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

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.

I’ve 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.

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

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

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.

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.

Another key thing was that there was no saliva on the jumpsuit even though it hadn't rained in the interim. The Chamberlains claimed that Azaria had worn a matinee jacket over it. The prosecution maintained that that was just an excuse and the matinee jacket didn't exist. I describe it as a key thing because it was very important but was not as damning. There was an abundance of evidence that a dingo took the baby and Chamberlains had the matinee jacket explanation so it was a credibility issue (that probably didn't go in their favour prior to the discovery). By contrast the blood was damning as it was consistent with a misdeed and hard to otherwise explain.

After Lindy had served 3 years in jail the matinee jacket was found and by that time blood could be excluded as the identity of the 'foetal blood' referred to above. Accordingly, Lindy was loosed.

It might not be irrelevant to note that a forensic expert who gave evidence at the trial was brought over from the UK. He had given testimony over there in a case and in consequence the accused ended up spending time at Her Majesty's pleasure. However when the forensic testimony (which was pretty much the basis for the conviction) was proved false the accused was released. Interestingly, Chamberlain's lawyers raised that at trial but I don't believe that the media reported it.

I'm with Ludwig on this.

I also thought she was guilty (for a while) because I put too much faith in the media to tell the truth.

However, when I saw the faked images of the baby in a black christening shawl and the printed "fact" that the name Azaria means "sacrifice in the wilderness" I began to have serious doubts.

What chance does anyone in this country have of a fair trial when the media are allowed to get away with telling blatant lies simply for the sake of selling newspapers and maximising the advertising reach of their sponsors?

Looking at the media coverage of current disputes it seems nothing has changed. In fact, with the growing proliferation of extremist radio broadcasters it's probably even worse.

At least we now have alternative sources of information, depending on who you can trust there as well.

Only one thing's for certain and that is that you should always treat the media with a degree of healthy scepticism.

Well the Chamberlain's have now been completly vindicated ? A coroner has determined that a Dingo took the baby 30 odd years ago ?

It would appear prima facie the NT Detectives significantly botched their brief of evidence. The then, NT Forensic Branch made many errors in their examination of the evidence relevant to the facts.

Much good evidence gathered by police at the crime scene, appeared to be compromised in some way. Apparently, even other evidence was later proved, inadmissible because 'continuinty of possession' failed to be properly established.

So the mistakes, the oversights, and many other significant errors simply went on, ad nauseam.

Even the preliminary crime scene on the night, was not properly preserved. As many of the well meaning folk there, all tried to lend a hand, in an endeavour to find the missing baby.

I would have thought, law students will probably study the many complexities associated with this case, until far into the future.

Something I CAN share with you, basic crime scene preservation training for police, has been well and truly updated, as a result of what was learnt from the events of the 'Dingo/Baby' case, of thirty or so years ago.

In conclusion, I was always told the NT Police are some of the best trained in the country, nothing really has changed my believe, hitherto.

<< 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. >>

Hello mjpb. Nice to hear from you. I remember our arguments of a few years back on this forum with fondness. We had strongly differing opinions but it was always a civil and sensible discussion, which I thank you for.

If you would like a good argument, for old time’s sake, please just start up a general thread on some aspect of law or road safety. We’ll no doubt disagree strongly and have a right royal blue over it. Oh what fun that would be!! ( :>)

But hey, we agree here.

I’ve always very strongly held the view that a dingo simply slipped into the tent and took the baby. So easy.

And nothing about trying to apportion blame to Lindy and Michael really made any sense.

This brings to mind the Joanne Lees case. The rumours and trial by media was just as weighted against Joanne Lees as it was for Lindy Chamberlain. Joanne Lees didn’t come across when interviewed by the media as the public expected either. Like an experienced actor in a hollywood movie showing all sorts of dramatic emotions. There was huge public judgement about that, as there was in the Lindy Chamberlain trial.

Luckily in Joanne’s Case the Blood found on her shirt was proven to be a DNA match for the fellow who was eventually charged with that crime. You may have seen a few months back where some Morons tried to run a <maybe Joanne did do it documentary> but were howled down by the media in no uncertain terms because the guilty fellow’s blood was on her shirt for heaven’s sake. Apparently, the people who put the show together were unaware of that little fact. Unreal.

It seems to be a case of blame the victim in a lot of these cases, as people don't want to believe the truth could be that horrible.
I wonder if people would have been more willing to believe a wolf had taken the chamberlain baby?
The dingoes are probably much the same as wolves only without the heavy coat.

I'm also old enough to remember the entire squalid affair from the start. I was appalled at the number of apparently intelligent people who were convinced that Chamberlain was guilty without being able to provide a coherent justification for their belief.

Dingoes are dangerous animals,

Lindy Chamberlain is another victim of the tabloid press and its moronic readers--it was reported on ABC radio today the a majority of those Herald Sun readers polled are still convinced of her guilt.

Hi there MAC...

I read your thread with interest, where you said '...you were suprised how so many intelligent people were fooled...' or similar words.

You see the thing is, when conducting any criminal investigation, particularly that of a capital crime, preservation of the crime scene is most important. In the Chamberlain's matter, it's my understanding the crime scene was badly compromised (by some well meaning folk), thus significant evidence became lost, and other material, inadmissable.

Some time later, further 'quality' evidence also became inadmissable. Essentially, because the NT police failed to preserves the continuity of possession of certain articles of an evidentiary nature.

I know this simply by a conversation I had with a senior detective who was part of that enquiry. Myself, I'm now retired from the job. However, back in 1983 I was involved in a job and I had occasion to speak with this detective on another matter, and by way of general conversation, the Chamberlain case was naturally raised.

MAC...the law has stated inter alia, not only has Mrs Chamberlain's conviction for murder been expunged, the latest coronial enquiry has determined that a dingo has taken the baby.

Therefore the case is now closed. Do I personally believe Mrs Chamberlain ever had a case to answer in realtion to the missing baby ? Only the Chamberlains and God know the truth.

Lindy Chamberlain was my day nurse during three weeks in the Sanitarium Hospital Wahoronga with a bacterial infection and at that stage she has three infant children whom she loved dearly. There was no way she should have ever been charged with murder. The rouge stain found under the dash board was an organic material then used to seal and sound proof metal panels. It was not blood at all, but the police believed it looked like blood so it must be blood.

o sung wu,

Very interesting 'insiders's' opinion. I, and many others, have always suspected that Lindy Chamberlain paid the price for the investigators' mistakes, certainly forensic science at the time was rather basic by today's standards.
However my point was, and still is -- how could so many members of the public express such strong opinions as to Chamberlain's guilt, they weren't 'in' on the investigation and they weren't sitting on the jury. The case of David Hicks is another example of this attitude.

I definitely don't have any opinion as to Lindy Chamberlain's complicity in Azaria Chamberlain's death apart from the fact that she didn't get a fair trial initially and she now has no case to answer. Well perhaps I do have an opinion- if Uluru had been a hunting area for wolves not dingoes, the outcome would probably have been different, the non-indigenous public now understands that dingoes are indeed dangerous animals.

Hi there MAC...

Thank you for your response and a further expansion of your views hitherto. As I said, only the Chamberlain's and God know the truth.

You also drew a reference apropos David HICKS. Well, that's an entirely different matter altogether. I'm sure there'd be many herein who would be most displeased if I were to articulate my opinion (and it would only be an 'opinion') in relation to Mr Hicks.

Probably not the correct thread in which I should expand upon my precise views on that particular gentleman ?

Mac, you wrote:

<< if Uluru had been a hunting area for wolves not dingoes, the outcome would probably have been different, the non-indigenous public now understands that dingoes are indeed dangerous animals. >>

It is interesting to note that dingoes, previously known as Canis dingo were relegated to a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus) a few years back and are now accepted as being Canis lupus dingo.

So they are very closely related to wolves.

Ludwig,

Yes, that classification is very significant.

What I meant was that dingoes were not perceived as dangerous animals by the general public at the time, since they look like domestic dogs. As far as I can remember many people regarded dingoes as dogs, not as a type of wolf, so they found it difficult to accept Chamberlain's account of events. The public perception of the species is quite different these days.

Hi Ludwig,

LOL I think I'll skip the traffic discussion for the moment. Not enough time. Good to see you.

o song wu,

There was a lot compromised on that side but compromised or not at least the finger is officially pointed to the obvious culprit so it doesn't really matter.

History has shown that the prosecution team (broadly speaking- no distinction from investigation) stuffed up more than evidence preservation. They were the ones who did what they could to prosecute a lady for murder who had no motive or opportunity and real (cf. foetal blood sound deadening compounds) forensic evidence and eyewitnesses contradicting the prosecution case.

(Did we so lack forensic experts in this country that they needed to import the UK guy that got someone jailed by his prosecution supporting testimony with a subsequent release when it was proved incorrect or did they need forensic support for an otherwise unsupportable case that badly?)

There is sufficient evidence available that people familiar with the evidence openly ridicule the prosecution these days and the evidence is so compelling that a coroner's court has found a dingo responsible. Even some unusable evidence supporting the dingo taking the baby is at least interesting. The Aboriginal tracker's evidence was rejected on evidencial grounds but a camper supported the account albeit lacking the expertise to fully support the opinion. The only thing that muddied the water was the forensic evidence that proved wrong.

"Only the Chamberlains and God know the truth."

Now now. After all those people have been through you go and say something like that. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened when the baby was taken so that is an extremely ambitious attempt to swipe at the Chamberlains in spite of the umpire's decision. The coroner has determined what happened. Why not leave them in peace?

Hi there MJPB...

Many thanks for your thread, and your comments and observations contained therein.

Of course you're quite correct. The umpire HAS spoken, and it was determined, a dingo did take the baby.

Have I taken a swipe at the Chamberlains ? If I did, it was purely unintentional you may be assured of that. Do I personally think the Chamberlains have a case to answer...I simply don't know ! I'm not nor was I ever a member of the NT police.

However, I have been involved in criminal investigation for many years, until my retirement. Thus, I hold dear this belief that when the law has spoken, it has spoken. My personal opinions/beliefs/suspicions/and judgements, are essentially, now moot.

If it were otherwise, any 'jack' worth his salt, would simply burn-up.You can't allow your personal emotions or feelings to colour your thinking, nor can you dwell upon an issue that can neither be modified nor amended. Regina v Chamberlain is finis.

In conclusion, I would strongly suggest that neither you nor I, would be fully appraised of either the quality and quantity of the many articles of an evidentiary nature, that were contemporaneously, removed from the crime scene. Simply because of inadvertent or unintended contamination at that time. Therefore, they'll never ever see the inside of a courtroom. My only additional information I have, was from a conversation in 1983 I had with a senior detective involved in the matter. As I'd mentioned in a previous thread.

I understand, at the conclusion of the enquiry, Mrs Chamberlain was asked what further action(s) she contemplated pursuing. She was quoted as saying '...it's over, it's now closed...' or words to that effect.

And I believe it is now over, for most people, MJPB.

Over half the country convicted her a murderer on the grounds her husband was a SDA Pastor. That she was lieing to cover him as the police believed he was complicit in the murder. It was such a public emotional beat up. o sung wu, for you to be so indifferent to justice makes me wonder at your career in forensic science.

Hi there JOSEPHUS...

Thank you for your comments and remarks.

Firstly, I've never had a career in forensic science, save for a couple of 'dreadful' years in Ballistics. In order for one to be determined a Crime Scene Examiner, one needs to serve a lengthy period of time in a forensic science division, and undergo an intensive formal course of training in one or more of the forensic science disciplines; fingerprints, toolmarks, photography etc.

Myself, I was a former member of the CIB. For you to make such an vacuous observation that, I'm in some way, 'so indifferent to justice', is both absurd and preposterous !

Like many who are so influenced by media reports, you appear to have little or no appreciation of the investigative protocols, for the purpose of assembling a Brief or Evidence.

I'll repeat - again, I do not know of ALL the material facts tounching on the official enquiry into the death of the Chamberlain baby. And neither do you !

I knew personally the Chamberlains and their love for their children. The whole case defied the word of the witnesses on the scene. It was a misscarriage of Justice based on the prejudice of the police. It was not just the Chamberlains and God who knew the facts.

o sung wu,

Thanks for the response both for responding and for what you acknowledged. Given your personal stuff it was big of you to say so.

"Do I personally think the Chamberlains have a case to answer...I simply don't know ! I'm not nor was I ever a member of the NT police."

Given how much they botched (and your own personal insight adds to what is known publically albeit in a way which colours your feelings about the case) are they the best people to know? I'd be more willing to put my money on the Aboriginal tracker. Those guys are good.

"In conclusion, I would strongly suggest that neither you nor I, would be fully appraised of either the quality and quantity of the many articles of an evidentiary nature, that were contemporaneously, removed from the crime scene. Simply because of inadvertent or unintended contamination at that time. Therefore, they'll never ever see the inside of a courtroom. My only additional information I have, was from a conversation in 1983 I had with a senior detective involved in the matter. As I'd mentioned in a previous thread."

I agree with you that we can't know those things. However you seem to feel that that would necessarily point things in one direction. That contamination may explain why the apparent blood near the tent observed by the police officer who gave evidence that dingo footprints were centimetres from Azaria's cot was not analysed. Likewise that contamination would presumably include the inside out singlet going from outside the jumpsuit where it was when the witness who found it viewed it to inside the jumpsuit where it was when the police photographed it. In both those cases the unfortunate interference would have increased suspicion rather than incriminated the Chamberlains.

"And I believe it is now over, for most people"
Again I agree. After 32 years the legal process has found in favour of the Chamberlains and most people seem to accept that the truth came out. At the time I believe the split was more even and Mrs Chamberlain was incarcerated.

Josephus,

I think it is purely historical now but it does seem strange that SDAs were considered to be into baby sacrifice when their close religious relatives the Jehovah's Witnesses were merely seen as an annoyance. Maybe the JWs escaped that perception because their door knocking was so annoying to people that they focussed completely on it.

Hi (again) MJPB...

Thank you for your latest thread. You know, I reckon you're right.

Those famous 'Scales of Justice' have overwhelmingly come down in favour of the Chamberlains, there's no doubt about it.

I'm must confess too, I only had a single (though protracted) conversation with this senior detective, and it was in 1983, a couple of years after the initial investigation.

And, human nature being what it is, none of us like to admit we may be erroneous in our assumptions, least of all coppers who may be just a little too close (emotionally) to an investigation.

Whether or not this NT bloke was, I dunno, he did speak with some conviction.

You cannot, you must not, allow your own personal emotions/feelings/prejudices/bigotry or anything else, to influence your thinking, in a job. You do, you'll pay a hefty price.

I've also heard many people assert, police are demonstratively immune and impervious to the feelings of others, particularly those people who may well be considered, the author of a serious crime.

I don't really know about that, though I've got to say...we all bleed, when we're cut...!

o sung wu,

Thanks for the latest comments. Obviously I'm not going to argue with you. I can imagine the dangers of having too much emotion in that role.

"Those famous 'Scales of Justice' have overwhelmingly come down in favour of the Chamberlains, there's no doubt about it."

True. From what I've seen of the evidence indicating a dingo did it and the lack of opportunity for Lindy to do it and eyewitnesses who contradicted key parts of the prosecution case I'm not surprised. I believe the scales of justice went something like this:

1. Coronial inquest finding dingo did it.
2. Coronial inquest with flawed forensic evidence found grounds for trial.
3. Trial with flawed forensic evidence.
4. More evidence found years later that was consistent with defence version.
5. Governmental report
6. Conviction quashed based on new evidence and awareness that flawed forensic evidence used at trial.
7. Coronial inquest that returned an open finding and considered that making a finding on the dingo would reverse the onus of proof.
8. Coronial inquest that found a dingo did it.

"I've also heard many people assert, police are demonstratively immune and impervious to the feelings of others, particularly those people who may well be considered, the author of a serious crime.

I don't really know about that, though I've got to say...we all bleed, when we're cut...!"

It is a job where you presumably have to subdue natural responses to things. The attempt to present professional neutrality probably gets misconstrued.

Cheers

Hi there MJPB...

In conclusion, I can only imagine many of those undertaking an LLB or perhaps a Masters will study in detail the events touching on the world famous 'Dingo Case'.

There's sufficient material there to write a doctoral thesis amounting to a thousand no, ten thousand pages of quality arguement, without the need to in anyway regress.

In hindsight, basket weaving is a much more attractive pursuit, one may consider in retirement ! Though I'll miss the sometimes feral like, 'cut 'n thrust' of a good criminal trail, it sure takes a lot of beating I must say.

Many thanks MJPB too, for your thoughtful arguements and opinions in this, Australia's most controversial criminal case ever, in the history of jurisprudence.