- Jun 22, 2015
- 4,893
- 6,211
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Nuggets
Credit to Headly for bringing this to the public's attention and making the cops act. But geez he sounds like an annoying prick.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is it forensically established that this cardigan is blood soaked and riddled with knife marks? Or is it a case of a cardigan spending more than a decade disintegrating under ground?
I really hope she’s there. Because if she’s not, and the place is dug, you can imagine what Defence counsel will make of it
2013 news on this case youtube 7mins
Mitochondrial DNA is DNA that's separate to the DNA found on the chromosomes and FTY1 is correct that you inherit it only from your mother. However, rather than this DNA giving a (example) 1 in 10 billion chance of it being anyone other than a particular person the mtDNA will still narrow the field to anyone, male or female, from that female lineage, so it's still useful, to a degree.Metic posted this earlier about 3.46 is the filming of the dig in 2000. This was before both the Inquests that determined there was not enough information to prosecute. There was minute amount of DNA from my understanding it was mitochondrial DNA (the type you inherit from your mother), not the type you can use on an ancestry site. The DNA was not Lyn Dawsons. Hedley Thomas had an expert look over the cardigan, I can't remember whether it was just from pictures which I think is most likely and the expert suggested they could be stab marks. If it was used it would be only as an additional piece of evidence not the clincher.
I mentioned the cardigan because it was suspicious not because it would be used for evidence.
It's well worth a watch and quite interesting to see given its pre all the pod cast hype.
Metic posted this earlier about 3.46 is the filming of the dig in 2000. This was before both the Inquests that determined there was not enough information to prosecute. There was minute amount of DNA from my understanding it was mitochondrial DNA (the type you inherit from your mother), not the type you can use on an ancestry site. The DNA was not Lyn Dawsons. Hedley Thomas had an expert look over the cardigan, I can't remember whether it was just from pictures which I think is most likely and the expert suggested they could be stab marks. If it was used it would be only as an additional piece of evidence not the clincher.
I mentioned the cardigan because it was suspicious not because it would be used for evidence.
It's well worth a watch and quite interesting to see given its pre all the pod cast hype.
Chris Dawson could be stripped of Lyn's estate even if he's not convicted. Good, it all should go to her children.
When Lyn vanished in January 1982, leaving behind two daughters aged four and two, the couple jointly owned a property at Bayview on Sydney’s northern beaches, where they had built a house and pool.
The following year, with Lyn still missing, Mr Dawson formally sought a property settlement in court, saying she had abandoned her family and home.
All of Lyn’s assets, including her share of the Bayview property, were transferred to Mr Dawson’s name in 1984.
He sold the home that year and moved to Queensland with his new partner, his former student Joanne Curtis.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/po...e/news-story/80faa45144da419e1382dd2d2f387040
It makes everything a bit confusing over 30 years later since the "property settlement". The property at 2 Gilwinga Drive was sold, there was a property bought near Dreamworld, a divorce and property settlement with Joanne, a property at Runaway Bay (which may have changed into an investment property where the Today Show found him about the time of the dig) and then Mt Coolum which presumably would have been with his current wife.
Maybe he might get mates rates!I wonder how he's going to fund his defence, there might not a whole lot left.
The Age today. We'll hear Monday if he gets bail.
The bail application in Central Local Court on Friday heard that Mr Dawson told his wife “If this doesn’t work, I’m going to get rid of you” at a marriage counselling session just prior to Lynette’s disappearance in 1982.
“She didn't collect her last pay cheque, she left contact lenses at home, she didn't pursue a $130 pre-paid ophthalmology appointment. Her clothes were left at home, all of them. She didn't drive, she didn't have a licence, she hasn't left via an international point of departure, she hasn't been to a doctor,” Mr Everson said.
Numerous sightings of Lynette since she disappeared in February 1982, as well as the use of her bank cards and phone calls that Mr Dawson claimed were from her after she went missing undermine the Crown's case, Mr Walsh argued.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-going-to-get-rid-of-you-20181214-p50mc5.html
I wonder how he's going to fund his defence, there might not a whole lot left.
The Age today. We'll hear Monday if he gets bail.
The bail application in Central Local Court on Friday heard that Mr Dawson told his wife “If this doesn’t work, I’m going to get rid of you” at a marriage counselling session just prior to Lynette’s disappearance in 1982.
“She didn't collect her last pay cheque, she left contact lenses at home, she didn't pursue a $130 pre-paid ophthalmology appointment. Her clothes were left at home, all of them. She didn't drive, she didn't have a licence, she hasn't left via an international point of departure, she hasn't been to a doctor,” Mr Everson said.
Numerous sightings of Lynette since she disappeared in February 1982, as well as the use of her bank cards and phone calls that Mr Dawson claimed were from her after she went missing undermine the Crown's case, Mr Walsh argued.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-going-to-get-rid-of-you-20181214-p50mc5.html
he got bail.
I personally don't think it has anything to do with it being circumstantial. The DPP says there is enough evidence to go to trial.Not surprising he got bail given it’s sure to be an almost entirely circumstantial case and the lack of any previous convictions. Surely he has to go Judge only in the trial
1.5 million dollar bail. That seems pretty excessive but I don't know the ins and outs of bail conditions.
About 15 km to the Maroochydore police station, well within his limits. I guess they had to measure that first.I think he has to report to the local station everyday, and not go more than 20km from his home.
Can't be worse than what the Teacher's Pet podcast has descended into. Hedley's last 2 podcasts on the dig and then the arrest were terrible listening. Just a mish mash of sound bites from previous participants on what their views are on proceedings. Just padding. And if I hear him say "The Soft Soil" or "A Lovely Drink" one more time I think I will put my fist through my screen.
To be fair to Hedley with regard to the investigation and the last 2 podcasts, a lot of us at the time had followed the story of the dig and the arrest. The story of the dig was not news to any of us and was repeating what had been heard in the media. If someone overseas or new were to listen to the podcast in years to come without the background, it completes the story.
Judge wants online reports relating to case removed.
12:00AM APRIL 15, 2019
News reports that have been available online for years would need to be removed from media websites if publishers agree to a request they received on Friday from the NSW Supreme Court.
The request, from judge Elizabeth Fullerton, would have the effect of imposing significant costs on the media and is aimed at ensuring past news reports do not adversely affect a high-profile criminal trial that is due to start next month.
That trial is already affected by a suppression order that the judge issued on April 3 that prevents publication of “any information concerning the evidence” in that case. The judge went further last week and asked the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions to write to media outlets after one of the parties asked her last month to issue a stay order that would prevent the trial going ahead until certain material had been taken down from media websites.
Instead of issuing take-down orders, the judge has issued a “request” to the media for the removal of “any historical references” to the circumstances in which one of the parties came to be charged. The request is outlined in a letter signed by Huw Baker SC, the acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, that says Justice Fullerton has also indicated lawyers for the media “are welcome to attend before her in relation to the above request if they wished to do so”.
His letter says Justice Fullerton had indicated that the purpose of the request was to ensure that pre-trial publicity does not adversely affect the rights of one of the parties at trial.
Last month, after the judge revealed she had been asked to issue a take-down order, media lawyer Peter Bartlett said the media should not be required to bear the cost of complying with such an order when there had been no suggestion that the reporting had been unfair or inaccurate.....
Then this today.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/the-teachers-pet
Special Update Episode
As Chris Dawson's defence team, police and prosecutors work hard to prepare for a murder trial which may be heard some time next year, 2020, the team behind The Teacher's Pet podcast series discloses a new development - taking down the first 16 episodes in Australia, to help ensure Chris gets a fair trial. And Greg Walsh, Chris's experienced lawyer, flags some of the issues and claims which are important to him and the accused.
https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=356770
The Teacher's Pet
Special Update Episode
The above podcast says that today is the last day to listen to the 16 Teachers Pet podcasts (apart from todays special episode which will remain), until at least after the Dawson trial.
So in future, every time there's someone fronting the court are there going to be suppression orders and take-down orders? It's getting ridiculous.
It also affects historical records. There are news databases that have access via libraries and paid subscriptions. If articles are removed from these databases then they are never returned after the case is over, even if the case results in a conviction.So in future, every time there's someone fronting the court are there going to be suppression orders and take-down orders? It's getting ridiculous.