Still Missing Australia - Lynette Dawson, 34, Sydney, Jan 1982 *Arrest* #3
- Thread starter imamaze
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 14,657
- Reaction score
- 57,121
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 13,927
Chilling!
My wife and I both listened to the Teacher's Pet podcast series and we both still recall that comment from time to time. It is unlikely to go away any time soon.
Chris Dawson seeks judge-only trial for Lynette Dawson’s alleged murder (smh.com.au)
Good luck with this, one can never tell which judge 's name comes out of the roller ball. Simon Gittany thought he'd gamed the system when he threw Lisa Harnum off the balcony on the 15th floor, by requesting a judge only trial, and look how that turned out for him....
Legally speaking, there is no reason why he would not be granted a judge only trial, if the court can find no objection to it. One is not compelled , in NSW , and in the Au Capital Territory, I think, to face a judge and jury, his asking for this is within the statutes..
Good luck with this, one can never tell which judge 's name comes out of the roller ball. Simon Gittany thought he'd gamed the system when he threw Lisa Harnum off the balcony on the 15th floor, by requesting a judge only trial, and look how that turned out for him....
Legally speaking, there is no reason why he would not be granted a judge only trial, if the court can find no objection to it. One is not compelled , in NSW , and in the Au Capital Territory, I think, to face a judge and jury, his asking for this is within the statutes..
Then the accused has been verballed by his barrister, as it seems the barrister, on instructions from his client ( the accused ) is seeking to be tried by a judge only. A judge only trial, in other words.
It is not an unusual move. Depending on the content and consequences of the particular crime, some people think they will be treated more, shall I say , leniently, or more fairly, by a judge only. And there is precedent to hold that opinion. In the matter of Rex v Singh in Canberra (ACT, another state where one can choose a judge only trial ) Anu Singh decided to kill her boyfriend, Joe Cinque, and she did this slowly, over some days, via overdoses of heroin and other substances, and she got a judge who sentenced her to 4 years, I think, .. with parole!..
So . .. Dawson is probably seeking this allowance , to be tried by a judge only, on the basis that it will be, or should be, to his advantage. It is , in any context, a gamble. He does not control which judge he gets. He could get one that takes the murder of a loving wife quite hard, harder than a jury.
He could get a lady judge who finds it very hard to believe that a woman could leave her babies behind for the girlfriend and the husband. There are not many women who would see that as rational. He could get a judge who is a bit airy fairy, but does not want to lose on appeal from the DPP. And so on. Lots of variables, lots of on this hand, on the other hand stuff.
There may be objections to it, from the courts perspective. The matter of public expectation, the intricacy of the case being more suited to a jury, the length of cross examinations, the opinion of both the DPP , the Judge, and the Justice system itself having weight. It is not automatically granted, but it does need a firm foundation for the request to succeed.
I think he may succeed in it, and that's the way it goes. I don't think it will be of any great advantage to him, though. My opinion, only.
Thanks for the reply Trooper! Regarding a jury situation...could it not be a fair better option to have a jury? Having been in a jury for a murder trial myself, a judge can give a stark reality of what is required for proof of murder... in this case i would think that would work more in the favour of the defence.
Last edited:
In Australia, the general rule is, judge and jury, but NSW and the ACT have a different take on it, and there, an accused person can request a Judge only trial. In the other states, it is a matter for the court to decide that , depending on the factors inherent in the case. I am pointing out that in NSW the accused has that choice.
As to fairness. . .. that is a matter , in NSW, for the accused to weigh up. In this case, Dawson appears to believe that would be the best path forward for him. On what grounds, I don't know, his barrister does not say, but at a guess.. Dawson thinks he might find it easier to convince 1 person rather than 12 of his peers. This is the usual reason a person decides to take this course, in NSW.
Dawson may be uncomfortable in running the risk that some smart 35 yr old woman will be on the jury, and nothing he can do about it, if the count does not go his way. An accused person has a say in the jury choice, but only in so far as the numbers that present for jury duty. It could be he may have to choose between 4 women, or 5, on the jury.
He might be wary of men around 3o in the jury, as they might not see his solution to his problems as being rational. Dawson might be a bit antsy on his story being believed like it was way back then, when people were less au fait with the Australian habit of wife murdering on such a large scale as it is now, or is more known now than then.
These days, it is one a week, even 2. Along with the kids. It was not generally known back when Dawson was in the position of his wife 'going missing.'.
By which I mean, the people on a jury today of the age Dawson was when this happened are very differently positioned people. And may not, in fact would not, be so trusting of Dawson merely because of his connections, his rugby, his general presentation. These are things his barrister would be laying out for Dawson in consideration of requesting a judge only trial.
Dawson only had to convince his family, and some of hers, and some mates at the Rugby club .. oddly, to me, no body seemed to be wary that the teenage babysitter was living there permanently. Dawson blacklisted Lynn so thoroughly,, 'gone and left the kids'.. ' gone to a religious cult ' ' left for NZ , like someone else's MIL'. and so on.. nowadays, that kind of story would hardly stand up due to the many identifiers people have to have on them to use banks, planes, houses, doctors, etc..
One would think an innocent person would demand a jury and judge, and that is a reasonable thing to believe, but it is not an indication of guilt, in that context. Wanting no jury is a tactical , strategic effort, in no way connected to the crime but the public is quite entitled to draw their own conclusions.
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7,964
- Reaction score
- 44,475
Around here, there is a common conception that if you are guilty, you would choose a jury because someone on the jury might believe your defense. If you are innocent, choose a judge because he or she will base the findings on matters of law alone, which might have a weak spot.
Just a question, are juries in AUS involved in the sentencing phase? Do they give an opinion on sentencing, or impose sentences? I assumed that the AUS legal system was much like Canada's, where the jury decides guilt or innocence only and is not part of the sentencing phase. Am I wrong?
In Australia juries have nothing to do with sentencing.
noooo , once they reach a verdict it's off and out , and you are not called back for another 10 years. Some states have mandatory sentences, for murder , for example, the Northern Territory, its 20 years without parole and no judge can sentence for less. The judge's hand is tied.
Yes, our jury system, is almost identical to Canada's. We don't elect judges, either, or sheriffs, and no death penalty , not since 1967.
I suspect in the Dawson case, his older brother ( not the twin brother) was a solicitor, is now a barrister, and as such has appeared before the court in defence of any number of criminals.. those experiences making him perhaps wary of jurors and advising his brother not to entertain the thought of a jury . I am only guessing this, as a possible reason, based on nothing more than my own instincts..
.... what happens then???Chris Dawson to face judge-alone trial over alleged murder of his wife Lynette - ABC News
He has obtained his judge only trial.
In the NSW Supreme Court this morning, Justice Robert Beech-Jones ruled Mr Dawson's trial should proceed without a jury when it begins next week.
Over the past two years his lawyers have unsuccessfully argued to have the trial permanently stayed, arguing Mr Dawson faced prejudices including intense public scrutiny on the case.
Last month, the High Court dismissed a last-ditch effort to have the trial halted.
It followed two previous permanent stay applications which failed in the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) respectively.
In 2020, Justice Elizabeth Fullerton ordered a temporary stay on the trial, until at least June 2021, stating media and public commentary around the case was "the most egregious example" the court had considered.
Justice Fullerton, however, ruled Mr Dawson could still receive a fair trial.
Last year the CCA dismissed Mr Dawson's appeal against Justice Fullerton's decision, saying permanent stays were reserved for the most extreme cases.
Prosecutors opposed the stay applications and today's application for a judge-alone trial.
Mr Dawson's trial is set to begin before Justice Ian Harrison on Monday, May 9.
(my underlining. Opposing this is par for the course, nothing unusual there. Dawson does not know, or is not supposed to know who his judge will be. )
He has obtained his judge only trial.
In the NSW Supreme Court this morning, Justice Robert Beech-Jones ruled Mr Dawson's trial should proceed without a jury when it begins next week.
Over the past two years his lawyers have unsuccessfully argued to have the trial permanently stayed, arguing Mr Dawson faced prejudices including intense public scrutiny on the case.
Last month, the High Court dismissed a last-ditch effort to have the trial halted.
It followed two previous permanent stay applications which failed in the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) respectively.
In 2020, Justice Elizabeth Fullerton ordered a temporary stay on the trial, until at least June 2021, stating media and public commentary around the case was "the most egregious example" the court had considered.
Justice Fullerton, however, ruled Mr Dawson could still receive a fair trial.
Last year the CCA dismissed Mr Dawson's appeal against Justice Fullerton's decision, saying permanent stays were reserved for the most extreme cases.
Prosecutors opposed the stay applications and today's application for a judge-alone trial.
Mr Dawson's trial is set to begin before Justice Ian Harrison on Monday, May 9.
(my underlining. Opposing this is par for the course, nothing unusual there. Dawson does not know, or is not supposed to know who his judge will be. )
Why do you feel that way? An acquittal is still an acquittal, and often anyway, people still "know" the defendant has done it so their life is facing a lot of negativity. Would making it officially "not proven" make much difference? I don't know. What do you think? One thing I'm not aware of here in Australia is whether we even sue for a wrongful death? I can't recall such a case, but maybe it should definitely be an option, as it is in the USA.
I just can't bear to see a murderer get away with it. Yes, some people would still believe he is guilty, but a lot of people would not. Murderers are usually cocky enough already, without it being added to by getting away with it. JMO
Fair enough. I guess we just have to get smarter at proving their guilt.
This man was so smug when he did away Lynette and moved Joanne into Lynettes bed like just changing the sheets.
The thought of him getting off now....is just unthinkable!...we are so close!
I really believe she is on that property at Bayview and they should have dug up that area Joanne wanted them to....
Her evidence is going to be key.
I wish her good health strength and courage for what lays ahead.
moo
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>
And kept that secret for years, did Marilyn. Knowing the agony of Lynn's family, too, which, in the way of psychopaths, would have added to the enjoyment. I have often wondered if , when Marilyn entered into this game with Chris and Paul that she was aware of Paul's birthday present from Chris that year, or if that little gem was only dropped on her years later. And it is no small matter to forge a signature on a life insurance form, no less than using someone else's bankcard, it's theft.
And... how ridiculous that the police or anyone did not twig that Lynn left without her bankcard? to think that Chris went thru her purse after ....... after you know what. There lies the matter of premeditation and knowledge of guilt, acts before the murder and acts during and acts after the murder. The using of the bankcard , seeing that Chris himself didn't need any women's jeans, was a deliberate laying down of false scent. Because he knew Lynn wasn't coming back.
At that point, it has always appeared to me that at least 4 people knew Lynn had no possibility of return. Chris, Paul, Marilyn, Joanne. Their own actions point to that conclusion.
And kept that secret for years, did Marilyn. Knowing the agony of Lynn's family, too, which, in the way of psychopaths, would have added to the enjoyment. I have often wondered if , when Marilyn entered into this game with Chris and Paul that she was aware of Paul's birthday present from Chris that year, or if that little gem was only dropped on her years later. And it is no small matter to forge a signature on a life insurance form, no less than using someone else's bankcard, it's theft.
And... how ridiculous that the police or anyone did not twig that Lynn left without her bankcard? to think that Chris went thru her purse after ....... after you know what. There lies the matter of premeditation and knowledge of guilt, acts before the murder and acts during and acts after the murder. The using of the bankcard , seeing that Chris himself didn't need any women's jeans, was a deliberate laying down of false scent. Because he knew Lynn wasn't coming back.
At that point, it has always appeared to me that at least 4 people knew Lynn had no possibility of return. Chris, Paul, Marilyn, Joanne. Their own actions point to that conclusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 94
- Guests online
- 3,385
- Total visitors
- 3,479