Australia Australia - Lynette Dawson, 34, Sydney, Jan 1982 *Arrest*

[Bohemian]

Chris' statement turned up as a result of Hedley suggesting Sue Strath re-contact the ombudsman after many years of hearing nothing back from them. The information received back from the ombudsman contained a copy of Chris' statement.

Damn those pesky journalists and public service record-keepers!

 

[k-mac]

Chris' statement turned up as a result of Hedley suggesting Sue Strath re-contact the ombudsman after many years of hearing nothing back from them. The information received back from the ombudsman contained a copy of Chris' statement.

yes!!
I can not believe that I forgot this gem.
thanks again cliff hardy'

this truly has to be the most important finding credit to hedleys investigation.

bloody good job!

 

[DRT]

Here’s today’s second article from The Australian

Nocookies

Some action taken out of this, not for Lyn but future missing persons. Hmm bank records.. Were those purchases really made?... 12 months missing.. Lets go to the coroner ... not 19 years later.

"Before his retirement, Milovanovich turned passion into action. He set up a committee under the control of the state coroner with the aim of ensuring all missing persons cases are referred to the coroner’s office within 12 months if the person is not found.

“So now if a person goes missing, missing persons (police) get involved straight away. They go straight to the house. Within 48 hours they get DNA, they get toothbrushes, they find out whether there’s a history of domestic violence, they get statements from all friends, they create a file.

“They check bank records straight away, not five or six or seven years later. They do all those sorts of things. And if the person hasn’t been found within 12 months, it’s reported to the coroner as a suspected death. So you get the ball rolling a lot quicker. People’s memories are fresher.” "

 

[DRT]

Nocookies

here is the interview with carl i was pertaining to.

For the first time, prosecutors now also have Mr Dawson’s lies and omissions in his August 1982 statement to police in which he failed to mention his affair and blamed his marriage difficulties on Lyn’s spending.

“If that evidence was before me when I was doing the inquest, it would only strengthen the view that I already had that there was sufficient evidence for the matter to go before a jury,” Mr Milovanovich said.

“It would go to the question of his character and his credibility.

somebody interfered.

thanks cliff your a champ!

I just hope that there are enough witnesses still alive and able to give evidence if this goes to trial. At least 2 of the witnesses from the 2003 inquest have since passed but there are new witnesses.

Lyn's spending was an issue she bought things after she was believed to be dead.

At some stage I feel I have to write a list of Chris's statements that seem to be untrue. There were a few mentioned in the podcast yesterday such as him telling Helena that Lyn had her rings, the bank card purchases, the religious cult. The marriage difficulties being Lyn's spending rather than being a 16 year old lover living in the house.

It will hopefully allow Lyn's family to enjoy the later years of their life.

 

[k-mac]

I just hope that there are enough witnesses still alive and able to give evidence if this goes to trial. At least 2 of the witnesses from the 2003 inquest have since passed but there are new witnesses.

Lyn's spending was an issue she bought things after she was believed to be dead.

At some stage I feel I have to write a list of Chris's statements that seem to be untrue. There were a few mentioned in the podcast yesterday such as him telling Helena that Lyn had her rings, the bank card purchases, the religious cult. The marriage difficulties being Lyn's spending rather than being a 16 year old lover living in the house.

It will hopefully allow Lyn's family to enjoy the later years of their life.

yeah I feel compelled now that we are at a pause to go back to the beginning and reassess.
lookout ….the fun of our cross examination so begins drt!!!

 

[DRT]

yeah I feel compelled now that we are at a pause to go back to the beginning and reassess.
lookout ….the fun of our cross examination so begins drt!!!

Well after I listened to the last episode it went back to the previous episode that I had partially listened to. After hearing the coroner and Hedley talk about Joanne being believeable as annoying as the actor's voice was what I heard in the voice was determination and a strong will. That is certainly the way the coroner said she was not backing down when asked the important questions. And LOL at "our cross examinations".

It will be interesting to hear from that school principal or vice principal again who couldn't prove anything?

 

[Trooper]

I just hope that there are enough witnesses still alive and able to give evidence if this goes to trial. At least 2 of the witnesses from the 2003 inquest have since passed but there are new witnesses.

Lyn's spending was an issue she bought things after she was believed to be dead.

At some stage I feel I have to write a list of Chris's statements that seem to be untrue. There were a few mentioned in the podcast yesterday such as him telling Helena that Lyn had her rings, the bank card purchases, the religious cult. The marriage difficulties being Lyn's spending rather than being a 16 year old lover living in the house.

It will hopefully allow Lyn's family to enjoy the later years of their life.

on reflection, all of Chris's statements about Lynne's movements and state of mind those last days revolve around, and revolve around nothing else but , shopping .

Freudian Slip stuff. He was so angry about the Bankcard and the autonomy it gave her, about earning her own money and spending it on 'clothes', which , naturally , Marilyn reported to Chris about, each time, I bet.

He drops her off to 'go shopping'.. she 'goes shopping ' with the bank card in Warriewood. She dropped paper on the Bankcard again, while 'shopping' a few days later. She is seen ' shopping ' in a mall in Port Macquarie.

He then actually verbalizes this mindset by completely wiping his sexual shenanigans with Joanne from the events and citing ' shopping ' and 'spending' as his reason for their arguments .


( as an aside, there is a strong correlation defined in psychology teaching texts, about women in subconscious fear for their lives who buy un needed ( in the perspective of their husbands ) clothing, as a sort of low key, but implacable nervous tic made manifest. A compulsion, and then as a consequence of this, they hide the clothing .

I was struck by this in Marilyn's statement when she mentioned, in a disparaging way, that Lynn had 20 or so blouses ' that she didn't need ' ( only in Marilyn's opinion ) pushed into the back of her wardrobe )

 

[k-mac]

starting to roll back through the episodes.

joanne wants everyone to buy the i'm a victim too card.
it just doesn't wash with me.

she contradicts herself constantly.
everyone who knows her describes her as head strong.
the I just did what I was told to do and never admits she wanted to be there or with him is lame in my eyes.

in her statements to police in 91 she declares that chris hassled her to marry him until she said yes.
wow. really??
so she told him yes to shut him up (her words) as she is telling police she didn't even want to be in a relationship with him.
if I felt hassled by my boyfriend wanting to marry me I think i'd offload him maybe...

she will not admit to anyone that she loved him.
even though at precisely the same time chris is 'hassling her to be his wife" joanne"s father is giving her an ultimatum it's him or me.
joanne chose chris.

JOANNE CHOSE CHRIS

joanne moved into lyns home, lyns bed, lyns jewellery and clothes, lyns life two days after she disappeared and started her new fabulous life with the football star.
chris…..at the same time was living his ultimate fantasy. he'd pulled it off.

they were living the dream!
just pesky ol lyn the witch rotting away in the backyard spoiling the perfect picture.
how dare she still be controlling the narrative.
we'll escape to queensland just like we planned originally

sorry to sound disrespectful to lyn I am not comfortable either with the heartless image xx

jmo

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

My take on Joanne. Yes she was young, naieve and impressionable at 16. She was also reported by her family as being headstrong. She was away at the time Lynnette disappeared so I do not think she had anything to do with her disappearance. But that’s where things change for me.

For her to take over Lynette’s life, clothes, jewellery, children she must be positive Lynette isn’t coming back. Being reported as headstrong I can’t see her blindly accepting Chris’ account for the next decade of Lyn simply running off. Surely there were questions asked of Chris, Paul & Marilyn. I think she decided to swallow any suspicions and blindly accept the being fed to her. Until such time as she saw the writing on the wall and history was repeating itself. It’s at that time she decides to bail and tell enough to ensure she trumps the divorce and custody battle.

Personally I think Joanne knows more than she has divulged so far. She said as much in her testimony. She was an unkind mother to Lyn’s girls and has admitted she couldn’t love them. I believe she was able to compartmentalise Chris’s life against her own. In all her statements and testimony she never showed sorrow for Lynnette’s children, family or friends for their loss. I know the latest podcast seems like Hedley is cutting her a break and it seems even Lyn’s brother and sister in law do but she doesn’t deserve it in my eyes as yet.

I intend on going back to episode one so maybe I’ll find something to change my opinion

 

[k-mac]

yep
she is alibied all up for lyns disappearance but her roll and knowledge of events is very very grey.

there comes a point when naivity and youth simply don't justify or free pass poor choices and morals.

yes no doubt chris played her like a fiddle.
but.. no doubt in my mind she played him like a fiddle too.

takes a pretty big pair of brass balls to roam around in another womans pool IN FRONT OF HER flaunting yourself topless at HER husband.
this is gobsmacking power tripping cruelty.

for what its worth......I dare a 16 yr old sweet nothing to jump in my pool topless in front of me and see how she stacks up and for how long!!! lets go girl!!!!!

 

[k-mac]

not having a shot at lyn with that either.
into her 30s a woman with her grace, beauty and intelligience should have had confidence in spades, chris's constant under clothing violent physical and mental abuse took away her strength and he knew it and he played on it.
jmo

 

[Bohemian]

‘I believe she was murdered’: Lyn Dawson’s sister calls for justice

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

I’m just looking through some old articles. I’m sure the school’s lack of action on this mother’s complaint about Chris Dawson will come back to haunt them. I wonder if we will find out what action if any the Education Department takes following it’s enquiry

Nocookies

 

[Bohemian]

And while we wait, riddle me this my fellow WS who are far more knowledgeable than I in legal proceedings....

Why aren’t the admissions of both Chris and Joanne alone that they were having sex when she was 16 enough to have Chris charged?

I’m not very knowledgeable in legal proceedings but I did manage to find this online. It gives an overview of age of consent laws:

Age of consent laws

I don’t know what the law regarding age of consent was c. 1982 but I do know anyone who is now in a ‘supervisory role’, such as a teacher, etc, is guilty of an offence if they sexually engage with a child of up to 16 and 17 years of age under their special care:

Sexual interactions with 16 and 17 year olds under special care
Although the legal age of consent throughout Australia is either 16 or 17 years of age, legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory makes it an offence for a person in a supervisory role to sexually engage with a person under their special care who is aged 16 or 17 years. A person in a supervisory role providing "special care" may include: a teacher, foster parent, religious official or spiritual leader, a medical practitioner, an employer of the child or a custodial official. For further information regarding sexual interaction with 16 and 17 years old under special care please see the relevant state or territory legislation.​

I presume the above includes a Physical Education teacher at the same school as the student.

You would think Chris would be able to be charged irt those offences. Although, at the time, maybe there either wasn’t a complaint made and/or the age of consent laws in NSW were somewhat more ‘lenient’.

 

[k-mac]

how damn convenient yet again.....
Sergeant Brian Gardner, from Manly Detectives aka "smacka" (an
influential senior figure of the Belrose Rugby League Club, where Mr Dawson and his twin brother Paul were joint captains and coaches)
who chris outed as his guiding light through the initial police investigation has died and can not be held accountable for his obvious perjury.

Nocookies

this is where it started.
a cover up flowed on from here.

 

[k-mac]

I’m just looking through some old articles. I’m sure the school’s lack of action on this mother’s complaint about Chris Dawson will come back to haunt them. I wonder if we will find out what action if any the Education Department takes following it’s enquiry

Nocookies

yet again.....
a protected species

this time the school
School backed Dawson over pool party with girls

this was unappropriate behaviour even back then.

 

[DRT]

I’m not very knowledgeable in legal proceedings but I did manage to find this online. It gives an overview of age of consent laws:

Age of consent laws

I don’t know what the law regarding age of consent was c. 1982 but I do know anyone who is now in a ‘supervisory role’, such as a teacher, etc, is guilty of an offence if they sexually engage with a child of up to 16 and 17 years of age under their special care:

Sexual interactions with 16 and 17 year olds under special care
Although the legal age of consent throughout Australia is either 16 or 17 years of age, legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory makes it an offence for a person in a supervisory role to sexually engage with a person under their special care who is aged 16 or 17 years. A person in a supervisory role providing "special care" may include: a teacher, foster parent, religious official or spiritual leader, a medical practitioner, an employer of the child or a custodial official. For further information regarding sexual interaction with 16 and 17 years old under special care please see the relevant state or territory legislation.​

I presume the above includes a Physical Education teacher at the same school as the student.

You would think Chris would be able to be charged irt those offences. Although, at the time, maybe there either wasn’t a complaint made and/or the age of consent laws in NSW were somewhat more ‘lenient’.

I looked a while ago because I had seen some laws had changed. The earliest I could trace the laws back to was 1991 in NSW. It doesn't mean that they didn't go back earlier it just means that was the earliest date I could find. I will look and see.

It is the Crimes Act 1900, Section 73. NSW.

There were amendments made in 1985 and 1987 that I would need to find.
CRIMES ACT 1900 - NOTES
Sec 73 Am 1910 No 2, secs 2, 3. Subst 1924 No 10, sec 5 (b). Am 1985 No 149, Sch 2 (12); 1987 No 48, Sch 4 (2). Subst 2003 No 9, Sch 1 [12]. Am 2012 No 67, Sch 1 [2]; 2018 No 4, Sch 1.4 [1] [2].

Further investigation:

NSW Legislation

NSW Legislation applicable to 1981-1982

"73 Carnal knowledge by teacher etc
Whosoever, being a schoolmaster or other teacher, or a father, or step-father, unlawfully and carnally knows any girl of or above the age of ten years, and under the age of seventeen years, being his pupil, or daughter, or step-daughter, shall be liable to penal servitude for fourteen years."

 

[k-mac]

more falling into place

how in the world can somebody who swears someone is alive and well and simply moved on GET THEIR HANDS ON 100% SHARE OF THAT PERSONS DIVORCE SETTLEMENT SHARE.

ffs this creep deserves all he's got comin!

 

[k-mac]

the commissioner needs to kick Daniel Poole off the case.

 

[tmar]

In promos re 'Lynette Dawson' for Monday night, Current Affair, Channel 9, are stating they will reveal 'another shock discovery'.
Wonder what this might be!