Deceased/Not Found Australia - Lynette Dawson, 34, Sydney, Jan 1982 *husband guilty* #5

[Trooper]

I don't know. I think losing your freedom and being locked up could get you to a point where you're desperate to get out. And would do anything to get out.
And for even a few years out before you die it might be worth giving up your secret.

Or that's how I would feel.

Me too. I would blab after one night. But people choose differently., Kelli Lane , for example, she is due in her sentence to apply for parole, but no, she will not apply, because to get it , she has to say where and what she did to Teagan and she is not going to do that, because it shatters her image she holds of herself. People have a vested interest in maintaining a position, come what may.

Paul Wilkinson, he will never say where Kylie 's body is. He believes it continues the suffering of her parents and sisters, and that , he says, pleases him. That's how he chooses to live. That's what keeps him happy in prison. Do I understand it? no ., Ditto Bradley Murdoch. He will never say where Peter Falconio' body is. It would require him to admit to something he has invested years in denying..

 

[Ellery84]

Great news!!

I’m sending a virtual “fist pump” into the air. Justice for Lynette Joy Simms.

(gesture of enthusiasm, victory, etc., in which one raises a fist and thrusts the forearm quickly and forcefully forward or downward)

Now, for the other twin…..

 

[DRT]

Very happy with the result.

One of the points made in the appeal was that because of the passage of time he couldn't possibly get the evidence to prove his innocence. If that was accepted, this would set a prescendent that no person could be convicted for a crime in the past or where one of the potential witnesses is dead.

I thought that miraculously he would have kept all the credit card statements where someone else did the shopping at Katies etc. Maybe he did for a few years/decades and then one too many moves disposed of them. I'll never get caught.

 

[EssieMarie83]

I don’t think he can appeal again - i read the court of criminal appeal is the highest.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

There's a guy who looks very similar that I hope comes under some close scrutiny next.

 

[k-mac]

Chris Dawson may well take to his grave enjoying the power of knowing where Lyn is and her family not.
But the cost to him for that secret hurts him far more than her family.
Seeing him being held to account in prison for her murder helps them sleep at night far better than him.

 

[k-mac]

There's a guy who looks very similar that I hope comes under some close scrutiny next.

I suggest that twin 1 sleeps with one eye open these days!

well he should.....

 

[k-mac]

I don’t think he can appeal again - i read the court of criminal appeal is the highest.

I heard one news source imply he can.... and another imply he can't!
who knows?
@Trooper ??

 

[Ellery84]

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/chris-dawson-to-learn-fate-after-appealing-conviction-for-murder-of-wife-lynette/news-story/f649e9ff59fa46687163f910cd4f4f05

This artistic impression of the girls, commissioned by Lynette - that was not collected (even by Chris) after Lynette was murdered, is absolutely haunting.

 

[Ellery84]

I heard one news source imply he can.... and another imply he can't!
who knows?
@Trooper ??

According to Steve Zemek for News Corp: “After being sentenced to 24 years in prison, with an 18-year non-parole period, Dawson was previously told that he would likely die in jail.

Dawson’s only avenue to be freed before he dies is to take his case to the High Court.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/chris-dawson-to-learn-fate-after-appealing-conviction-for-murder-of-wife-lynette/news-story/f649e9ff59fa46687163f910cd4f4f05

Mr. Zemek is a very seasoned court reporter - he would be right on the money, I would say.

 

[Ellery84]

Chris Dawson may well take to his grave enjoying the power of knowing where Lyn is and her family not.
But the cost to him for that secret hurts him far more than her family.
Seeing him being held to account in prison for her murder helps them sleep at night far better than him.

I think by his silence, he’s trying to protect his reputation (what reputation?) but he’s also trying to protect someone in his family who may have assisted him in committing this crime.

IMO.

 

[EssieMarie83]

Thank you @Ellery84. I found this:

“Court of Criminal Appeal decisions are nearly always the final step in a case. They can only be appealed to the High Court, and only then after the High Court has given ‘special leave’ for the appeal to be heard.”

Appeals | ODPP

www.odpp.nsw.gov.au

I do agree - my feeling is that he doesn’t think he has done anything wrong- somehow he has justified whatever he has done to himself.

 

[BreakingNews]

According to Steve Zemek for News Corp: “After being sentenced to 24 years in prison, with an 18-year non-parole period, Dawson was previously told that he would likely die in jail.

Dawson’s only avenue to be freed before he dies is to take his case to the High Court.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/chris-dawson-to-learn-fate-after-appealing-conviction-for-murder-of-wife-lynette/news-story/f649e9ff59fa46687163f910cd4f4f05

Mr. Zemek is a very seasoned court reporter - he would be right on the money, I would say.

That is what Baden Clay did. And he lost!

 

[Trooper]

According to Steve Zemek for News Corp: “After being sentenced to 24 years in prison, with an 18-year non-parole period, Dawson was previously told that he would likely die in jail.

Dawson’s only avenue to be freed before he dies is to take his case to the High Court.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/chris-dawson-to-learn-fate-after-appealing-conviction-for-murder-of-wife-lynette/news-story/f649e9ff59fa46687163f910cd4f4f05

Mr. Zemek is a very seasoned court reporter - he would be right on the money, I would say.

I don't know what Stan has said in this article, on principle I won't pay for the Courier Mail..

Can I just say, that one cannot take one's case to the Australian High Court. One does not just book into the court with one's problems.. One has to have grounds to persuade the High Court to hear your case. It costs an absolute fortune, but that should be no worries to the Dawsons, one presumes. The sort of grounds that Dawson would need would be NEW evidence, NEW witnesses, NEW testimony. One cannot bring the old stuff that has convicted you already , in addition, has made your appeal unsuccessful. It can't be a matter of dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court judgement., He would have to have some evidence of a Supreme Court Judge reading evidence wrongly. This is a huge claim, as you can appreciate.

In the old days, back in 1960's ,(!). people could take cases to the High Court in London. those days are over, but there is some provision in certain circumstances, too intricate to go into here, not in Dawson territory, though , as far as I can tell, that there is leeway on that avenue. But I put nothing past the Dawsons.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

I think by his silence, he’s trying to protect his reputation (what reputation?) but he’s also trying to protect someone in his family who may have assisted him in committing this crime.

IMO.

It may well be someone who looks a lot like him.

 

[Ellery84]

It may well be someone who looks a lot like him.

Or maybe someone he shared a placenta with…

 

[Witness 28]

I am wondering about this too

No he only gets one chance, throw away the key

 

[DRT]

I don't know what Stan has said in this article, on principle I won't pay for the Courier Mail..

Can I just say, that one cannot take one's case to the Australian High Court. One does not just book into the court with one's problems.. One has to have grounds to persuade the High Court to hear your case. It costs an absolute fortune, but that should be no worries to the Dawsons, one presumes. The sort of grounds that Dawson would need would be NEW evidence, NEW witnesses, NEW testimony. One cannot bring the old stuff that has convicted you already , in addition, has made your appeal unsuccessful. It can't be a matter of dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court judgement., He would have to have some evidence of a Supreme Court Judge reading evidence wrongly. This is a huge claim, as you can appreciate.

In the old days, back in 1960's ,(!). people could take cases to the High Court in London. those days are over, but there is some provision in certain circumstances, too intricate to go into here, not in Dawson territory, though , as far as I can tell, that there is leeway on that avenue. But I put nothing past the Dawsons.

I think relying on legal aid would be a problem as well particularly since the decision has been based on the ruling of 3 judges confirming a 4th judges ruling even if all points of the original judge were not accepted.

 

[Ellery84]

I don't know what Stan has said in this article, on principle I won't pay for the Courier Mail..

Can I just say, that one cannot take one's case to the Australian High Court. One does not just book into the court with one's problems.. One has to have grounds to persuade the High Court to hear your case. It costs an absolute fortune, but that should be no worries to the Dawsons, one presumes. The sort of grounds that Dawson would need would be NEW evidence, NEW witnesses, NEW testimony. One cannot bring the old stuff that has convicted you already , in addition, has made your appeal unsuccessful. It can't be a matter of dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court judgement., He would have to have some evidence of a Supreme Court Judge reading evidence wrongly. This is a huge claim, as you can appreciate.

In the old days, back in 1960's ,(!). people could take cases to the High Court in London. those days are over, but there is some provision in certain circumstances, too intricate to go into here, not in Dawson territory, though , as far as I can tell, that there is leeway on that avenue. But I put nothing past the Dawsons.

And so, you’ve said the high court is in London, surely we have one in Australia or does one have to take their Australian appeal all the way over to the UK?

On a side note: Is Chris Dawson still legally married, I wonder? Does he have a wife or family left who might bankroll a higher appeal?

 

[Trooper]

And so, you’ve said the high court is in London, surely we have one in Australia or does one have to take their Australian appeal all the way over to the UK?

On a side note: Is Chris Dawson still legally married, I wonder? Does he have a wife or family left who might bankroll a higher appeal?

I have said A High Court is in London, and Australia has a High Court in Canberra. London isn't THE only High Court. So We Ssssure Do. Have since 1903, One has never HAD to take a matter to the High Court (Privy Council ) in London, but one could in days past, right up until around 1965 - 68 as I said in my original post. It all ended with a legal argument , as things often do in matters when a famous AU barrister, Sir Garfield Barwick disagreed with a judgement that had come down from the Privy Council in London on a matter taken to the High Court in London, (DPP v SMITH) and the AU parliament passed a bill disallowing this procedure.

It's a long story, but I'll cut it short. The Privy Council overturned Sir Garfield Barwick's judgement and this caused a legal stoush that , with lots of back and forth and to and fro and up and down and inside and out resulted in the Privy Council being not accounted for all intents and purposes as any higher than any Australian court, nor it's Law Lords being of any heavier weight in judgement than an Australian High Court Judge,

So that was the situation in AU., in 1968, The High Court in Canberra is it. Except up until 1986, one could appeal a judgement to the Appeals to the Privy Council from any State Supreme Court in AU , and then that was closed off, with consent by Parliament and that is the situation today.

Apropos of nothing, the High Court in Canberra is a rather beautiful building on a prime spot on Lake Burley Griffin, a public building, well worth a detour.

As to your side note. Mr Dawson's third wife has divorced him and settled their estate, a necessary move on her part as she sunk her superannuation into his court cases, and was up for more, so the assets probably needed to be divvied up before the Barristers bills came in. As I understand it, he is using legal aid , I think I read that somewhere, .. He has the free services of his brother, who is a barrister, the same barrister who gently led him thru the legal maze of his 'divorce' from Lynn.

( my personal opinion on the category 'legally married' .. his first marriage ended in his being a widow, but since he could not put that on his 2nd marriage licence , (because he was claiming he was looking for Lynn ) he went thru a form of sham divorce claiming Lynn had deserted him, and left him with two children, and he was granted a 'divorce' on those grounds. ( which were spurious grounds, making that judgement null and void) .

He then married JC, claiming to be a divorcee, which he was not, he was a widower. JC divorced him ( not knowing it was a sham marriage certificate ) and he married his third wife, claiming on it to be a twice divorced man,, which he was not, , when he was a widower and a bigamist and a divorcee once., all this is embroidery and garnish entirely served up to illustrate the slipperiness of 'legally married' )