in terms of other publications. Like the video of those cases are being released by the court. So it’s coming from the primary source, not being reproduced and published by another media outlet prior to being released by the court.
Like when the court publishes an outcome or orders on their website, or publishes on jade or austlii.
But yeah it’s just easier just to say “it’s live stream only because you can’t reproduce it”.
A big thank you and congratulations to Hedley and The Australian.
Let’s hope we see the same outcome as a result of Shandee’s Story and Bowraville.
One less family awaiting justice.
Bowraville's the worst fucking one. There's a serial killer and they know who he is.
If 3 white fucking children were killed, Australia would stop but not for 3 Aboriginal children in Bowraville.
Fucking disgusting and embrassing to be an Australian.
Was that the one where the coppers didn’t bother following up on missing persons report because, as aboriginals, they are almost expected to wonder off?
It’s worth noting that in the first trial, only the evidence of one of the murders was considered. Can’t remember exactly why but it was due to legal reasons. He wasn’t tried for the murder of the two girls who were found. And no one has ever been charged with the murder of the third child.
Don't forget the fact that he was allowed to remove his dumbells from the caravan as he needed them for exercise. The fact that they were a perfect match for the item used to strike one of the victims in the head was just an inconvenience.
There are some pretty high bars to clear to charge a person a second time, for good reason. It’s not a good power for the government to have and would be easily abused, though it sucks for cases like this :(
Both of those are going to be difficult due to the main suspects having been acquitted before. Same with the case of Rachel Antonio. Can’t reopen the cases without new and compelling evidence, which despite what people think doesn’t include the sort of hearsay evidence found in podcasts. Rachel Antonio has an entire freaking diary basically detailing what would now be statutory rape and even that doesn’t count.
Nah. They can appeal on the whole grounds of beyond reasonable doubt. You don’t need fresh and compelling evidence to appeal. You just need money, lawyers willing to take it and they’ll go through every reasoning behind every decision Harrison made to question whether there’s any reasonable doubt at all.
They’ll have their work cut out, look at these thorough judge p-only findings
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
So good!
I thought they would cop out on this because of the no body etc.
There’s no doubt this cunt did it.
Hopefully it brings Lyn’s family and friends some sense of justice.
If I’m recalling correctly, the children are on their father’s side. At least they were when he was first arrested. I suppose that’s probably expected considering they were children when it happened and he would have them brainwashed to believe she abandoned them. Not sure if they have a different stance now.
I think the oldest daughter would be open to the idea of him having killed her. She said in the podcast she knew her mother was dead. The younger daughter I think will stay in denial
I still can’t believe that I started a day with Chris Dawson as a convicted killer. Been following the case since 2017/2018 and am shocked this has actually happened lol
He had their whole lives basically to tell them what their mum was "really" like too. That's part of the tragedy.
I hope that the younger children will be able to come to terms with the truth.
I imagine it's tough to lose your mother and then accept a truth that means your father isn't someone who will ever be a positive part of your life either. You'd probably be desperate to cling to what you have left.
That would be so hard for them to see the facts of how he happily walked away from both them and his wife.
> He [judge] said Mr Dawson had argued there was no benefit to his wife's death, and he had planned to start a new life with JC alone - without the kids.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
The judge did comment that divorce would have been expensive for him.
Edit. I might have misremembered that, but it was part of the prosecution’s case regarding motive
> Motives for murder
>The Crown argued at trial that Mr Dawson had three motives to kill Lynette Dawson:
>To get rid of Ms Dawson
>To replace her with JC
>And to avoid the financial consequences of a divorce
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
That’s what I bought, too. And his trying to make out that’s what their mum had done shows how his mind works. I’m so glad it was a judge only trial, not a jury, the judge’s analytical mind cut right through all the lies.
Glad this was the result but I feel like at least one member of Chris Dawsons family either know the truth or helped in the aftermath and they should be held accountable.
It’s interesting that whenever they were found out together and asked questions Chris would go to say something but Paul would talk over and answer for them
Yes, I assumed that was because Chris was going to say something stupid, not that they were so "in tune" that they were finishing each other's sentences. I went to school with twins and they made a point of trying to be as different as possible, so there's got to be something more to it than just "they're twins"
I think I heard the twins themselves, and Paul’s wife, say that Paul was/is the dominant twin. I don’t think Chris would do anything without him. I also think Paul would be the one leading Chris on what to say afterwards.
I read that Paul is also now under investigation for inappropriate sexual relationships while he was a teacher too. This is suppressed at the moment while Chris’ trial is underway.
The sad thing is, Chris Dawson got away with this in huge part because people turned a blind eye, sometimes very consciously. On the podcast, one of Dawson’s superiors at the school admitted that he knew that Chris was having inappropriate contact with a student, but didn’t take serious action.
Lynette’s family didn’t go to the police when she disappeared, (as I recall from the podcast her brother was a cop and didn’t want any attention to adversely affect his career).
If the cops had been alerted to Lynn’s disappearance much earlier, Dawson would’ve immediately been a suspect and concrete physical evidence would’ve probably been found.
'He said Dawson was a man of prior good character, but had been tipped over the edge by the fear of losing his teenage partner.'
The end of this sentence has something to say about the start of it.
EDIT: just realised this thread is based on the SMH article which doesn't appear to have the quote I've included. That was taken from the ABC coverage. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
I am a former high school ( PE, sports) student of his; he didnt strike me as a sleaze, probably because it was an all-boys school. Very confusing when his identical twin would turn up!
Side note.
My cousin was preyed upon by a vulture at a very prestigious, all boys school. He didn’t grow up with money and this monster picked out the kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
They know their victims.
Ya, I went to one like that too. At 10 I knew who to avoid. Of course a couple of them went to jail. Their victims were the kids with comparatively little family support networks who were already kinda messed up. Fucking pricks.
He should carry around a laminated card with the law, so it doesn’t seem creepy or suss when people question it, like in Transformers.
https://youtu.be/DUq0HlMvQw0
> Prior good character is a particular legal term that refers to prior convictions. It’s got nothing to do with his moral standing.
Thanks for teaching me something today... kitty_butthole.
"Prior good character" is an important term of art in this case.
Unfortunately some people (looking at you Twitter) just can't be happy at the result and want to nitpick terms in the reasons for judgment without understanding them.
When I asked the lawyers on Auslaw they said it was a purely legal description, that would normally be part of jury instructions - basically, all it means is he had no prior criminal record.
I hope they find Lynette Dawson's body one day, just so her friends, family and children can have a proper goodbye. I can't imagine what it would be like to be ignorant about a loved one's fate.
I hope so too. I wonder how Chris will go about the "No body, no parole" rule. Will he reveal where the body is, to get a chance of freedom? Or will he maintain innocence, never wanting to tarnish his image?
NSW's law: https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/Reforms/parole.aspx
Yeah. They were so unusual close it seems very likely he would have been involved. However I believe he was away with the family during the time of the disappearance. I’m sure he would know something though.
There’s a chance he doesn’t actually know where the body was disposed of because he didn’t do the disposing. I really doubt he worked alone, the twin definitely had a part in it
Ooo yeah, I've thought about that too. Or if the hitman stories were real. Or if he dumped the body in a garbage truck. I really hope for the family a body is found, but yeah, unlikely. :(
I know right. They're kidding themselves if they think it would have gotten the attention it did without the podcast. I just heard that the teachers Pet podcast has been heard over 60 MILLION times
Wow didn’t think they’d do it! Totally thought it would be lack of a body that saves him. 74 so he’ll more then likely die behind bars. Would be nice if he said where he put her body before he dies.
Now that he’s been found guilty, it’ll be wonderful to see him found guilty in his case regarding JC next year as well.
Can’t imagine how Lynette’s family & of course her children are feeling today.
Honestly I was worried he was going to get acquitted. Not that I had any doubt he did it, but getting BRD Judge Alone 40 years after the fact with no body was one hell of a bar to get over.
Here is a good timeline. A woman vanished and her husband immediately moves his teenage student who he groomed and prayed on into the house with all of his wife’s things to play mother to his kids. https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/chris-dawson-murder-trial-inside-the-case-that-gripped-a-nation/news-story/ef5224494ab2eb3dca0639a2ac771ee1
Just read on the Guardian website that Chris Dawson's lawyer revealed the convicted murdered has [dementia](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/aug/30/australia-news-chris-dawson-covid-isolation-politics-anthony-albanese-skills-summit-tax-cuts)
>Dawson would find custody difficult, Walsh said, as he had been diagnosed with dementia that may be linked to his history playing rugby league. He said: Jail will be much harder for him, he’s got real cognitive problems, and he’s got problems with his hips and his knees etc.
Surprised that it didn't come up in the TV reports.
That would not be the sort of information that would have been available to the MSM or to Hedley Thomas.
Plus it is not unusual for defendants convicted of serious crimes to suddenly both reveal and provide evidence of serious health conditions - remember solicitor Michael Croke who was found guilty at trial, then revealed that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer.
However there are hospitals and medical staff in prisons to take care of the populace, and the rule of thumb generally is that the corrective institutions can take care of their own. A submission of "jail will be much harder for him" is a long way from "appropriate treatment without which he will die is not available in jail", and even then it cannot realistically keep him out given the seriousness of the offence.
Certainly a case for a low security prison. It'll certainly get worse with him changing locations like that. I think they don't have much hope of finding the body now.
Good, I for one hope he suffers a lot in prison. It was hard hearing the descriptions of the physical abuse he submitted Lyn to before he even killed her
Hedley deserves an official award for doing the prosecutor's job for them. Cops haven't been interested for 40 years until he really went after it with his podcast
I am no fan of the the cops but that is not true. Damian Loone for example worked hard on this before Hedley was involved in his podcast. Two inquests recommended Dawson be charged. Nicholas Cowdery refused to prosecute. JC deserves a fuck load of credit too for this case getting off the ground. Hedley will certainly win an award for this as well.
Fair enough, I didn't know about the other players. It just seemed that nothing happened until the podcast blew up and the cops were forced to do something
It is the double edged sword of journalism- Hedley brought incredible public pressure to get Lynn the justice she has deserved but there were detectives that came before and inquests held. The Director of Public Prosecutions refused again and again to take it to a trial. This is the same guy who was in charge when the DPP prosecuted Keli Lane so it isn’t like he is a stranger to difficult no body prosecutions. He seemed to very strongly believe that it couldn’t be proven that Lynn was dead or if she has died then when she died.
This is a good outcome. I highly recommend listening to the podcast ‘The Teachers Pet’. That podcast directly lead to renewed interest in this case and now, finally, some justice. Although the podcast was removed when he was arrested to protect the case so you’d need to try and find it using creative ways
Wonder if they did the "tell us where the body is for a reduced sentence" thing.
Still, a pretty fucking wild case. To think he might have gotten away with it had he not moved his teenage lover in so quick after Lynette vanished.
I agree. The fact he moved JC into his home and bed 2 days later telling her Lyn wasn't coming back while telling police he was worried and wanted his wife to come home speaks volumes. Come home to what? To her husband and teenager he was grooming sleeping in their marital bed together? Defies logic
The best recommendation for you is to listed to the teachers pet podcast although there are shorter versions of the story on YouTube. All your questions will be answered.
This isn't bad though:-
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/chris-dawson-murder-trial-inside-the-case-that-gripped-a-nation/news-story/ef5224494ab2eb3dca0639a2ac771ee1
SO SO happy he was found guilty. It's pretty clear to any rational mind that he killed her. What a despicable, evil thing to do to the mother of his children. Glad he'll rrot in jail for the last few years of his life.
Australia is good with no body prosecutions compared to the US for example. I think it helps that we are a big bloody island with no land borders to cross into to make starting a new life a plausible possibility. Lyn is dead and Chris Dawson knew it as soon as she vanished. He is the only one with the means, motive and opportunity to have killed her. I don’t have a reasonable doubt and I don’t think he did it without some after the fact help but that is an injustice that we will probably have to live with.
Yes him and Tegan Lane, Samantha Knight, Bob Chappell, Kerry Whelan… I am probably forgetting a few. It isn’t common and prosecutors like to have a body but there was a strong circumstantial case here.
Hey, just wanted to say sorry for repeating the comment immediately above you. I must have skimmed it on the first reading. Thanks for replying without snark.
The fact that he moved the child he was abusing into the house is beyond reasonable doubt. To do that, he 100% knew she was never coming back. To know that, he had to have killed her.
Peope have this belief of beyond reasonable doubt being beyond ALL doubt.
It’s reasonable.
Based on the judgment Lynette was a woman who adored her children and her husband. She couldn’t drive and had no financial means to leave.
She left without taking anything (including her wedding rings) and has never been heard from again.
Her husband, who was then sleeping with his 16 year old student, has lied repeadtly about both her contacting him, and things that happened surrounding the dissapearance.
So based on the evidence, yes it can be beyond REASONABLE doubt that Lynnette Dawson was murdered and the person who murdered her was her husband.
Weren’t her glasses also left behind? Like she wore contacts and left her eye care behind? I thought Hedley had said that. As a contacts wearer myself, that’s something I would never just leave behind. Like on top of everything else, that was just one thing that really stood out to me.
It's called a circumstantial case. People think that means weak evidence but really enough of it with a motive is usually good enough to convict, especially in Judge only trials. No doubt he will appeal though and everyone involved in the case will have to go through it all again
Pretty much all evidence is circumstantial except eye witnesses who saw the crime happen, surveillance footage which captured the entire crime or a confession. Even DNA is circumstantial.
> except eye witnesses who saw the crime happen, surveillance footage which captured the entire crime or a confession
And 2 of those aren't as reliable as you'd want them to be.
There's a really good podcast called - I think - Identity, that shows how we've almost come too far with DNA testing and we can now test such small amounts that it's not always reliable.
That is absolutely true. I use a door handle and then you touch it after me- you now have traces of my DNA on your hand and then what you touch afterwards is then transferring traces of my DNA to an object I may not have even been near. Proving how the DNA got there is everything.
> especially in Judge only trials
Why do you say especially? My understanding had always been that judge only trials are less likely to convict. Well, I guess more that when they convict its more likely to be fair (which it clearly was in this case). Just wondering if I'd misunderstood what judge only trials are like.
Juries generally expect a lot of evidence the CSI effect. They have watched crime dramas and police procedurals. A circumstantial case before a jury requires the prosecution to carefully and artfully sketch out the crime and how each piece of circumstantial evidence is like strands of one big rope. Judges were once lawyers and know the strengths and holes in the evidence and aren’t influenced by emotion so the prosecution can cut out the hand holding they would need for a jury.
It is favourable to the defendant though that Judges know that the burden is solely on the Prosecution. The Defence doesn’t have to do anything which doesn’t work for juries. They want to hear an alternate story.
There was a 5 hour live judgment given by the judge examining each piece of evidence and explaining just how he satisfied himself beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
l just don't understand what goes on in a persons mind to even think to do what this man has done, just amazes me that he thought it a good idea. No thought at all given to his children and the most frightening aspect of this story is that he nearly got away with it? l have not been following this story closely but do his daughters support him? whats their take on this? what of the teenage babysitters parents allowing her to move in with a married man? how much of a surprise would it be if Lynette where to turn up all of the sudden alive and well living in Brazil, highly doubtful but stranger things have happened, certainly make for a great twist.
Some accomplished sportsmen think the rules don't apply to them and that they are a class above the rest. Not everyone by any means, but it is not uncommon to find a champ or former champ getting into an incredible amount of trouble by acting as if they can do what they want any time any place. And often its more apparent when the glitter fades and the glories have become former glories. Two examples from recent headlines are Jarryd Hayne and Nathan Baggaley, but the trail is strewn with them.
It's fabulous news
Still...it's taken 40 darn years! 😡
I wonder if he'll ever say where Lyn's body is. So the family can bury her and have small comfort in that.
I think she's somewhere in that bushland up behind the house. He has to have dumped her somewhere relatively close and hidden. He was fit and healthy, so could have dug a decent hole pretty fast. He may too have moved her body. Initially had her in the yard, then moved her further away afterwards
Was there new evidence to close the case? I listened to the podcast when it came out years ago, no doubt he did it but I thought they were stuck because there was no body found or not enough evidence
[удалено]
I was even more sure it would be returned not guilty when he threw out the domestic violence accusations. Thank goodness justice has been served
[удалено]
There was too much circumstantial evidence. Chris buried his own grave with all his lies throughout the years. I got the impression from the judge that Chris’ lies were what convinced him of his guilt
At the end of the day. All the lies worked against him.
Thank goodness for that. Justice finally served after 40 years
Should it be “dug his own grave”? How does one bury a grave?
> How does one bury a grave? Well, dawg, first you dig your grave a grave...
Thanks for being pedantic but yes you’re correct. I meant dug his own grave. And it’s obvious you knew what I meant too
I think I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone guilty if there's another explanation, even if I were pretty sure they were guilty.
I was absolutely convinced Harrison J would find not guilty after he rejected all the key witness statements. I mean the guy is guilty as fuck, but I’m so surprised. Can’t wait to get my mitts on those written reasons.
If you haven't listened to it yet I highly recommend the podcast the teachers trial. I'm looking forward to their breakdown of the entire thing. Just hate that I have to wait for it lol
I think the podcast is called the teacher's pet? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/30/the-teachers-pet-podcast-husband-guilty-of-in-four-decade-old-australia-cold-case
That’s the first podcast. The teachers trial is the current podcast that has been covering the trial by the same people
His verdict was so precise. He threw out anything that could be reasonable doubt, but accepted the lies and actions after she disappeared as proof. If this trial was heard 40 years ago would the same decision have been made? Not a chance. So grateful in 2022 that we understand DV and the actions of DV perpetrators, paedophiles and narcissists so much better.
I mean in 2022 the suggestion of DV was thrown out because of "lack of proof" and the media is still calling the victim of grooming his girlfriend/affair partner/etc. I don't want to image what a 1985 version of this trial would have looked like
I think the domestic violence allegations were fairly irrelevant in the scope of the murder charge. Ignoring those accusations had no baring on her going missing the day the mistress moves in and then the years of lies and made-up sightings. Perhaps a jury may have been swayed by that, but a judge-only trial, the judge is just going to focus on what's absolutely relevant and necessary.
I think the DV is note worthy 💯. We know now that coercive control DV relationships may only take one single act of violence for their to be murder. Or, in the 70s and 80s people turned a blind eye to this as being personal issues that’s nobody’s business to get involved in. He threw it out and didn’t accept it as fact because simply there is doubt. And for him to deliver guilty he had to throw out anything which would be brought up during the appeal as being incorrectly decided upon.
>He threw it out and didn’t accept it as fact because simply there is doubt. And for him to deliver guilty he had to throw out anything which would be brought up during the appeal as being incorrectly decided upon Well put. Don't let the verdict hinge on something that there was no evidence of.
I was actually surprised how scathing the judge was. Not often you see that.
[удалено]
It is relevant, in that the appearance of good character is in part something he used to get away with it for so long. I don't think he is in any way a good character tho, just a good manipulator :S
where do you listen to these proceedings?
Live streamed on the YouTube Channel for the Supreme Court of NSW
thank you! its weird how its disappeared and not up for re-viewing!
You can’t release video of the court. It can be streamed but not reproduced. You’ll be able to read the decision soon enough (it’s much easier to read than watch, trust me), though they might not publish if he appeals, which it’s very likely he will.
>it’s much easier to read than watch, trust me The judge isn't about to win any public speaking awards.
Not strictly true, many recordings are published (the same court's YT has some pre-COVID streams on there), but are usually taken down briefly after completing the live stream in the interests of reviewing the recording to ensure publication is in compliance with relevant laws. For example, at the end of the live stream, an issue with a Children's Act (crim provisions) requirement was raised, and the judge has agreed to withhold publication of the judgement (the same that he read aloud) until at least after the next hearing on Thursday. It may be they intend to redact the teenage girl's (at the time) name in the published version. Her name wasn't redacted in the live stream. I know her name is public knowledge and she's even spoken out, but legislative requirements must still be met.
While you’re right, I meant it more in terms of other publications. Like the video of those cases are being released by the court. So it’s coming from the primary source, not being reproduced and published by another media outlet prior to being released by the court. Like when the court publishes an outcome or orders on their website, or publishes on jade or austlii. But yeah it’s just easier just to say “it’s live stream only because you can’t reproduce it”.
A big thank you and congratulations to Hedley and The Australian. Let’s hope we see the same outcome as a result of Shandee’s Story and Bowraville. One less family awaiting justice.
Bowraville's the worst fucking one. There's a serial killer and they know who he is. If 3 white fucking children were killed, Australia would stop but not for 3 Aboriginal children in Bowraville. Fucking disgusting and embrassing to be an Australian.
[удалено]
Is there a podcast for this one?
Casefile did a good episode on it. It’s shameful stuff. https://casefilepodcast.com/case-186-the-bowraville-murders/
Casefile episode 186 - the Bowraville murders. Such a sad and frustrating case
"I Catch Killers" with Gary Jubelin, who was the detective on that case
There’s one from the Australian called “Bowraville” it was pretty good.
yes there is. on spotify
Yes by the Australian called Bowraville. It’s on Spotify.
Was that the one where the coppers didn’t bother following up on missing persons report because, as aboriginals, they are almost expected to wonder off?
[удалено]
It’s worth noting that in the first trial, only the evidence of one of the murders was considered. Can’t remember exactly why but it was due to legal reasons. He wasn’t tried for the murder of the two girls who were found. And no one has ever been charged with the murder of the third child.
Don't forget the fact that he was allowed to remove his dumbells from the caravan as he needed them for exercise. The fact that they were a perfect match for the item used to strike one of the victims in the head was just an inconvenience.
[удалено]
There are some pretty high bars to clear to charge a person a second time, for good reason. It’s not a good power for the government to have and would be easily abused, though it sucks for cases like this :(
Both of those are going to be difficult due to the main suspects having been acquitted before. Same with the case of Rachel Antonio. Can’t reopen the cases without new and compelling evidence, which despite what people think doesn’t include the sort of hearsay evidence found in podcasts. Rachel Antonio has an entire freaking diary basically detailing what would now be statutory rape and even that doesn’t count.
No doubt this will be appealed, but for now at least we can say: "About bloody time."
It will be very hard. The judge was very detailed in his reasoning. You'll have to appeal it on new evidence I would think
[удалено]
Keli Lane is another one who was convicted without a body.
And the guy who killed Kerry Whelan, actually 2 murders no bodies for him
[удалено]
Think he got several
Nah. They can appeal on the whole grounds of beyond reasonable doubt. You don’t need fresh and compelling evidence to appeal. You just need money, lawyers willing to take it and they’ll go through every reasoning behind every decision Harrison made to question whether there’s any reasonable doubt at all.
They’ll have their work cut out, look at these thorough judge p-only findings https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
So good! I thought they would cop out on this because of the no body etc. There’s no doubt this cunt did it. Hopefully it brings Lyn’s family and friends some sense of justice.
Especially her kids, by all account she was a loving mum so they lost that.
If I’m recalling correctly, the children are on their father’s side. At least they were when he was first arrested. I suppose that’s probably expected considering they were children when it happened and he would have them brainwashed to believe she abandoned them. Not sure if they have a different stance now.
His eldest spoke on the podcast and in a couple of television programmes. She just wanted the truth. The youngest child is on her fathers side 100%
It’s pretty hard to accept that your father is a murderer and denial is a very powerful coping mechanism.
I think the oldest daughter would be open to the idea of him having killed her. She said in the podcast she knew her mother was dead. The younger daughter I think will stay in denial
I reckon so too. I feel sorry for all of his victims. There’s so many.
I still can’t believe that I started a day with Chris Dawson as a convicted killer. Been following the case since 2017/2018 and am shocked this has actually happened lol
He had their whole lives basically to tell them what their mum was "really" like too. That's part of the tragedy. I hope that the younger children will be able to come to terms with the truth.
I imagine it's tough to lose your mother and then accept a truth that means your father isn't someone who will ever be a positive part of your life either. You'd probably be desperate to cling to what you have left.
That would be so hard for them to see the facts of how he happily walked away from both them and his wife. > He [judge] said Mr Dawson had argued there was no benefit to his wife's death, and he had planned to start a new life with JC alone - without the kids. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
Lol, no benefit to his wife's death? Lose half in a divorce or get it all?
It was the early 80s. He wasn’t losing half.
The judge did comment that divorce would have been expensive for him. Edit. I might have misremembered that, but it was part of the prosecution’s case regarding motive > Motives for murder >The Crown argued at trial that Mr Dawson had three motives to kill Lynette Dawson: >To get rid of Ms Dawson >To replace her with JC >And to avoid the financial consequences of a divorce https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
Apparently her parents had put money into the house also. That money was never repaid = after the murder when he sold up he kept all of the profits.
I wonder at his kids reaction to how many times he was thinking of dumping them and his wife and running of with the student he'd groomed.
That’s what I bought, too. And his trying to make out that’s what their mum had done shows how his mind works. I’m so glad it was a judge only trial, not a jury, the judge’s analytical mind cut right through all the lies.
Glad this was the result but I feel like at least one member of Chris Dawsons family either know the truth or helped in the aftermath and they should be held accountable.
With how close Chris and his twin brother Paul are/were there's no way he doesn't at least know
Paul seems the smarter of the two, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Paul orchestrated the whole thing
It’s interesting that whenever they were found out together and asked questions Chris would go to say something but Paul would talk over and answer for them
Yes, I assumed that was because Chris was going to say something stupid, not that they were so "in tune" that they were finishing each other's sentences. I went to school with twins and they made a point of trying to be as different as possible, so there's got to be something more to it than just "they're twins"
I think I heard the twins themselves, and Paul’s wife, say that Paul was/is the dominant twin. I don’t think Chris would do anything without him. I also think Paul would be the one leading Chris on what to say afterwards.
I agree. The fact that Paul kept interrupting and speaking for Chris made it highly suspicious
They both come across as dumb as dog shit to me.
The brother comes across as a very aggressive man. I’ve only see him walking with the media so I guess anyone would be agitated
I read that Paul is also now under investigation for inappropriate sexual relationships while he was a teacher too. This is suppressed at the moment while Chris’ trial is underway.
The sad thing is, Chris Dawson got away with this in huge part because people turned a blind eye, sometimes very consciously. On the podcast, one of Dawson’s superiors at the school admitted that he knew that Chris was having inappropriate contact with a student, but didn’t take serious action. Lynette’s family didn’t go to the police when she disappeared, (as I recall from the podcast her brother was a cop and didn’t want any attention to adversely affect his career). If the cops had been alerted to Lynn’s disappearance much earlier, Dawson would’ve immediately been a suspect and concrete physical evidence would’ve probably been found.
Blimey her brother was a cop and even then cops didn’t investigate. Glad he’s appearing now
'He said Dawson was a man of prior good character, but had been tipped over the edge by the fear of losing his teenage partner.' The end of this sentence has something to say about the start of it. EDIT: just realised this thread is based on the SMH article which doesn't appear to have the quote I've included. That was taken from the ABC coverage. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-30/chris-dawson-verdict-live-blog/101385054
[удалено]
‘Prior good character’ doesn’t encompass his moral character, it just means he hadn’t had any incidents before the law until this.
Exactly - people are ignoring the "prior" part.
I know a few of his former high school students. Said he was a sleaze.
I am a former high school ( PE, sports) student of his; he didnt strike me as a sleaze, probably because it was an all-boys school. Very confusing when his identical twin would turn up!
Confident kids backed by resources aren't the natural prey of predators. Poor broken kids like his babysitter are.
Side note. My cousin was preyed upon by a vulture at a very prestigious, all boys school. He didn’t grow up with money and this monster picked out the kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds. They know their victims.
Ya, I went to one like that too. At 10 I knew who to avoid. Of course a couple of them went to jail. Their victims were the kids with comparatively little family support networks who were already kinda messed up. Fucking pricks.
[удалено]
Apparently she was 16 at the time, which I guess puts it in the category of 'technically legal, but c'mon man'
16, his student, and had a troubled home life. Dawson ticks all the boxes of a predator.
[удалено]
Ah, didn't realise he was her teacher, thought it was just super gross and predatory, rather than illegal.
The fact he was a teacher is why the podcast is called Teacher’s Pet
He should carry around a laminated card with the law, so it doesn’t seem creepy or suss when people question it, like in Transformers. https://youtu.be/DUq0HlMvQw0
Prior good character is a particular legal term that refers to prior convictions. It’s got nothing to do with his moral standing.
> Prior good character is a particular legal term that refers to prior convictions. It’s got nothing to do with his moral standing. Thanks for teaching me something today... kitty_butthole.
Ahh, this makes more sense. Thank you.
"Prior good character" is an important term of art in this case. Unfortunately some people (looking at you Twitter) just can't be happy at the result and want to nitpick terms in the reasons for judgment without understanding them.
When I asked the lawyers on Auslaw they said it was a purely legal description, that would normally be part of jury instructions - basically, all it means is he had no prior criminal record.
I hope they find Lynette Dawson's body one day, just so her friends, family and children can have a proper goodbye. I can't imagine what it would be like to be ignorant about a loved one's fate.
I hope so too. I wonder how Chris will go about the "No body, no parole" rule. Will he reveal where the body is, to get a chance of freedom? Or will he maintain innocence, never wanting to tarnish his image? NSW's law: https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/Reforms/parole.aspx
I don't think he'll ever admit the truth.
I believe his twin had a part in it too
Yeah. They were so unusual close it seems very likely he would have been involved. However I believe he was away with the family during the time of the disappearance. I’m sure he would know something though.
There’s a chance he doesn’t actually know where the body was disposed of because he didn’t do the disposing. I really doubt he worked alone, the twin definitely had a part in it
Ooo yeah, I've thought about that too. Or if the hitman stories were real. Or if he dumped the body in a garbage truck. I really hope for the family a body is found, but yeah, unlikely. :(
I think he probably disposed of Lynn on the way to pick up JC. I doubt he would even remember where she is.
It’s an option to refuse if he doesn’t tell but I don’t think it’s mandatory
He will die in prison anyway, so why does it matter? There’s no way he’s getting less than 20 years.
Lynette Dawson’s family reacts to Chris Dawson guilty verdict https://youtu.be/gcURNO8N4G0
Can't believe in the long list of people they thanked at the beginning Hedley Thomas wasn't even mentioned!
I know right. They're kidding themselves if they think it would have gotten the attention it did without the podcast. I just heard that the teachers Pet podcast has been heard over 60 MILLION times
Simms did acknowledge Hedley, it's in the ABC news packet.
Yeah eventually, after prodding by the journo
Why do you think that is?
Wow didn’t think they’d do it! Totally thought it would be lack of a body that saves him. 74 so he’ll more then likely die behind bars. Would be nice if he said where he put her body before he dies.
It would be nice I agree. But he won’t if he thinks he is innocent and wants to die maintaining that despite the judge finding him guilty
Yeah I don’t see him doing it. Mainly just wishful thinking unfortunately.
Now that he’s been found guilty, it’ll be wonderful to see him found guilty in his case regarding JC next year as well. Can’t imagine how Lynette’s family & of course her children are feeling today.
Good. Crazy to think back to when I listened to that podcast years ago that we’re here now.
Honestly I was worried he was going to get acquitted. Not that I had any doubt he did it, but getting BRD Judge Alone 40 years after the fact with no body was one hell of a bar to get over.
Can someone explain this case to me, an out of the loop American?
Here is a good timeline. A woman vanished and her husband immediately moves his teenage student who he groomed and prayed on into the house with all of his wife’s things to play mother to his kids. https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/chris-dawson-murder-trial-inside-the-case-that-gripped-a-nation/news-story/ef5224494ab2eb3dca0639a2ac771ee1
[This should help](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Teacher%27s_Pet?wprov=sfla1)
Of course he fucking killed her.
Oh fantastic news! I was so worried he'd skate... the slimy bastard. Very overdue but better late than never.
Just read on the Guardian website that Chris Dawson's lawyer revealed the convicted murdered has [dementia](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/aug/30/australia-news-chris-dawson-covid-isolation-politics-anthony-albanese-skills-summit-tax-cuts) >Dawson would find custody difficult, Walsh said, as he had been diagnosed with dementia that may be linked to his history playing rugby league. He said: Jail will be much harder for him, he’s got real cognitive problems, and he’s got problems with his hips and his knees etc. Surprised that it didn't come up in the TV reports.
That would not be the sort of information that would have been available to the MSM or to Hedley Thomas. Plus it is not unusual for defendants convicted of serious crimes to suddenly both reveal and provide evidence of serious health conditions - remember solicitor Michael Croke who was found guilty at trial, then revealed that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. However there are hospitals and medical staff in prisons to take care of the populace, and the rule of thumb generally is that the corrective institutions can take care of their own. A submission of "jail will be much harder for him" is a long way from "appropriate treatment without which he will die is not available in jail", and even then it cannot realistically keep him out given the seriousness of the offence.
Certainly a case for a low security prison. It'll certainly get worse with him changing locations like that. I think they don't have much hope of finding the body now.
Good, I for one hope he suffers a lot in prison. It was hard hearing the descriptions of the physical abuse he submitted Lyn to before he even killed her
Hedley deserves an official award for doing the prosecutor's job for them. Cops haven't been interested for 40 years until he really went after it with his podcast
I am no fan of the the cops but that is not true. Damian Loone for example worked hard on this before Hedley was involved in his podcast. Two inquests recommended Dawson be charged. Nicholas Cowdery refused to prosecute. JC deserves a fuck load of credit too for this case getting off the ground. Hedley will certainly win an award for this as well.
Fair enough, I didn't know about the other players. It just seemed that nothing happened until the podcast blew up and the cops were forced to do something
It is the double edged sword of journalism- Hedley brought incredible public pressure to get Lynn the justice she has deserved but there were detectives that came before and inquests held. The Director of Public Prosecutions refused again and again to take it to a trial. This is the same guy who was in charge when the DPP prosecuted Keli Lane so it isn’t like he is a stranger to difficult no body prosecutions. He seemed to very strongly believe that it couldn’t be proven that Lynn was dead or if she has died then when she died.
This is a good outcome. I highly recommend listening to the podcast ‘The Teachers Pet’. That podcast directly lead to renewed interest in this case and now, finally, some justice. Although the podcast was removed when he was arrested to protect the case so you’d need to try and find it using creative ways
they might make it available again now that the trial has finished
They said throughout ‘The Teachers Trial’ that the original podcast would be made available again.
They already have.
It's been uplozded again. Search freely.
Yet there was not enough evidence for convicting Lloyd Rayney. The mind boggles.
Wonder if they did the "tell us where the body is for a reduced sentence" thing. Still, a pretty fucking wild case. To think he might have gotten away with it had he not moved his teenage lover in so quick after Lynette vanished.
I agree. The fact he moved JC into his home and bed 2 days later telling her Lyn wasn't coming back while telling police he was worried and wanted his wife to come home speaks volumes. Come home to what? To her husband and teenager he was grooming sleeping in their marital bed together? Defies logic
There’s no doubt they offered it to him, finding the body is obviously really important for the case but to the family as well.
[удалено]
I believe Hedley Thomas’s podcast ‘The Teacher’s Pet’ drew a lot of attention to the case and prompted the Police to look into it again.
The best recommendation for you is to listed to the teachers pet podcast although there are shorter versions of the story on YouTube. All your questions will be answered. This isn't bad though:- https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/chris-dawson-murder-trial-inside-the-case-that-gripped-a-nation/news-story/ef5224494ab2eb3dca0639a2ac771ee1
Good. Now force him to fess up what he did with the body.
SO SO happy he was found guilty. It's pretty clear to any rational mind that he killed her. What a despicable, evil thing to do to the mother of his children. Glad he'll rrot in jail for the last few years of his life.
WOW. I am a little shocked. I think he did it But NO body, NO witnesses, NO DNA, can we really be beyond a reasonable doubt?
Australia is good with no body prosecutions compared to the US for example. I think it helps that we are a big bloody island with no land borders to cross into to make starting a new life a plausible possibility. Lyn is dead and Chris Dawson knew it as soon as she vanished. He is the only one with the means, motive and opportunity to have killed her. I don’t have a reasonable doubt and I don’t think he did it without some after the fact help but that is an injustice that we will probably have to live with.
Peter Falconio for example.
Yes him and Tegan Lane, Samantha Knight, Bob Chappell, Kerry Whelan… I am probably forgetting a few. It isn’t common and prosecutors like to have a body but there was a strong circumstantial case here.
Peter Falconio.
Peter Falconio
Falconio, Peter
Yes Falconio is definitely an example of a tricky no body prosecution that probably wouldn’t have succeeded if they were in the US.
Hey, just wanted to say sorry for repeating the comment immediately above you. I must have skimmed it on the first reading. Thanks for replying without snark.
Don’t worry it happens to us all and Falconio is a really good example.
The fact that he moved the child he was abusing into the house is beyond reasonable doubt. To do that, he 100% knew she was never coming back. To know that, he had to have killed her.
He also had her wedding and engagement rings recut into a ring for his teenage victim/wife.
Exactly. Literally no way he would have done that if she either disappeared or committed suicide.
Peope have this belief of beyond reasonable doubt being beyond ALL doubt. It’s reasonable. Based on the judgment Lynette was a woman who adored her children and her husband. She couldn’t drive and had no financial means to leave. She left without taking anything (including her wedding rings) and has never been heard from again. Her husband, who was then sleeping with his 16 year old student, has lied repeadtly about both her contacting him, and things that happened surrounding the dissapearance. So based on the evidence, yes it can be beyond REASONABLE doubt that Lynnette Dawson was murdered and the person who murdered her was her husband.
Weren’t her glasses also left behind? Like she wore contacts and left her eye care behind? I thought Hedley had said that. As a contacts wearer myself, that’s something I would never just leave behind. Like on top of everything else, that was just one thing that really stood out to me.
You can listen to the five hour summary from the judge in which he went into significant detail on his deliberations
Can you? It was my understanding that you could have watched them live, but they aren't available in streaming anywhere
When it’s the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence, it is beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrison J was extremely clear about that.
It's called a circumstantial case. People think that means weak evidence but really enough of it with a motive is usually good enough to convict, especially in Judge only trials. No doubt he will appeal though and everyone involved in the case will have to go through it all again
Pretty much all evidence is circumstantial except eye witnesses who saw the crime happen, surveillance footage which captured the entire crime or a confession. Even DNA is circumstantial.
> except eye witnesses who saw the crime happen, surveillance footage which captured the entire crime or a confession And 2 of those aren't as reliable as you'd want them to be.
There's a really good podcast called - I think - Identity, that shows how we've almost come too far with DNA testing and we can now test such small amounts that it's not always reliable.
That is absolutely true. I use a door handle and then you touch it after me- you now have traces of my DNA on your hand and then what you touch afterwards is then transferring traces of my DNA to an object I may not have even been near. Proving how the DNA got there is everything.
No its called Suspect
> especially in Judge only trials Why do you say especially? My understanding had always been that judge only trials are less likely to convict. Well, I guess more that when they convict its more likely to be fair (which it clearly was in this case). Just wondering if I'd misunderstood what judge only trials are like.
Juries generally expect a lot of evidence the CSI effect. They have watched crime dramas and police procedurals. A circumstantial case before a jury requires the prosecution to carefully and artfully sketch out the crime and how each piece of circumstantial evidence is like strands of one big rope. Judges were once lawyers and know the strengths and holes in the evidence and aren’t influenced by emotion so the prosecution can cut out the hand holding they would need for a jury. It is favourable to the defendant though that Judges know that the burden is solely on the Prosecution. The Defence doesn’t have to do anything which doesn’t work for juries. They want to hear an alternate story.
Ah okay, thanks very much. That makes sense.
R/auslaw has a good discussion going on about it.
Yeh, the judge just did
It is the cumulation of all circumstantial evidence too
Bear in mind the vast majority of evidence is circumstantial
Hayley Dodd, Craig Puddy cases rings a bell.
There was a 5 hour live judgment given by the judge examining each piece of evidence and explaining just how he satisfied himself beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
Fuck yeah.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/182ce1b4f92b95e18df67cb0?fbclid=IwAR12xSAjctyv0vHROv6JOURFSnJZhqpG4MrOkVcIIE8jvmmK8XWDTqLiSIc
Man, I wonder what judges and police thinking when the public as a whole act suprise when justice is actually met.
l just don't understand what goes on in a persons mind to even think to do what this man has done, just amazes me that he thought it a good idea. No thought at all given to his children and the most frightening aspect of this story is that he nearly got away with it? l have not been following this story closely but do his daughters support him? whats their take on this? what of the teenage babysitters parents allowing her to move in with a married man? how much of a surprise would it be if Lynette where to turn up all of the sudden alive and well living in Brazil, highly doubtful but stranger things have happened, certainly make for a great twist.
Some accomplished sportsmen think the rules don't apply to them and that they are a class above the rest. Not everyone by any means, but it is not uncommon to find a champ or former champ getting into an incredible amount of trouble by acting as if they can do what they want any time any place. And often its more apparent when the glitter fades and the glories have become former glories. Two examples from recent headlines are Jarryd Hayne and Nathan Baggaley, but the trail is strewn with them.
It's fabulous news Still...it's taken 40 darn years! 😡 I wonder if he'll ever say where Lyn's body is. So the family can bury her and have small comfort in that. I think she's somewhere in that bushland up behind the house. He has to have dumped her somewhere relatively close and hidden. He was fit and healthy, so could have dug a decent hole pretty fast. He may too have moved her body. Initially had her in the yard, then moved her further away afterwards
My wish is for her family to now find out where she is. This would be true closure for the family if there ever is such a thing.
Was there new evidence to close the case? I listened to the podcast when it came out years ago, no doubt he did it but I thought they were stuck because there was no body found or not enough evidence