Current Trial The Teachers Pet Podcast & Chris Dawson's Murder Trial * New Carnal Knowledge Trial

Remove this Banner Ad

Will CD give witness in his own defence? If he does he can expect cross examination of all the incidents related in testimony already and of which he should have knowledge. Those that have been introduced as evidence in chief by the prosecutor relating to statements of the deceased LD he may simply refute they had happened at all. Those introduced as evidence in chief by the prosecutor regarding things said and witnessed relating to CD can then be impeached by further evidence of that witness in rebuttal. What fits that category? Some of the instances of DV do. His conversation with Silkman does. So too evidence of JC he contests as in error.

So the choice of whether to be witness in his own case will be a significant choice for the defence. He can possibly provide evidence in chief about bruises evidence contesting it was ever caused by him. The prosecution couldn't add anything further. So it's possible that propensity link evidence can be permanently destroyed at that point. He would, however, have to contend with the instances of DV that were witnessed and give his account of them. I'm unsure if is beneficial for defence to do so.

I'm hopeful he gives witness but that springs from a desire to hear more evidence per se and specifically his account of much in evidence already.

I'm trying to learn on the fly here about evidence rules about examination, cross examination and impeachment rules so please be patient with me.

We will find out soon enough what the defence do. A lot will turn on whether the defence team feel that the case has or has not been proven by prosecution to this point. Taking account of inferences made by Harrison I'm suspecting he feels it hasn't. So the defence may just rest as is.

Podcast 8 of the teachers trial showed what the defence had hoped to achieve by calling HT as defence witness. They wanted to show that virtually all witness testimony has been contaminated by the podcast history by HT divulging between witnesses evidence that shouldn't be shared and by HT inherent bias in approach. I was somewhat bewildered as to why he was called. Now I understand the methodology and the benefit sought I think it is probably a powerful choice. There is zero doubt that his podcasts and his cross discussion of what should be separate witness testimony has contaminated evidence. It is a salient lesson for criminal podcasters. If they intend to be involved as part of justice then evidence standards must be maintained consistent with court rules and using sound legal knowledge and principles. It's no.longer appropriate for a podcaster to say they are simply telling a story when by doing so they potentially corrupt a whole case.
 
Last edited:
Angry Red Bull said:
Podcast 8 of the teachers trial showed what the defence had hoped to achieve by calling HT as defence witness. They wanted to show that virtually all witness testimony has been contaminated by the podcast history by HT divulging between witnesses evidence that shouldn't be shared and by HT inherent bias in approach. I was somewhat bewildered as to why he was called. Now I understand the methodology and the benefit sought I think it is probably a powerful choice. There is zero doubt that his podcasts and his cross discussion of what should be separate witness testimony has contaminated evidence. It is a salient lesson for criminal podcasters. If they intend to be involved as part of justice then evidence standards must be maintained consistent with court rules and using sound legal knowledge and principles. It's no.longer appropriate for a podcaster to say they are simply telling a story when by doing so they potentially corrupt a whole case.
Click to expand...

I also believe that Hedley walks a tight line in his podcasts and I was shocked on occasions about how forthright he was in 'Shandee's Story'. IMO, there was no need for him to be so blunt about what is his opinion. He often justifies this by saying that he is supporting the coroner's findings. This term 'contamination' is a simplification, especially when looking into a very cold case. Just brushing everything as 'contaminated' is an easy way for the defence to appeal to the keeping the status quo. They need to look through each piece of evidence and make a decision individually. Also, evidence given to corroborate CD's story (all in his friend/family circle) is also circumstantial and in this sense contaminated by their intrinsic biases. Where does it end?

Despite these flaws, Hedley has done an amazing job investigating these cases IMO. In particular, the probable undercovering of systemic errors in the Queensland DNA labs that is likely to have legal repercussions in thousands of cases. Also, 'The Nurse' podcast helped to unravel paedophile protection and institutional child abuse stretching 30 years in Tasmania, which has led to a Royal Commission. 'The Vanishing Lady' podcast also put the spotlight on the poor procedures for missing persons cases from the 1980s and 1990s, which also is clearly demonstrated in LD's disappearance.
 
Last edited:
MSB ROYS said:
I also believe that Hedley walks a tight line in his podcasts and I was shocked on occasions about how forthright he was in 'Shandee's Story'. IMO, there was no need for him to be so blunt about what is his opinion. He often justifies this by saying that he is supporting the coroner's findings. This term 'contamination' is a simplification, especially when looking into a very cold case. Just brushing everything as 'contaminated' is an easy way for the defence to appeal to the keeping the status quo. They need to look through each piece of evidence and make a decision individually. Also, evidence given to corroborate CD's story (all in his friend/family circle) is also circumstantial and in this sense contaminated by their intrinsic biases. Where does it end?

Despite these flaws, Hedley has done an amazing job investigating these cases IMO. In particular, the probable undercovering of systemic errors in the Queensland DNA labs that is likely to have legal repercussions in thousands of cases. Also, 'The Nurse' podcast helped to unravel paedophile protection and institutional child abuse stretching 30 years in Tasmania, which had led to a Royal Commission. 'The Vanishing Lady' podcast also put the spotlight on the poor procedures for missing persons cases from the 1980s and 1990s, which also is clearly demonstrated in LD's disappearance.
Click to expand...

I've only recently turned to listening to crime reporting. I've not even listened to the Teachers pet...only the Teachers trial as first. I am a fan of facts and only facts. Immediately there is a element which becomes story jeopardy arises. I listened to the whole Depp v Heard case using court TV so I could remain impartial. Prefer that to getting someone else's story. But story is what sells unfortunately. I take on face value the importance of his contribution.

When a Justice calls the contribution as egregious ie Fullerton......something needs to change.

It's clear that the argument on entrenched bias and contamination is a get out of jail free card placed there in case an appeal becomes necessary. Sad to see a trail influenced like that.

The witness accounts of sightings must be construed as contentious. But there are several and arms length people. Throw in that you don't have a body or even witness testimony of a deadly incident, 40 years on its a tough choice and that's even recognising she has been pronounced as dead. When? Where? How? Though. Do we just guess that? That doesn't sit well with my ordered brain to make that leap but perhaps that's just my flaw. HT dismissed the sightings outright because he only recognises 'confirmed' sightings. Of course there is no such legal distinction only levels of persuasiveness of testimony. Black and white shouldn't exist ....HT fault there imo

I'm hopeful we get to hear CD. It would be a major disappointment if they close now....unfulfilled a little and if it is not guilty verdict a question mark hanging mid air still.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Angry Red Bull said:
But story is what sells unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Just hold in mind that in journalism 'story' is not a reference to something being made up or embellished. eg "A breaking story" or "...go and cover that story" - it just means something that people will be interested in hearing about or that is newsworthy.
 
Story said:
Just hold in mind that in journalism 'story' is not a reference to something being made up or embellished. eg "A breaking story" or "...go and cover that story" - it just means something that people will be interested in hearing about or that is newsworthy.
Click to expand...

Yes. Understand S. My faith a little restored. I was highly critical that Justice Harrison remarks about bruises wasnt addressed by podcast. Finally 8th it was..I'm a little heartened by that and now have a little more faith in integrity of the podcast
 
Coward.

'3M AGO

Chris Dawson won't give evidence, defence rests​

DAVID MURRAY
Chris Dawson won't give evidence at his murder trial.
Defence barrister Pauline David closed the defence case after calling a single witness, Paul Cooper, who claimed he saw Lyn Dawson at a pub in 1982 after she went missing.
"Your Honour, that concludes the defence case," Ms David said'
 
BFew said:
Coward.

'3M AGO

Chris Dawson won't give evidence, defence rests​

DAVID MURRAY
Chris Dawson won't give evidence at his murder trial.
Defence barrister Pauline David closed the defence case after calling a single witness, Paul Cooper, who claimed he saw Lyn Dawson at a pub in 1982 after she went missing.
"Your Honour, that concludes the defence case," Ms David said'
Click to expand...

Someone else who said they saw Lyn and this Paul Cooper didn't make an approach to talk to her either?
 
Kurve said:
Someone else who said they saw Lyn and this Paul Cooper didn't make an approach to talk to her either?
Click to expand...

Cooper claims he spoke to her for close to an hour.


A woman resembling Lynette Dawson was drinking white wine and had shoulder-length hair when she drank with defence witness Paul Cooper in 1982, he has told the NSW Supreme Court.
Asked what the woman he claims was Lyn Dawson was wearing on the day in 1982 when he claims they drank together in the “Tradies’ Bar” of the Warners Bay Hotel, Cooper said it was “a beige sort of outfit, a top.
“Her hair was different like she wore a silky sort of thing in her hair, a bit see through you know.
“There was something about her hair that was different to the photos.”
Her hair was shoulder-length, he said.
Asked what he was drinking on the day, Mr Cooper said Jim Beam with Coca-Cola, and he had his first drink at 3pm that day.
He said he bought the woman a white wine, but she didn’t really drink it.
He said he did not think she was wearing glasses.

'Defence witness Paul Cooper says he asked the woman he believes was Lyn Dawson if she had children, and she replied that she had two.
It was 1982, and he had run into the stranger at the Warners Bay Hotel on Lake Macquarie, 147km north of Sydney.
The woman said she wasn’t going back to her family, and Mr Cooper says he told her it was “not fair” to the children.
“I grew up without me parents,” Mr Cooper told the court.
The woman “had money because she sold something”, he said.
“She’d been planning it for a couple of weeks,” he said.
She had someone getting her a passport in a couple of weeks then was “going to Bali” then heading off to another country.
Mr Cooper says he spoke to her for close to an hour.
“I went to the bar twice,” he said.
He was drinking Jim Beam and he “got her a white wine, but she didn’t really drink that much”.
She was wearing “beigey” clothes, but he couldn’t remember if it was a “dress or slack or what”.
"I did say to her that by her leaving all her belongings … and everything else at home, that there was a good chance that people would think her husband had done something to her. Knocked her off, I put it."
After he said this, she “had a different demeanour”
“It sort of shocked me,” he said.
He thought that it might have been her intention for her husband to be framed for her murder.'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper says the woman he believes was Lyn Dawson “looked a bit out of place” sitting in the Warners Bay Hotel by herself in 1982.
“She was an attractive lady, you know, she was well presented,” he said.
“Just wasn’t the normal clientele you get in the place sort of thing.”
The woman said she was contemplating going to see her sister, who apparently lived in the area.
She had “left her husband” and was “working up the courage” to go to see her sister.
She didn’t say who her husband was, he said.
The woman “wanted me to book a motel”, he said.
Her husband had been “doing the wrong thing” and “playing up on her”.
“I thought the obvious. I thought it was for me and her. Then she put me in my place,” he said.
She didn’t want the motel room “for that” – she wanted him to book it in her name because she didn’t have any identification on her.
“She’d left everything behind,” Mr Cooper said.
The “gentleman” who owned the place where the woman had been staying was “coming into her room making advances” and she didn’t like it,” he said.'
 
BFew said:
Cooper claims he spoke to her for close to an hour.


A woman resembling Lynette Dawson was drinking white wine and had shoulder-length hair when she drank with defence witness Paul Cooper in 1982, he has told the NSW Supreme Court.
Asked what the woman he claims was Lyn Dawson was wearing on the day in 1982 when he claims they drank together in the “Tradies’ Bar” of the Warners Bay Hotel, Cooper said it was “a beige sort of outfit, a top.
“Her hair was different like she wore a silky sort of thing in her hair, a bit see through you know.
“There was something about her hair that was different to the photos.”
Her hair was shoulder-length, he said.
Asked what he was drinking on the day, Mr Cooper said Jim Beam with Coca-Cola, and he had his first drink at 3pm that day.
He said he bought the woman a white wine, but she didn’t really drink it.
He said he did not think she was wearing glasses.

'Defence witness Paul Cooper says he asked the woman he believes was Lyn Dawson if she had children, and she replied that she had two.
It was 1982, and he had run into the stranger at the Warners Bay Hotel on Lake Macquarie, 147km north of Sydney.
The woman said she wasn’t going back to her family, and Mr Cooper says he told her it was “not fair” to the children.
“I grew up without me parents,” Mr Cooper told the court.
The woman “had money because she sold something”, he said.
“She’d been planning it for a couple of weeks,” he said.
She had someone getting her a passport in a couple of weeks then was “going to Bali” then heading off to another country.
Mr Cooper says he spoke to her for close to an hour.
“I went to the bar twice,” he said.
He was drinking Jim Beam and he “got her a white wine, but she didn’t really drink that much”.
She was wearing “beigey” clothes, but he couldn’t remember if it was a “dress or slack or what”.
"I did say to her that by her leaving all her belongings … and everything else at home, that there was a good chance that people would think her husband had done something to her. Knocked her off, I put it."
After he said this, she “had a different demeanour”
“It sort of shocked me,” he said.
He thought that it might have been her intention for her husband to be framed for her murder.'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper says the woman he believes was Lyn Dawson “looked a bit out of place” sitting in the Warners Bay Hotel by herself in 1982.
“She was an attractive lady, you know, she was well presented,” he said.
“Just wasn’t the normal clientele you get in the place sort of thing.”
The woman said she was contemplating going to see her sister, who apparently lived in the area.
She had “left her husband” and was “working up the courage” to go to see her sister.
She didn’t say who her husband was, he said.
The woman “wanted me to book a motel”, he said.
Her husband had been “doing the wrong thing” and “playing up on her”.
“I thought the obvious. I thought it was for me and her. Then she put me in my place,” he said.
She didn’t want the motel room “for that” – she wanted him to book it in her name because she didn’t have any identification on her.
“She’d left everything behind,” Mr Cooper said.
The “gentleman” who owned the place where the woman had been staying was “coming into her room making advances” and she didn’t like it,” he said.'
Click to expand...
Sounds legit :rolleyes:
 
BFew said:
Cooper claims he spoke to her for close to an hour.


A woman resembling Lynette Dawson was drinking white wine and had shoulder-length hair when she drank with defence witness Paul Cooper in 1982, he has told the NSW Supreme Court.
Asked what the woman he claims was Lyn Dawson was wearing on the day in 1982 when he claims they drank together in the “Tradies’ Bar” of the Warners Bay Hotel, Cooper said it was “a beige sort of outfit, a top.
“Her hair was different like she wore a silky sort of thing in her hair, a bit see through you know.
“There was something about her hair that was different to the photos.”
Her hair was shoulder-length, he said.
Asked what he was drinking on the day, Mr Cooper said Jim Beam with Coca-Cola, and he had his first drink at 3pm that day.
He said he bought the woman a white wine, but she didn’t really drink it.
He said he did not think she was wearing glasses.

'Defence witness Paul Cooper says he asked the woman he believes was Lyn Dawson if she had children, and she replied that she had two.
It was 1982, and he had run into the stranger at the Warners Bay Hotel on Lake Macquarie, 147km north of Sydney.
The woman said she wasn’t going back to her family, and Mr Cooper says he told her it was “not fair” to the children.
“I grew up without me parents,” Mr Cooper told the court.
The woman “had money because she sold something”, he said.
“She’d been planning it for a couple of weeks,” he said.
She had someone getting her a passport in a couple of weeks then was “going to Bali” then heading off to another country.
Mr Cooper says he spoke to her for close to an hour.
“I went to the bar twice,” he said.
He was drinking Jim Beam and he “got her a white wine, but she didn’t really drink that much”.
She was wearing “beigey” clothes, but he couldn’t remember if it was a “dress or slack or what”.
"I did say to her that by her leaving all her belongings … and everything else at home, that there was a good chance that people would think her husband had done something to her. Knocked her off, I put it."
After he said this, she “had a different demeanour”
“It sort of shocked me,” he said.
He thought that it might have been her intention for her husband to be framed for her murder.'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper says the woman he believes was Lyn Dawson “looked a bit out of place” sitting in the Warners Bay Hotel by herself in 1982.
“She was an attractive lady, you know, she was well presented,” he said.
“Just wasn’t the normal clientele you get in the place sort of thing.”
The woman said she was contemplating going to see her sister, who apparently lived in the area.
She had “left her husband” and was “working up the courage” to go to see her sister.
She didn’t say who her husband was, he said.
The woman “wanted me to book a motel”, he said.
Her husband had been “doing the wrong thing” and “playing up on her”.
“I thought the obvious. I thought it was for me and her. Then she put me in my place,” he said.
She didn’t want the motel room “for that” – she wanted him to book it in her name because she didn’t have any identification on her.
“She’d left everything behind,” Mr Cooper said.
The “gentleman” who owned the place where the woman had been staying was “coming into her room making advances” and she didn’t like it,” he said.'
Click to expand...
Going to Bali in a coupe of weeks without ID for a passport. Sure
 
jason_recliner said:
Sounds legit :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Story said:
Going to Bali in a coupe of weeks without ID for a passport. Sure
Click to expand...

Even my tooth fairy is having trouble believing that what Cooper says happened, actually happened.

Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, is cross-examining defence witness Paul Cooper about his criminal record.

'After Mr Cooper’s claims to have shared drinks with Lynette Dawson in 1982, shortly after her disappearance, the barrister got to his feet and confirmed Mr Cooper was a regular drinker at the hotel.

This is their exchange in the NSW Supreme Court.

Everson: That Warners Bay Hotel you went into, how many times had you been there before that?

Cooper: Oh quite a fair few.

Everson: Were you working at the time?

Cooper: I just did bits and pieces for myself and me brother-in-law.

Everson: What does that mean?

Cooper: Sometimes I worked, sometimes I didn't, just casual.

Everson: ‘Cause over the years there are some things that prevented you from working weren't there?

Cooper: Yep.

Everson: Tell His Honour what that was. What was preventing you from working?

Cooper: Ah, spinal injury.

Everson: Anything else apart from a spinal injury?

Cooper: No, I dunno what you mean as to what?

Everson: Did you go away anywhere?

Cooper: Oh yeah I've been to jail, yeah.

Everson: What for?

Cooper: Lots of different things.

Everson: Tell His Honour what that was please.

Cooper: Oh drugs, break and enter and all sorts of things.

Everson: Armed robbery?

Cooper: Yeah yeah.

Everson: And plenty of offences of dishonesty?

Cooper: Um theft and that yeah.

Everson: False pretences?

Cooper: Yep.

Everson: When are you going to put your hand up to claim the reward for information leading to the resolving of the disappearance of Lynette Dawson?

Cooper: I didn't know there was a reward.

Everson: How'd you get here today?

Cooper: Um, flew.

Everson: Who paid for your ticket?

Cooper: Um, I don’t know.

Everson: What do you mean you don't know?

Cooper: Well, it was paid for through the solicitor.

Everson: Where'd you fly from?

Cooper: Queensland.

Everson: How long were you there for?

Cooper: 20-something years.

Everson: Ever been in trouble with the police in Queensland?

Cooper: Not really, no. I haven't been in trouble for 30 years.'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper has agreed he has a long history of drug use, but has forcefully claimed he is telling the truth.
Mr Cooper said he saw his father murder his own mother when he was nine years old and was not making up his story about Lynette Dawson.
Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, asked if Mr Cooper was “a long term user of cannabis”.
“Ah yeah, I’ve used a lot of drugs over the years. I watched me father murder me mother as a child, which caused me to end up using drugs and crime and everything, but I got my life together in the end and there’s no way I’d be here today after watching my father murder my mother if I thought this man was guilty.”
“When I’ve sat through that as a nine-year-old boy, too scared to move off the lounge, cause I thought I'd get shot in the head, I’m not here to muck around,” Mr Cooper said.
“I’m here because I believe what I say.
“What I say is the truth.”'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper was regularly using cannabis between 1980 and 1995, including in 1982 but says he is ‘200 per cent’ sure he saw Lynette Dawson.
He began using heroin later, he told the court under cross-examination by prosecutor Craig Everson, SC.
“What did you do to break that dependency that you had on those drugs?” Mr Everson said.
Cooper: “How’d I get off 'em?”
Everson: “Yes.”
Cooper: “Become a Christian.”
Everson: “Anything else?”
Cooper: “Methadone, drug treatment programs, DNA, drug rehabilitation.”
Everson: “Did the consequence of methadone use affect your memory in the years after that?”
Cooper: “No, it’s only a painkiller.”
Everson: “What do you say, Mr Cooper, to this proposition that the woman you spoke to in that pub in Warners Bay was someone that looked like the woman that you saw years later in 2018 on the TV?”
Cooper: “You don’t forget something like that. No, it was her, 100 per cent. I’ll give you 200 per cent.”'
 
BFew said:



Even my tooth fairy is having trouble believing that what Cooper says happened, actually happened.

Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, is cross-examining defence witness Paul Cooper about his criminal record.

'After Mr Cooper’s claims to have shared drinks with Lynette Dawson in 1982, shortly after her disappearance, the barrister got to his feet and confirmed Mr Cooper was a regular drinker at the hotel.

This is their exchange in the NSW Supreme Court.

Everson: That Warners Bay Hotel you went into, how many times had you been there before that?

Cooper: Oh quite a fair few.

Everson: Were you working at the time?

Cooper: I just did bits and pieces for myself and me brother-in-law.

Everson: What does that mean?

Cooper: Sometimes I worked, sometimes I didn't, just casual.

Everson: ‘Cause over the years there are some things that prevented you from working weren't there?

Cooper: Yep.

Everson: Tell His Honour what that was. What was preventing you from working?

Cooper: Ah, spinal injury.

Everson: Anything else apart from a spinal injury?

Cooper: No, I dunno what you mean as to what?

Everson: Did you go away anywhere?

Cooper: Oh yeah I've been to jail, yeah.

Everson: What for?

Cooper: Lots of different things.

Everson: Tell His Honour what that was please.

Cooper: Oh drugs, break and enter and all sorts of things.

Everson: Armed robbery?

Cooper: Yeah yeah.

Everson: And plenty of offences of dishonesty?

Cooper: Um theft and that yeah.

Everson: False pretences?

Cooper: Yep.

Everson: When are you going to put your hand up to claim the reward for information leading to the resolving of the disappearance of Lynette Dawson?

Cooper: I didn't know there was a reward.

Everson: How'd you get here today?

Cooper: Um, flew.

Everson: Who paid for your ticket?

Cooper: Um, I don’t know.

Everson: What do you mean you don't know?

Cooper: Well, it was paid for through the solicitor.

Everson: Where'd you fly from?

Cooper: Queensland.

Everson: How long were you there for?

Cooper: 20-something years.

Everson: Ever been in trouble with the police in Queensland?

Cooper: Not really, no. I haven't been in trouble for 30 years.'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper has agreed he has a long history of drug use, but has forcefully claimed he is telling the truth.
Mr Cooper said he saw his father murder his own mother when he was nine years old and was not making up his story about Lynette Dawson.
Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, asked if Mr Cooper was “a long term user of cannabis”.
“Ah yeah, I’ve used a lot of drugs over the years. I watched me father murder me mother as a child, which caused me to end up using drugs and crime and everything, but I got my life together in the end and there’s no way I’d be here today after watching my father murder my mother if I thought this man was guilty.”
“When I’ve sat through that as a nine-year-old boy, too scared to move off the lounge, cause I thought I'd get shot in the head, I’m not here to muck around,” Mr Cooper said.
“I’m here because I believe what I say.
“What I say is the truth.”'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper was regularly using cannabis between 1980 and 1995, including in 1982 but says he is ‘200 per cent’ sure he saw Lynette Dawson.
He began using heroin later, he told the court under cross-examination by prosecutor Craig Everson, SC.
“What did you do to break that dependency that you had on those drugs?” Mr Everson said.
Cooper: “How’d I get off 'em?”
Everson: “Yes.”
Cooper: “Become a Christian.”
Everson: “Anything else?”
Cooper: “Methadone, drug treatment programs, DNA, drug rehabilitation.”
Everson: “Did the consequence of methadone use affect your memory in the years after that?”
Cooper: “No, it’s only a painkiller.”
Everson: “What do you say, Mr Cooper, to this proposition that the woman you spoke to in that pub in Warners Bay was someone that looked like the woman that you saw years later in 2018 on the TV?”
Cooper: “You don’t forget something like that. No, it was her, 100 per cent. I’ll give you 200 per cent.”'
Click to expand...
Well, I'm convinced. Case closed. Lynette is most likely in Bali running a chain of AirB&Bs as I type this.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BFew said:



Even my tooth fairy is having trouble believing that what Cooper says happened, actually happened.

Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, is cross-examining defence witness Paul Cooper about his criminal record.

'After Mr Cooper’s claims to have shared drinks with Lynette Dawson in 1982, shortly after her disappearance, the barrister got to his feet and confirmed Mr Cooper was a regular drinker at the hotel.

This is their exchange in the NSW Supreme Court.

Everson: That Warners Bay Hotel you went into, how many times had you been there before that?

Cooper: Oh quite a fair few.

Everson: Were you working at the time?

Cooper: I just did bits and pieces for myself and me brother-in-law.

Everson: What does that mean?

Cooper: Sometimes I worked, sometimes I didn't, just casual.

Everson: ‘Cause over the years there are some things that prevented you from working weren't there?

Cooper: Yep.

Everson: Tell His Honour what that was. What was preventing you from working?

Cooper: Ah, spinal injury.

Everson: Anything else apart from a spinal injury?

Cooper: No, I dunno what you mean as to what?

Everson: Did you go away anywhere?

Cooper: Oh yeah I've been to jail, yeah.

Everson: What for?

Cooper: Lots of different things.

Everson: Tell His Honour what that was please.

Cooper: Oh drugs, break and enter and all sorts of things.

Everson: Armed robbery?

Cooper: Yeah yeah.

Everson: And plenty of offences of dishonesty?

Cooper: Um theft and that yeah.

Everson: False pretences?

Cooper: Yep.

Everson: When are you going to put your hand up to claim the reward for information leading to the resolving of the disappearance of Lynette Dawson?

Cooper: I didn't know there was a reward.

Everson: How'd you get here today?

Cooper: Um, flew.

Everson: Who paid for your ticket?

Cooper: Um, I don’t know.

Everson: What do you mean you don't know?

Cooper: Well, it was paid for through the solicitor.

Everson: Where'd you fly from?

Cooper: Queensland.

Everson: How long were you there for?

Cooper: 20-something years.

Everson: Ever been in trouble with the police in Queensland?

Cooper: Not really, no. I haven't been in trouble for 30 years.'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper has agreed he has a long history of drug use, but has forcefully claimed he is telling the truth.
Mr Cooper said he saw his father murder his own mother when he was nine years old and was not making up his story about Lynette Dawson.
Crown prosecutor Craig Everson, SC, asked if Mr Cooper was “a long term user of cannabis”.
“Ah yeah, I’ve used a lot of drugs over the years. I watched me father murder me mother as a child, which caused me to end up using drugs and crime and everything, but I got my life together in the end and there’s no way I’d be here today after watching my father murder my mother if I thought this man was guilty.”
“When I’ve sat through that as a nine-year-old boy, too scared to move off the lounge, cause I thought I'd get shot in the head, I’m not here to muck around,” Mr Cooper said.
“I’m here because I believe what I say.
“What I say is the truth.”'

'Defence witness Paul Cooper was regularly using cannabis between 1980 and 1995, including in 1982 but says he is ‘200 per cent’ sure he saw Lynette Dawson.
He began using heroin later, he told the court under cross-examination by prosecutor Craig Everson, SC.
“What did you do to break that dependency that you had on those drugs?” Mr Everson said.
Cooper: “How’d I get off 'em?”
Everson: “Yes.”
Cooper: “Become a Christian.”
Everson: “Anything else?”
Cooper: “Methadone, drug treatment programs, DNA, drug rehabilitation.”
Everson: “Did the consequence of methadone use affect your memory in the years after that?”
Cooper: “No, it’s only a painkiller.”
Everson: “What do you say, Mr Cooper, to this proposition that the woman you spoke to in that pub in Warners Bay was someone that looked like the woman that you saw years later in 2018 on the TV?”
Cooper: “You don’t forget something like that. No, it was her, 100 per cent. I’ll give you 200 per cent.”'
Click to expand...

Shake my head. Evidence like that actually does the opposite to intention.

The only positives are he didn't admit knowing CD nor accepting a fee for testifying. That's about it though

Sees case. Thinks to self. Gee I can make easy bucks here. Calls and says he saw LD.
Value of testimony? ZERO
 
Last edited:
If Chris Dawson is found not guilty, hopefully someone(s) who is with-holding key evidence (if there is actually anyone doing this), in the hope that Chris Dawson would be convicted as a result of the current trial, will feel compelled to come forwards and provide new evidence, that is strong enough to warrant a re-trial or new trial of any other potential perpetrators, and Justice eventually be served.
 
Just an aside if I may. Who actually remembers a chance meeting for an 1hr in the 1980s with a stranger woman without a bookmark to memory?

Oh hang on that's right. Gee. During my nightclub craze period during the late 1980s I used to go dancing until 3am. This club was massively popular at Lansvale and they had a theme now and then where they shipped tonnes of sand in on the floor ..beach theme night. It was packed. Went to bar and had both hands full squeezing between people to get back to our table and this woman decided to reach through and grab the crown jewels. Not meant as a personal put down but that didn't usually happen to me.....and I remember it to this day. Well there you go you CAN remember......though it's arguable that it was a bookmark to memory because it never happened before or since. Meh
 
BFew said:
If Chris Dawson is found not guilty, hopefully someone(s) who is with-holding key evidence (if there is actually anyone doing this), in the hope that Chris Dawson would be convicted as a result of the current trial, will feel compelled to come forwards and provide new evidence, that is strong enough to warrant a re-trial or new trial of any other potential perpetrators, and Justice eventually be served.
Click to expand...

Locating a body would do? Yes? No?
 
FR0GGY said:
Old mate said it stood out because it was a tradies bar?
She didn’t stand out to anyone else though?
Click to expand...
Right and being a tradies bar it is where you would be able to tell your biggest darkest secrets to someone when you had set up your husband for murder. With a part time job you gave up, you could sell something that you didn't bring with you and get enough for motel accommodation a passport with a different name and a trip to Bali.

Maybe she sold the $16 item she bought at Katies. Her credit card spending was shocking.
 
FTY1 said:
Maybe she sold the $16 item she bought at Katies. Her credit card spending was shocking.
Click to expand...
Maybe she had a secret stash of jewellery that she never told Chris about, and that did not end up in the possession of Chris or any of his other slaves or partners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Redacted
Kerryn Tate unsolved murder Western Australia 1979
Replies
3
Views
303
stormbird
stormbird
PatsFitztrick
Cold Case: The murder of two soldiers at Queenscliff, Vic. 1942
Replies
4
Views
559
geoffjennings79
geoffjennings79
Kurve
Current Murder/suicide Rebecca Young - Ballarat
Replies
4
Views
436
Bostonian
Bostonian
Kurve
Unsolved Murder of teacher Lilie James at St Andrews school - Sydney CBD
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
144
Views
10K
Kurve
Kurve
Kurve
Current Mother & Son Murdered at Martial Arts Centre & Father Murdered at Another Location
Replies
15
Views
1K
Krusty Crab
K
Kurve
Unsolved Cold Case - Baby's body parcel posted in the mail Melbourne to Darwin
Replies
12
Views
1K
FTY1
F
Kurve
Current Murder of Mother & Infant - Perth
Replies
1
Views
658
jason_recliner
J

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top