Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.The Azaria Chamberlain / dingo baby case - were Lindy and Michael Chamberlain treated fairlyby the Northern Territory justice system?
Issue outline by J M McInerney
On December 13, 1995, a third inquest into the death of the nine-week old baby, Azaria Chamberlain, in 1980, returned an open verdict.
The result of this verdict, as stated by the Northern Territory coroner, Mr John Lowndes, is that `The cause and manner of Azaria's death cannot be determined, and must remain unknown.'
This finding follows two previous inquests.
The first inquest exonerated the child's parents and determined that a dingo took the child. The second suggested that Mrs Chamberlain had killed her child and her husband had acted as an accessory.
The resulting trial, verdict and subsequent overturning of that verdict have generated more debate than possibly any case in Australia's legal history.
One of the aspects of that debate has been extensive criticism of the manner in which the Northern Territory's legal system dealt with the case.
Background
On August 17, 1980, nine and a half week old Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from a campsite at Ayers Rock (Uluru).
Her parents, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, claimed the baby had been taken from their tent by a dingo and Mrs Chamberlain claimed to have seen a dingo carry the child away.
The first inquest, in February, 1980, found that a dingo had taken the child and that the parents had no involvement in the child's death, but suggested that another person may have been involved in disposing of the baby's body.
Toward the end of 1981 the case was reopened in response to new forensic evidence which supposedly raised doubts about the findings of the first inquest.
The Northern Territory Supreme Court overturned the findings of the first inquest and in February, 1982, a second inquest resulted in the Chamberlains being committed for trial for the murder of their daughter.
Lindy Chamberlain was found guilty and her husband was found to have acted as an accessory. Mrs Chamberlain was sentenced to a mandatory life term while Mr Chamberlain was released on a good behaviour bond.
Over the next two years there were two appeals against the verdict, one in the Victorian Supreme Court and one in the High Court of Australia. Both were rejected.
Lindy Chamberlain, who had been pregnant during her trial, gave birth to a daughter while in prison.
This child and her two sons lived with their father.
In February, 1986, a matinee jacket was found belonging to Azaria at Uluru. This confirmed claims made by Mrs Chamberlain about what the baby had been wearing and undermined some of the forensic evidence that had supported her conviction.
The Northern Territory Government remitted her life sentence and Lindy Chamberlain was released from jail.
In June, 1987, the Federal Government established a royal commission which investigated the trial evidence in the light of new forensic evidence and concluded that a jury would have been instructed to acquit Mrs Chamberlain if the current evidence had been before it.
In September, 1988, the Chamberlain's convictions were quashed by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal.
In May, 1992, the Chamberlains receive $1.3 million compensation for wrongful conviction. They had sought $3 million.
On November 29, 1995, the Chamberlains made submissions before a Northern Territory coroner asking for a ruling that a dingo took their baby and that the findings of the 1987 royal commission be upheld.
Arguments supporting the actions of the Northern Territory legal system in the Azaria Chamberlain case
The decision of the Northern Territory police to continue to investigate the Azaria case after the first inquest has been defended on two grounds.
The first justification given is that the finding in the original inquest left some matters to be investigated.
The second justification offered is that later forensic evidence suggested the Chamberlain's guilt and therefore demanded further police investigation.
The first inquest, begun in December, 1980, and ending on February 20, 1981, found that `Azaria Chamberlain ... met her death when attacked by a wild dingo ...'.
This inquest also absolved the Chamberlains and their children of any responsibility in the death. However, it did find that a person, probably a white person, was involved in the disposal of the body.
This finding, suggesting human intervention, was made on the basis of damage to the child's jumpsuit found seven days after the baby disappeared.
The then judgement of forensic experts was that the damage appeared not to have been caused by a dingo.
It has been claimed that the Northern Territory police kept the case open and pursued their inquiries in an attempt to clarify the nature of this supposed human intervention in the disposal of the body.
These police inquiries appear to have been informal as the investigations were not officially re-opened until September 19, 1981, when the Northern Territory's Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, ordered the police to re-open the case.
Mr Everingham ordered police investigations to resume in response to new evidence that he had received.
The evidence came through an Adelaide-based odontologist, Dr Ken Brown.
Dr Brown had given evidence at the first inquest that a dingo's jaw would be unable to carry the weight of a 4.5kg baby. (Dr Brown's evidence had not been accepted at this inquest.)
Dr Brown had then sought and gained permission from the Northern Territory's police commissioner, Peter McAulay, to take Azaria's blood-stained clothing to a forensic conference in Norway.
The head of forensic medicine at the London Hospital Medical College, Professor James Cameron, examined Azaria's clothing and claimed that the nature of the damage showed the dingo story to be false. Professor Cameron also claimed to have identified a handprint, probably female, on the baby's jumpsuit.
It was this evidence that lead to investigations being formally re-opened.
Those who defend the actions of the Northern Territory's legal system in its handling of the Chamberlain case stress the apparently damning nature of the forensic evidence that emerged as the case was further investigated.
The Chamberlain's car was impounded and forensic tests appeared to prove that foetal (baby) blood was present in the front seat area of the vehicle, in the spare wheel well of the boot, on toe nail scissors belonging to the family, on a towel and in a camera bag.
Further forensic evidence appeared to confirm that the damage to Azaria's clothing had been made by scissors, not a dingo, while it was also claimed that there was not enough blood-staining or other damage on Azaria's jumpsuit to be consistent with the child having been taken by a dingo.
Further expert evidence appeared to prove that a dingo was both highly unlikely to take a baby from a tent and would have been unable to seize and drag a child in the way the Chamberlain's defence later suggested.
This forensic evidence has been offered as a solid justification both for the finding of the second inquest that resulted in the Chamberlain's being committed for trial and for the verdict of the jury in that trial.
The trial lasted from September 13, 1982 to October 29, 1982. The jury of nine men and three women found Lindy Chamberlain guilty of the murder of her daughter, Azaria, and her husband, Michael, was found guilty of having acted as an accessory.
The jury's verdict has been defended as a logical outcome based on the evidence.
One of the juror's, Mr Ian Buckland, has said that he `never, absolutely never' believed the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence presented to the court.
Mr Buckland has further claimed, `I can honestly say that I believe that the NT police in the presentation of their case acted honourably, there was no reason to entertain that they were on some sort of vendetta. The judge impressed me with his fairness. I think the defence did a good job.
`I came away from it thinking the justice system we have in Australia was among the best in the world. We have a fair system, everybody has an opportunity to prove their innocence.'
Defenders of the actions of the Northern Territory legal system through the second inquest and the trial stress that only later forensic developments made it possible to prove that what appeared to be sprays of foetal blood were in fact a sound deadening compound.
Further, only when Azaria's matinee jacket was found in February, 1986, was it possible to explain the relative lack of damage and blood-staining to the baby's jumpsuit which had, it then became clear, been worn under the matinee jacket.
It is not reasonable, it has been claimed, to condemn the Northern Territory's legal system for acting on what it believed at that time was accurate forensic evidence.
Finally, the ruling of the third coroner, Mr Lowndes, has also been defended on a number of grounds.
Firstly, Mr Lowndes has been approved for noting that `as a matter of public record, the law of the land holds Mr and Mrs Chamberlain to be innocent.'
Secondly, Mr Lowndes did not rule out the possibility of the baby having been taken by a dingo, rather he argued that the evidence that this had occurred was not conclusive enough for this to be his finding.
Mr Lowndes said that he agreed with Mr Justice Morling (who headed the 1987 Royal Commission) that the evidence gave `considerable support for the view that a dingo may have taken Azaria.'.
However, Mr Lowndes defended his inability to make this his finding by stressing that no body had been found and claimed that for this reason, and others, an open finding was unavoidable, because he did not know, as a fact, that a dingo had taken the child.
Mr Lowndes stated, `... the evidence is not sufficiently clear, cogent or exact to reasonably support such a finding on the balance of probabilities.'
Mr Lowndes concluded, `An open finding is tantamount to a statement that, on all of the evidence, the cause and manner of Azaria's death cannot be determined and must remain unknown.'
The Northern Territory legal system and the Northern Territory government have consistently maintained that throughout the whole period since 1980 the Chamberlain case has been handled as well as the prevailing state of knowledge made possible.
The acting NT Attorney-General, Mr Fred Finch, has said that there would be no apology as the Chamberlains had requested.
Mr Finch has claimed, `From the Government's point of view, we simply say the matter is now finalised, complete, book closed, final chapter written and time to get back on with life ...'
Arguments criticising the actions of the Northern Territory legal system in the Azaria Chamberlain case
The manner in which the Northern Territory legal system conducted the Chamberlain case has been condemned on a number of grounds.
The continuation of the investigation beyond the first inquest has been condemned. The quality of the investigation itself, especially the forensic work, has been criticised. The investigation has been claimed to have been too selective, ignoring evidence that might have suggested the Chamberlain's innocence. While the final inquest finding has been criticised as being unnecessarily inconclusive and bowing to popular anti-Chamberlain feeling within the Northern Territory.
Critics of the manner in which the Chamberlain case was handled believe that it should never have been taken beyond the first inquest.
The coroner who conducted that inquest, Mr Denis Barritt, has stated, `...it was not a difficult case to decide - there was too much independent evidence (against Mrs Chamberlain being involved) to ignore.'
On the question of the quality of the forensic work, critics of the Northern Territory's legal system, such as author John Bryson, have referred to the manner in which it was supposedly established that there were no dingo hairs in the Chamberlain's tent.
The laboratory task was apparently given to an inexperienced, young constable. It has been claimed she was given no dingo hair for comparison and so pulled a strand of hair from her own head. Any material not similar to this she did not collect.
The conclusion drawn from this by critics of the Northern Territory police is that poor procedures and inadequate supervision among the police investigating squad may have been the reason no dingo hairs were recovered from the Chamberlain's tent.
A further complaint about forensic procedures relates to the work of Joy Kuhl, a NSW forensic biologist working on the case, who identified the supposed foetal blood in the Chamberlain's car and on other of their possessions.
It has since been established that much of the `foetal blood' inside the vehicle was actually a sound deadening material applied by GMH when the car was being assembled.
It was also later established that the chemical used to test for the presence of blood on the car carpets and elsewhere reacts with other substances, including copper dust.
The Chamberlains had come from Mount Isa where copper is mined and later tests revealed that other cars from the street where they had lived also appeared to test positive for blood.
Ms Kuhl has not been criticised so much for not detecting the sound deadening substance nor for not knowing of the effects of copper dust, rather she has been criticised for destroying all her test samples so that none of her tests could be replicated and verified.
Criticism has also been levelled at those who examined the inside of the Chamberlain's car and found the supposed foetal blood.
It was only after the trial that anyone sought to use the angle and spread of the spray under the dash board to try to find the location of its source. When this was done the source of the spray was found to be a drain hole in the passenger compartment of the car. An inspection of the wheel arch on the other side revealed the same substance which had been thought to be foetal blood. It hardly seemed possible that Azaria's blood could have reached such a spot.
The criticism therefore made of the investigative procedures is that if they had been sufficiently thorough originally, it would have been recognised that the substance on the inside and under surfaces of the car could not have been Azaria's blood.
It has also been claimed that the evidence of witnesses who were the Chamberlains fellow campers at Uluru was selectively attended to and used selectively in court and at the second inquest.
One of the witnesses at the Uluru campsite in August 1980, Max Whittaker, has made a number of claims both about what he and others saw and the manner in which he believes their evidence was `manipulated by the legal process and those in authority'.
Mr Whittaker was part of a search party which followed what appeared to be the tracks of a dingo dragging something. Some of the imprints he and others observed appeared to have been made by a knitted garment.
Mr Whittaker claims that he was not called to testify at any inquest and that when he was interviewed prior to the second inquest `the police ... were interested only in answers that supported the murder theory.'
Mr Whittaker also claimed the police investigators `were dismissive of, and took only selective notes on, any evidence that supported the murder theory. They never wrote notes on the search described ...'
Mr Whittaker further claimed that he had been surprised to find himself called as a witness for the prosecution at the Chamberlain's trial.
Mr Whittaker has stated, `On the stand I was questioned in a guarded and selective way, which I later realised played down the dingo evidence. Both our family and the other camp families felt that our evidence was cleverly and selectively used to enhance the prosecution case.'
John Bryson has also claimed that a memo the Uluru head ranger sent to his superiors in mid-1980, warning of the danger of dingo depredations against babies and children was suppressed through the first two inquests and was finally only brought to the attention of the Chamberlain's lawyers before their trial when it was anonymously forwarded to them.
Finally the finding of the third inquest has been condemned as `mean and minimalist'. This is the phrasing of Age columnist Moira Rayner.
Ms Rayner has criticised Mr Lowndes' finding for doing no more than acknowledging that once the Chamberlains had had their convictions quashed, as they were in September 1988 by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal, then they had to be regarded as innocent before the law as are `all persons unless and until their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.'
Critics have also been perplexed by Mr Lowndes' failure to be convinced by the evidence suggesting that a dingo took Azaria.
Critics have pointed out that this evidence included the first hand evidence of Lindy Chamberlain and the evidence of other campers who heard a baby cry and a dog or dingo growl at the time the infant was apparently taken.
It also included the evidence of those campers and the park ranger who saw dingos prowling around the camp area apparently emboldened by hunger in a time of drought.
Other evidence that has been referred to is that of those who saw dingo tracks at the mouth of the Chamberlain's tent and who followed the trail of a dingo apparently dragging something from the tent.
It has also been stressed by a range of critics, including John Bryson, that by the time of this third inquest, virtually all the expert evidence which had claimed to dispute that a dingo could have taken a baby had been discredited.
Mr Bryson then asks why, if there were evidence to support that a dingo had taken the child and no substantial evidence to disprove this, did Mr Lowndes not find that `on the balance of probabilities' a dingo was responsible for the child's death?
Mr Bryson's answer to this question is that the Northern Territory `culture' is so hostile to Lindy Chamberlain that Mr Lowndes has been in some way influenced by this.
Further implications
It is probable that this third inquest will not mark the end of the Azaria Chamberlain case.
Both Michael and Lindy Chamberlain were clearly dissatisfied with aspects of the third coroner's finding and Lindy stated immediately after leaving the inquest that this may well not be the last that the media nor the public at large would hear of the case.
The implication appeared to be that she and her former husband may take some further action in an attempt to have their belief that a dingo took their daughter Azaria legally recognised.
It may also not be the end of the case from the point of view of the Northern Territory police.
The open finding leaves it open to the police to conduct further inquiries. It has been claimed that though the Chamberlain's could never again be charged with the murder of Azaria, as it is not possible to be tried for the same offence twice, the police might pursue investigations with a view to bringing other charges against them. (Those convinced of the Chamberlain's innocence regard such a possibility with disquiet.)
It is also possible that the police might conduct further investigations with a view to determining if any other person or persons were involved in the baby's disappearance.
Some of the larger questions the case raises also remain a cause for concern.
The case raises significant doubts about the weight that should be attached to forensic evidence.
Virtually all the forensic evidence that led to the conviction of the Chamberlains in 1982 has since been shown to be valueless.
Defenders of forensic evidence have noted that in most instances it is increased forensic knowledge and improved forensic technique that has led to the discrediting of the original findings.
This, some argue, proves the value of forensic evidence, as it is constantly under review and its interpretation can always be improved.
However, the fact remains that had the Northern Territory allowed capital punishment at the time of Lindy Chamberlain's trial she may well have been executed largely on the basis of forensic evidence which was later shown to be faulty. As it is she spent three years in prison.
The case has also been the occasion for criticism of the adversarial system which is part of our criminal justice system.
It has been claimed that had the prosecution been less concerned to prove the Chamberlain's guilt than it was to establish the truth of what happened many of the more disturbing features of this case may not have occurred.
According to this line of argument, where it is the job of the prosecution to prove guilt and of the defence to suggest innocence, too determined a job on the part of either party may lead to a miscarriage of justice.
There are those who claim that justice is better served where the investigating bodies are concerned to establish the truth of what happened without any predetermined bias.
A further on-going cause of concern regarding the Chamberlain case is the influence that popular perceptions may have on the conduct and outcome of a case.
There are those who argue that popular prejudice against the Chamberlains and Lindy Chamberlain in particular may have had some effect on the manner in which her case was handled.
The media, in particular, has been criticised for the way in which it is said to have sensationalised the original disappearance of the baby. Some media outlets have also been criticised for popularising negative views of the Chamberlains.
Further there are some social critics who maintain that the Chamberlain case reflects poorly on Australian society as a whole.
According to this point of view the Chamberlains suffered because they were Seventh Day Adventists, a religion which some claim most Australians have little knowledge of or sympathy for.
It has also been suggested that the treatment the Chamberlains received and in particular the popular perceptions of Lindy Chamberlain reflect a misogynist (woman-hating) strain in Australian culture.
The Chamberlain case has been presented by some as a test of Australia's tolerance and sense of fair play. Most of those who present the case in this light suggest that it was a test we failed.
Sources
The Age
1/10/95 page 2 news item by Gervase Greene, `Azaria facts clear: ex-coroner'
25/11/95 page 19 (News Extra) analysis by Gay Alcorn, `Azaria: final verdict draws to an end'
30/11/95 page 1 news item by Gay Alcorn, `Final chapter set to close on Azaria saga'
30/11/95 page 4 news item by Gay Alcorn, `Chamberlains in renewed plea'
1/12/95 page 13 comment and analysis by John Bryson, `Stirring up old, evil angels'
14/12/95 page 1 and 6 news item by Gay Alcorn, `Azaria: still a mystery'
14/12/95 page 6 news item by Paul Conroy, `Original charges closed forever'
14/12/95 page 6 analysis by Gay Alcorn, `Still the rumours, innuendo continue'
16/12/95 page 13 (News Extra) comment and analysis by John Bryson, `Dingo justice'
18/12/95 page 15 comment by Moira Rayner, `A mother's rough justice'
23/12/95 page 11 comment by Max Whittaker, `A witness to the persecution'
The Australian
30/11/95 pages 1 and 2 news item by David Nason, `Chamberlains' final plea: a dingo did it'
14/12/95 page 1 and 4 news item by David Nason, `Coroner rebuffs Chamberlains'
14/12/95 page 1 and 4 comment by Adrian McGregor, `Lindy's cry in the wilderness'
14/12/95 page 4 edited text of coroner John Lowndes' finding, `Cause of Azaria's death must remain unknown'
14/12/95 page 11 analysis by David Nason, `Justice with blood on its hands'
16/12/95 page 1 comment by Adrian McGregor, `The macho conspiracy against Lindy'
16/12/95 page 23 comment and analysis by Ken Crispin, `An Australian witch-hunt'
The Herald Sun
30/11/95 page 16 analysis by Bill Hitchings, `Azaria case tested the truth'
14/12/94 page 1 and 4 news item by Bill Hitchings, `Devasted: shock at Azaria verdict'
14/12/95 page 20 analysis by Bill Hitchings, `Disappearance still an enigma'
Quotes
`What are we? 15 years down the track, and all the way it's been one bungle after another. You hear the old saying truth and justice will out, and here we are, the final chapter, and we still can't get it right'
Ms Sally Shaw, a former witness who camped near the Chamberlain's Ayers Rock camp site in 1980, commenting on the third coronial finding
`I can honestly say that I believe that the NT police in the presentation of their case acted honourably, there was no reason to entertain that they were on some sort of vendetta. The judge impressed me with his fairness. I think the defence did a good job. I came away from it thinking the justice system we have in Australia was among the best in the world. We have a fair system, everybody has an opportunity to prove their innocence'
Mr Ian Buckland, one of the jurors in the 1982 trial