MovieChat Forums > Evil Angels (1988) Discussion > confused

confused

posted 13 years ago by andrewdish
10 replies | jump to latest

what gets me about the trial is that most of the time the prosecution was just focusing on trying to prove that a dingo couldn't have done it. They felt if they could prove that the animal couldn't have done it, that it was murder and then it had to be the mother. I still am confused why the mother, why not the father, or basically anybody. The evidence against them was so week. How do you screw up saying that there was blood found in the car and then later find out it was rust protection. I realize they didn't have good DNA methods back then, but I atleast thought they could tell the difference between blood and spray on rust protection. Why not the father for murder and mother as the accesory? Where was the difining proof that the mother did it? where was there proof that the father was the accesory to murder?

[–] SpiltPersonality 10 years ago

Yeah, pretty much everyone is confused about that.

SpiltPersonality

[–] HairynosedWombat 10 years ago

Lindy Chamberlain had a window of opportunity that Michael didn't but she needed help to hide the body after killing her, so Michael had to help.

Rust protection paint would be iron based, and the blood detection chemicals used would have looked for iron in a stain. What wasn't brought out at the trial was that the German company that manufactured the test kit wrote to the police to tell them that how they used the kit was inappropriate, or that the kit didn't work the way they used it.

The police knew Lindy killed her baby so only looked for corroborating evidence.

You know, I've seen a lot of people walking around
With tombstones in their eyes

[–] Mike_Stockton 9 years ago

You seem to know a lot about this case. When was she supposed to have killed Azaria?

[–] HairynosedWombat 9 years ago

I think there was a 5 minute window after the children were put to bed. A ludicrous scenario but a year after the events in a stuffy courtroom a silver tongued lawyer painted a picture for 12 ignorant people about events far outside their experience that they believed.

I camped at the same place a year before the Chamberlains.
When the case broke I happened to be living near several Seventh Day Adventists, a bit weird but no more so than those people who sip bread and wine in a cannibalistic ritual.

Having lived in Darwin and knowing the people, I knew she was gone as soon as the rumours started. Northern Territorians were insular, isolated, crazy, lacked knowledge of the wider world, so would think Seventh Day Adventists were from Mars.

In his cloak of words strode the ringmaster

[–] Mike_Stockton 9 years ago

That probably aligns with the Crown case at her trial. That night, the Chamberlains were sitting around chatting with a group of people they'd met at the campsite they were staying at. Lindy was holding a very alive Azaria when she decided to put her to bed with the boys in the tent. She then returned to the group, and the prosecution case was that Azaria was now dead, having been murdered by Lindy as she was put to bed. I'd say this is the 5 minute window you refer to.

The only problem was, Michael and a number of other people in the group they were sitting with heard Azaria cry. Michael suggested she check on the baby, and it was as she returned to the tent that she saw a dingo leave the tent and Lindy then called out that a dingo had Azaria. She didn't have a chance to murder Azaria at this time, as she called out before she'd even gotten to the tent and from that point on the Chamberlains weren't left alone at any point.

Don't know why the jury would choose to ignore the evidence of the people who heard Azaria cry at a time when the Crown claimed she was already dead. Perhaps your knowledge of the place and people at the time helps explain it.

Right from the start, it's been a story with no winners.

[–] HairynosedWombat 9 years ago

The prosecution had an aristocratic professor from Britain with vast experience in forensic analysis and giving evidence saying that the baby's jumpsuit was cut with scissors, not teeth, and the car stains were blood.

The defence forensic expert mumbled and was inexperienced with giving evidence, but did articulate that the car stains were not blood.

Tribal Aboriginals who could have given evidence about dingoes, or who were there at the time and never queried the story of the dingo, were not called as witnesses. Neither was a woman who operated a dingo park and got a dingo to carry a 20kg bucket of sand. She made a mistake there, because Azaria weighed 20 lb, not 20 kg.

In his cloak of words strode the ringmaster

[–] shadaif 8 years ago

I don't think a baby that young would weigh 20lbs. Most babies don't weigh 20lbs until they are at least a year old.

"The end of the shoelace is called the...IT DOESN'T MATTER!"

[–] HairynosedWombat 8 years ago

Azaria certainly didn't weigh 20 kg, which is what the dingo was able to carry.

The masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Where was the difining proof that the mother did it? where was there proof that the father was the accesory to murder?

There was and is NONE! That's why eventually their convictions were quashed and they were given compensation, although nothing can come close to the cost of what they had to endure for many years.

Believe you me, when I say that in the aftermath of the Chamberlain case, no amount of scraping could remove the egg from the Northern Territory Legal System's face. It wasn't a good look! 🐭

[–] westal_sage 9 years ago

Well yeah I think you're getting into why she was eventually released, all charges dropped, etc.