There is always that small window... every trial has that possibility. This one, ( and there is a tactical reason for it) is being held as a judge only trial. There are no jurors. This is the defendants choice. NSW and the ACT have this provision, no other states have it..
It is my opinion, that Dawson, as advised by his barrister bro , has gone for a judge only trial, because a jury is a volatile thing, it can get out of hand, it is subjected to pressures, and inferences, and influences from each juror, that makes it a nerve wracking exercise for one accused of murder. Dawson would not have had any control over how many women on his jury, it would depend on how many were rostered for that duty.
I doubt if he would want to be judged by women. Especially women of a certain age. He took his chances and got a male judge, that was just luck.
This leaves the judge in a position of terrific responsibility, but that's what judges do. Which is why the judge is hurling back the defence nonsense, he has the power to do that in the absence of a jury. If a jury was present, he would not do that, as it may influence a jury in to thinking he is on one side or the other. But a judge only trial leaves that judge with the provision to knock rubbish on the head without a lot of by your leave, and if the learned barrister would permit, and so on and so forth.
It still does not mean that the judge has come to a conclusion, it merely means he is not allowing the trial to bog down and go down unnecessary rabbit holes, over and over.
Keeping in mind, that this is Dawson's choice. He could have told his story to a jury, and chances are that he may have found 3 or 4 sympathetic to his cause. He appears to not be in any way considering telling his story to a judge. Under no circumstances, apparently.
