• 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 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.
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%
 
psionl0 said:
You don't have beyond reasonable doubt. You just have a theory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
lionking said:
What does this even mean?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stellafane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

jeremyp said:
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".
Click to expand...
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:
Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom