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

Like so many lucky breaks Chris Dawson got, the family retreated into painful isolation, Chris had convinced them Lynn had left her children, they were humiliated, and broken with grief..

As far I am know, they let it ride , taking on the Dawsons, with their 'moral superiority', a man left to bring up 2 kids alone, left in the lurch by an absconding wife, ( divorce then was still a bit on the nose ) , they had no where to turn, and up against Peter Dawson, meant they could be in court for years paying a barrister, Chris got his for free.

 

Accused murderer Chris Dawson’s other family

I do not believe that Sue was only 18 years of age when she met CD because:

1. She had presumably been married to another man and needed to get a divorce before she married CD.

2. She had two non-identical children (twins - a boy, Jaga, and a girl, Kobi) with her first husband.

3. She was a qualified Science teacher already so she must have gone to university and/or Teachers' College which would have taken a few years.

Joanne Curtis gave birth to their daughter Kristen, but the marriage foundered and in January, 1990, Joanne left and returned to Sydney. Then PE teacher Chris met science teacher Sue. Both separated and parents of young children, they moved north to Yeppoon.

CHRIS Dawson's third wife has stuck with the accused murderer for 28 years. Sue Dawson is a trained schoolteacher like her husband. Part of their lives together has sat under the shadow of accusations, which Chris Dawson denies, that he murdered his first wife.

After meeting in 1990 or shortly thereafter, science teacher Sue and PE teacher Chris lived happily at Yeppoon, near Rockhampton, on Queensland's Capricorn Coast.

There, as Sue taught science at St Brendan's Catholic Boys School, Chris was a teacher at St Ursula's Girls College.

Sue's twin children, Kobi and Jaga, took on the name of Dawson while at school in Yeppoon. In the small coastal town, which then had a population of about 10,000 people, Chris Dawson's traumatic history was unknown.

The national publicity of the Lyn Dawson case was followed by the disappearance of Sue and Chris Dawson from Yeppoon. The couple moved to the Sunshine Coast and also have a property on the Gold Coast at Biggera Waters, a 15-minute drive from the home of Paul and Marilyn Dawson.

Jaga no longer has Dawson as his last name and has reverted to his biological father's surname, but remains friends on Facebook with Chris Dawson's eldest daughter Shanelle.
Kobi, now a mother of two, has taken her husband's surname.

 

I was being facetious. I have no idea how old she was, or is. Just referring to Chris' disposition of grooming young girls.

One thing that I did notice in one article, is that she was called Suzanne, not Susan. I have wondered if that is why little has been disclosed about her.
Perhaps her name is Suzanne and yet the family have put it about as Susan. Just a thought.

 

I wonder what can be done about this.
The Forfeiture Rule did not come into effect in NSW until the Forfeiture Act 1995.
I wonder if there was another similar ruling prior to that, that was in effect when Lyn disappeared.

CAN A MURDERER BENEFIT FROM THE ESTATE OF THE VICTIM? THE FORFEITURE RULE IN PROBATE CASES - Craddock Murray Neumann Lawyers Sydney

 

I believe that divorce was based on a known false premise. Known to both the plaintiff, ( Chris Dawson ) and his barrister, Peter Dawson, that the respondent was not alive , hadn't been alive for some time, did not consent to a divorce when she was alive, and had no input into the dispersal of the marital assets .

That the false premise put before the court of the respondent, ( Lynn ) deliberately choosing to ignore court papers, and deliberately choosing to fail to appear should be corrected in the light of the beneficiary being found guilty of the respondents murder some time before the divorce process began. All of this constituting the basis and foundation of a charge of fraud , theft, imposture ( the bankcard fraud ) perverting the course of justice, et al.

 

I have also just found that a common law Forfeiture Rule applied at the time of Lyn's disappearance. It is a bit different from the present Forfeiture Rule as it had a lower threshhold of guilt. But this still applied at the time .....


The law generally does not allow a person to profit from their crime; indeed, the ‘Forfeiture Rule’ states that “a man shall not slay his benefactor and thereby take his bounty.”
Should Killers Ever Inherit their Victims’ Property?

 

Of course, for Peter Dawson, the penalty would be heavier, he being an officer of the court, which he has, in my opinion , defrauded .

The courts take this kind of stuff from their own members, and Peter being called to the bar consequently, very very hard, unforgiveable, and the penalty is very much a signal of deterrence .. so as not to encourage anyone else from trying on such a wicked lark.

 

My impression is they were probably too nice.

And I wouldn't be surprised that a nice family with a bit of money, and a cute well educated daughter, was quite a catch for CD, a bully and a crook who looked at others as targets.

 

Agree totally. I remember hearing just before the 2001 inquest at Len's funeral, Helena Simm's looking to the back of the church to see if Lyn walked through the door. After the funeral, she knew Lyn was not alive. Helena was a trusting woman and believed the crap coming out of Chris's mouth. It took her nearly 20 years to be totally convinced that Lyn wasn't alive.
If only Helena had been the type to question her son-in-law a bit more. A lady of her generation, with a good husband didn't quite understand, the worst that could happen. She did get him to report Lyn missing, but still believed that Lyn could be alive.

 

Like mother, like daughter. Lyn sounds as nice as her mother ... very trusting and could not see what Chris was up to when he brought a 16 year old girl to live with them.

 

Unfortunately, Lynette and her family were naive and too trusting of Dawson. It was as if Lynette's mother idolised Chris (perhaps because of his good looks) and virtually let him get away with murder.

 

If, and I am taking on board the statement of the DPP of NSW, that they have new evidence, hard evidence, enough to proceed to trial against Chris Dawson, and if a jury of his peers finds him guilty of Lynn's murder, it follows automatically, that the previous appearances and court processes, 2 inquests, a divorce from a dead woman etc are all matters to be answered to a court for.

Because , in that case, all of that palaver was misrepresentation , or in plain English , lying for profit to the Court of NSW.

That means Peter Dawson in the box . He led and guided Chris thru it all. It is going to be a matter for him to explain to the court how he didn't know a thing about it, and why he led evidence, for example, in the divorce performance, about sightings of Lynn, etc.

And if the court finds that Peter was somewhat remiss with truth and over enthusiastic in his presentation of Lynn's shortcomings, while denying justice to his two nieces in the matter of their mothers property, then....it would go very horrid very quickly.

 

It isn't without the bounds of possibility that at some stage , all three Dawson brothers will be before the judge, and closely questioned by a savage terrier of a DPP prosecutor, and then all three escorted off the premises in the back of the divvy van, and off to contemplate life for as long as it pleases the Queen, their lives in tatters, their reputations wrecked, their characters made plain for all to see, their accumulated fortunes severely diminished, their wives left to consider their positions and finances, and their various children left to wonder just who the hell they really were.

 

You can sort of see why Peter may be a bit grumpy and lashing out at the media, can't you?

Instead of being able to present himself as the calm, debonnaire, Porsche-driving lawyer who is more than competent and can easily defend his accused brother ... he now has to worry about how many of his previous shenanigans will need to be answered in court, the potential for him to perjure himself, the potential for him to look like a complete ning-nong if he says he wasn't suspicious of what happened to Lyn ... and all because of that darn media (Hedley Thomas, The Australian) relentlessly investigating and giving plenty of airtime to the Teacher's Pet podcast.

 

and ditto for Paul. There they are, on record, on that TV program, forcefully claiming their total closeness, how they finish each other's thoughts, ( regrettably, that little cameo program on identical twins was made not long before Lynn's demise ) how they know what each other is thinking, how they operate as one entity, so close are they...

Sure. I don't argue with that at all. It defies belief that Paul knows nothing of Lynn's murder at the hands of his identical twin brother. Knew before the murder? . It isn't improbable. Knew during the murder? not improbable. Assisted ? again, not improbable, and assisting in disposal of the body? guaranteed.

Someone in the DPP NSW is going to have a field day with this aspect of the trial, the ever hovering , always present twin brother, the lifetime conjoining...

 

Certainly , Peter Dawson must be seeing his entire life and career going to the dogs in a nanosecond. With nothing left but the bare bones of bad intentions to light the way forward, too ….

All those previous clients, questioning their results…. what a legal clusterfrock of gigantic proportions!..

 

haven't seen twin 1 since his masterful performance on a current affair

been laying very very low since ironically strikeforce Southwood was established

 

ning-nong.....ha!!

reading the inquest transcripts think it might actually already be established as true SA no looking like.... lol

he did love that woman something shocking you know??

moo moo

 

As the matter stands now, it has a remarkable resemblance to an amateur conspiracy. It will not surprise me if the allegation of conspiracy rears it's ugly head some where in the trial, Peter, Paul, Chris, Marilyn.... Joanne, I am not that sure of. It's possible, but what is certain is, if Paul and Chris get landed with that accusation, it is certain they would both drop Joanne into it without hesitation.

As to what part who played what and when in this repulsive and entirely unprovoked and unnecessary murder will be unraveled, perhaps not entirely, none of them will ever tell the entire truth but enough of it may seep thru . Will these three brothers turn on each other?..

Nothing the Dawson brothers do would surprise me. Yes. When the rubber hits the road, yes , it will be a power scramble to the top of the totem pole, kicking each other down on the scramble up.

 

From what we have seen of their behavior so far I think the three Dawson brothers will stick fat, and there is nothing more predictable than that they will crucify anybody in the way of a not guilty verdict for Chris.

You only have to cast your mind back to Peter's bizarre assertion at the inquest that Damian Loone was driven by an earlier infatuation with Lyn to realize they will do whatever it takes, and then some.