Australia Australia - Lynette Dawson, 34, Sydney, Jan 1982 *Arrest* #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
DRT said:
The thing that struck me was that the defence want full copies of Hedley Thomas's raw interviews.

Any journalist with an opinion picks the points that support their opinion unless it is purely an investigative process. People that are not experienced in public speaking or nervous may answer questions ambiguously or with doubt and a good investigative journalist/interviewer will clarify ambiguity or uncertainty by re-phrasing questions confirming with the interviewee. The hesitation someone shows at the start of an interview may not reflect what they mean to say.

I know this case is a bit unusual with the podcast but I have never heard of a journalist's notes having to being given to the defence. I have heard of journalists spending time in gaol for not providing sources to courts.
Click to expand...

I'm still a couple of pages behind, but why does the defense get the results of someone else's hard work? Do they have to pay Thomas for the data?

Let the defense do their own interviews. Thomas did the work of gathering data, he should get to determine the usage of the data.
 
SouthAussie said:
The words in Hedley's public comments in 2017 are:

'[The lawyers] got back to me today and said 'we, ah, we think chapter five of episode seven needs to be significantly shredded, cut out,' and I was like 'oh, why'? And they said 'well, you'll go to jail if it stays'.'
'We'll all go to jail': Chris Dawson's lawyer takes aim at journalist over document shredding remark

Do we know what chapter 5, episode 7, was about?
Maybe we have to wait until the podcast is released again, which wont be until after the trial apparently.
Click to expand...

Defense attys are grasping at straws. What a joke.
 
NoCookies | The Australian

Statement by The Australian and Hedley Thomas9 May 2019

Chris Dawson’s lawyer is distorting the truth in comments he made today regarding Hedley Thomas.

In the course of creating the podcast Mr Thomas collected hundreds of hours of audio and hundreds of pages of documents.He and The Australian have already handed over about 100GB of audio and hundreds of pages of material to prosecutors.He is in the process of identifying and providing further relevant documents.The statements made by Mr Walsh in courtand outside court today in claiming there had been document destruction or shredding entirely misrepresent public statements made by Mr Thomas last year at a Teacher’s Pet event held for subscribers to The Australian.They appear to have been made for the purpose of smearing the reputation of Mr Thomas.

At that event, held more than five months before Mr Dawson was charged,Mr Thomas told the audience that some of his draft script for part of one episode was withheld from the podcast for legal reasons.But there was never any suggestion that any underlying document had been destroyed.

The exact words spoken by Mr Thomas were as follows:...

"the legal aspects, I know they’re expensive. We’re getting weekly legal advice so last night at about 11pm I sent the draft of episode 7 to the lawyers.And it was about eleven and a half thousand words so it took them a while to read it.But they got back to me today and said ‘we, ah, we think chapter 5 of episode 7 needs to be significantly shredded, cut out, and I was like ‘oh why’? And they said ‘well you’ll go to jail if it stays’.

So that was the most dramatic advice we’ve had so far.The statements made by Mr Walsh today egregiously misrepresent those comments.The Australian has recently removed access to the podcast from Australia at the request of prosecutors and is continuing to respond to requests from prosecutors to provide documents that are relevant to Mr Dawson’s murder trial.

The Australian and Mr Thomas do not intend to comment further on this matter.They believe that it is otherwise in the interests of justice that all parties, including Mr Walsh, confine their comments on this matter to the courtroom.

Ends

Mr Walsh flagged to the court that he planned to cross-examine Thomas in the witness box at a pre-trial committal hearing later this year. But he said five months after Mr Dawson’s arrest, Mr Thomas’s lawyers had yet to produce a number of critical interviews with witnesses.

“He (Thomas) is the journalist who has interviewed virtually all the witnesses or potential witnesses in this case,” Mr Walsh told NSW Chief Magistrate Graeme Henson. “It is essential that all this raw material with prospective witnesses and witnesses be disclosed to the defence.”
 
windrower said:
I'm still a couple of pages behind, but why does the defense get the results of someone else's hard work? Do they have to pay Thomas for the data?

Let the defense do their own interviews. Thomas did the work of gathering data, he should get to determine the usage of the data.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of a book/podcast/TV show being used in a criminal case before. Traditionally, it is the police brief that is used ... along with witnesses.
I wonder if the podcast is just being used to identify information and witnesses - seeing that the police brief is likely missing adequate follow-up and investigation from the early years.

The court appearance yesterday was just a mention, of no real trial significance except to keep the court case on track and work out the allowable details. The committal hearing is yet to come.

The defense gets to see all of the info that the prosecutor is using. It is the prosecutor that has been given the podcast details by Hedley/The Australian.

Prosecutors will announce today if they will use any information from The Teacher’s Pet in the case against Chris Dawson.
MamaMia - May 9, 2019
 
Last edited:
SouthAussie said:
Just to add to my above post, the defence may be using the tactics of a "shredded document" to try to get the prosecution to not use the podcast in the committal hearing and trial, or for the judge to disallow its use. imo
Click to expand...
I think the defence is trying to raise what it hopes may amount to reasonable doubt. It wants to say that there is something missing from the evidence which might--we just don't know, since we don't know for sure what was destroyed--have proven the client innocent. I've heard (private communication) of that tactic succeeding with a jury in preposterous circumstances; what was excluded was completely irrelevant and the judge ought to have shut the argument down, but somehow didn't. However, that was in the last moments of a trial, whereas here the judge has plenty of time to think.
 
Last edited:
JLZ said:
I think the defence is trying to raise what it hopes may amount to reasonable doubt. It wants to say that there is something missing from the evidence which might--we just don't know, since we don't know for sure what was destroyed--have proven the client innocent. I've heard (private communication) of that tactic succeeding with a jury in preposterous circumstances; what was excluded was completely irrelevant and the judge ought to have shut the argument down, but somehow didn't. However, that was in the last moments of a trial, whereas here the judge has plenty of time to think.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I think the defence are manouevering to show the judge that they will produce reasonable doubt in a trial if the podcast is used. I think they are battling to keep that podcast out of the trial because it is so revealing and all encompassing, and things could look pretty grim for Dawson if the podcast is used.
 
DRT said:
Who says they haven't. There is distinct lack of posts between Episodes 5 and 7.
Click to expand...

I think it is only episode 7 that is involved in this 'shredded document' debacle. And only chapter 5 of that episode.

"we, ah, we think chapter five of episode seven needs to be significantly shredded, cut out"

But we know that WS honours legal requests, as they have done in the Claremont cases.
 
SouthAussie said:
I think it is only episode 7 that is involved in this 'shredded document' debacle. And only chapter 5 of that episode.

"we, ah, we think chapter five of episode seven needs to be significantly shredded, cut out"

But we know that WS honours legal requests, as they have done in the Claremont cases.
Click to expand...
Episode 7 is “The Rings,” but how do we know the chapters? Chapters aren’t identified on the podcast through iTunes.
 
SouthAussie said:
Yes, I agree. I think the defence are manouevering to show the judge that they will produce reasonable doubt in a trial if the podcast is used. I think they are battling to keep that podcast out of the trial because it is so revealing and all encompassing, and things could look pretty grim for Dawson if the podcast is used.
Click to expand...
I wasn't thinking the manoeuvre was dependent on the podcast being used. If evidence was destroyed that could prove the client innocent (I don't want to say "Dawson innocent", my gut rebels), that's a possibility to be played on regardless of whether the podcast is being used in evidence.
 
JLZ said:
I wasn't thinking the manoeuvre was dependent on the podcast being used. If evidence was destroyed that could prove the client innocent (I don't want to say "Dawson innocent", my gut rebels), that's a possibility to be played on regardless of whether the podcast is being used in evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, that is the stance that the defence seem to be taking. "Shredded document" could show that Dawson is not guilty .. and some other person who may have sued over it could be the guilty one.

I tend to think that the defence will use any route they can to keep the entire podcast out of the trial. And this "shredded document" thing is the only possible route they have been able to find, at the moment.

Seems to me that the podcast could be the only record of interviews with witnesses and other evidence that the former police neglected to obtain or keep.

My hope is that the judge allows the podcast, perhaps disallowing just Chapter 5 of Episode 7 if this becomes a real bone of contention.
 
I honestly don't see why the podcast is so imperative in the hearing of this case. I agree Chris Dawson would never have been arrested without it. But the police can followup every lead and re-interview everyone interviewed in the podcast (provided they are still alive of course). That is their job.

It's not like the prosecution is just going to place a pile of podcast recordings in front of the judge and say "here's our evidence You Honour".
 
Cliff Hardy said:
I honestly don't see why the podcast is so imperative in the hearing of this case. I agree Chris Dawson would never have been arrested without it. But the police can followup every lead and re-interview everyone interviewed in the podcast (provided they are still alive of course). That is their job.

It's not like the prosecution is just going to place a pile of podcast recordings in front of the judge and say "here's our evidence You Honour".
Click to expand...

I am not even sure how the podcast can be brought into the trial. I have never heard of such a thing before.
But it does seem that the defence are making a big hue and cry about it, and perhaps trying to invent a shredded document.

I saw a Google result stating "... and it is something that should be vitally important to the Director of Public ..."
When I follow the link, the full statement refers to Episode 5: A Lovely Drink.
What should be vitally important to the prosecution? Perhaps the witness statement to the police - referenced in this episode - about Dawson appearing strange and agitated (this would be immediately after Lyn's "disappearance") when Dawson suddenly went to pick Joanne up from her holiday at South West Rocks.


"In January 1982, as most Australians enjoyed a carefree holiday season, Lyn Dawson was trying to pick up the tattered threads of her marriage. Joanne Curtis was taking tentative steps to extricate herself from her affair with Lyn’s husband. And Chris Dawson was desperately seeking solutions. In this episode, a damning piece of evidence – once thought lost – is recovered, and it is something that should be vitally important to the Director of Public Prosecutions."
NoCookies | The Australian
 
Last edited:
SouthAussie said:
I am not even sure how the podcast can be brought into the trial. I have never heard of such a thing before.
But it does seem that the defence are making a big hue and cry about it, and perhaps trying to invent a shredded document.

I saw a Google result stating "... and it is something that should be vitally important to the Director of Public ..."
When I follow the link, the full statement refers to Episode 5: A Lovely Drink.
What should be vitally important to the prosecution? Perhaps the witness statement to the police - referenced in this episode - about Dawson appearing strange and agitated (this would be immediately after Lyn's "disappearance") when Dawson suddenly went to pick Joanne up from her holiday at South West Rocks.


"In January 1982, as most Australians enjoyed a carefree holiday season, Lyn Dawson was trying to pick up the tattered threads of her marriage. Joanne Curtis was taking tentative steps to extricate herself from her affair with Lyn’s husband. And Chris Dawson was desperately seeking solutions. In this episode, a damning piece of evidence – once thought lost – is recovered, and it is something that should be vitally important to the Director of Public Prosecutions."
NoCookies | The Australian
Click to expand...
And below that, links to CD's August 1982 statement to police and to Vanessa Worrall's statement. Was Chris's statement lost at one time? And Hedley uncovered a copy as part of some submission, to the Ombudsman or something?

Edit: I see that the Ombudsman's file is treated in Episode 8; so, probably not the subject of the Episode 5 teaser. Also, from memory, the statement that turned up in the Ombudsman's file was a handwritten statement from Chris much earlier than August.
 
Last edited:
JLZ said:
Was Chris's statement lost at one time? And Hedley uncovered a copy as part of some submission, to the Ombudsman or something?
Click to expand...
yes
that's exactly what happened JLZ.
what I find absolutely abhorrent about the lost CD first statement,
TWO separate inquests failed to locate it.
gobsmacking

were you aware that one of CDs students is NOW a head honcho at the DPP???

all a matter of coincidence of course...…:confused:o_O

my opinion only
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 260 more.
Total: 3,690 (members: 261, guests: 3,429)

Online statistics

Members online
261
Guests online
3,429
Total visitors
3,690
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,241
Messages
17,965,796
Members
228,730
Latest member
taketherisk
Back
Top