Jump to content

The Teacher's Pet/ The Teacher's Trial


Recommended Posts

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure this has never been mentioned on here, which is surprising as it includes an ex RL-player (Chris Dawson).

For those not in the know (spoiler alert), it was a huge and fascinating Australian podcast series and then trial, based around the sudden disappearance of the player's wife in 1982.

The circumstances of her disappearance are more than a little suspect: she had two children, didn't take any clothes or money with her and was never heard from again. Dawson on the other hand was having an affair with a 17 year old and moved her in 2 days later. The podcast is basically a search for justice and to try and get Dawson put on trial.

What I found most intriguing was the idea of whether you can ever honestly get past reasonable doubt without a body or any evidence of foul play. They eventually do, and he was convicted this summer but I personally thought doubt existed. Don't get me wrong, I think he quite likely did it, but I do think there are alternative possibilities even if they are slim.

Other observations on the podcast were that they massively over-played the RL Star angle. He only played 51 first-grade games for Newtown and only won 11. It also gave credence to all sorts of gossip and speculation but that is the role of a podcast like that. The Teacher's Trial attempted to be impartial but in reality it was not even close to being so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As can be seen in that documentary (on Amazon) about the woman from Pudsey who disappeared a few years ago, despite someone (her husband)  being on the face of it, guilty as sin, in the absence of a body they cannot convict someone of a murder. 

IMO it's pretty apparent that he bumped her off but his excuses for confessing to an undercover policewoman that he killed her, however BS they might seem, could possibly be the truth. I mean it's bloody unlikely but unless you can prove otherwise, that's that. 

Edited by The Masked Poster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

in the absence of a body they cannot convict someone of a murder

A murder conviction without a body: https://www.sussex.police.uk/news/sussex/news/court-results/man-found-guilty-of-murdering-two-women/

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gingerjon said:

(Puts wig on)

Ok I'll rephrase that. It's extremely difficult to conclusively *prove* that you have murdered someone without a body. And in this case, his excuses however flimsy, might have been possibly true. 

And even if you are convicted, it's still not 100% cast iron proof.

Edited by The Masked Poster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd make a terrible juror. I take the words "beyond reasonable doubt" very seriously. Especially with new crimes. There is so much incidental camera footage these days - traffic cameras, security cams at shops we didn't even remember driving past, neighbours' security cams - and our ability to collect DNA from the slightest trace makes it almost impossible for anyone to commit the perfect crime these days.

I know none of that applies to the Dawson case. But wherever there is any remotely credible alternative explanation for the disappearance of the "victim" I'd have trouble convicting.

Even in husband/wife type scenarios DNA can be rather useless since we'd expect to find DNA from both all over their house, car, knives, etc. Certainly it's hard to explain 5 pints of blood on the kitchen floor but just blood traces could be anywhere in the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

I'd make a terrible juror. I take the words "beyond reasonable doubt" very seriously. Especially with new crimes. There is so much incidental camera footage these days - traffic cameras, security cams at shops we didn't even remember driving past, neighbours' security cams - and our ability to collect DNA from the slightest trace makes it almost impossible for anyone to commit the perfect crime these days.

I know none of that applies to the Dawson case. But wherever there is any remotely credible alternative explanation for the disappearance of the "victim" I'd have trouble convicting.

Even in husband/wife type scenarios DNA can be rather useless since we'd expect to find DNA from both all over their house, car, knives, etc. Certainly it's hard to explain 5 pints of blood on the kitchen floor but just blood traces could be anywhere in the house.

Beyond reasonable doubt does not, and never has, meant "beyond all doubt".

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gingerjon said:

Beyond reasonable doubt does not, and never has, meant "beyond all doubt".

We saw the case this week in NSW of the 71-year-old who was held in jail for 2 months as police tried to pin the murder of a missing 3-year-old on him. Given the emotional nature of the case and the fact that the cops were using some 1980s pedophile charge to hold him (later found to be completely bogus) he would have been convicted by the average jury in a heartbeat, especially when they had spent months leaking details to the press who were invited to film them digging up the guy's backyard which would have tainted the jury pool beyond repair.

Every time I see a case like that my required level of proof goes up a couple more degrees. Of course it's all moot since my criminal record precludes me from jury service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Farmduck said:

We saw the case this week in NSW of the 71-year-old who was held in jail for 2 months as police tried to pin the murder of a missing 3-year-old on him. Given the emotional nature of the case and the fact that the cops were using some 1980s pedophile charge to hold him (later found to be completely bogus) he would have been convicted by the average jury in a heartbeat, especially when they had spent months leaking details to the press who were invited to film them digging up the guy's backyard which would have tainted the jury pool beyond repair.

Every time I see a case like that my required level of proof goes up a couple more degrees. Of course it's all moot since my criminal record precludes me from jury service.

I'm very much like you in this respect.

The Teacher's pet podcast made a lot about the fact that he had gone back to his old property when he wasn't living there and talked to the new owners about the work they were doing. One even said he'd asked 'where are you digging?' Which was made out to be chilling. 

They spent millions digging up the whole site and found nothing. This was a turning point for me: when you're viewing actions through one lens they can turn relatively innocuous actions into sinister ones.

I don't think you could rule out suicide where a body wasn't recovered. That would also fit the same evidence, and we know that suicide isn't always a rationally thought out act.

I think what effectively did Dawson and meant he was convicted, was that he couldn't keep his own story straight. He said his wife contacted him saying she wanted time and at different times said it was up to a week later and up to 6 weeks. No matter about the passage of time, you wouldn't forget to that extent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Beyond reasonable doubt does not, and never has, meant "beyond all doubt".

I know when I did jury service the prosecution barrister repeatedly stressed how three pieces of circumstantial evidence was enough for a conviction. What was needed was certainly far from conclusive. That was a few years ago so my recollection may be a little foggy or things may have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Damien said:

I know when I did jury service the prosecution barrister repeatedly stressed how three pieces of circumstantial evidence was enough for a conviction. What was needed was certainly far from conclusive. That was a few years ago so my recollection may be a little foggy or things may have changed.

No, you're exactly right. It is never, and never has been, about removing all doubt.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2022 at 21:14, gingerjon said:

No, you're exactly right. It is never, and never has been, about removing all doubt.

It is about "reasonable doubt", which is where your good defence barrister earns their keep. This goes hand in hand with the principle of the assumption of innocence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Never see why that should be the case.....if someone does have experience of the system then surely it makes them a better juror 

Depends on the crime imo. "Dishonesty crimes" should always preclude someone from certain positions imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It is about "reasonable doubt", which is where your good defence barrister earns their keep. This goes hand in hand with the principle of the assumption of innocence.

This gets a bit murky when previous similar offences are taken into account to show if someone is predisposed to carry out an offence. In a one persons word against another type of case or in a case with some circumstantial evidence it changes that assumption of innocence quite a bit.

In my jury service experience it did leave me with a fair few reservations about the whole system and the potential for miscarriages. I actually think that a person's bias can easily lead to an assumption of guilt (depending on the people involved) and frankly I think that a couple of strong jurors can easily influence the other 10. That said I do think its as good as you can probably get too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Damien said:

This gets a bit murky when previous similar offences are taken into account to show if someone is predisposed to carry out an offence. In a one persons word against another type of case or in a case with some circumstantial evidence it changes that assumption of innocence quite a bit.

In my jury service experience it did leave me with a fair few reservations about the whole system and the potential for miscarriages. I actually think that a person's bias can easily lead to an assumption of guilt (depending on the people involved) and frankly I think that a couple of strong jurors can easily influence the other 10. That said I do think its as good as you can probably get too.

I think bad character evidence is just that, if it is used appropriately it is just another part of the case against the defendant. I don't have any real qualms against it. Ultimately that presumption of innocence is only the starting point, the prosecution are trying to convince you otherwise, and the defence merely to place that reasonable doubt over the prosecution's case. Generally only relevant bad character evidence is used against defendants, whereas for victims it can be a nightmare.

Juries are odd. They're a fundamental part of our democratic society, but obviously can be flawed as you say. Family Guy actually did a good episode on a jury and how the can work or not 😅 Ideally you get enough of a spread to ensure proper rigour, though "ideally" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2022 at 15:18, The Masked Poster said:

(Puts wig on)

Ok I'll rephrase that. It's extremely difficult to conclusively *prove* that you have murdered someone without a body. And in this case, his excuses however flimsy, might have been possibly true. 

And even if you are convicted, it's still not 100% cast iron proof.

A famous case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-61962924

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I think here is a good example of where you absolutely can convict somebody without a body. In this instance, there is blood and other objects in the perpetrators car and flat. The victim has disappeared and there is clear evidence that she has been harmed by the individual.

Interestingly, the first ever televised UK trial was an example of a conviction without a body. It was on a few years ago and from a Scottish court; IIRC it was an appeal against an original conviction. In this one they managed to come up with a plausible instance of how the body had been disposed of. At the time, I was a little unsure of the reasonable doubt in the same way, but bizarrely during sentencing they were allowed to bring in a whole heap of evidence that had been disqualified such as the fact that he'd beaten her on a regular basis including to within an inch of her life just a few days before. How this wasn't eligible in the trial I didn't know.

The difference with the Dawson case, is that there is no actual evidence of harm. The case is far more circumstantial in that respect. Him murdering her is quite a likely possibility, but I don't think it is the only one even if the other possibilities are unlikely. 

When it started, I was 99% sure he'd done it. During the podcast they brought out a top level defence lawyer to give an impression of what the defence might argue. They stated that at no point had anybody suggested that Dawson was stupid, yet he didn't think to pack some of her belongings into a bag or that moving in his lover 2 days later would look incredibly suspicious. They argued that if you viewed it through the lens of someone whose wife has suddenly left, then his actions look less suspicious and are born out of necessity. This probably nudged it to 95% for me. 

One of the biggest travesties is that it was never investigated at the time. Not only would memories have been much fresher, there might have been actual physical evidence in the house or the car etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.