Dawson,a former teacher and Newtown Jets rugby league player,73,has pleaded not guilty to murdering Lynette,who vanished from Sydney’s northern beaches.
Chris Dawson outside the NSW Supreme Court on Monday on the last day of his trial.Oscar Colman
The Crown opened its case in the NSW Supreme Court on May 9,alleging Dawson was motivated by his desire to have an unfettered relationship with the family’s teenage babysitter and his former student,known as JC.
In a fifth and final day of her closing address on Monday,Dawson’s barrister,Pauline David,said there are “sadly many questions without answer” about what happened to Lynette.
“The defence submit that the evidence just does not support that the answer is that Christopher Dawson killed her,” she said. “The only verdict open is a not guilty verdict.”
Asked by Justice Ian Harrison what reasonable hypothesis or hypotheses consistent with innocence were “still on the table so that the Crown fails”,David said the possibility that Lynette “left and abandoned the home of her own accord”.
Lynette Dawson on ABC’s Chequerboard program in 1975.NSW Supreme Court/ABC
The defence relies on several calls Dawson claims to have received from his wife,the first being to Northbridge Baths on January 9,1982,and.
David claims Dawson is at a significant forensic disadvantage regarding bank card and phone records because “where that[Northbridge Baths] call came from is not ever to be known”.
After hearing brief submissions on directions,the judge thanked the parties for their assistance and reserved his decision shortly after noon.
“I hope to be able to provide my judgment relatively quickly. That doesn’t mean tomorrow,I can assure you,” Harrison said.
The defence claims Lynette deserted her Bayview home after being dropped off by her husband at a Mona Vale bus stop on January 9,having experienced “ups and downs” and “moments of hope and moments of clear despair and distress” in the months before her disappearance.
David submitted that an “intervening event” that changed the mother of two’s plans significantly was when Dawson left their home shortly before Christmas 1981 intending to start a new life with JC,before they returned to Sydney.
The defence accepted Lynette would have been “deeply hurt” by Dawson’s behaviour.
“He did provide a motive for Lynette Dawson to not want to be with him,” David said.
Justice Harrison queried,“A reason?”
“A reason,yes,” David replied.
She said Lynette having commissioned portraits of her daughters was not inconsistent with abandoning the home as they were arranged before Christmas and before Dawson had left with JC.
“When she was ... making plans for the future,that hadn’t occurred. JC was no longer in the house.”
JC previously testified that she moved into the home in October 1981 and out in November,after she says she was confronted by Lynette,who said,“You’ve been taking liberties with my husband.”
David claimed Dawson had a “more measured,less obsessed approach” to JC than the Crown alleges.
“It started off as an appropriate teacher-student relationship. It did change,and we accept that.”
David said Dawson and JC marrying in 1984 demonstrated that the relationship “involved caring and love” and not that he “simply groomed her”.
“It’s not just a man who might be utilising his position to take advantage of a woman about whom he didn’t particularly care,” she said.
Asked by Harrison whether Dawson utilised his position to take advantage of a woman about “whom he did care”,David said the defence “wouldn’t say that he took advantage of her” but “accept that there is an inappropriateness”.
David said,however inappropriate Dawson’s relationship with JC,“it doesn’t make him a murderer”.
Dawson’s bail was varied,allowing him to report once a week to police rather than three times.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interestingstories,analysis and insights.