• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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!
 
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...

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.
 
LondonJohn said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Being vindictive towards a murderer? A thousand apologies. :rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

Dawson is reportedly “upset”. After getting away with 40 years of lying, I’m no doubt he is.
Click to expand...
40 years of repressed extreme anxiety I am sure.
 
lionking said:
And guilty it is. Great result.
Click to expand...
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."
Click to expand...
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?
 
psionl0 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
And that is why there are groups such as the "Innocence project".
 
psionl0 said:
Justice only for the rich?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact I’m very supportive of the Innocence Project and follow their work closely.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to an appeal.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good theory is not a beyond reasonable doubt standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom