Back in the day, our local media was nuts about her doing it.
She didn't come across as a particularly likeable character, hard and aggressive (but then I can understand why she might have been like that given the circumstances).
There was never any evidence that a person was involved. That is kind of the point.
Everything presented as evidence was entirely consistent with a dingo or two having taken the baby. From the drag marks, the bite marks on the clothes, the tracks, what people heard, what people saw.
When Azaria's jacket was found 6-7 years later, it was next to a dingo lair quite some distance from where the Chamberlain's were camping in a remote area around Uluru.
The discovery of the jacket proved that Lindy wasn't lying as to what Azaria was wearing on the night.
The evidence against the Chamberlains was quite pathetic and I think most observers were astounded when she was convicted.
The delays in blaming a dingo until now have largely been relating to precedent. There had never been any other dingo attacks and people found it hard to accept a one off like this. However over the last 32 years there have been quite a few incidents involving dingoes attacking people, even killing a child.
We have had quite a few cases here where family pets have attacked and killed children.
A dingo attacking and killing a child is in effect no different, aside from the fact that they are wild dogs rather than someone's pet. And being wild, it's hard to point the finger at an individual canine and say "He did it".
There is no doubt that Azaria was taken by a dingo and eaten by dingoes.
No body will ever be found because, well, Australia is the same size as the USA and the part of Australia where this happened is desert and largely uninhabited. It was also 32 years ago.
The death of Azaria Chamberlain is a bit like the death of Princess Diana or the death of JFK to us here in Australia. Everyone has an opinion and seemingly, no amount of evidence is going to change those opinions.