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.