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

Discussion in '1980's Missing' started by imamaze, Jul 14, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the fact babbs 'conflict of interest' wasn't documented in the register at the time (as is procedure), didn't inform the police strike force liasing with him....didn't inform the family of the victim who assume he is the man they confer with...….. tells me exactly who was running the investigation :mad::mad::mad:

    there is still ass covering boys club hoohaa going on and it smells like ****:confused::confused:
     
  2. DRT

    DRT Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    1,933
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The NSW police and Lyn's family did not find out until this year. I guess that is why they have an official register.

    I don't understand why an Attorney General would know but it not be recorded particularly since Lyn's family had requested that the case be reviewed. It makes me mad.
     
  3. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    bbm

    it smells very very fishy :mad::mad::mad:
     
    Cliff Hardy, alj65, Trooper and 3 others like this.
  4. DRT

    DRT Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    1,933
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I wasn't implicating the then Attorney General in any way. What I was saying is why tell a senior officer but not make it official for 7 years. Lloyd Babbs was in an important legal position in New South Wales and obviously knew the rules on conflict of interest which is why he declared it.. kind of.. I am sure the first thing people learn about law is evidence. If it's not there there is no proof anything happened... Well that was the DPP's view in 2001 and 2003, it might have changed since then.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
    alj65, Trooper, Cagney&Lacey and 2 others like this.
  5. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    someone somewhere in the department didn't follow through on legal protocol.
    the question has to be asked..why?
    there is something not lining up with who knew what when. why wasn't it documented and why was it kept on the low down.
    if simply a case of the paperwork slipped through the cracks ...ok

    but forgot to tell the family when they were personally corresponding with this department head entrusting he is seeking justice for their beloved.
    but also.... forgot to tell the detectives feeding him information about the case that he has removed himself for conflict of interest.

    We only have the information feed to us via msm and its pretty alarming imo.

    now its just an embarrassing question mark in a very important office which stems from the missing wife of a single lone self indulgent narcissist .

    it really is maddening!

    edited to add.
    sorry drt I highlighted your point because in my guess it seems the AG didn't know anything about it at the time by the contradictory statements coming from the media.:confused:
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
    cnmccarthy, alj65, Trooper and 4 others like this.
  6. ThaiBali

    ThaiBali Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm confident the next big headline will be 'police have arrested Chris Dawson. I can't see it not happening.
     
  7. Cliff Hardy

    Cliff Hardy PI

    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The day cannot come quick enough.
     
    k-mac, alj65, Bohemian and 1 other person like this.
  8. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WHAT .....IS ......TAKING .....SO......LONG..... :mad:

    wonder how the nsw DPP actually ever gets around to bringing forward charges against anyone.
    this crap stinks
     
  9. DRT

    DRT Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    1,933
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The original case took several months for the ODPP to make the decision to not to charge a known person.

    Maybe it takes longer to make the decision to charge a known person?
    While there have been new witnesses come forward, some of the original witnesses have passed away. eg Phil Day, Helena Simms.

    They also have to make decisions without the DPP due to conflict of interest.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2018
    Bohemian, alj65, k-mac and 1 other person like this.
  10. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why is the dpp playing judge and jury with this case.
    that isn't there prerogative to do so.

    the reported conflicts of interest in varying places in this case is sabotaging progress imo.
    a higher hand needs to step in.
    if its all legit and above board there shouldn't be any need to hide or stagnate this case.

    royal commission I say!!!!! :p:p

    moo
     
  11. Trooper

    Trooper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    5,481
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. Bohemian

    Bohemian Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,540
    Likes Received:
    11,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Link didn’t work for me, Troop. This one did:

    What’s the appeal of the true-crime podcast The Teacher’s Pet – escapism or empowerment? | Zoe Williams

    (Posting it in case anyone else has difficulty with yours.)
     
  13. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    wow
    I don't find it thrilling or empowering! :confused: maybe that's a journo take on things going on around them.
    just an opportunity to use a serious investigation to click bait.:mad: urgh!
     
    alj65, Cagney&Lacey, DRT and 2 others like this.
  14. sleepinoz

    sleepinoz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,233
    Likes Received:
    7,370
    Trophy Points:
    113
    alj65, Goosewhisperer, DRT and 4 others like this.
  15. Cagney&Lacey

    Cagney&Lacey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    93
    alj65, k-mac, Trooper and 2 others like this.
  16. alb1on

    alb1on Active Member

    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I am new to this case so have less knowledge than those who will have followed it for many years. However, based on what I do know of the case, I am surprised by the vitriol directed at the ODPP for NSW. I am not at all surprised, either by previous decisions not to prosecute or by the time they are taking over the current decision. In taking decisions of this type the primary requirement is that there is a reasonable chance of conviction. Such a test is not satisfied by the 'everyone knows he did it' approach - if it was we would see many more innocent parties prosecuted (think Christopher Jefferies in the UK) with public opinion led by lazy journalists concerned only with a byline. In determining the prospect for conviction they have to assess not only the strength of the evidence, but also it's ability to pass specific technical legal tests such as admissibility. One reason for taking a stringent view of this process is the issue of double jeopardy, meaning the inability to go back and prosecute a second time if the case results in an acquittal. Whilst NSW has relaxed double jeopardy (and made that relaxation retrospective) my understanding is that a retrial would not only require new evidence, but new evidence which could not have been available at the first trial with competent investigation. In such an old case and with a first trial now this would probably exclude (for example) a second trial based on new DNA evidence as a defence could argue that any testing was possible at the time of the initial trial. So the ODPP is going to want to be very sure of its ground before going to trial. Imagine the public fury (not least from some on this site) if such a trial resulted in an acquittal.

    No doubt some will point to the findings of coroner's inquests of murder by the husband. That is peripheral (if not damaging - as prejudicial) to the decision to prosecute. The inquest offers a view based on balance of probability. A criminal case must pass a much higher threshold to succeed.

    I can understand the concern about this case but can see some real problems for the ODPP. Given the blatant incompetence of the police investigations the ability of a defence to challenge and undermine evidence is obvious. As has been pointed out, some witnesses are dead and, even if their statements are deemed admissible the value placed on them will be diminished (and this will be stressed by the judge) due to the inability to challenge the witness.

    Finally, I think it is right to point out a key difference between the Australian system and the US system, since some commenting will be doing so from an American perspective. The US system has great strengths (not least its written bill of rights). However, its greatest weakness (in my opinion) is the system of electing legal officers (AG, Sheriffs etc) and making other legal decision makers political appointees subject to the whims of public opinion. That this is minimised in the Australian (and UK) models is their great strength.

    Here endeth the sermon.
     
  17. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    gosh :eek:
    the criticism for the dpp sit at a personal connection.
    conflict of interest.
    broadcasted widely within the media.
    don't see commenting on proven reported bias as being 'vitriol' myself.:confused:
    ask lynettes family if they think the uncovering of conflict of interest in their stagnated case at the dpp is 'vitriol'.
    jmoo_O
     
  18. alb1on

    alb1on Active Member

    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    43
    No. Some of the criticism relates to the Babb's connection to Dawson (and the handling of it) and some relates to the wider management of the case (especially delays in decisions). If it was only related to the Babb situation it would be more understandable but that is not the case. Even in relation to Babb, it is not a clear cut situation where he would have been required to recuse himself from the case (although he would have been well served to be more open). Judges (or in this case the DPP) are not required to recuse themselves in all cases of past contact with those involved. It depends on the nature of that contact. I can think of many cases where judges have not recused themselves where the conflict of interest appears to have been much more obvious than in this case. Justice Scalia was notorious for rarely recusing himself except in extreme circumstances.

    The fact that lazy journalists smell an easy story is no proof of misconduct. But I do understand that the press coverage, by Australian tabloid standards, may not pass the threshold for vitriol. :)
     
  19. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well I am here to support Lynnette dawson.
    not the feelings of a government department.
     
    alj65, Cagney&Lacey, Bohemian and 2 others like this.
  20. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    9,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    bbm
    for clarity are you implying the incredible work hedley Thomas has put into this case is lazy journalism and is an easy story???
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice