The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Chamberlain in-question

The Chamberlain in-question

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I've had a slight interest on the follow-on's of the case, and I always keep an opined mind when it comes to what was the findings.

Forensic/ "is the intersection between psychology and the criminal justice system. It involves understanding criminal law in the relevant jurisdictions.

Your thoughts.

cc
Posted by plant3.1, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 3:30:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plant3.1, I've taken a big interest in this case right from the start.

Our justice system is supposed to be predicated on the principle of innocent until proven guilty or shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Iíve said it numerous times on OLO: What a crock of crap!!

Nothing can be more indicative of this than the Chamberlain saga.

Lindy Chamberlain was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1982 for murdering her daughter. This has now shown to be the most terrible miscarriage of justice.

Thank goodness common-sense has finally prevailed.

I wonder how many people in Australia get wrongly convicted and never get the chance for redemption.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 8:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig....the findings considering the Forensic science on the matters of the times, is at best for the times that it was. However (now that the verdict has been made)....the public can discuss with caution on the points of a supplementary to the facts/or none of, now their in the clear. Now as the MEDIA/public is now open,(not) a dark matter will still hang in the realms of curiosity, how human:) One point I have of interests, is the fact that blood was found in the car. This to my view is still a matter of interest.(not)

But as the law is, now they can find peace...( hunting anymore, and I would SUE you.) is the point.

Dingos do kill children....its a well known fact!...and what if at all, are we to judge (knowing the truth), and it comes back to SHUT your mouths....Case closed......but you know the public/MEDIA!\\\\

New LAWS...about the MEDIA....some may see where Iam going with this.

Some would find me brave to put this on public record, but its case closed.....MEDIA SCUM!..
Ludwig..You said..."the principle of innocent until proven guilty" I think the MEDIA has the jury, in many cases when it comes to the people.
Now since thats a fact...lol, I might just act like the MEDIA:)...and what a bunch of clones/clowns they are( with foot in mouth )

Dingo's do kill children....the law and the facts are clear on this.

I go camping on Fraser Island from time to time, and this is where Iam most concerned.

We know dingos are wild animals and understanding there controversial inhabitants of the island/Australia and other places where humans interact, this can only be a significant warning to all while we call ourselves Australians.

Dingos have no right to be here, and Questions on this matter are welcome.

cc
Posted by plant3.1, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 11:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig...sorry, you beat me to it..."I wonder how many people in Australia get wrongly convicted and never get the chance for redemption.

A very true fact. However, lets see more about your point, and lets see more about my point a little later.

cc
Posted by plant3.1, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 11:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too have watched the case from its first day.
And, in truth, changed from beleiving she did it to now thinking she did not.
A Dingo can kill a child, they have killed far older children.
Any of the dog family can and will peel of clothing in that manner, Nappy's for sure.
The Church they came from is hardly a Devil worshiping one.
I can not imagine them killing the child.
Forensic evidence is much better now, and that used here was clearly wrong.
Media reporting, biases against that church, and Lindy's strong personality, along with certain views about relationships in that church, played a roll.
Goggle Fraser Island Dingos, see the resemblances to this case.
Humans inviting close contact, feeding, and being not as aware as they should, danger in every step.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 5:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,

I came in to argue with you about the Chamberlain fiasco. ; ) Nevertheless I'm glad that you realise that she couldn't have done it.

Plant3:1

"One point I have of interests, is the fact that blood was found in the car. This to my view is still a matter of interest.(not)"

There were two damning bits of evidence given by way of forensic testimony at the trial. One was that there was a lot of foetal blood under the dashboard. It formed the basis for the prosecution theory that Lindy had murdered Azaria in the car and the blood had spurted under the dashboard out of sight and she had thus not cleaned it up when she did the other cleaning up (in the 5-10 minute window of opportunity). Babies have some foetal blood until six months. Azaria was 2 months. The other was the bloody handprints on the jumpsuit (that always seemed to take a lot of imagination to see as handprints and the reason was later revealed).

It was later established that the 'foetal blood' was most likely a sound deadening compound installed by the manufacturer and that the bloody handprints were in fact just large smudges of red sand (something you might expect if a dingo dragged the baby through the sand or buried her for a time).

Don't lose any sleep over it. I'd suggest that we have moved past that in terms of known facts. The problem was just that the media made a fuss about it but didn't make the same fuss when it proved to be bunk. Kind of analogous to the Hurley matter where the friend said Mulrunji had his face beaten beyond recognition and that got well publicised but the post mortem indicated that the only visible damage to the face was a small graze above an eye and that fact got no publicity.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 11:01:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy