The Chamberlain Case By Meagan West "A Dingo Took My Baby!"They were the words that Lindy Chamberlain had screamed out into the blackness of the cold night in a camping ground close to Ayers Rock, Central Australia, on the night of August 17 1980, when she discovered that her nine-week-old baby, Azaria had been taken by a dingo. Lindy had returned to the family tent where she had left her sleeping 4 year old son, Reagan, and Azaria only moments before. Her husband Michael was sure that he had heard Azaria cry out. As she approached, closely followed by their 6 year old son Aidan, Lindy saw with a large dingo coming out of their tent. It seemed to be shaking its head like it was trying to drag something out of the tent. She couldn’t see what it was. As Lindy reached the opening of the tent a sense of panic had begun to well inside her. The children! Lindy ran from the tent moments later calling out "A dingo took my baby!!” In this essay, you will see the prosecution and defence as well as the rumours which circulated at that time. The aim of the Prosecution is to provide evidence which would lead to the conviction of Lindy Chamberlain of the murder of her daughter, Azaria. There were four arguments which eventually lead to Lindy’s conviction. Firstly Ian Barker stated that, although Azaria’s body was never found, they would easily see, from the evidence, that she was in fact dead. The way of death they would also find difficult to determine accurately, because a body was never found, but it would be proved, from the scientific evidence presented, that Azaria had died due to the loss of a large amount of blood after having had her throat cut. Barker informed the
jurors that they would not be attempting to explain why Lindy Chamberlain had killed her baby; in fact it would not be undertaking any explanation. The evidence to be put before them would simply prove beyond reasonable doubt, that, for whatever reason, the baby was murdered by her mother. Lindy Chamberlain’s claim that a dingo had taken her baby was a ‘imaginary lie’ intended to cover up the truth. Barker went on to explain that the evidence given by Joy Kuhl was vital to the case as the presence of blood in the Chamberlains' car destroyed the dingo attack explanation ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
jurors that they would not be attempting to explain why Lindy Chamberlain had killed her baby; in fact it would not be undertaking any explanation. The evidence to be put before them would simply prove beyond reasonable doubt, that, for whatever reason, the baby was murdered by her mother. Lindy Chamberlain’s claim that a dingo had taken her baby was a ‘imaginary lie’ intended to cover up the truth. Barker went on to explain that the evidence given by Joy Kuhl was vital to the case as the presence of blood in the Chamberlains' car destroyed the dingo attack explanation given by Mrs Chamberlain no matter what there may have been to support such an explanation. Secondly, English forensic expert Professor James Cameron- whose testimony had in one notable case sent the wrong people to jail back in his homeland had given evidence during the trial of a small, bloodied, adult handprint on the baby’s jumpsuit-Lindy. This claim was totally destroyed by new evidence that “what he thought was blood on the back of the jumpsuit was infact, red sand. Thirdly, on the night Azaria disappeared, dingoes were seen close to the camping area, and witnesses in a tent next to that of the Chamberlains heard a growl just before Lindy raised the alarm. Dingo tracks were observed leading away from the tent. There was blood on the interior of the tent. And none of these witnesses, some of whom were with the Chamberlains immediately before or after Azaria’s disappearance, detected anything suspicious in their manner. Finally Lindy chamberlain had said that her baby daughter, Azaria, was wearing a Matinee jacket on the night of her disappearance. This accusation was said to be untrue and that Mrs Chamberlain had made the whole thing up. Once the Prosecution had prosecuted its arguments to the court, it was then the defences turn to present theirs. The aim of the Defence is to provide evidence which would lead to Lindy Chamberlains Innocence. The defence case could be broken into four areas: testimony of the good character of the Chamberlains and their obvious sorrow and grief at the death of their daughter would come first; testimony which showed the lack of cause would come from fellow tourists who had seen Lindy as a wonderful mother; third, would be testimony about the predatory behaviour of dingoes; and lastly would be the testimony of experts whose task it was to cast doubt onto the scientific evidence presented by the prosecution. The testimonies of Natalie Goss, a friend of Lindy’s, was given to set up in the minds of the jury that both Lindy and Michael Chamberlain were "decent kind people of the community", unlikely to even think, let alone commit the terrible crime described by the prosecution. Ayers Rock tourists, Gwen and Jack Eccles, and Flo Wilkin, would confirm that Lindy was in their opinion "a perfect mother" who gave no indication of being capable of killing her own child. To confirm in the jurors minds the likelihood of a dingo being able to take Azaria, kill her and deposit her clothes somewhere else, leaving no remains and little damage to her clothing, Les Harris was called.To confirm in the juror’s minds the possibility of a dingo being able to take Azaria, kill her and put her clothes somewhere else, leaving no remains and little damage to her clothing, a man by the name of Les Harris was called. He explained that it was standard behaviour for a dingo to take its prey by the head. Grabbing the whole head, it would crush it simply by closing its jaws. A sharp shaking of its jaws, planned to break the neck would normally follow this. He then proceeded to explain that the behaviour of dingoes in the Ayers Rock area was unique. The dingoes had become familiar to being fed by tourists and the competition for food was fierce. Once the animal had captured its prey, it would quickly run to another area to eat it. The dingo was a wild animal, which would eat every part of its prey, even fur and feathers. He described them as "skilled manipulators" who would use their forefeet as a clamp and could surprisingly peel things apart using their incisors. Tourists at Ayers Rock who had been involved in dingo attacks quickly followed its testimony. Catherine West, testified that on the day of Azaria’s death, a dingo had grabbed her elbow as she sat in her tent, next to the Chamberlains' tent. It had only reluctantly let go when her mother had forcefully chased it away. The last area of the defence case to be covered, was the evidence of their scientific experts. Barry Boettcher was first. Unfortunately, he was not as experienced in the giving of evidence in a courtroom and his explanations of why Joy Kuhl’s test results were wrong were far too difficult for the jury to understand. He had found that there was a fault in the anti-sera that Joy Kuhl had used to form her conclusions. He believed that it was highly likely that it had not been specific to foetal blood, which was clear by the appearance of the two bands in her demonstration test plates. If it was not specific, there was no way to definitely say that the test results showed the presence of foetal blood. People’s opinions are influenced by other factors, such as rumours. There were strong rumours about that the government would release Lindy Chamberlain if she asked for a pardon. Those who went in kindness to suggest it might be a good idea to take the pardon were hounded out the jail’s gates. Another was, Out of prejudice concerning the Chamberlains’ devotion to the Seventh Day Adventist faith and a apparently endless stream of bizarre rumours-such as the claims that the name Azaria meant ‘sacrifice in the wilderness’ and that the Chamberlains had expressed no grief at the loss of their daughter- was forged the urban myth that Azaria’s death was a sacrificial rite carried out by religious fanatics. Another paper claimed that Azaria had been injured in an accident a couple of weeks before her disappearance and suffered brain damage. Lindy and Michael had then killed her at Ayers Rock because she was imperfect. Along similar lines was the story that Azaria had been born a "Downs Syndrome" baby, so her parents murdered her.At first, Lindy and Michael attempted to defend themselves against the rumours and accusations, but quickly learned that few journalists could be trusted to record their interviews with accuracy. Every media appearance they made seemed to spark the rumours even more, especially when they spoke openly about their faith and their beliefs as Seventh Day Adventists. Lindy was considered to be strange, too hard, too unmotherly. Why didn’t she cry?Having examined the evidence from the prosecution and defence as well as the rumours, it is now my intention to give my opinion on this matter. Having seen both sides of the Prosecution and Defence, I believe that Lindy Chamberlain is Innocent. This is because, what mother would kill her own baby? From seeing the movie ‘’Evil Angels,’’ Lindy Chamberlain looked to be like a very loving and caring mother and does not seem like the person who would murder her own child.