The case of Azaria Chamberlain, the "dingo baby"

I don't think that we have a topic on this case which has divided opinion ever since it happened in 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain

The final official verdict in 2012 supported the mother's version of events but I think that, like a certain other yet unresolved case, there will be heated debate going on for years and years to come.

"Mr Buting said the case was an example of some of the most poor-quality police work in the world, the Gold Coast Bulletin reported.
'They simply ignored the claims of the parents that this child was taken by a dingo,' he said".


Hmmm - sometimes there are very good reasons for not believing a word that parents say!

From the other day:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4083146/New-Azaria-Chamberlain-revelation-Cabinet-papers-authorities-did-not-belive-dingo-took-baby-mother-Lindy-did-not-commit-murder.html

As far as I know, nobody else at the camp saw Azaria before she "disappeared" or saw the dingo with or without a baby.

I doubt very much that the Chamberlains told the truth.

A photograph of the babygrow found near a dingo lair at Uluru. Could a dingo have removed the clothing before eating his prey?

Admittedly I don't know the finer details of this case and it's one that I've not really looked into... But I would say, Chirps, that it would be impossible for a dingo to remove clothing intact like that...

There don't seem to be any teeth marks or tearing.

Ridiculous!

I don't think that can be the baby's actual clothing. If you read the newspaper story it has photos of the bloodied and torn baby clothing that was actually found near the dingo lair.

What is the source of your photo, Chirpy?

I've now seen the one in The Mail article but that looks too intact to have been removed by a dingo.

canada12 wrote:I don't think that can be the baby's actual clothing. If you read the newspaper story it has photos of the bloodied and torn baby clothing that was actually found near the dingo lair.

Some more photos here from this link after a quick google search:

http://murderpedia.org/female.C/c/chamberlain-lindy-photos-2.htm

ETA - Chirpy's pic was a replica.

Okay, that explains the replica clothing.

I've never heard before about the man who claimed in 2004 to have shot the dingo and buried the baby's body!

I'm confused, in the link it shows the babygrow that looks to be torn up but then there's another image (not the replica) intact with blood?

It is confusing. I presume that you mean the photos with Lindy Chamberlain looking at the jumpsuit.

It certainly does not look the same as the other one which is clearly intact.

Freedom wrote:It is confusing. I presume that you mean the photos with Lindy Chamberlain looking at the jumpsuit.

It certainly does not look the same as the other one which is clearly intact.

It's the two pics taken by police, the one in the forest looks completely torn up, but the other one (taken sideways by police) is still intact ?

I wonder how police came to the idea the mum stabbed the baby with scissors in a car? Must go and see if there's more info somewhere cause I've never really read up on it.

dogs don't lie wrote:I wonder how police came to the idea the mum stabbed the baby with scissors in a car? Must go and see if there's more info somewhere cause I've never really read up on it.

From the coroners report.

. Scissors were found in the Chamberlain's car on which there was present human foetal blood staining on the cutting edge and on the hinge areas. There is evidence to support that when comparable scissors are used to cut through blood that blood would be deposited on the cutting edge. An inference can be drawn that these scissors were used to cut the deceased's clothing. I place no weight on the argument that the subject scissors were unable to cut clothing as this was after the stud had been removed from the scissors to enable certain tests.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/chamberlain/galvinfindings.html&ved=0ahUKEwj6_IeAnKnRAhUCOBQKHd9RAFMQFghGMAs&usg=AFQjCNHouvOKBJ7oG7imN4Cm3AQ8aIJDhw

Apologies for earlier photo. I googled Azaria babygrow and got that picture. I remembered that there was something said about the suit being still buttoned up and thought this was the actual babygrow. On reading the coroner's report it is plain that there was a lot of blood and the one I pictured could not be the same one.
How Lindy Chamberlain was ever found innocent after reading his evidence is astounding.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4101346/Michael-Chamberlain-dies-aged-72-40-years-death-daughter-Azaria-eaten-dingo.html

Quick summary of events from article..


THE LINDY CHAMBERLAIN CASE: OVER THE YEARS


August 17, 1980 – Lindy Chamberlain discovered her daughter Azaria missing from their family tent during a camping trip at Uluru in the Northern Territory.

December 1980 – An initial inquest supported Lindy and Michael Chamberlain's claims their daughter was taken by a dingo.

December 1981 – A second inquest was ordered after the Supreme Court quashed the initial inquest's findings.

September 1982 – Lindy was charged with Azaria's murder and Michael was charged with being an accessory after the fact.

October 29, 1982 – The couple was found guilty of their respective charges. Lindy was sentenced to life in prison and Michael received a suspended sentence.

Early 1986 – The jacket Azaria was wearing when she was killed was found by authorities in a dingo lair after a British tourist fell to his death in the same area.

1986 – The Northern Territory government ordered Lindy to be released from prison.

1988 – Lindy and Michael were acquitted of Azaria's death by the Supreme Court and their convictions were overturned. The couple received a $1.3 million pay-out for their wrongful imprisonment.

1991 – Lindy and Michael divorced.

1995 – A third inquest into the infant's death was held and returned an open verdict.

2012 – A fourth inquest was held and the coroner ruled that a dingo did in fact take Azaria from the family's campsite. Michael said that he and his ex-wife had no contact.

Michael Chamberlain's death has just been announced. Can't bring the link over but there is an article in today's Mail online.

See the previous post.

I have wondered if, as may have happened in the Needham and Ramsey cases, the actions of a child were covered up.

I see that there were others who have thought this too.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/azarias-big-brother-weds-sunshine-coast/335141/

Blimey.. how odd.

That's like Amelie in years to come rocking up to the church on her big day in the Renault Scenic.

The cars number plate was 4ENSIC.

That really is sticking 2 fingers up, IMO.

I agree that it's taking urine extraction to new levels.

There are similarities with the McCanns in that respect but a lot of differences too. No dodgy limited companies set up immediately and appeals for money and the Chamberlains certainly didn't escape justice entirely.

They weren't seen falling about with laughter at inappropriate moments either but their demeanour in the early days was commented upon - they seemed far too composed.

People react differently though to traumatic events so that in itself can perhaps be disregarded.

Hmmm, there certainly are no grounds for an official apology in my opinion.

Freedom wrote:As far as I know, nobody else at the camp saw Azaria before she "disappeared" or saw the dingo with or without a baby.

I doubt very much that the Chamberlains told the truth.

I'm giving this topic a bump as the case has been mentioned in connection with the BBC drama The Cry.

I've copied my earlier post as that is a crucial point for me.

I doubt that the baby was ever there.