Still Missing Australia - Lynette Dawson, 34, Sydney, Jan 1982 *Arrest* #3

[Cliff Hardy]

Daniel Poole/Damian Loone and Robert Silkman are still apparently witnesses to give evidence. Do we know yet who mystery witness 28 is??

Assuming Robert Silkman is there to recount Chris Dawson approaching him on that end of season flight and asking Silkman if he could recommend someone to get rid of Lyn, you can bet your life the defence will be primed to totally assassinate his character.

Hedley could still get a call up. Perhaps he is witness 28?

 

[sleepinoz]

Chris Dawson's murder trial has heard his first wife Lynette was spotted outside a Sydney hospital up to six months after she disappeared from their northern beaches home in January 1982.

The court was today played a video recording of a police interview from March 2019 with Mr Dawson's late brother-in-law Ross Hutcheon.

Mr Hutcheon, who was married to Chris Dawson's sister, who is also called Lynette, died six weeks ago.

In a video, he told officers he had been travelling west along Victoria Road when he saw Ms Dawson standing at a bus stop outside what was then the Gladesville Hospital.

"She looked just like the Lyn that I knew — same colour hair, same hairstyle, same glasses. No obvious attempt to disguise herself," he said.

"The other thing that convinced me … was the fact that it was opposite the hospital and she was a nurse."

Murder trial told Lynette Dawson was spotted outside hospital six months after she vanished

Chris Dawson's murder trial hears his first wife Lynette was spotted outside a Sydney hospital up to six months after she disappeared from their northern beaches home in January 1982.

www.abc.net.au

 

[DRT]

We are slowly, but surely approaching the rough end of the pineapple, the bit where we find out if Dawson himself takes the stand in his own defence. Because the defence has called witnesses, I am now thinking Dawson is not going to take the stand, because if he was, he should have taken it before his own witnesses tell their 'story'. It would be nice to be wrong, though.

His barrister brother would have advised him not to , under no circumstances , to volunteer to be put under cross examination by the DPP.

Besides all that, his own story is so full of holes, so tacky, so unimaginative, the kind of story a wife belter would come up with, the kind of story murderous men have told Australian juries over and over.

It's hard, as it should be, to work out how a judge is going to cop all this palaver,... some judges take in on, and some don't. What weight will he give to which testimony?.. what testimony will he discard??..
I don't know!! ( nailbiting)

Most defences won't put the accused on the stand for fear that they would say something that may be contradictory to something else they have said. The theory is that the defence don't need to prove innocence rather that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This defence has had the advantage of 2 inquests where their witnesses were not questioned or even given access to. The prosecutions witnesses were all on the stand. With Peter Dawson representing his family they had access to the documentation provided there. By the time the trial came to be they had 40 years of information which they could defend without providing any defence because they didn't have to.

We aren't getting all the detail from the case from the press articles/podcasts so it is very hard to say.

Discrediting police and JC seem to be the way they are heading.

 

[Trooper]

Most defences won't put the accused on the stand for fear that they would say something that may be contradictory to something else they have said. The theory is that the defence don't need to prove innocence rather that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This defence has had the advantage of 2 inquests where their witnesses were not questioned or even given access to. The prosecutions witnesses were all on the stand. With Peter Dawson representing his family they had access to the documentation provided there. By the time the trial came to be they had 40 years of information which they could defend without providing any defence because they didn't have to.

We aren't getting all the detail from the case from the press articles/podcasts so it is very hard to say.

Discrediting police and JC seem to be the way they are heading.

There is no barrister alive who wants to see his client take the stand.. That is anathema to any working barrister or/and silk....

But here's the thing.. There are people, mainly men, who insist upon taking the stand. They are convinced that their powers of persuasion are extraordinary, how impressive they will be, all thoughts of one being a very common and ordinary wife murderer called into doubt, once they begin their spiel. Happens again and again. Something about the witness box , when you are looking at permanent jail time, dying in prison, suddenly seems terribly attractive.

It's not all over yet... The odds are very long now, but stranger things have happened, a thought occurs to the accused and by god, they want to tell it. Being examined by the prosecutor seems so easy when you are sitting next to your silk on the court benches.... watching every one else be turned inside out by the DPP is all grist to the mill for a narcissist. They know they can do better.

 

[DRT]

Daniel Poole/Damian Loone and Robert Silkman are still apparently witnesses to give evidence. Do we know yet who mystery witness 28 is??

Daniel Poole has been involved in the more recent police investigation getting the case to the ODPP and trial.

Damian Loone was involved in the investigation from about 1997 for the inquests. His testimony will be interesting I hope.

 

[Kemug]

But here's the thing.. There are people, mainly men, who insist upon taking the stand. Th

RSBM
Indeed Troops, and here's another thing . . . there are also people who judge a defendant by how he/she comes across on the stand. And they don't necessarily like them.

 

[musicaljoke]

Assuming Robert Silkman is there to recount Chris Dawson approaching him on that end of season flight and asking Silkman if he could recommend someone to get rid of Lyn, you can bet your life the defence will be primed to totally assassinate his character.

Hedley could still get a call up. Perhaps he is witness 28?

Perhaps witness 28 is a Lyn Dawson doppelgänger.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

No chance Chris takes to the stand.

But I was surprised to see Paul and Marilyn testify, so my recent form is poor.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

The Australian this morning running with the headline :

'Chris Dawson's defence is opposing the use of witnesses who have come forward since his murder trial began'.

Continuation of article behind paywall.

 

[musicaljoke]

The Australian this morning running with the headline :

'Chris Dawson's defence is opposing the use of witnesses who have come forward since his murder trial began'.

Continuation of article behind paywall.

Anyone in particular?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

'Chris Dawson's defence is opposing the use of witnesses who have come forward since his murder trial began'.

Hmmm. sounds like they might be a bit worried...

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Update from The Australian :

'Chris Dawson's trial resumes with uncertainty over whether new witness Robert Silkman will give evidence via audiovisual link.'

Continuation of article behind paywall.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

As proceedings continued on Wednesday, Justice Ian Harrison ruled AGAINST the admission of new evidence from people who have come forward since the trial began in mid-May, including observations made in 1969, the year before Chris and Lynette Dawson married.

“This evidence is late, it’s not particularly strong. It’s even older than almost everything else in this case by about 10 years,” he said.

Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, acknowledged it was “not evidence upon which a crucial fact in the case will stand or fall”.

The judge noted four or five witnesses were proposed to be called.

“I just think a line has to be drawn under this sort of evidence, given when it arrived and what it tells me about anything in the trial,” Harrison said.

“My inclination is to not permit the Crown to call this evidence and to produce a judgment as speedily as I can in detail, setting out my reasons for that course.”

Judge Rules Against New Crown Witnesses Giving Evidence - Live News America

A NSW Supreme Court judge has ruled against allowing fresh evidence from multiple witnesses at the murder trial of Chris Dawson, 5½ weeks after the Crown

livenewsamerica.com

Strange source I know. But they appear to be all over it.

So 4 or 5 witnesses have been disallowed, including I assume, Robert Silkman, the man who likely would have claimed Chris Dawson approached him about whether he could recommend a hitman.

If that is the case, not sure why they didn't have Silkman lined up pre-trial??

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I wonder if that also applies to those witnesses that the defence has called who also might fit the cutoff timeline criteria

 

[JLZ]

Have all the witnesses so far been called by the Crown, including Paul and Marilyn? I did have the impression from the reporting that it was the prosecution who was asking questions of them first, with the defence following in cross-examination.

 

[nightrider17]

Well if all the witnesses are related to CD its really not very unbiased. I mean the husband of his sister apparently saw LD??? Far out. MOO

 

[musicaljoke]

As proceedings continued on Wednesday, Justice Ian Harrison ruled AGAINST the admission of new evidence from people who have come forward since the trial began in mid-May, including observations made in 1969, the year before Chris and Lynette Dawson married.

“This evidence is late, it’s not particularly strong. It’s even older than almost everything else in this case by about 10 years,” he said.

Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, acknowledged it was “not evidence upon which a crucial fact in the case will stand or fall”.

The judge noted four or five witnesses were proposed to be called.

“I just think a line has to be drawn under this sort of evidence, given when it arrived and what it tells me about anything in the trial,” Harrison said.

“My inclination is to not permit the Crown to call this evidence and to produce a judgment as speedily as I can in detail, setting out my reasons for that course.”

Judge Rules Against New Crown Witnesses Giving Evidence - Live News America

A NSW Supreme Court judge has ruled against allowing fresh evidence from multiple witnesses at the murder trial of Chris Dawson, 5½ weeks after the Crown

livenewsamerica.com

Strange source I know. But they appear to be all over it.

So 4 or 5 witnesses have been disallowed, including I assume, Robert Silkman, the man who likely would have claimed Chris Dawson approached him about whether he could recommend a hitman.

If that is the case, not sure why they didn't have Silkman lined up pre-trial??

Silkman's evidence would be significant, I would think. The judge said that none of those who were turned away had any crucial facts to offer. So maybe Silkman will still be called upon to testify. I guess we will find out soon.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Well if all the witnesses are related to CD its really not very unbiased. I mean the husband of his sister apparently saw LD??? Far out. MOO

Desperate times, desperate measures. Peter would have been coaching the clan extensively in the lead up to Chris' trial. All hands on deck and no excuse for not learning your lines.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

One of todays excluded witnesses was going to claim they saw Chris Dawson push Lyn down the stairs at a 1969 Shirley Bassey concert.

As Crown prosecutor Craig Everson SC said, witnesses have "come out of the woodwork."

 

[k-mac]

Judge in Chris Dawson murder trail dismisses calling evidence from new witnesses

oh boy......
we got a problem with this judge.....

A judge has refused to allow evidence from five new witnesses to be heard in the murder trial of former Sydney school teacher Chris Dawson.

In disallowing the new evidence, Justice Ian Harrison said a "line has to be drawn", given how late it had emerged during the proceedings.

But Mr Hutcheons extremely delayed evidence was ok.

RIGHT.