Somebody posted this on another IMDb board but thought it should be linked here as well since it's major news on the Chamberlain casehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/world/asia/australia-dingo-inquest/index .html
shareI was coming here to post about that. Guess ya beat me to it. That's what I've always believed about it, personally. The prosecutor demonstrated that a dingo's jaws couldn't hold a baby's skull. It wouldn't have to be by the skull. It could be by the neck, or a limb, or the clothes.
shareI've always thought it bizarre that some people wouldn't consider it as plausible, after all a wild animal is wild and nearly all of them would attack an infant alone it thought it could kill and devour.
shareAnother report:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/11/12173435-coroner-dingo -took-baby-in-notorious-case?lite>1=43001
Warrior 9/10
Margin Call 9/10
How about some coverage from Aussie sources?http://www.smh.com.au/national/after-32-years-of-speculation-its-final ly-official-a-dingo-took-azaria-20120612-2071l.htmlhttp://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2012/06/12/307001_ntnews.htmlAnd the official coroner's report: http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/courtsupp/coroner/findings/other/chamberl ain_findings.pdf
share