You say

"Barker told the jury that Territorians knew that crocodiles were dangerous and could take a baby or an adult, but that dingoes just did not do that."

Am I right in recalling an account of the trial in which the defence sought to introduce evidence of other dingo attacks on humans, but were not allowed to? If so, how does this square with the prosecution being allowed to make assertions about those same facts?

Anyhow, aren't there rules about counsel (for either side) being allowed to introduce assertions unsupported by evidence? Isn't "giving evidence from the bar table" something that can be complained of?

Well said Crispin Hull. When all this happened, I was on a committee, largely of Seventh Day Adventists, who all lived with Lindy in the one community west of Newcastle. They all insisted "She wouldn't have done it". It was, unfortunately, a semi-closed community where women didn't get out much though the men all had normal jobs in the community. Thus the women all had a somewhat awkward manner - Lindy included - that worked against her in terms of community support. When I look back on it now, the community and indeed, jury, reaction against her was partly her manner, part-misogyny and part-opposition to a fringe Christian church. And then of course was that ghastly frontier mentality of the Northern Territorians. Poor Lindy, poor Michael, poor children to have had their lives blighted like this. It enrages me still. Let's hope the death certificate will be duly changed.

I could never understand why anyone with any brains (including you Crispin Hull) could possibly believe that an ordinary woman could possibly carry out the crime Lindy was accused of in the time she was supposed to have taken, and leave no traces. That the coroner set her free was the only rational course and that a fiendish outcry forced a retrial was a terrible injustice and the guilty verict unbelievable. Even a witch would have found it impossible to commit such a crime and Lindy was no witch just an ordinary law abiding citizen and loving mother who fell foul of an unbelievable wall of prejudice and tittle-tattle that was actually taken seriously by the law of the land and for which she was punished severely and for which she and Michael are still paying the price. Shame on everyone involved.

Lindy was tried by media and found guilty. The hysterics of those who could not believe a dingo would attack a baby defied logic. Her SDA affilation only helped a god hating community to find her guilty. I doubt if she was non religous that she would of been found guilty. Many in Darwin believe that if you are not a drunkard you ain't normal especially back in the 70's.

An interesting article that raises anumber of questions. Not the least of these questions is whether the jury system is really the most efficient method of ascertaining the truth leading to a conviction or acquittal as the case may be.

Lindy Chamberlain is only in a long line of travesties of "justice" where the indefensible has been defended along the lines of "but a jury found him/her guilty".

Perhaps we need a wholesale rethink of our system, learing from the best of the European systems with investigating Judges, trials with a Judge and two lay assessors, and other matters that are surely worth investigation.

The evidence is now overwhelming that so-called scientific evidence is as shoddy as it was in the Chamberlain case (most recently last week in NSW); where local jury prejudice results in extraordinary verdicts (Doomoonjee); and the power and resources imbalance between prosecution and defence makes a trial less than a level playing field.

On top of that we now have a range of extraordinarily repressive measures brought in as part of the farcical 'war on terror' by the Howard government (and not repealed by Labor) that threaten our system as never in recent history.

The Chamberlain case should serve as a warning to all who complacently assume that we have a system that doesn't need reform.

It appears prima facie, that Lindy Chamberlain has now been well and truly cleared of the original charge of murder.

Whilst in Alice Springs (on a totally unrelated matter), early 1983, in company with another I was present during a conversation with a ranking NT Detective.

The discussion amongst other things, naturally turned to that of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain. This Detective told us both something that completely turned my own thinking about this case, up side down! Accordingly like so many, my original thinking appeared to be, most fundamentally flawed.

As to what was said that day I'm sorry, in light of recent events, that particular conversation should, and must be, consigned to that of police lore.

To quote Phaedrus; 'non semper ea sunt quea videntur...'

To Lindy and Michael, I wish them both well - they've surely been punished sufficiently, for whatever their sins may've been.

If i should ever run afoul of the law i would not want a jury .I would ask for a judge only decision.What do we ordinary people know of forensics etc?

Miscarriage of (justice?) can indeed be cruel, but the article is part of Crispin Hull’s often cogently-expressed distaste for juries. I tend to disagree with him in spite of his legal expertise, and my lack of it, and bring up a couple of thoughts:
(Previously?) revered Lord Denning, regarding the Birmingham Six in 1988, saying: "Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been hanged. They'd have been forgotten, and the whole community would be satisfied... It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned."
With Australia hell-bent on Americanism, the possibility of elected judges - and as a result, some aspirants for hire?
Our own Harry Gibbs, Lord Denning-like, quick to throw one of his fellow judges to the wolves for legal asthetic appearance rather than wait for facts to be determined during legal process.
No, juries are not perfect, but - as in their 19th century findings of felons being guilty of misappropriation “to the value of 20 shillings” rather than of the hanging-offence which a value of a guinea or more would bring - maybe they still are worth their keep; hopefully. I don’t expect perfection either way, but am swayed on the jury side.

Colinsett - I also tend to your preference for juries as less likely, on the whole, to judge harshly and wrongly. Lindy Chamberlain has had a terrible time of it, and the jury in her case let her down badly. But as you say, on balance, trial by jury is a safety precaution that works more often than not. Google "Anthony Gray Mockery and the Right to Trial by Jury" for an extended argument in favor of juries. A single sitting magistrate (or judge) is LOGICALLY more vulnerable to corruption, even when 'greater knowledge' or presumed greater sophistication might be thought to lead to more sound opinions.