Teacher's Pet - the Chris Dawson case

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
56,940
Location
Melbourne
I didn't originally post anything about this case because I thought it only resonates in Australia, but I read that "The Teacher's Pet" podcast reached number 1 in the UK, Canada and NZ as well as Australia.

A link to the podcast:

https://player.whooshkaa.com/shows/the-teacher-s-pet

I found the podcast compelling for two main reasons. Firstly, it is a very well investigated and told story. Secondary I was acquainted with the only suspect, Chris Dawson. We played for two different rugby clubs, he for Eastern Suburbs and me for Bondi. Both clubs trained together pre-season. Chris and his twin brother Paul were excellent footballers and very charismatic and I saw a fair bit of them in the early 1970s.

Two different coroners found that Chris Dawson killed his wife Lyn and recommended prosecution, but the Director of Public Prosecution declined to proceed. It seems clear that the DPP gave credence to incorrect testimony (that Lyn had been sighted after her disappearance) and was at the very least negligent in not proceeding. Much of the earlier police investigations also seemed to be tardy and half hearted.

This podcast has uncovered new evidence and I expect Chris Dawson to be charged reasonably soon and finally face a trial.

I have no doubt about his guilt.

This is a marathon podcast, 14 episodes of longer than an hour each. But of all the podcasts I've listened to, I looked forward to this most of all.
 
I haven't got 14 hours to spare, but am interested in this case. Is there a shorter version of Hedley Thomas' work available? I'm curious about his claim to have unearthed evidence which the police didn't have. Does this mean he has full access to police files on the matter? If not, how could he know that he knows stuff the police don't?
 
MikeG said:
I haven't got 14 hours to spare, but am interested in this case. Is there a shorter version of Hedley Thomas' work available? I'm curious about his claim to have unearthed evidence which the police didn't have. Does this mean he has full access to police files on the matter? If not, how could he know that he knows stuff the police don't?
Click to expand...

Hadley got nothing from the police, but he did interview a large number of people, including the coroners who undertook the inquests; teachers who confirmed the Dawson brothers’ predatory behaviour with students (this alone should be subject to police charges); footballers who played with the Dawson’s and on and on. Some of the most illuminating parts were re-enactment of testimony before the coroners (which showed how fiction could become fact if repeated enough). He did an incredibly thorough job.

I found the whole podcast so compelling that the hour went by in a flash. I do spend a lot of time in my car, and this beats anything playing on the radio.
 
lionking said:
I found the podcast compelling for two main reasons. Firstly, it is a very well investigated and told story. Secondary I was acquainted with the only suspect, Chris Dawson. We played for two different rugby clubs, he for Eastern Suburbs and me for Bondi. Both clubs trained together pre-season. Chris and his twin brother Paul were excellent footballers and very charismatic and I saw a fair bit of them in the early 1970s.
Click to expand...
Small world. I was in Chris Dawson's PE class at high school, he was playing for the Newtown Jets at the time.

I hadn't even heard about this until a couple of years ago, and still know next to nothing about it.

lionking said:
This podcast has uncovered new evidence and I expect Chris Dawson to be charged reasonably soon and finally face a trial.
Click to expand...

I'll be listening to this with great interest. Thanks lionking.
 
Last edited:
It's even made the BBC news. That would never have happened without the podcast.
 
MikeG said:
It's even made the BBC news. That would never have happened without the podcast.
Click to expand...
Really Mike? Who would guess that justice would collide with nonsense.

ETA too late I see hard cheese engaged,
serious brain so will retract.
 
Last edited:
Hard Cheese said:
Small world. I was in Chris Dawson's PE class at high school, he was playing for the Newtown Jets at the time.

I hadn't even heard about this until a couple of years ago, and still know next to nothing about it.



I'll be listening to this with great interest. Thanks lionking.
Click to expand...

You would be able to confirm Dawson’s charisma then. Do the allegations surprise you?
 
Samson said:
Really Mike? Who would guess that justice would collide with nonsense.

ETA too late I see hard cheese engaged,
serious brain so will retract.
Click to expand...

What on earth does this tosh mean?
 
lionking said:
You would be able to confirm Dawson’s charisma then. Do the allegations surprise you?
Click to expand...

No and yes. Ours was a rugby school, but in league-mad Sydney of the late 70's, playing first grade rugby league made him a bit of a celebrity with the kids, and he had a kind of rock star charisma to go with it. In hindsight, moving to a girls school was putting the wolf amongst the sheep. What is surprising is that he moves to a school where at least 5 teachers are also allegedly having affairs with female students. It's either an unlucky coincidence, or, shockingly, this sort of behaviour must have been prevalent in schools at the time. Perhaps the surf culture around the beaches made it more likely to exist at Cromer, I don't know. In any case, it seems that arriving at a school where student/teacher relations were somehow embedded in the culture pushed a man with the requisite personality and looks to take advantage of the situation, and he joined in.

Whether that also pushed him over the line of murder remains to be seen; I've only listened to the first 3 episodes. Will comment further as I progress.
 
Samson said:
Hard cheese is worth listening to.
Click to expand...

Whereas me pointing out that this little dig 12000 miles away, not involving any Brits or British interest, was on the BBC, and that this was a result of the podcast, was not worth listening to. Got it.
 
I've finished listening to the podcast from beginning to end. I didn't think much of it at all. Apart from being bloated and very repetitive, it's a completely non-objective look at the case. He starts with his conclusion, then collects science-free "evidence" supporting it - mainly conjecture and speculation from relatives and friends of the (assumed) victim. There's also some egregious conflation with the issue of teacher-pupil relations at Northern Beaches schools, and a lot of coverage of Joanne's relationship with other family members, which is by and large irrelevant.

In light of the result of the dig at the house

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/podcasts/teachers-pet-police-dig-for-lyn-dawson-over-but-the-pursuit-of-justice-carries-on/news-story/1f89217c4b30618d5361ec1ece459702

you'd have to question a lot of what he presented. The "soft soil" he kept banging on about turned out to be worthless "new evidence" - it's not possible to bury a body there. They didn't find any evidence of her on the property, which makes Dawson's questioning the new owner about where they were digging not so suspicious; ditto all the interviewees who were "sure" she was buried under the pool. Not to mention the psychic in episode 14 - that was comedy gold. IMO the neighbour who said the ground was too rocky was probably right, and she was never buried on the property at all - which explains the lack of forensic evidence and a null return from the cadaver dogs.

It also brings into question the cardigan, again treated without much logic. If her body isn't under the pool, and it has cuts in it claimed to be consistent with stabbing, surely she would therefore have had to have been wearing it at the time? Why isn't there blood all over it, or at the very least, a DNA match for Lyn? But there was no DNA match. And if her body isn't under the pool, why would he remove the stabbed cardigan from the body, lift the pavers around the pool, and bury just the cardigan separately from the body? Apparently he's able to hide her body successfully for 35 years without discovery, but not the cardigan he killed her in :rolleyes:

Not that I'm saying Chris Dawson is innocent. IMO he arranged the killing but was likely handled by a third party, who told him to say Lynette had run off. This gave him an excuse of plausible deniability, and explains the lack of forensice evidence on his property. His claims of phone calls and Bankcard spending after she had disappeared don't hold much water, but given the lack of investigation by the police, remain unlikely but impossible to disprove. I think it's just one of those cases where the alleged perpetrator has had a magical slice of luck - apathy from the police, combined with apathy from the victim's family, and the passage of time in which evidence is lost and witnesses pass away.

In saying that, I do defend his right to innocent until proven guilty. As long as the DPP are sitting on the pot, he should have this right - without trial by a social media kangaroo court and well-meaning amateur investigators.

EDIT: I had a sudden notion that I might still have an old school report from him. I do - I forgot he was our year master in 1977.

"Congratulations Hard Cheese on an outstanding effort. Keep up the good work in Year 8. C. Dawson"

That was a nice comment. In later school years, that would read like one of the highlights. Most of my teachers said that I was a sadpacker wasting my talents, and on the road to failure.
 
Last edited:
Quite harsh. Did you ignore the comments by police investigators and former coroners before dismissing “amateur investigators”? And also the comments by current police investigators that there is enough evidence without a body?

This still has a long way to go, and I’m convinced that Dawson will finally face a trial by jury.
 
lionking said:
Quite harsh. Did you ignore the comments by police investigators and former coroners before dismissing “amateur investigators”? And also the comments by current police investigators that there is enough evidence without a body?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I put myself firmly in the category of "amateur investigator" as well. I thought that the interviews with police and legal representatives were the most interesting in the podcast, because there was at least some semblance of objectivity and pragmatism. One said something to the effect of "there's a big gap between what we think, and what we can prove", which was the most sensible thing said in the whole podcast. Statements from relative and family were mostly conjecture, often preceded by "I know", "she would have never", and in one case that made me laugh, "I reckon". Which is completely understandable, but I'd never want to see anyone go to jail based on that sort of evidence, despite how likely it seems.

I find it hard to believe the police statement "there is enough evidence to proceed without a body". If there was, after two recommendations from coronial enquiries, the DPP would have done so already. Also the police have supposedly been working on the re-opened case for the last three years...if that statement were true they would have charged him already.

lionking said:
This still has a long way to go, and I’m convinced that Dawson will finally face a trial by jury.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sure you're right. But I'd like to think it wasn't social media and a podcast pressuring the DPP into a case where, partly because of their coverage, the defendant is unlikely to get an impartial jury and a fair trial.
 
Hard Cheese said:
Don't get me wrong, I put myself firmly in the category of "amateur investigator" as well. I thought that the interviews with police and legal representatives were the most interesting in the podcast, because there was at least some semblance of objectivity and pragmatism. One said something to the effect of "there's a big gap between what we think, and what we can prove", which was the most sensible thing said in the whole podcast. Statements from relative and family were mostly conjecture, often preceded by "I know", "she would have never", and in one case that made me laugh, "I reckon". Which is completely understandable, but I'd never want to see anyone go to jail based on that sort of evidence, despite how likely it seems.

I find it hard to believe the police statement "there is enough evidence to proceed without a body". If there was, after two recommendations from coronial enquiries, the DPP would have done so already. Also the police have supposedly been working on the re-opened case for the last three years...if that statement were true they would have charged him already.

Oh, I'm sure you're right. But I'd like to think it wasn't social media and a podcast pressuring the DPP into a case where, partly because of their coverage, the defendant is unlikely to get an impartial jury and a fair trial.
Click to expand...

The podcast addressed this. There was poor, perhaps corrupt, policing in the past and there are questions about the behaviour of the DPP.

The other thing I’m convinced will occur is that the Education Department will investigate abuse of students by the Dawsons and others. I expect charges to arise from this.
 
lionking said:
The podcast addressed this. There was poor, perhaps corrupt, policing in the past
Click to expand...
Sure, but as far as I can see there's been no compelling new evidence uncovered since those two enquiries. What would you say was the important "new evidence" uncovered by the podcast that changes the case between 2001/2003 and today?

lionking said:
and there are questions about the behaviour of the DPP.
Click to expand...
Behaviour of the DPP, or frustration at the lack of transparency? The only questionable thing I heard was the possible conflict of interest re Lloyd Babb, which was a bizarre coincidence but ultimately ruled out (not particularly well, mind you)

lionking said:
The other thing I’m convinced will occur is that the Education Department will investigate abuse of students by the Dawsons and others. I expect charges to arise from this.
Click to expand...
I would hope so too. It's not particularly germane to whether or not Chris Dawson murdered his wife, though.
 
lionking said:
Dawson has been arrested. Justice closing in...
Click to expand...

This was the opinion of the former director of the DPP

The NSW coroner has twice found that Chris Dawson most likely killed his wife, but the then director of public prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery, QC, declined to prosecute due to a lack of evidence.

"Without a body, without knowing first of all whether in fact she is dead, without knowing secondly if she is dead, how she died, it's very hard to mount a case of a reasonable prospect of conviction just on motive and the undefined existence of means and opportunity. That makes it very weak," he said.
Click to expand...


I'd therefore hope their case is more than just the "new evidence" heard in the Teachers Pet podcast, it was underwhelming to say the least. Some of it, the first babysitters comment that she saw Dawson being violent towards his wife - flicking her with a tea-towel - and everyone including a psychic swearing blind she was buried in the "soft soil" under the house - based on nothing at all, and ultimately proving worthless, says to me that you need to be very careful about accepting speculative evidence just because it is presented in a slick and compelling way.
 
Hard Cheese said:
This was the opinion of the former director of the DPP




I'd therefore hope their case is more than just the "new evidence" heard in the Teachers Pet podcast, it was underwhelming to say the least. Some of it, the first babysitters comment that she saw Dawson being violent towards his wife - flicking her with a tea-towel - and everyone including a psychic swearing blind she was buried in the "soft soil" under the house - based on nothing at all, and ultimately proving worthless, says to me that you need to be very careful about accepting speculative evidence just because it is presented in a slick and compelling way.
Click to expand...

All I want is for Dawson to face a jury.

The circumstantial evidence certainly trumps the family of Dawson’s “confirmed” evidence that Lyn is still alive based on an alleged sighting on “Antique Roadshow” and someone telling someone else they saw her in Australia.

Lyn is dead without doubt. One must ask how this most likely happened. The finger points at only one person.
 
lionking said:
The circumstantial evidence certainly trumps the family of Dawson’s “confirmed” evidence that Lyn is still alive based on an alleged sighting on “Antique Roadshow” and someone telling someone else they saw her in Australia.
Click to expand...
There was the sighting of her on the Central Coast by one of her friends, but the podcaster only seemed interested in discrediting her as a fantasist.

IMO this is a case of neither side of the argument being particularly compelling. There's hard evidence for almost nothing.

lionking said:
Lyn is dead without doubt. One must ask how this most likely happened. The finger points at only one person.
Click to expand...
Points at one *identified* person.

You could quite as easily posit a different theory where he did drop Lynette off at a bus stop, she attempted to hitch-hike and was killed by persons unknown. The ABC's Unravel podcast season 2 investigated a case *exactly* like that on the Northern Beaches, not too many years before Lynette disappeared. Trudie Adams was seen getting into a panel van and never seen again, presumably murdered because her body has never been found. Their investigation found a large number of women who had been abducted by two serial rapists operating from a car in that area from the early 70's through to the mid '80s, and they theorised that the victim may have been picked up by the same men and killed accidentally. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the defence use that specific case to put a credible alternative to Dawson's jury, because of the location, the time frame, and the similar lack of forensic evidence.

Anyway, I think it is most likely Dawson was somehow involved, but at the same time I have a very uneasy feeling that he's getting served some kangaroo justice whipped up by the media. It'll be interesting to see how much more of a case they actually have.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
All I want is for Dawson to face a jury.

The circumstantial evidence certainly trumps the family of Dawson’s “confirmed” evidence that Lyn is still alive based on an alleged sighting on “Antique Roadshow” and someone telling someone else they saw her in Australia.

Lyn is dead without doubt. One must ask how this most likely happened. The finger points at only one person.
Click to expand...

The dilemma is this: take him to trial now and try to secure a conviction with the evidence they currently possess, or wait and see if more evidence surfaces. If they go to trial now and he is acquitted and next year someone comes across her remains deep in the woods somewhere, along with the only shovel Dawson was known to have ever owned covered in his DNA and the watch he wore for years, they're screwed.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
The dilemma is this: take him to trial now and try to secure a conviction with the evidence they currently possess, or wait and see if more evidence surfaces. If they go to trial now and he is acquitted and next year someone comes across her remains deep in the woods somewhere, along with the only shovel Dawson was known to have ever owned covered in his DNA and the watch he wore for years, they're screwed.
Click to expand...

Which is why an absolute double jeopardy approach is wrong.
 
They didn't mention this in the podcast. So much for "investigative journalism"

Outside the court today, Dawson's lawyer Greg Walsh told reporters he was aware of at least one other case when a mother went missing and was living a new life.

The case he was referring to was actually a member of Dawson's extended family - in a bizarre twist, the former mother-in-law of his brother Peter Dawson walked out on her three children in Sydney 60 years ago.

The woman secretly moved to New Zealand and remarried and died in 2002.

"While it seems most unusual that a lady, with the greatest respect of Lyn Dawson, would disappear and not have any contact with her children … it has happened."
Click to expand...
 
Hard Cheese said:
They didn't mention this in the podcast. So much for "investigative journalism"
Click to expand...

It’s from Dawson’s lawyer. Confirmation and context is required.

In any case, Dawson’s case is different. Do you agree that he had motive at least?
 
lionking said:
It’s from Dawson’s lawyer. Confirmation and context is required.

In any case, Dawson’s case is different. Do you agree that he had motive at least?
Click to expand...

I agree with the former director of the DPP -- a very weak one. That he wanted his wife out of the way so he could be with Joanne doesn't hold much water. A few days before Christmas he and Joanne drove to Queensland to start a new life together. His wife would have been out of the way then, why would he need to murder her? He had also put money down on a flat in Manly to live with Joanne at one point, so he was clearly aware that he did have options that weren't illegal. The suggestion then is that sometime between Christmas and the end of January his thinking changed from "leave my wife" to "murder my wife"...it doesn't make much sense when he knew he could achieve the same result much more easily and without committing a crime.

The other one they kept banging on about in the podcast was that potentially losing the house at Bayview was a financial motive, which is just nonsense. The comments were always "Chris got Joanne and he got the house, which is what he always wanted", and they kept going on how lovely it was and how much money it was worth. If he had attempted to run off and start a new life with Joanne in Queensland, or was preparing to go and live with her in a flat in Manly - knowing that leaving his wife would see her get half the property - he obviously can't have been that concerned about the financial cost of separation.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Which is why an absolute double jeopardy approach is wrong.
Click to expand...

Meh. The state should only proceed when it feels it has a very strong case. Not allowing double jeopardy prevents the state from going back to the same well several times in search of a jury that will convict. Given the time and expense of a jury trial for the defendant, and the unlimited resources of the state, I feel the prohibition of double jeopardy is a good safeguard.
 
Last edited:
The verdict is being read now. It’s a lengthy document. I think the judge will find Dawson guilty. At the moment he is dismissing any suggestion that Lynette left her home with no money, no clothes and not communicating with her children. With that possibility dismissed murder is almost certain in my view. We will know soon.
 
If anyone gets a chance, read or listen to Justice Harrison’s ruling. It took 5 hours to read, and I listened to every brilliant word. One thing I learnt is that when there is a trial by judge only (which was a massively wrong request by the defence) the judge has to read his reasons.

Dawson is reportedly “upset”. After getting away with 40 years of lying, I’m no doubt he is.
 
lionking said:
If anyone gets a chance, read or listen to Justice Harrison’s ruling. It took 5 hours to read, and I listened to every brilliant word. One thing I learnt is that when there is a trial by judge only (which was a massively wrong request by the defence)the judge has to read his reasons .
Click to expand...
Personally I favour this for common-law jury trials also,

lionking said:
Dawson is reportedly “upset”. After getting away with 40 years of lying, I’m no doubt he is.
Click to expand...
An appeal is inevitable. And might succeed.
 
catsmate said:
Personally I favour this for common-law jury trials also,


An appeal is inevitable. And might succeed.
Click to expand...

Oh there will be an appeal, but it might be difficult for the grounds to be granted given the thoroughness of the judgement. Jury verdicts can be more easily be appealed, but judge only verdicts tend to be much harder.

And even if granted, once the involuntary disappearance of the victim has been established (which is now beyond doubt) where does the defence go?

No, I think Dawson dies in jail.
 
lionking said:
Oh there will be an appeal, but it might be difficult for the grounds to be granted given the thoroughness of the judgement. Jury verdicts can be more easily be appealed, but judge only verdicts tend to be much harder.

And even if granted, once the involuntary disappearance of the victim has been established (which is now beyond doubt) where does the defence go?

No, I think Dawson dies in jail.
Click to expand...
No-where. It doesn't have to, the prosecution needs to demonstrate death, murder and that the accused was responsible.
Well he'll probably die soon enough, quite possibly during the appeals process.
 
Got to love it when people are irrationally vindictive on this here "sceptics'" forum!

Not to say that I don't believe this man factually did murder his wife, and in fact my starting-off point would be to accept the judge's verdict - until and unless I wanted to weigh all the evidence (and lack of evidence) for myself and take a more enlightened view (which, in this case, I do not). But I look on with wry interest at those who declare a suspect guilty, based upon little or no actual evidence, before a case has even been brought to a court... all the more so when they have no direct link to the case itself (and no, "I knew this guy in the 70s and I never liked him" is not a direct link to the case itself).

Oh well :)
 
catsmate said:
No-where. It doesn't have to, the prosecution needs to demonstrate death, murder and that the accused was responsible.
Well he'll probably die soon enough, quite possibly during the appeals process.
Click to expand...


In bizarro-world, convicted people have to prove their innocence before they have any chance of winning an appeal. It's all the rage round these parts!

(At least criminal lawyers and appeal-court judges know how the law actually works - and how it is designed to, and supposed to, work. And it may seem counterintuitive, but historically (in the anglo-saxon adversarial system) a significantly higher proportion of defence appeals succeed when the original trial was judge-only compared with a jury trial: single judges sitting alone make surprisingly (relatively) high numbers of reversible errors, and faith in the jury trial system is so sacrosanct that it's virtually impossible to appeal a reversible jury error.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom