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

[elyzena]

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

Yes I see I agree the lies about writing god in his messages were to hide the relationship - but I thought we were referring to the lies told after Lynette had disappeared. Those lies were not to hide the relationship right? Because she had moved in and people definitely knew. For example lying about having checked with all her friends to find Lynette, and lying about the reasons for their marital conflict (being her bank card usage?) If he wanted to hide the relationship in that time period he didn’t make a big effort it seems.

 

[elyzena]

Oh and the lie where chris said his police friend at a school reunion said Lynette was in NZ - when he had never worked on the case and never told Chris any such thing. There are a few lies to unpack here.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes I see I agree the lies about writing god in his messages were to hide the relationship - but I thought we were referring to the lies told after Lynette had disappeared. Those lies were not to hide the relationship right? Because she had moved in and people definitely knew. For example lying about having checked with all her friends to find Lynette, and lying about the reasons for their marital conflict (being her bank card usage?) If he wanted to hide the relationship in that time period he didn’t make a big effort it seems.

The "god" message was an indication of attempt to hide. So the same need can be applied to the 7 lies which Harrison said were only relevant to the murder. It's proof he was always hiding that relationship and it's criminality..He did intend to have her cohabit so secrecy was an objective..That means there are always two reasons for the lies and you can't apply C of G that way. So appeal will succeed

It's a glaring error to be honest

 

[elyzena]

I am not so sure that the same need can be applied to all the lies told due to the timing of the lies ( he had an open / not hidden relationship with JC very soon after Lyn disappeared) -so it doesn’t entirely fit perhaps but then I’m not sure which 7 lies are in question- perhaps it does make sense for those specific lies. Certainly the one about his cop friend telling him
Lyn was in NZ at their school reunion had nothing to do with hiding the JC relationship.

 

[Lady O]

I am not so sure that the same need can be applied to all the lies told due to the timing of the lies ( he had an open / not hidden relationship with JC very soon after Lyn disappeared) -so it doesn’t entirely fit perhaps but then I’m not sure which 7 lies are in question- perhaps it does make sense for those specific lies. Certainly the one about his cop friend telling him
Lyn was in NZ at their school reunion had nothing to do with hiding the JC relationship.

How long after JC was of "legal age" did Lyn disappear?

 

[elyzena]

she was 17 when Lyn disappeared.

 

[mysterious]

Did we ever find out who this mystery Witness No. 28 was, and whether they ever took the stand at the trial?

'7:16AM MAY 30, 2022'
View attachment 1538023

Both Chris Paul Dawson knew this Witness and knew the evidence that he in 2018 was enough to destroy them both, what would you do to save your brother

 

[mysterious]

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."

Hi FTY1,


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., there is a witness, who's phone police in 2018, what he saw on Friday the 8th of January 1982 this
Witness phone Crime Stoppers in 2014 February with details of the 8th of January 1982, this Witness is mysterious Witness number 28?, what did this Witness see that turned up Chris Dawson's first lie.

 

[mysterious]

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.

I don't think the judge belief the bruises anyway

 

[mysterious]

Yes I see I agree the lies about writing god in his messages were to hide the relationship - but I thought we were referring to the lies told after Lynette had disappeared. Those lies were not to hide the relationship right? Because she had moved in and people definitely knew. For example lying about having checked with all her friends to find Lynette, and lying about the reasons for their marital conflict (being her bank card usage?) If he wanted to hide the relationship in that time period he didn’t make a big effort it seems.

There were so many lies by Chris Dawson and Paul Dawson ,the only truth Chris dawson said was his wife didn't drink?

 

[mysterious]

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.

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. Ross Hutcheon said to the police 2018 this is getting serious, I better do something? What lie to get Chris off.
Because Ross hutcheon and his wife Lynette we're interviewed by police in the 1990s and did not say anything about seeing Lynette Dawson,, how do we know this because the police had their phone bugged, and the Lynette hutcheon
Rang the Dawsons to let them know that the police were inquiring of Lynette's whereabouts, in this phone conversation which was bugged not one mention of Lynette Dawson sighting and the nurses uniform at a bus stop at Five Dock or anywhere else, besides ,when Lynette Dawson disappeared on Friday night Lynette had dark hair when she disappeared not blonde hair ,Ross Hutchins said she had blonde hair months after 8th of January ,was she dead on the 8th of January if so Ross Hutcheon,is lying.... like Paul Cooper

 

[mysterious]

The alibi ,Friday night 8th ofJanuary 1982 Chris Dawson's lies started that night, the drink?, then continued as Chris said he dropped Lynette off shopping early morning on Saturday then the phone call where Christ Dawson worked as lifeguard, and then the calls he claimed he received from Lynette Dawson just that she was not coming back, 3 or 4 calls he claimed from the Lynette afterwards all lies to protect and build the alibi, because the prosecutor said that she had died 8th of January 1982 and no evidence that she existed after that date was ever produced to the Court, except lies from Dawson's side, which was not believed by the judge or the prosecutor or the investigating police,

 

[BFew]

Witness phone Crime Stoppers in 2014 February with details of the 8th of January 1982, this Witness is mysterious Witness number 28?, what did this Witness see that turned up Chris Dawson's first lie.

Witness 28 appears to have been actively, credibly and verified posting on and off under the name Witness 28 in another crime forum's thread about this case over the last year and a half on and off. Including posting about Witness 28 alleged/claimed evidence.

mysterious Are you actually 'mysterious Witness number 28'?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes I see I agree the lies about writing god in his messages were to hide the relationship - but I thought we were referring to the lies told after Lynette had disappeared. Those lies were not to hide the relationship right? Because she had moved in and people definitely knew. For example lying about having checked with all her friends to find Lynette, and lying about the reasons for their marital conflict (being her bank card usage?) If he wanted to hide the relationship in that time period he didn’t make a big effort it seems.

What was clear was that CD had an intention to live with the young student. That links to stat rape as it follows what may have happened and the necessity to hide the intention and the stat rape in capacity of teacher/ student

Possible scenario:

CD tells LD it's over on night of 8th. IF LD left in state of utter emotional ruin next day or that night then yes every lie afterwards can be linked to his need to hide the existence of the girl, his intention to cohabit and prior relationship of teacher/ student and the stat rape. How to you hide that? In the exact ways he did with the lies he did. The one possible exception was the Katie's purchase using her card.

It's an utter nonsense in my view that Harrison said there was nothing to indicate she had intention to run away in emotional state. It shows utter ignorance for the depth of emotion that can arise in a relationships demise that may have occurred that night. That is a relationship where she was co dependent to CD and likely anxious insecure attachment accordingly. When reality hit as it may have the fall would be immense.

Did he drop her to bus stop next morning leaving the kids at home? Highly unlikely. No parent would leave kids there alone like that no matter how quickly they returned. Does that lie mean it has to have been a murder and not the other? No it doesn't. Providing both were possible.

She runs away night of 8th and jumps off gap and he lies to hide his relationship with the girl thereafter including that LD had run away that night. He would rightfully look like a monster which is another reason to hide the events with lies. Harrison saying it can ONLY be for one purpose is mistaken. Sure murder is the most probable purpose but providing there are legitimate others you can't conclude C of G as a legal principle

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm intrigued by the posts of 'mysterious' seemingly some information can escape submission in open court if that information arose and became available through process of discovery as example ( Harmon obligation) in another matter. It can't then be used for the other purpose. Witness 28 was known to Dawson's and had information pertaining to the night of 8th Jan 1982 it's said.

Highly interesting. The name wasn't disclosed in court and instead written on a piece of paper and handed up to Harrison by prosecutor

 

[FTY1]

What was clear was that CD had an intention to live with the young student. That links to stat rape as it follows what may have happened and the necessity to hide the intention and the stat rape in capacity of teacher/ student

Possible scenario:

CD tells LD it's over on night of 8th. IF LD left in state of utter emotional ruin next day or that night then yes every lie afterwards can be linked to his need to hide the existence of the girl, his intention to cohabit and prior relationship of teacher/ student and the stat rape. How to you hide that? In the exact ways he did with the lies he did. The one possible exception was the Katie's purchase using her card.

It's an utter nonsense in my view that Harrison said there was nothing to indicate she had intention to run away in emotional state. It shows utter ignorance for the depth of emotion that can arise in a relationships demise that may have occurred that night. That is a relationship where she was co dependent to CD and likely anxious insecure attachment accordingly. When reality hit as it may have the fall would be immense.

Did he drop her to bus stop next morning leaving the kids at home? Highly unlikely. No parent would leave kids there alone like that no matter how quickly they returned. Does that lie mean it has to have been a murder and not the other? No it doesn't. Providing both were possible.

She runs away night of 8th and jumps off gap and he lies to hide his relationship with the girl thereafter including that LD had run away that night. He would rightfully look like a monster which is another reason to hide the events with lies. Harrison saying it can ONLY be for one purpose is mistaken. Sure murder is the most probable purpose but providing there are legitimate others you can't conclude C of G

I guess that is why in neither of his statements he seems to have mentioned that Lyn left after being told the relationship was over.

That is the reason there are a lot of murder charges 40 years after they occurred because somehow it was accepted by police that women just disappear without reason. It shows a lot of disrespect.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I guess that is why in neither of his statements he seems to have mentioned that Lyn left after being told the relationship was over.

That is the reason there are a lot of murder charges 40 years after they occurred because somehow it was accepted by police that women just disappear without reason. It shows a lot of disrespect.

I don't think anyone is disputing she is dead..None of the sightings are credible. And yes he must have lied. The problem I have is that you have to work a circumstantial case to one beyond reasonable doubt and Harrison has done that because in his view any alternative explanation Is irrational. But the legal test for C of G is that there must be only ONE possible explanation for the series of lies otherwise it can't be concluded that it was solely to hide the murder. She could have been deluding herself up until that night when CD says it's over and the student is moving in. She could have collapsed emotionally and for Harrison to conclude otherwise is naive. He thinks a murder is beyond reasonable doubt when marriage collapses have suicide outcomes even more frequently.

Absolutely the most probable explanation is a murder but it isn't the only explanation for his conduct. He has now been convicted of sex with student. So there was a second crime underpinning all that he did. In my view it's a mistake at law for Harrison to ignore that possible other explanation for lies. The text books on this area tells you you can't.......but he did.

 

[elyzena]

Some lies (and I don’t know which 7 lies are in question) but some of the lies seem to have nothing to do with JC such as the lies he told that his olive friend mentioned to him at a reunion that Lynn was in NZ or that he checked with all of Lyn’s friends when she went missing when he hadn’t (he hadn’t checked with her work).

 

[mysterious]

I guess that is why in neither of his statements he seems to have mentioned that Lyn left after being told the relationship was over.

That is the reason there are a lot of murder charges 40 years after they occurred because somehow it was accepted by police that women just disappear without reason. It shows a lot of disrespect.

1.Chris and Paul Dawson had a lot of friends in the police force.
2.Files were missing on the original case,
When Damien loone took over the case
3 if I told you, that The Hitman was a policeman what would you think

 

[BFew]

1.Chris and Paul Dawson had a lot of friends in the police force.
2.Files were missing on the original case,
When Damien loone took over the case
3 if I told you, that The Hitman was a policeman what would you think

3. Roger Rogerson ?

 

[jason_recliner]

3 if I told you, that The Hitman was a policeman what would you think

I would ask you how you know that and to provide proof.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

1.Chris and Paul Dawson had a lot of friends in the police force.
2.Files were missing on the original case,
When Damien loone took over the case
3 if I told you, that The Hitman was a policeman what would you think

I wouldn't be surprised at all that evidence was missing. It's inexplicable that a wife goes missing and nothing happened.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I wouldn't be surprised at all that evidence was missing. It's inexplicable that a wife goes missing and nothing happened.

Policing is very different today...

 

[elyzena]

1.Chris and Paul Dawson had a lot of friends in the police force.
2.Files were missing on the original case,
When Damien loone took over the case
3 if I told you, that The Hitman was a policeman what would you think

Interesting - I wonder if the hit man you mention is still alive today.

 

[mysterious]

3. Roger Rogerson ?

So Roger the Dodger is dead, but it wasn't Roger