One thing the film fails to address:
When the dingo is in the tent, Streep is with a lot of people. She CLEARLY did not murder her baby- she was screaming in the dark that the dingo took her child. At least 20 people were there to see she was not in the tent killing the child. Why then, was there a trial??? Where were the witnesses that night to testify her innocence? Completely lost.
[deleted]
I would be very interested to hear what you base your opinion on that Mrs Chamberlain should have stayed in prison. Exactly what fact or facts lead you to believe that she was involved in killing Azaria?
shareExactly what fact or facts lead you to believe that she was involved in killing Azaria?Don't bother asking her. She's an idiot and won't have any.
Lindy should've stayed in prison? Why? She did not kill her child!
shareThe trial WAS a witch hunt - the police bungled the search for witnesses, the forensic evidence was flawed (blood - really? It was paint on the car floor). You do know that she's since been exonerated as a bloodied baby's matinee jacket later came to light?
shareMy understanding is that, at the time, it was not believed that a dingo could carry off a baby like that. Dingo attacks on humans weren't well studied or well understood and a lot of people just didn't believe that a dingo had the strength to drag off an infant like that. Since the case, and because of it, I think that people in Australia have become much more aware of dingo attacks on children and that these animals can carry or drag fairly heavy loads with their mouths. Also, IIRC, some of Azaria Chamberlain's clothing had been removed from her body and was found undamaged. This also seemed to point to a human having undressed her rather than a dingo, which people believed would have destroyed any clothing that a child was wearing.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
I think the film did address it, and that it was being theorized that she killed her baby and took it to the tent and then staged the whole thing about the dingo. Really I thought that was very clear and brought up several times in the movie - did you watch this movie?
shareI saw the movie, but movies are movies, not always factual.
The prosecution case was this: the Chamberlains were having dinner at the camp site with a group of people they'd only just met. Lindy decided to put the baby Azaria to bed, and walked her to the tent, returning a short time later. It was the prosecution case that she killed Azaria then.
The only trouble is, after she'd returned to the group, leaving the baby in the tent, a number of people heard the baby cry. Her husband suggested she check on Azaria, and it was when she approached the tent, before even entering it, that she saw a dingo leaving the tent and called out that a dingo had taken Azaria. She had no opportunity to kill Azaria at that point.
These witnesses testified that they heard the baby cry. If this is true, then the prosecution case falls over.
There was no other chance for her to kill the baby. Azaria was seen alive by a number of people before Lindy put her in the tent. After she called out about the dingo, neither her nor her husband were left alone to then commit the crime, and the baby was missing anyway. They'd had no chance to conceal the body.
The jury decided to disregard these and many other facts that conflicted with the prosecution case. Read the book Evil Angels by John Bryson if you are really interested in this case. If that doesn't convince you that Lindy Chamberlain was innocent, then you just don't want to believe she's innocent.