Police Bias
Police have bias as they are involved first hand with the investigation and sometimes cannot be objective. They would not have had the Chamberlain’s best interests at heart. Instead, the force would have been worried about their town, its people and thought of the Chamberlains as outside visitors, a family of “weird” religious beliefs. There was difference between how Azaria’s clothing was found and described by the two police officers Goodwin and Morris. The difference lay with how Goodwin found it and how Morris described it. The jump suit was found and photographed in a “ravage” condition. Afterwards the jumpsuit was laid out on the ground to get a clear shot of the markings. This was the picture that was released to the press. This led people to believe that this was how the clothes were found. This should have never occurred because it caused the public to believe that Lindy had killed her baby which in turn led to an extremely biased jury and also bias in some expert witnesses. There was also a very misleading experiment publicised.
At the time of Azaria’s death the area was very lush which meant that the threads in the jumpsuit had hardly been damaged. Ward an investigator did a test in the same conditions and found threads were not pulled. The police, at a later and dryer time of year, did a similar experiment that was televised. The loops of the jumpsuit were pulled. The media got hold of this and people came up with conclusions. The public were given the wrong impressions and evidence by the police, a force that the public have faith in.
Public Interference
The incident occurred in the Northern Territory, an independent territory with its own government and a tight knit community. Indirectly policies of the rangers had been instrumental in unsettling wildlife to the extent that dingoes had begun attacking humans, a fact that no local wanted to face. The policies of the chief ranger Roff inadvertly helped cause a baby’s death. The line of the dingo taking the baby involved human intervention. This intervention was said (and later proven) to have occurred at a local family’s, the Cawood’s, home and involving many of the locals. The aboriginal black tracker Winmatti was asked by chief ranger Roff to track the dingo that took baby Azaria. Winmatti said the dingo headed west, the direction of the Cawood home and then stopped at the house.The Cawood’s already had history of treating this particular animal like a pet and John Cawood claimed to have already “taken care of it” when the same dingo had attacked another child. John Cawood lied, this dingo had come back and this time killed a baby and left the mother with charges of infanticide. The black tracker said in court that the dingo went west but the local ranger claimed that it had gone south. The ranger did this to protect the locals and hide his own inadequacy. The aboriginal black tracker had difficulty with English which unfortunately made the rangers evidence more readily listened to. The Legal system should not allow this discrepancy to occur. The way in which Winmatti was questioned should have been adjusted. Not only did stories and rumours cause bias in locals but also in professional experts. Forensic evidence given by Mrs Kuhl said that there was foetal blood in the car but it was later found that it was “sound deadening spray” and adult blood form a trip in which the Chamberlains picked up a bleeding hitchhiker. Mistakes like these should not have happened and the legal system needs to fix this up.
The Contaminated Jury
The trial was held two years after the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain so there was plenty of time for people to form opinions, stories and rumours. The Lindy Chamberlain story was national; the stories were not in favour of Lindy’s story. To suggest that an Australian animal would kill a baby was too detrimental to the Northern Territory, but a Seventh Day Adventist minister’s wife murdering her baby was more accepted by the public. A jury is meant to be impartial but it was very difficult to have a non biased jury as by 1984 the media had made sure that majority of people (especially in the Northern Territory) were against the story of a dingo taking a baby or strongly in favour of Lindy’s innocence. Bias had already been formed at the trial stage so all member of the jury would have preconceived bias. The jury is meant to only convict if guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, but in this case the jury still did convict despite Lindy’s innocence. Jury bias is strongly demonstrated in this case. The jury system is not an adequate system if it is able to wrongly convict an upstanding citizen.
There were many elements that contributed to the failing of the legal system for Lindy Chamberlain. The Australian Legal System is taken from the British system which was developed a long time ago and when scientists or journalists had much affect on the system. With huge advances in science, the average person would be unable to understand let alone to dispute and identify inconsistencies. It is too great a task to understand and evaluates a person’s innocence. This system is outdated and needs to be updated as it does not allow for jury bias, diverse ethnicity, bias of expert witnesses and does not give much consideration to discrimination and small town bond. No system of human justice is perfect. Our system has its rules and guidelines yet these are mere words written on paper, in practise it is different and rules are broken or twisted. A person may suffer unfairly at the hands of fellow citizens in a jury box. Sometimes law can be a popularity contest especially in cases so widely publicised and widespread as the Chamberlain one.
Bibliography:
Books:
- Crispin, K. The Crown v Chamberlain 1980-1987, Albatross Books, Australia, 1987
- Lewis, R. The Chamberlain Case: Was Justice Done. HTAV, Victoria, 1990
- Ward, P. Azaria! What the Jury Were Not Told. Phil Ward, Australia, 1984.
Newletters:
- The Azaria Newsletter. 1985-89, various. Published by Noni Hodgson
Class Notes
Paper:
Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesaday April 10, 1984
K.Crispin, The Crown vs Chamberlain 1980-1987, Albatross Books, Australia, 1987
P.Ward. Azaria! What the Jury Were Not Told. Australia, 1984. pp74
As stated by first coroner Barritt in the Lindy Chamberlain Case
The first ambiguity came when Macknay (prosecuting lawyer) asked “you did not track in the night time only daytime?” Winmatti answered “no”. They apparently assumed Winmatti meant he searched during the day. But his answer meant he also searched during the night. Ibid., pp51