Teacher's Pet - the Chris Dawson case

I also note in passing that the judge criticised the podcast pretty severely. And there appear to have been serious concerns that the *ahem* less-than-objective nature of the podcast might have ended up scuppering any chance of prosecution of this man.

Gotta love those "amateur sleuth" podcasters looking for the next sensational project to sell, though!
 
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.

The prosecution doesn’t have to do anything in an appeal. It is not a re-trial. The defence has to first show cause for an appeal, which isn’t always granted.
 
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 :)

Being vindictive towards a murderer? A thousand apologies. :rolleyes:
 
I also note in passing that the judge criticised the podcast pretty severely. And there appear to have been serious concerns that the *ahem* less-than-objective nature of the podcast might have ended up scuppering any chance of prosecution of this man.

Gotta love those "amateur sleuth" podcasters looking for the next sensational project to sell, though!

And yet this podcast is directly responsible for bringing Dawson to justice. And the judge was not severely critical (I listened to the entire judgement). He went on to explain in detail how the podcast was not prejudicial to Dawson and how he went to great lengths to ensure it did not influence him.
 
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.
40 years of repressed extreme anxiety I am sure.
 
And guilty it is. Great result.
This is such a bizarre ruling.

Harrison said evidence did not reveal how Dawson killed her, whether he did it with the assistance others or by himself.
"(The evidence) does not reveal where or when he did so, nor does it reveal where Lynette Dawson's body is now. The charge of murder in this trial is unsupported by direct evidence," he said.
Yet, he said he found the evidence presented by the Crown to be "persuasive and compelling."
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/30/...awson-wife-murder-verdict-intl-hnk/index.html

The judge also "ruled" defence evidence such as phone calls, bank transactions and alleged future sightings as false, fabricated or mistaken.

The only real supporting evidence is Dawson's infatuation with his baby sitter from which the whole cloth was weaved.

The case barely rises to the level of "balance of probabilities" (if that) but the judge rules that the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt?
 
This is such a bizarre ruling.


https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/30/...awson-wife-murder-verdict-intl-hnk/index.html

The judge also "ruled" defence evidence such as phone calls, bank transactions and alleged future sightings as false, fabricated or mistaken.

The only real supporting evidence is Dawson's infatuation with his baby sitter from which the whole cloth was weaved.

The case barely rises to the level of "balance of probabilities" (if that) but the judge rules that the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt?

As I sad, l listened to the entire judgement. The judge closely detailed the reasons the theory of Lynette simply leaving home voluntarily was not even remotely likely. He then looked at the timelines of the Dawson marriage falling apart and Chris Dawson’s crush on his 16 year old student and found them identical.

Then there were Dawson’s lies, the worst of which were telling their children that he was in contact with their mother and she had left them and wasn’t coming back. As the judge said, why would she leave him because of his behaviour, yet continue to talk only to him and not other members of the family? There was a lot of evidence given that Lynette would never leave her children like that.

If she didn’t leave voluntarily, the only reasonable conclusion is that she was murdered. Dawson is the only suspect, even if he contracted out the murder rather than carrying it out himself.
 
And I wish the 16 year old was not referred to as a baby sitter. She was Dawson’s under aged student. He moved her into his family home so he could continue to have sex with her, after giving his wife alcohol and putting her to bed early. She was not a baby sitter in any sense.
 
As I sad, l listened to the entire judgement. The judge closely detailed the reasons the theory of Lynette simply leaving home voluntarily was not even remotely likely. He then looked at the timelines of the Dawson marriage falling apart and Chris Dawson’s crush on his 16 year old student and found them identical.

Then there were Dawson’s lies, the worst of which were telling their children that he was in contact with their mother and she had left them and wasn’t coming back. As the judge said, why would she leave him because of his behaviour, yet continue to talk only to him and not other members of the family? There was a lot of evidence given that Lynette would never leave her children like that.

If she didn’t leave voluntarily, the only reasonable conclusion is that she was murdered. Dawson is the only suspect, even if he contracted out the murder rather than carrying it out himself.
Like I said, it is bizarre that indirect reasoning like this (with a few suppositions thrown in for good measure) can lead to a guilty beyond all reasonable doubt verdict.
 
Like I said, it is bizarre that indirect reasoning like this (with a few suppositions thrown in for good measure) can lead to a guilty beyond all reasonable doubt verdict.

And yet it happened. The judges reasoning was very sound, far better than you would get from your average jury. Plenty of criminals are convicted on only circumstantial evidence.
 
And yet it happened. The judges reasoning was very sound, far better than you would get from your average jury. Plenty of criminals are convicted on only circumstantial evidence.
And that is why there are groups such as the "Innocence project".
 
Justice only for the rich?

Hasn’t that always been the case?

Anyway, regardless of money, the judge got this absolutely right. Do you think there is any alternative to Lynette being murdered? There has been ample evidence put forward that she was not a suicide risk. Accidental death with no body is highly unlikely. Murder is just about the only possibility.
 
That is a strawman as lionking only commented on one specific case - he did not say that groups such as the Innocence Project were not needed in other cases.

As a matter of fact I’m very supportive of the Innocence Project and follow their work closely.
 
The prosecution doesn’t have to do anything in an appeal. It is not a re-trial. The defence has to first show cause for an appeal, which isn’t always granted.
I wasn't referring to an appeal.
 
Do you think there is any alternative to Lynette being murdered? There has been ample evidence put forward that she was not a suicide risk. Accidental death with no body is highly unlikely. Murder is just about the only possibility.
Sounds like a good theory is not a beyond reasonable doubt standard.
 
I haven't followed the specifics in this case but the discussion sounds very like that relating to the David Gilroy case. He also tried to maintain that the victim was a "missing person" and weave fanciful stories about why she might have disappeared leaving her cat uncared for and her parents uncontacted.

I started looking at that one thinking, good grief is that all you've got? No forensics, no eyewitnesses, no body, just the accused behaving strangely at the time his former girlfriend disappeared. I initially thought it was a miscarriage of justice because of there surely being room for reasonable doubt.

But the more I delved into the case, the more it became clear that there really was no other explanation for the disappearance. (Oddly enough an important part of that was something that didn't make it into the news reports - that the victim's mobile phone hadn't pinged any masts after the last CCTV sighting of her, indicating that it had been switched off soon afterwards, which was really impossible unless she'd been assaulted right then and there.)

If the circumstantial evidence is strong enough it can certainly meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof.
 
I haven't followed the specifics in this case but the discussion sounds very like that relating to the David Gilroy case. He also tried to maintain that the victim was a "missing person" and weave fanciful stories about why she might have disappeared leaving her cat uncared for and her parents uncontacted.

I started looking at that one thinking, good grief is that all you've got? No forensics, no eyewitnesses, no body, just the accused behaving strangely at the time his former girlfriend disappeared. I initially thought it was a miscarriage of justice because of there surely being room for reasonable doubt.

But the more I delved into the case, the more it became clear that there really was no other explanation for the disappearance. (Oddly enough an important part of that was something that didn't make it into the news reports - that the victim's mobile phone hadn't pinged any masts after the last CCTV sighting of her, indicating that it had been switched off soon afterwards, which was really impossible unless she'd been assaulted right then and there.)

If the circumstantial evidence is strong enough it can certainly meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof.

Agreed 100%
 
You don't have beyond reasonable doubt. You just have a theory.

There was a court case, the prosecution made their case, the defence made their case, and it was judged on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt", and that judgment was murder.

It is now up to you to if you want to claim the judgement wasn't made on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt". Your claim - you support it.
 
Yup. We all know miscarriages of justice happen. But not every case is a miscarriage of justice. In order to claim that a particular case is one of these, you have to, you know, make a rational argument for reasonable doubt.
 
Yup. We all know miscarriages of justice happen. But not every case is a miscarriage of justice. In order to claim that a particular case is one of these, you have to, you know, make a rational argument for reasonable doubt.
I have been falsely accused of wrong doing in the past and also labeled a liar because I didn't confess once I was accused. All because the accuser didn't have a better theory.

When somebody is murdered, the spouse is usually the first person to be considered a suspect. Often, nobody else is even considered because it is so easy to build a case against a spouse (sometimes without even fabricating evidence).

If "I don't see another suspicious person" becomes the new standard of proof in cases like these then a lot of innocent people are going to jail.
 
What does this even mean?
Actually, I think I understand what Samson means. I have zero doubt that Dawson is guilty, if for nothing else Occam's Razor. To explain what happened, you have an extremely complex and unlikely scenario, and on the other a quite simple one -- he did it.

On the other hand, whatever he did to his wife left essentially no forensics, or any other evidence. He essentially pulled off a perfect crime in that regard. Perfect crimes by definition go unpunished.

Was justice served? Absolutely, in my opinion. Was it in strict accordance with the letter of the law? Perhaps, but I'm somewhat less certain about that.
 
Actually, I think I understand what Samson means. I have zero doubt that Dawson is guilty, if for nothing else Occam's Razor. To explain what happened, you have an extremely complex and unlikely scenario, and on the other a quite simple one -- he did it.

On the other hand, whatever he did to his wife left essentially no forensics, or any other evidence. He essentially pulled off a perfect crime in that regard. Perfect crimes by definition go unpunished.

Was justice served? Absolutely, in my opinion. Was it in strict accordance with the letter of the law? Perhaps, but I'm somewhat less certain about that.

I largely agree, but unlike perhaps anyone else here I listened to the entire five hour judgement. I believe the judge addressed each and every contentious issue. Firstly the victim’s disappearance. If you conclude she didn’t voluntarily leave the home or have an accident with no body, or suicide with no reason why, we are left with murder. I think the judge dealt with this issue comprehensively.

If you conclude that beyond reasonable doubt, we are left only with murder.

This simplifies the matter greatly, and I’m glad you have mentioned Occam’s Razor. Yes she could have kidnapped drug lords and flown to Columbia. But she wasn’t. When murder is the only rational outcome, you only have one suspect.
 
I largely agree, but unlike perhaps anyone else here I listened to the entire five hour judgement. I believe the judge addressed each and every contentious issue. Firstly the victim’s disappearance. If you conclude she didn’t voluntarily leave the home or have an accident with no body, or suicide with no reason why, we are left with murder. I think the judge dealt with this issue comprehensively.

If you conclude that beyond reasonable doubt, we are left only with murder.

This simplifies the matter greatly, and I’m glad you have mentioned Occam’s Razor. Yes she could have kidnapped drug lords and flown to Columbia. But she wasn’t. When murder is the only rational outcome, you only have one suspect.

I agree. "Reasonable" is the key word, because it doesn't mean "conceivable." As for "perfect" crimes, it strikes me as ironic that you can get away with murder if you happen to be very good at it. In any case, as I said justice was served.
 
Dawson today sentenced to 24 years, with 18 years before possible parole. He will die in jail. Justice.
 
The judge rejected any plea for leniency. He was again clear and incisive in his sentencing.
 
https://www.9news.com.au/national/c...-student/acad25a3-4cfa-4595-bffc-95eef3634fd0

Dawson now found guilty of sex with student. So now a convicted murderer and rapist.

Looking forward to the usual apologists while I celebrate his death in jail.

This happens a lot in the Trials and Errors section. People here like to claim that the evidence does not rise to the bar of reasonable doubt, but we seem to forget that we get a view of the evidence that is fed to us by the media. That will necessarily not be a complete view, even if the reporters don't have some agenda they are pushing. Anybody who wants to dissent the judge's view needs to acquaint themselves with all the evidence (props for listening to the whole judgement btw).

Yes, judges and juries do get things wrong but it is quite arrogant to assume that this is the case based on what might be an incomplete view of the evidence. The safest assumption is that the judge and jury are better informed about the facts of the case than we are (and the judge is better informed about the law) and, therefore, if we disagree, it is probably us that are wrong.

Another issue is that people misinterpret "beyond reasonable doubt". They tend to assume it means "beyond all doubt" or "any conceivable doubt", in the words of Stellafane. It does not mean that at all. You could construct any number of alternate explanations for the disappearance of Dawson's wife but they have to be reasonable. Kidnapping by drug lords is possible, but it's not reasonable, given the context.

As an aside, I listened to the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast on Sunday about how to commit the perfect murder. Disappointingly the experts on the panel didn't know the answer because, if it is the perfect murder, then by definition, they haven't found it. Anyway, the top tip was "do not dismember the body".
 
Errors and Trials

This happens a lot in the Trials and Errors section. People here like to claim that the evidence does not rise to the bar of reasonable doubt, but we seem to forget that we get a view of the evidence that is fed to us by the media. That will necessarily not be a complete view, even if the reporters don't have some agenda they are pushing. Anybody who wants to dissent the judge's view needs to acquaint themselves with all the evidence (props for listening to the whole judgement btw).

Yes, judges and juries do get things wrong but it is quite arrogant to assume that this is the case based on what might be an incomplete view of the evidence. The safest assumption is that the judge and jury are better informed about the facts of the case than we are (and the judge is better informed about the law) and, therefore, if we disagree, it is probably us that are wrong.

Another issue is that people misinterpret "beyond reasonable doubt". They tend to assume it means "beyond all doubt" or "any conceivable doubt", in the words of Stellafane. It does not mean that at all. You could construct any number of alternate explanations for the disappearance of Dawson's wife but they have to be reasonable. Kidnapping by drug lords is possible, but it's not reasonable, given the context.

As an aside, I listened to the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast on Sunday about how to commit the perfect murder. Disappointingly the experts on the panel didn't know the answer because, if it is the perfect murder, then by definition, they haven't found it. Anyway, the top tip was "do not dismember the body".
Regarding paragraph 1, can you give a specific example within the Trials & Error section? What about the opposite problem, that the media feeds the general public an anti-defendant narrative that turns out to be rubbish? There are plenty of examples, in this section or elsewhere.

Regarding paragraph 2, there are instances in the Trials and Error section of judges who make nonsensical statements about forensics (examples available upon request). This is not entirely surprising; they are trained in the law, not in science. There are also examples of judges making dubious decisions about what to let into a trial and what to keep out. Off the top of my head, the West Memphis Three comes to mind. The judge excluded the testimony of one of the top experts in the country on false confessions but allowed someone to testify on cults ("then I got aPhD from Columbia Pacific, I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Mind Control Cults and Their Effects on the Objectives of Law Enforcement." link).

Regarding paragraph 3, the opposite problem is also known, that juries convict despite having ample doubt. Part of the problem, as pointed out by Jim and Nancy Petro in their book False Justice, is that juries imagine that if they make a mistake, the appeals process will correct it. Can you provide any reason to think that one problem is more prevalent than the other? EDT: I am in broad agreement with your description of what beyond reasonable doubt is. That having been noted, there are times when a bushy haired stranger is a more reasonable suspect than the one identified by the police. The Billy Wayne Cope and Isaiah Fowler cases come to mind.

I don't have any reason to believe that Mr. Dawson is innocent. If I were to make a study of the case, I would keep these ideas, among others, in mind.
 
Last edited:
Regarding paragraph 1, can you give a specific example within the Trials & Error section? What about the opposite problem, that the media feeds the general public an anti-defendant narrative that turns out to be rubbish? There are plenty of examples, in this section or elsewhere.
This one is a good example.
Regarding paragraph 2, there are instances in the Trials and Error section of judges who make nonsensical statements about forensics (examples available upon request). This is not entirely surprising; they are trained in the law, not in science. There are also examples of judges making dubious decisions about what to let into a trial and what to keep out. Off the top of my head, the West Memphis Three comes to mind. The judge excluded the testimony of one of the top experts in the country on false confessions but allowed someone to testify on cults ("then I got aPhD from Columbia Pacific, I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Mind Control Cults and Their Effects on the Objectives of Law Enforcement." link).
I haven’t claimed that judges and juries always get it right. My point is only that they are less likely to be wrong than somebody on an internet forum who is not familiar with all the evidence, or the relevant law.
Regarding paragraph 3, the opposite problem is also known, that juries convict despite having ample doubt. Part of the problem, as pointed out by Jim and Nancy Petro in their book False Justice, is that juries imagine that if they make a mistake, the appeals process will correct it. Can you provide any reason to think that one problem is more prevalent than the other? EDT: I am in broad agreement with your description of what beyond reasonable doubt is. That having been noted, there are times when a bushy haired stranger is a more reasonable suspect than the one identified by the police. The Billy Wayne Cope and Isaiah Fowler cases come to mind.

I don't have any reason to believe that Mr. Dawson is innocent. If I were to make a study of the case, I would keep these ideas, among others, in mind.
I wasn’t talking about juries, I was talking about people on this forum not understanding reasonable doubt.

Judges and juries make mistakes, but if you are going to claim they made a mistake in any particular case, you have to bring more to the table than “judges and juries make mistakes”. Up thread, a poster claimed that this was a miscarriage of justice based only on the fact that they themselves was once falsely accused. That’s just nonsense.
 
no body, no parole

"While the sentence carries a no-parole period of 18 years, a new “no body, no parole” state law means Dawson, 74, won’t be eligible for early release as long as the body remains missing." CNN

"Dawson's legal team has argued the witnesses' testimony has been contaminated because they had talked about the case with each other and had listened to The Teacher's Pet podcast about the case, arguing it was broadcast with an assumption that her husband was guilty." DailyMail.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom