Does anyone think so? I mean, they have much better forensic equipment today than in the 1980's.
I would be interested to know the results of tests done today.
I'm not saying that I think they are guilty or innocent (I didn't know what to think after watching the film), and I know that it is a moot point now. But I was just curious....
What does everyone else think??
it would still depend on how the police treated the crime scene when they arrived - if they had treated it with respect from the start, most probably modern technology could be used to prove that a dingo did enter the tent.
it would be nice to think that today the media could not have a case wrapped up before it even gets to court, but unfortunately it seems these kind of cases still go on today. i'm australian(not sure where you're from) and if you did a poll at home today you'd probably still find a very high percentage who still think she's guilty. even though evidence was found 8 years later which led to her aquittal.
it seems the media has more sway than forensic evidence in some ways...
What evidence did they find that aquitted her officially? The matinay (spelling) jacket?
I'm from the U.S. so I may not have read all the material.
Thanks!
"I offer you this rose...my heart, my soul, my love."
"Love?"
- Legend
For anyone that wants to know more about this, I suggest you read:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/chamberlain1/1.html
After reading this, I have to say what a disgusting miscarriage of justice it was, and how appalled I am of the way the Australian Police and the Crown Prosecution handled the entire event.
Lindy Chamberlain was convicted by the media and the police, subsequently found guilty in a mockery of a trial (where the police withheld a lot of information that pointed to her innocence) and spent several years in jail, for a crime that she didnt commit and was totally innocent of. Thank God that she was finally found not guilty, and compensated for what had happened to her. Not that any money could compensate for what she and her family had to go through.
The subsequent testing of the car revealed that what was originally said to be blood was actually a paint related product which was put on all models of the cars in manufacture .
After Lindy had been in jail for some time a person in the area found the matinee jacket which proved that Mrs Chamberlain had been telling the truth - the prosecution also alleged that she had lied about the jacket .
Many of the Aboriginal trackers were never called as witnesses because of racism - they all believed Mrs Chamberlain's story because they saw the dingo tracks and the sections where the dingo has rested and put the child down .
The whole case was a travesty - what the film shows very clearly is the extent of hysteria in the Australian community at the time and their ignorance of the belief systems of people from minority faiths .
With today's technology, Horatio Caine would solve the case in under an hour.
Caine: "The dingo took her baby," (Puts on sunglasses) "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!" o_O
from minority faiths
The judge bacially gave the jury the reason they should acquit...Lindy was standing in the BBQ area when her husband and the other camper mentioned hearing Azaria crying even though she had just been put to bed alseep. Lindy was surprised by it and went right to the tent and saw the dingo. The prosecution contended that the baby was killed in the car and then moved to the tent. The crying would not have been heard while Lindy was around others then.
Was a huge travesty of justice.
Don't be so sensitive. Here are figures taken from the 2006 Census:
Seventh Day Adventists Total 55,261. Percentage of Population 0.3%
I think that this can safely be called a "minority faith"
Norm
Not only that - the scientific evidence was found to be flawed. Scientist Joy Kuhl found blood where it was actually a spray of manufacturer's paint on the floor of the car.
shareThe best forensic chemicals known at the time were used, but they reacted to a deadening agent the same way they reacted to foetal blood.
DNA testing did not exist at the time. Look at the number of convictions overturned in the United States since DNA. Look at the number of Americans executed who were later found not to be guilty after DNA testing of exhibits.
Although it is a while since I have read it, I believe that it is clearly stated in John Bryson's book that the forensic evidence actually produced at the final trial was sufficient for an acquittal.
The jury, the NT prosecution and the general public were so caught up in Lindy's (apparent) stoic nature, and Michael's inability to string two sentences together under questioning, that they "went with the heart" rather than the brain, and found her guilty.
It was not the fault of the (then) available forensic evidence, it was the fault of the Australian Public and press.
Norm
[deleted]
Why not take a car, go to thos Aboriginal lands, tell them the story and ask them to take a ride and help save the case to an innocent woman?
Your lies have killed more men in a day than i have in a lifetime. --CSM--
[deleted]
I read about the case in The Times (before The Digger ruined it) and thought they were bang to rights. Considering the way that real Australians are treated by the government, these days I'm only surprised that they didn't pin it on one of them.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
[deleted]
I apologise MadBiddy, I missed a comma.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
MadBiddy was the Jury chairman, the police told her that the Chamberlains were Palestinian.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
[deleted]
[deleted]
They heavily utilised Aboriginal trackers (or 'blacktrackers', as they were known) in the search. The Aboriginal people of the area had no problems believing that a dingo would be capable of such an act.
share
I just saw that in 2012 a coroner officically said a dingo did it.
Um, it took until 2012 to tell this?!
I know that testing was very different back in 1980, but surely they had basic tests that could tell if the jacket had dingo spit on it?
And why this declaration after all that time?
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."
And why this declaration after all that time?
_______________________
Good question. I would say for 'shame'. The kind of authorities involved, always have a hard time admitting when they are mistaken or wrong. It needed time to die down.
The manner in which this case was handled was absolutely appalling. The NT police at the time were only out to big note themselves after the criticism they received about how they initially handled the investigation, not to mention the redneck attitudes. The irony is, it only proved how even more incompetent they were after Lindy ended up with a wrongful conviction. The evidence was all circumstantial and appeared to have no real solid grounding or proof that Lindy actually murdered her child. The prosecutions argument was contrived speculation and even somewhat absurd as to how Lindy allegedly killed her baby daughter. Not to mention confusing blood and hemoglobin forensic testing that the jury didn't even understand, and according to the film, ended up having to dismiss upon making their verdict decision. AND HOW CAN PAINT THAT LOOKED LIKE ARTERIAL SPRAY FOUND IN THE CHAMBERLAINS CAR, BE INCLUDED AS EVIDENCE WITHOUT EVEN TESTING TO SEE THAT IT WASN'T BLOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE??? WERE THE 80'S THE DARK AGES STILL??? Surely it doesn't take a genius to distinguish spray paint from blood, even in the archaic 80's. Grasping at straws!
With all the hype and furor that surrounded this case, I see the manipulation by the media (for their own personal agendas) and of the media by the legal system, to use the Chamberlains as scapegoats and an opportunity to prove to the Australian public that justice works, and to give the simpleminded, redneck lynch mob rabble in the pit something what they could tear up to shreds in a frenzy. Sam Neil who played Michael, makes a statement later in the film that, "Hell can't be any worse than this". I always thought that for a person to be proven 'guilty', it had to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they committed the crime of which they were accused. This didn't appear to happen here. Perhaps then we are still in the Dark Ages, in our ignorant mindsets.
Shame on the NT police at the time.
Shame on the media.
Shame on the prosecution.
Shame on the simpleminded jury for it's unfounded 'guilty' verdict, based on the facts or therefore "lack of" placed before them.
Technology wasn`t the problem - exercizing some common sense and approaching all available evidence in an unbiased fashion would have done it. Firstly, they should have asked themselves `why` would Streep whack the toddler? No apparent reason whatsoever. Secondly, why would she have whacked the toddler there and then - amongst all that crowd up and about, which woulda made the snuffing almost impossible to get away with. Only a moron or a lunatic would have attempted it at that time - and Streep obviously was neither. And, of course, had the court not thrown out or blatantly ignored all manner of expert opinion on forensic evidence and other stuff, she would have been acquitted real quick. The trial looked absolutely terrible. Unprofessional, biased to a tee. They just didn`t LIKE Streep because she didn`t behave like a stereotypical grieving mother and because of her marginal religious beliefs.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Lets not forget to mention an important aspect that was overlooked and\or dismissed; that Azaria was allegedly heard crying by some witnesses after Lindy had supposedly already killed her, just before going back to check on her and then seeing the dingo emerge from the tent.
The only real mistake Lindy made, (this aspect was raised in the film,during a discussion\argument with her husband), was neglecting to zip up the tent.
[deleted]