Current Trial The Teachers Pet Podcast & Chris Dawson's Murder Trial * New Carnal Knowledge Trial

[Kane McGoodwin]

Hedley is causing just as much trauma as he is solving: let the case go mate and let the justice system do it’s thing and stop trying to cash in

Isn't he wanting more charges against Teachers who were part of Dawson's under age sex ring... & for the Education Department to take responsibility for doing **** all & offer compensation to victims?

 

[Kwality]

Maybe the bosses at NSW Dept Education, the Minister for Education and her political colleagues can have a long hard think about how they can try and make a teaching career in NSW more attractive, and the effect that what goes down in Court involving their department might be taken into considering by current and potential workers in the NSW Public Education Sector.

Maybe the Federal Minister for Education can give some sound advice to his NSW Colleagues on this matter too.

Australian students shun education degrees as fears grow over ‘unprecedented’ teacher shortage

University application first preferences dropped almost 20% this year, compared with 2023

www.theguardian.com

'“In the next few weeks, we’re also launching a national campaign to promote the teaching profession, to encourage people to want to become a teacher by raising the status of the profession in the community,” Clare said.

“I want to change the way we as a country think about our teachers, and the way our teachers think our country thinks of them.”'

The transparency of the Victorian Education Department is also being questioned ,more specifically moving suspected (claimed) paedophiles from school to school as exposed by ABC journo Russell Jackson ( Muck Rack | For journalists and public relations ).

The failure of the ABC in Melbourne to more widely discuss these issues is a different issue.

 

[Kwality]

Thanks for this, my comment was just more in general about how much he continues to play hero type card whilst jeopardising prosecutions and making serious money off others misery by keeping it in the public spotlight. The cops have what they need, give the family and victims their space

There is a backstory :

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/chris-dawson-hedley-thomas-and-the-personal-secret-behind-the-teachers-pet/news-story/6e1664104ae2241da3ed3428e790ae1c

Outlines how the podcast got up.
' I’ve never done a podcast before. Audio and narration are a new medium for a reporter who started when the clatter of typewriters filled newsrooms. In the true crime podcast space, I’ve only heard a few: American broadcaster Sarah Koenig’s 2014 podcast Serial about Adnan Syed, a convicted killer who denied slaying his former girlfriend Hae Min Lee in Baltimore in 1999, was the first.

Newspaper journalists are, in the main, soloists who recoil from the long arm of management. We persuade ourselves that we do our best work when left well alone to go away and dig and dig. It presents impossible challenges for editors, who must fill the newspaper every day.'

THE TEACHER'S PET​

The secret behind the crime story of the decade
Hedley Thomas reveals for the first time the personal family tragedy that drove him to pursue The Teacher’s Pet story harder than anything else in his career. | LISTEN to an exclusive audiobook extract

How Dawson’s legal gambit almost derailed the case
If the former teacher succeeded in his bid, the fallout and potential financial costs would have been disastrous. Lyn’s family would be inconsolable, their last chance dashed.

Inside the making of The Teacher’s Pet
Five months into the investigation, a good friend said I was seriously, unhealthily stressed. Then followed a stroke of luck that changed everything.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Appeal lodged apparently. On my reading of the judgement and the law applicable I feel that there is a very good chance the appeal will be upheld.

Where a decision is made on the basis of consciousness of guilt the legal principle is that the behaviors (7 in all lies ) must ONLY be explicable by reference to hiding the crime of murder. The mistake? Is that they could have sought to hide his conduct in sexual intercourse with a minor (also a crime) who you taught. You cant do that on the law as current precedents stand

I suspect that is why the appeal is happening now AFTER the case for sexual intercourse with the under age victim which case was decided just recently. If the appeal is dismissed it will create a precedent in new territory where there are two potential motives for the lies

 

[FTY1]

Appeal lodged apparently. On my reading of the judgement and the law applicable I feel that there is a very good chance the appeal will be upheld.

Where a decision is made on the basis of consciousness of guilt the legal principle is that is that the behaviors (7 in all lies ) must ONLY be explicable by reference to hiding the crime of murder. The mistake? Is that they could have sought to hide his conduct in sexual intercourse with a minor (also a crime) who you taught. You cant do that on the law as current precedents stand

I suspect that is why the appeal is happening now AFTER the case for sexual intercourse with the under age victim which case was decided just recently. If the appeal is dismissed it will create a precedent in new territory where there are two potential motives for the lies

Will be heard on Thursday and the option of Appeal is granted will be on a later date. So this isn't Pro Bono anymore right?

Wife-killer Chris Dawson’s move to be freed

Wife-killer and former teacher Chris Dawson has launched an appeal against his murder conviction as he fights to be freed from jail.

au.finance.yahoo.com

Lawyers acting for the former Newtown Jets rugby league player are set to appear in the Court of Criminal Appeal - the state’s highest court - on Thursday in a first step in attempting to have his conviction overturned.

 

[FTY1]

Chris Dawson's misogyny 'major' red flag for daughter Shanelle as she processed mother's disappearance

After decades of deception, a protracted police investigation and a very public trial, Shanelle Dawson reclaims her story, sharing the betrayal of losing her mum at the hands of her own father.

www.abc.net.au

A new article on Lyn. Not much information but related to a podcast link with interview with Shanelle.

Shanelle Dawson: the daughter's story - ABC listen

In 2018, Shanelle Dawson's family were the subject of a hit true crime podcast which helped convict her father Chris Dawson of her mother's murder. Now she's reclaiming her own story and the story of her mother Lynette

www.abc.net.au

 

[elyzena]

Dawson didn’t seem to be hiding his relationship after Lynette went missing - and she was no longer a minor so not sure if the lies would reasonable be viewed that way?

 

[Kurve]

Settled with the state of NSW.

The woman launched a civil case against the state earlier this year, claiming it failed in its duty of care to protect her from the abuse.

Woman sexually abused by Chris Dawson as a schoolgirl settles lawsuit against New South Wales

The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, claims she was groomed and sexually abused by the former teacher at a public school on Sydney's northern beaches in the 1970s and 1980s.

www.abc.net.au

 

[FTY1]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/convicted-wife-killer-chris-dawsons-desperate-bid-to-be-released-from-jail/news-story/c1a01f7d7e2d5a4dc6333d79453a5561

This article for me in available so hopefully it remains available.

Chris Dawson's appeal is 13 May next year.
From the article.

"Ex-teacher Chris Dawson claims it was “unreasonable” for a judge to find him guilty of murdering his wife Lynette Simms, a court has been told, as he launched his bid to be freed from jail.

Dawson, 75, will appear before the state’s highest court – the Court of Criminal Appeal – in May next year in an attempt to have his murder conviction quashed.


The former Newtown Jets rugby league player was sentenced to 24 years in prison after a Supreme Court judge last year found him guilty of murdering his wife, who disappeared from their Bayview home on Sydney’s northern beaches more than 40 years ago.

After a long-running trial, Justice Ian Harrison found that Dawson killed his wife so he could be with the family’s babysitter, whom he later went on to marry.


Ms Simms disappeared in January 1982 – her body has never been found and she never contacted her friends or family, including her two children.

On Thursday, lawyers acting for Dawson appeared in the Court of Criminal Appeal after he launched an appeal against the verdict.


The court was told that his appeal would be heard over three days from May 13 next year.


Dawson has appealed on four grounds, including that the verdict was “unreasonable”, the court was told on Thursday.


In the Grounds of Appeal, Dawson’s lawyers argue the ex-footballer was subject to a “significant forensic disadvantage” because of the four decades between Lynette’s disappearance and the trial, meaning evidence and witnesses were no longer available.


In his judgment, Justice Harrison found that Dawson told several lies and said: “ I consider that these lies are evidence of Mr Dawson’s consciousness of guilt for the murder of Lynette Dawson.”

Dawson’s lawyers argue that it was wrong to infer that he displayed a consciousness of guilt.


As well, they argue that the verdict was “unreasonable” and not supported by the evidence.


They say that there was “inadequate” evidence to prove that Ms Dawson was not alive after January 9, 1982.


They further argue “on the whole of the evidence” it was “not open” to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dawson was guilty.


Dawson will watch his appeal from prison via audio link and will be represented by senior public defender Belinda Rigg SC.


During his judgment last year, Justice Harrison said the case against Dawson was circumstantial, however noted a guilty verdict was the only “rational inference” he could draw from the circumstances.


Ms Simms was 33 when she was last seen on Friday, January 8, 1982 and her last known contact came when she spoke to her mother Helena Simms on a phone call that evening.


Justice Harrison found that Dawson had a “possessive infatuation” with the family’s babysitter, who moved into his Bayview home after Lynette disappeared.

Dawson was found to have killed his wife just weeks after he had unsuccessfully attempted to run off with the teenage babysitter to start a new life in Queensland.


Dawson has always maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty to the murder charge at trial.


At trial, his defence argued that he had neither the opportunity nor the motive to kill the mother of his two children.


Dawson in 1991 told detectives during a police interview that he had dropped off his wife at a Mona Vale bus stop so she could go shopping and it was planned that she would meet him later that afternoon.


However, she did not arrive at the Northbridge Baths, where Dawson worked as a part-time lifeguard.


Dawson was sentenced to 24 years in jail with an 18-year non-parole period.


Earlier this year, Dawson was also convicted of one count of carnal knowledge after a judge found he engaged in sexual activities with one of his 16-year-old students at a Sydney high school in 1980.


He was sentenced by Judge Sarah Huggett to three years in jail and had one year added onto his non-parole period."

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Dawson didn’t seem to be hiding his relationship after Lynette went missing - and she was no longer a minor so not sure if the lies would reasonable be viewed that way?

What he did was a crime. In exchange of messages at school he referred to himself as 'god' to hide the relationship. So yes I very much believe he was seeking to hide the relationship and it's criminal effect.

When you adopt consciousness of guilt the texts on the subject say the lie must hide only THE crime and nothing else otherwise it can't be said to be consciousness of guilt. For that reason I think the decision was flawed.

It's certainly possible that he is seeking to make a new distinction in that there might be multiple reasons and that's still ok providing the major reason is murder. As law currently stands that isn't currently the case.

So I suspect it will be overturned on appeal and a new case ordered

In addition one of the lies that he concluded was a lie was that no one had called at his work the following day if I recall. How he came to that conclusion is baffling, because he was called to the phone, it was a woman's voice and he straight away went to family to say it was Lynnette and that she went away. He could have lied about who was on the phone but it was a woman and the call was real. Questionable determination of facts/ lie. There was absolutely no evidence to say the call wasn't real. For years afterwards the family were convinced it had been LD because they believed the circumstances of the call.This is probably tied up in being disadvantaged by foggy memory. Do I think it was a lie. Probably. But to conclude there was no call 40 years later is poor. In fact probably a denial of natural justice. The police would or should have discussed it with receptionist and probably did but never recorded a statement. Perhaps intentionally because they didn't want on record anything that would exonerate him.

I think Harrison did a poor job tbh

 

[FTY1]

What he did was a crime. In exchange of messages at school he referred to himself as 'god' to hide the relationship. So yes I very much believe he was seeking to hide the relationship and it's criminal effect.

When you adopt consciousness of guilt the texts on the subject say the lie must hide only THE crime and nothing else otherwise it can't be said to be consciousness of guilt. For that reason I think the decision was flawed.

It's certainly possible that he is seeking to make a new distinction in that there might be multiple reasons and that's still ok providing the major reason is murder. As law currently stands that isn't currently the case.

So I suspect it will be overturned on appeal and a new case ordered

In addition one of the lies that he concluded was a lie was that no one had called at his work the following day if I recall. How he came to that conclusion is baffling, because he was called to the phone, it was a woman's voice and he straight away went to family to say it was Lynnette and that she went away. He could have lied about who was on the phone but it was a woman and the call was real. Questionable determination of facts/ lie. There was absolutely no evidence to say the call wasn't real. For years afterwards the family were convinced it had been LD because they believed the circumstances of the call.This is probably tied up in being disadvantaged by foggy memory. Do I think it was a lie. Probably. But to conclude there was no call 40 years later is poor. In fact probably a denial of natural justice. The police would or should have discussed it with receptionist and probably did but never recorded a statement. Perhaps intentionally because they didn't want on record anything that would exonerate him.

I think Harrison did a poor job tbh

There was multiple checks about the phone call.

It was backed up that both Phil Day and Helena Simms got the message from Chris that he "said" there was a phone call.

The kiosk girls - one had said that Col was there the day she received an STD phone call. She didn't remember whether the STD phone call was for Paul or for Chris because although she was a twin she couldn't tell them apart.

The second girl JM evidence was as follows.

1. JM said she had no memory of working with CB. JM kept a diary at the time. Her entry for 9 January 1982 contains the following notation:

“Saturday 1982 Worked in shop 8 – 5.30 didn’t get any money because, as usual, Col left at 12.00 and Chris Dawson never pays.”

The combined evidence of the 2 girls eliminates Chris Dawson receiving the STD phone call on 9 January 1982. The judge took into account all the evidence provided including from the inquest where Phil Day was interviewed and Helena Simms diary.

The transcript about the kiosk is quite thorough as to why the decision was made and evidence based.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There was multiple checks about the phone call.

It was backed up that both Phil Day and Helena Simms got the message from Chris that he "said" there was a phone call.

The kiosk girls - one had said that Col was there the day she received an STD phone call. She didn't remember whether the STD phone call was for Paul or for Chris because although she was a twin she couldn't tell them apart.

The second girl JM evidence was as follows.

1. JM said she had no memory of working with CB. JM kept a diary at the time. Her entry for 9 January 1982 contains the following notation:

“Saturday 1982 Worked in shop 8 – 5.30 didn’t get any money because, as usual, Col left at 12.00 and Chris Dawson never pays.”

The combined evidence of the 2 girls eliminates Chris Dawson receiving the STD phone call on 9 January 1982. The judge took into account all the evidence provided including from the inquest where Phil Day was interviewed and Helena Simms diary.

The transcript about the kiosk is quite thorough as to why the decision was made and evidence based.

Thx for that. I need to go back over the evidence and compare with the transcript. So essentially he is saying that CD contrived existence of the call, it's STD nature, female voice to make it seem that he received a call when he hadn't. Yet for 40 years the glaring answer was ALWAYS there that it was contrived.. you think police would have easily found that out and arrested him decades ago. I mean the kiosk girls had been spoken to before but they didn't think it important enough to take a statement. Wonder why? What do I suspect? I suspect this has always been a hole in the case proof of life as it were and the evidence. Wow a 40 year old diary which provides proof it can't have been that day when that lie would have made him immediately a suspect and charged. Pretty stupid thing for him to fabricate in those circumstances wouldn't you say. Let's look at the Telstra account detail that should expose such a weak lie easily STD calls being so rare. Oh that's right....not there now is it. Paul gave evidence. Did they ask him whether he took a call STD at all and which day it was? My guess no.

It almost appears like how can we undermine the evidence around the call. A diary would be great proof

There was clear evidence LD was feeling down about loss of the marriage. There was discussion too that she may have been depressed. Yet it's not even remotely possible that CD told her that night the marriage was over and next day she leaves in total despair and suicides by jumping off the gap in the following days or weeks. This sort of thing happens all the time with marriage breakdowns.

I think CD did it. 40 years on I simply don't think there is enough evidence to prove it and hanging your hat on consciousness of guilt when there are clearly multiple reasons to lie ( sex with under age student being one) is plain wrong. That's even before you get to reasonable doubt that she may have suicided in despair upon ending the marriage when she was obsessed with Chris. I remain of the view it was a poor decision.

It will be interesting to see appeal

Addendum: It would be interesting if diary records spanning more than just one year were subpoenaed to prove their contemporaneous nature.

 

[jason_recliner]

Thx for that. I need to go back over the evidence and compare with the transcript. So essentially he is saying that CD contrived existence of the call, it's STD nature, female voice to make it seem that he received a call when he hadn't. Yet for 40 years the glaring answer was ALWAYS there that it was contrived.. you think police would have easily found that out and arrested him decades ago. I mean the kiosk girls had been spoken to before but they didn't think it important enough to take a statement. Wonder why? What do I suspect? I suspect this has always been a hole in the case proof of life as it were and the evidence. Wow a 40 year old diary which provides proof it can't have been that day when that lie would have made him immediately a suspect and charged. Pretty stupid thing for him to fabricate in those circumstances wouldn't you say. Let's look at the Telstra account detail that should expose such a weak lie easily STD calls being so rare. Oh that's right....not there now is it. Paul gave evidence. Did they ask him whether he took a call STD at all and which day it was? My guess no.

It almost appears like how can we undermine the evidence around the call. A diary would be great proof

There was clear evidence LD was feeling down about loss of the marriage. There was discussion too that she may have been depressed. Yet it's not even remotely possible that CD told her that night the marriage was over and next day she leaves in total despair and suicides by jumping off the gap in the following days or weeks. This sort of thing happens all the time with marriage breakdowns.

I think CD did it. 40 years on I simply don't think there is enough evidence to prove it and hanging your hat on consciousness of guilt when there are clearly multiple reasons to lie ( sex with under age student being one) is plain wrong. That's even before you get to reasonable doubt that she may have suicided in despair upon ending the marriage when she was obsessed with Chris. I remain of the view it was a poor decision.

It will be interesting to see appeal

Addendum: It would be interesting if diary records spanning more than just one year were subpoenaed to prove their contemporaneous nature.

Your contentions that the conviction will be overturned reassure me that Dawson will be locked up for many years to come!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Ex-cop grilled over Dawson investigation

A former detective has been accused of ignoring critical evidence and investigating the 1982 disappearance of Lynette Dawson...

www.canberratimes.com.au

This regarding not taking statements. If the phone call was fake, it would be very easy to challenge it with kiosk workers statement AND Telstra account details at the time. That didn't happen. The fact it didn't happen leads me to believe that a call did happen from a female (not LD) via STD. CD is cunning as a rat. He wouldn't have left that fact expose him. So yes I believe the call was real, by STD and to CD. That casts doubt on evidence submitted then.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Your contentions that the conviction will be overturned reassure me that Dawson will be locked up for many years to come!

I find it hilarious that you somehow think I'm emotionally invested in his innocence. it's of academic curiosity to me.

 

[jason_recliner]

I find it hilarious that you somehow think I'm emotionally invested in his innocence. it's of academic curiosity to me.

No, you're emotionally invested in him being found not guilty, and you think he will be based on your opinion of your reasoning. Which indicates that the conviction will, thankfully, be upheld

 

[Angry Red Bull]

No, you're emotionally invested in him being found not guilty, and you think he will be based on your opinion of your reasoning. Which indicates that the conviction will, thankfully, be upheld

I researched legal texts on the concept of consciousness of guilt. They clearly stated that you can only rely upon that if there are no other reasons for a lie apart from hiding the murder. That isn't the case because he clearly wanted to hide the other crime statutory rape of an underage student in his care...exchange of 'god' notes as evidence. The appeal will likely be upheld and new trial ordered in my opinion. You dispute that not with argued reasoning but because it's me saying it (on the wrong assumption I'm supportive of perpetrators) or because you will always take an emotional stand on these cases with sexual crimes involved probably because you're a victim and can't escape the trauma and engage in 'splitting'.' Sympathetic, but please direct your vitriol where it belongs

 

[faible]

No, you're emotionally invested in him being found not guilty, and you think he will be based on your opinion of your reasoning. Which indicates that the conviction will, thankfully, be upheld

He runs this same schtick all the time, gets called out, then bails for another crime thread.

 

[jason_recliner]

You dispute that not with argued reasoning but because it's me saying it (on the wrong assumption I'm supportive of perpetrators) ...

That IS my "argued reasoning". You are invariably incorrect on these threads and matters, regardless of your extensive experience as a tax accountant, so it's highly probable you're incorrect again (your support or otherwise of sex offenders is irrelevant). Time will tell

... probably because you're a victim and can't escape the trauma and engage in 'splitting'.'

Jesus christ! I'm not, but if I was, do you really think that would be an appropriate way to talk at me? A crime discussion forum might not be appropriate for you given your lived experience and 'personality' traits.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That IS my "argued reasoning". You are invariably incorrect on these threads and matters, regardless of your extensive experience as a tax accountant, so it's highly probable you're incorrect again (your support or otherwise of sex offenders is irrelevant). Time will tell


Jesus christ! I'm not, but if I was, do you really think that would be an appropriate way to talk at me? A crime discussion forum might not be appropriate for you given your lived experience and 'personality' traits.

Well if you choose to harass me as you repeatedly do then yes it's appropriate. No reason for it. Totally scr*wed up.

Addendum:

Don't play innocent. You know you do. Why? Because you don't like the way I post is the most I can determine.

 

[faible]

Jesus christ! I'm not, but if I was, do you really think that would be an appropriate way to talk at me? A crime discussion forum might not be appropriate for you given your lived experience and 'personality' traits.

I'd missed that part of his post. Just wow.

 

[FTY1]

Thx for that. I need to go back over the evidence and compare with the transcript. So essentially he is saying that CD contrived existence of the call, it's STD nature, female voice to make it seem that he received a call when he hadn't. Yet for 40 years the glaring answer was ALWAYS there that it was contrived.. you think police would have easily found that out and arrested him decades ago. I mean the kiosk girls had been spoken to before but they didn't think it important enough to take a statement. Wonder why? What do I suspect? I suspect this has always been a hole in the case proof of life as it were and the evidence. Wow a 40 year old diary which provides proof it can't have been that day when that lie would have made him immediately a suspect and charged. Pretty stupid thing for him to fabricate in those circumstances wouldn't you say. Let's look at the Telstra account detail that should expose such a weak lie easily STD calls being so rare. Oh that's right....not there now is it. Paul gave evidence. Did they ask him whether he took a call STD at all and which day it was? My guess no.

It almost appears like how can we undermine the evidence around the call. A diary would be great proof

There was clear evidence LD was feeling down about loss of the marriage. There was discussion too that she may have been depressed. Yet it's not even remotely possible that CD told her that night the marriage was over and next day she leaves in total despair and suicides by jumping off the gap in the following days or weeks. This sort of thing happens all the time with marriage breakdowns.

I think CD did it. 40 years on I simply don't think there is enough evidence to prove it and hanging your hat on consciousness of guilt when there are clearly multiple reasons to lie ( sex with under age student being one) is plain wrong. That's even before you get to reasonable doubt that she may have suicided in despair upon ending the marriage when she was obsessed with Chris. I remain of the view it was a poor decision.

It will be interesting to see appeal

Addendum: It would be interesting if diary records spanning more than just one year were subpoenaed to prove their contemporaneous nature.

The defence basically said that Damian Loone was trying to do everything to prove Chris Dawson guilty and was ignoring evidence that could prove him innocent. He denied this. That was documented in the decision. The defence also accused a later detective of not taking evidence of Lynette (nee Dawson) and Ross Hutcheon when they were interviewed about the alleged sighting of Lynette Simms. The detective said that if he was told it would be in his interview notes and there was nothing there. As an example that Phil Day wasn't interviewed and I think they over emphasised his importance because while Phil Day was at the Pools I suspect he was only there as someone to witness Chris's reaction and to be a supporter. I haven't read the whole transcript but the bit about the kiosk was interesting because they were basing it on multiple bits of evidence to come to a conclusion and I would expect he has done that all the way through.

There was an appeal to find the kiosk workers in a newspaper in 2007 and I am not sure if they were found then or later on after the podcast.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The defence basically said that Damian Loone was trying to do everything to prove Chris Dawson guilty and was ignoring evidence that could prove him innocent. He denied this. That was documented in the decision. The defence also accused a later detective of not taking evidence of Lynette (nee Dawson) and Ross Hutcheon when they were interviewed about the alleged sighting of Lynette Simms. The detective said that if he was told it would be in his interview notes and there was nothing there. As an example that Phil Day wasn't interviewed and I think they over emphasised his importance because while Phil Day was at the Pools I suspect he was only there as someone to witness Chris's reaction and to be a supporter. I haven't read the whole transcript but the bit about the kiosk was interesting because they were basing it on multiple bits of evidence to come to a conclusion and I would expect he has done that all the way through.

There was an appeal to find the kiosk workers in a newspaper in 2007 and I am not sure if they were found then or later on after the podcast.

What is very clear is that multiple people attempted to give false evidence against CD to see him convicted. Classic example was that employee who saw bruises around the neck of LD the day before she went missing when she wasn't even at work that day nor would a bruise surface in a couple of hours anyway. Nonsense.

Do I believe Loone had tunnel vision?.....yes I do. He also had opportunity to take Telstra evidence and kiosk workers statements but never did. That's what forced the court into accepting evidence (a diary) that shouldn't have been needed at all. Very simple for mine. If he faked the call it would have been detected very early that he did. It wasn't, which suggests to me the call was real (though no evidence it was LD). That of course raises concerns about the diary as it should.

When contemporaneous decisive evidence can be adduced but isn't, I don't think the prosecution case should be rewarded by using questionable replacement evidence. Personal view.

If what I suggest is true then a woman rang him that day via STD. There aren't many women in the equation who could do that. Paul's wife. The schoolgirl girlfriend. In either case that raises entirely different concerns

 

[FTY1]

What is very clear is that multiple people attempted to give false evidence against CD to see him convicted. Classic example was that employee who saw bruises around the neck of LD the day before she went missing when she wasn't even at work that day nor would a bruise surface in a couple of hours anyway. Nonsense.

Do I believe Loone had tunnel vision?.....yes I do. He also had opportunity to take Telstra evidence and kiosk workers statements but never did. That's what forced the court into accepting evidence (a diary) that shouldn't have been needed at all. Very simple for mine. If he faked the call it would have been detected very early that he did. It wasn't, which suggests to me the call was real (though no evidence it was LD). That of course raises concerns about the diary as it should.

When contemporaneous decisive evidence can be adduced but isn't, I don't think the prosecution case should be rewarded by using questionable replacement evidence. Personal view.

If what I suggest is true then a woman rang him that day via STD. There aren't many women in the equation who could do that. Paul's wife. The schoolgirl girlfriend. In either case that raises entirely different concerns

In 1980 there was not the technology like there is now to determine that a customer had an STD call.

The STD phone call would have been on the phone bill of the subscriber but you wouldn't have been able to determine where a phone call came from at the call that it was being received. There were no caller ids available. The first time I remember this being available was in the mid 1990s. The exception to this would have been if the phone line was tapped prior to the call being received. I am not sure they would have known the number only the details of the call.

"If what I suggest is true then a woman rang him that day via STD. There aren't many women in the equation who could do that. Paul's wife. The schoolgirl girlfriend. In either case that raises entirely different concerns"

With regard to this comment. In January both the groomed schoolgirl was definitely away (but didn't report being away but never mentioned phoning Chris at the pool so she probably didn't) and the Marilyn who was allegedly away on 8 January.

If you read the decision you would know the judge didn't accept the evidence on the bruises because the timing was incorrect.

I believe the judge made the correct decision and has justified it in his verdict.

The judge in his decision, decided about witnesses for the prosecution and the defence who he believed were an accurate account and which were not. It seemed to me to be a fair decision so I am not going to debate this anymore.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

In 1980 there was not the technology like there is now to determine that a customer had an STD call.

The STD phone call would have been on the phone bill of the subscriber but you wouldn't have been able to determine where a phone call came from at the call that it was being received. There were no caller ids available. The first time I remember this being available was in the mid 1990s. The exception to this would have been if the phone line was tapped prior to the call being received. I am not sure they would have known the number only the details of the call.

"If what I suggest is true then a woman rang him that day via STD. There aren't many women in the equation who could do that. Paul's wife. The schoolgirl girlfriend. In either case that raises entirely different concerns"

With regard to this comment. In January both the groomed schoolgirl was definitely away (but didn't report being away but never mentioned phoning Chris at the pool so she probably didn't) and the Marilyn who was allegedly away on 8 January.

If you read the decision you would know the judge didn't accept the evidence on the bruises because the timing was incorrect.

I believe the judge made the correct decision and has justified it in his verdict.

The judge in his decision, decided about witnesses for the prosecution and the defence who he believed were an accurate account and which were not. It seemed to me to be a fair decision so I am not going to debate this anymore.

All these things are window dressing and unimportant. The issue was did he have the right to conclude consciousness of guilt when there was more than one potential reason to lie (hiding the statutory rape being the other). If you look at all the text books regarding law in this area it's clear the lie must only hide one crime and when it doesn't it can't be C of G. He made a fatal error. CD tried to hide the stat rape by exchanging "god" messages so likely too lied for the second crime. The appeal will succeed for that if no other reason