Deceased/Not Found Australia - Lynette Dawson, 34, Sydney, Jan 1982 *husband guilty* #5

[Cliff Hardy]

Have listened to 'The Front' episode from last night and it's fair to say Chris Dawson's appeal isn't progressing the way he would have hoped.

In sport there is a thing referred to as the mercy rule. Where, if one team gets so far ahead that the game becomes a joke, it is declared over. The 3 judges presiding over this appeal must be solely tempted to apply the mercy rule to this case and save everyone wasting any more of their time.

 

[EssieMarie83]

I’ve listened too @Cliff Hardy and I agree- it doesn’t seem like he will succeed.

I’m still not sure if they will make a decision today or is it a few weeks away- I have no idea how the process works.

 

[JLZ]

I’ve listened too @Cliff Hardy and I agree- it doesn’t seem like he will succeed.

I’m still not sure if they will make a decision today or is it a few weeks away- I have no idea how the process works.

I expect they'll tell us a date for the delivery of the decision, and it will be in a few months, not a few weeks.

 

[Trooper]

It is rare that a judge's conviction , that is, a judge in a judge only trial, without a jury, ( this was done as a choice by Dawson, and I think it costs extra, ..that's in NSW, in Victoria, to have a judge only, you have to prove that it will be in the public interest to do so ) has his judgement overturned, or amended or invalidated. Because it requires other judges to cast judgement on a fellow judge.. If this sounds a bit Alice in Wonderland-ish, it is. Judges are quite at ease re conidering the conclusions of a jury, or a judge's sentencing related to a jury decision, but it was not so in Dawson's case.
He chose the route of judge only, on the grounds, in my opinion, that he thought he could persuade 1 person about his story, but not 12 . It could be fair to say that the Dawson's et al snookered themselves, again

 

[Cliff Hardy]

I’ve listened too @Cliff Hardy and I agree- it doesn’t seem like he will succeed.

I’m still not sure if they will make a decision today or is it a few weeks away- I have no idea how the process works.

The law is generally slow moving and I'm guessing the 3 judges have to write up the reasoning behind their finding and it will take at least weeks. As JLZ said above, they will probably announce at the end of proceedings when the outcome can be expected to be delivered.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/chris-dawson-had-complete-lack-of-sentiment-for-daughters-appeal-hears/news-story/2ebcc7b1f0bab479f94ecf36a3d3ce2a

Chris Dawson had ‘complete lack of sentiment’ for daughters, appeal hears​

Behind a paywall, I think. Posting it here for those who subscribe.

 

[Tweet57]

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/chris-dawson-had-complete-lack-of-sentiment-for-daughters-appeal-hears/news-story/2ebcc7b1f0bab479f94ecf36a3d3ce2a

Chris Dawson had ‘complete lack of sentiment’ for daughters, appeal hears​

Behind a paywall, I think. Posting it here for those who subscribe.

CD beyond cruel to his daughters -for killing their mother and for not disclosing where her body is.

 

[Ellery84]

It is rare that a judge's conviction , that is, a judge in a judge only trial, without a jury, ( this was done as a choice by Dawson, and I think it costs extra, ..that's in NSW, in Victoria, to have a judge only, you have to prove that it will be in the public interest to do so ) has his judgement overturned, or amended or invalidated. Because it requires other judges to cast judgement on a fellow judge.. If this sounds a bit Alice in Wonderland-ish, it is. Judges are quite at ease re conidering the conclusions of a jury, or a judge's sentencing related to a jury decision, but it was not so in Dawson's case.
He chose the route of judge only, on the grounds, in my opinion, that he thought he could persuade 1 person about his story, but not 12 . It could be fair to say that the Dawson's et al snookered themselves, again

He’s arrogant and it tends to backfire.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

So the 3 justices have now "retired to consider their decisions."

Haven't heard any indication of how long that might take but I would be surprised, based on what we have heard from the 3 day hearing, if they aren't sharing a red and having a laugh at the futility of what was presented.