Lindy Chamberlain

[Goody]

Oh dear! Oops! No, for some reason, I underlined "Devon" which created the link. Didn't mean for it to link to anything, much less icky stuff. Sorry all! :blushing: Of course, I had to check it out..lol..I'll PM the law so she can edit it...too funny

I wonder how many Darlie sleuthers ended up at this guys site. LOL!

 

[beesy]

She never got a new trial ,they just released her when they found the clothing she said the baby had been wearing folded up neatly in a pile in a cave many years later!! And there was no way they could have put them there!

I was rereading some of the posts and this one confuses me. Why did folded up clothes in a cave make Lindy innocent? Do they now agree that a dingo killed the baby? If so, who folded the clothes? Or am I reading this wrong? Most likely...
I just read several articles about the case. I realize you've studied it much more than I, but from what I read the reporters said the jumpsuit and diaper were found folded, but they weren't. They were found a week later, right?
Then several years later, police found the little matinee jacket Lindy said the baby was wearing. I think they said it was near dingo lairs and was not folded. So, from what I understand the jacket also being found is what made the police realize they needed to re-examine everything?
And I noticed that this case is truly a case of shoddy police work. No pix were taken of the "crime scene". There was evidence that a dingo had dragged something away from the tent. No pix were taken of the paw prints near the tent. No pix were taken of a little depression which looked like the dingo had put down it's burden to rest. A policeman picked up the jumpsuit, then placed it back to take pix. Like you said, tons of blunders. Nothing at all like Darlie's case. There is tons of forensic evidence, many pix and many blood samples taken. Just on and on...I can see why the Lindy case upsets you so. She did get screwed, but Darlie didn't.
Source:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/fillicide/azaria/

 

[beesy]

Ok./ I've had a loooooong weekend, I admit I am not thinking very coherently at the moment- but you've lost me.

You said you though Devon died suddenly because his eyes were open.

I quoted the transcripts that shows the doc who did the autposy said cause of death was the bleeding out from the stab wounds and that he would have taken a few minutes to die.

Regardless of whether he had his eyes open or not I'm going with the doc's cause of death because she knows what she is talking about. He may or may not have been awake (though if his eyes were open then it suggest he was- just like Damon was).

I have no idea what dying with your eyes open means generally.

Ok, so I got obssessed with the eyes open thing. :crazy: What it comes down it to is I don't want Devon to have bled to death. Ugh! I guess I need to face it though:furious:

 

[beesy]

:laugh:

I wonder how many Darlie sleuthers ended up at this guys site. LOL!

Maybe they enjoyed checking it out :blushing:

 

[kez]

Lindy & Michael were both officially cleared of Azaria's murder by the NT Court of Appeals on Sept 15 1988 and declared innocent [convictions quashed] In 1992 they received a settlement from the NT govt for wrongful imprisonment. [not that money makes it better!]

The clothing that turned up [matinee jacket]was important in that Lindy had claimed Azaria was wearing it as well as the jumpsuit,nobody believed her. It backed her version of events when it turned up and led to more investigation & re testing.

The matinee jacket was not folded, it was found not far from where they found the jumpsuit initially in an area with a lot of dingo lairs, it was found in a cave. The only reason it was ever found was because a tourist had been found dead after falling & they were doing a scene search. The matinee jacket had vegetation & forensic evidence consistent with Lindy & Michaels version of events. Lindy was released once it was found as it added to the already growing evidence of a wrongful conviction [ faulty forensics relating to the blood in the car & evidence of scissor cuts on the jumpsuit]

Up until this time, dingo deaths & maulings were not reported, not sure why? Anyway, people generally believed that dingo's were harmless, which is what caused people to think that Lindy killed Azaria. Since then, we have had several deaths related to dingoes, even a 10 yr old was killed :-( so if it happened now, noone would have probably doubted her.

I don't see any similarity between the 2 cases at all, although I haven't followed Darlie's case very well.


Beesy, I hope this helps to clear up your Q's, not make it more confusing as I'm not sure if I explained it all very well.

 

[Goody]

Up until this time, dingo deaths & maulings were not reported, not sure why? Anyway, people generally believed that dingo's were harmless, which is what caused people to think that Lindy killed Azaria. Since then, we have had several deaths related to dingoes, even a 10 yr old was killed :-( so if it happened now, noone would have probably doubted her.

QUOTE]

I don't know. Not long ago a three year old was attacked by neighborhood dogs here in the states and one of the parents was convicted of murder, only to discover some years later that it was a dog attack. A wrongful conviction can and does happen, esp in the deaths of children when parents do not have the money to do expensive testing to prove their innocence. Forensic experts can make mistakes.

That did not happen to Darlie though. She had one of the best criminal attys in the area, and even in these many years after the conviction has never hired outside forensic experts to dispute the state's case. The most her attys have ever said about the expert's in their case is they "could have" been wrong because of x. y, and z. They never say "the experts are wrong because our tests prove it." Or even, "the blood could have been caused by blah-blah-blah and our tests prove it could happen that way." You'd think in ten years they would have something significant to free her if there was anything out there to be had.

 

[kez]

I don't know. Not long ago a three year old was attacked by neighborhood dogs here in the states and one of the parents was convicted of murder, only to discover some years later that it was a dog attack. A wrongful conviction can and does happen, esp in the deaths of children when parents do not have the money to do expensive testing to prove their innocence. Forensic experts can make mistakes.

That did not happen to Darlie though. She had one of the best criminal attys in the area, and even in these many years after the conviction has never hired outside forensic experts to dispute the state's case. The most her attys have ever said about the expert's in their case is they "could have" been wrong because of x. y, and z. They never say "the experts are wrong because our tests prove it." Or even, "the blood could have been caused by blah-blah-blah and our tests prove it could happen that way." You'd think in ten years they would have something significant to free her if there was anything out there to be had.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that mistakes aren't still made, I just meant specifically to the Chamberlain case, if it had happened now with all the cases of dingoes attacking people. I'm sure wrongful convictions are still happening, especially if people can't afford to pay for their own testing to check the results.

I agree with you about Darlie, why hasn't an effort to have forensic evidence re-tested if it can prove her innocence? I think if it was me, I'd go for a cheaper attorney & pay for the evidence that proves my innocence to be re-tested & used in appeal rather than sit in a jail as a convicted murderer.

 

[beesy]

Lindy & Michael were both officially cleared of Azaria's murder by the NT Court of Appeals on Sept 15 1988 and declared innocent [convictions quashed] In 1992 they received a settlement from the NT govt for wrongful imprisonment. [not that money makes it better!]

That's what I assumed a pardon was in Austraila. Breehannah6 said that Lindy never had her name cleared and all she got was a pardon. Since in the States they are really the same thing I couldn't figure out what she meant by pardon. Made no sense to me.

The clothing that turned up [matinee jacket]was important in that Lindy had claimed Azaria was wearing it as well as the jumpsuit,nobody believed her. It backed her version of events when it turned up and led to more investigation & re testing.
The matinee jacket was not folded, it was found not far from where they found the jumpsuit initially in an area with a lot of dingo lairs, it was found in a cave. The only reason it was ever found was because a tourist had been found dead after falling & they were doing a scene search. The matinee jacket had vegetation & forensic evidence consistent with Lindy & Michaels version of events. Lindy was released once it was found as it added to the already growing evidence of a wrongful conviction [ faulty forensics relating to the blood in the car & evidence of scissor cuts on the jumpsuit

I read that in the article I gave as my source. Breehannah6 said it was folded and found in a cave, which didn't make sense so I did some digging on my own. I'm not sure if she thinks the dingo folded the jacket or what..lol

I don't see any similarity between the 2 cases at all, although I haven't followed Darlie's case very well

only that parents and children are involved...I noticed in the article that no photos were taken around the camp or of dingo prints. That little depression which they said looked like the dingo had dropped something should have been a big clue as well as the drag marks and paw prints. They also should have paid more attention to the blood spatter in the tent. And besides all that, saying a dingo took her baby is not the best cover in the world. If people thought they were fairly harmless, that's a pretty dumb story for her to invent if she had killed the baby.
In Darlie's case, there are photos galore, tapes, interviews, blood spatter evidence that was well documented and other evidence which doesn't fit any type of intruder theory, be it a dingo or a hired hit man.

Beesy, I hope this helps to clear up your Q's, not make it more confusing as I'm not sure if I explained it all very well

Yes, thank you. Everything you said makes perfect sense. In most cases, the easiest thing is normally the right thing. When you start wading thru a bunch of muck, it gets too complicated and it usually doesn't fit into the story. The thing which makes the most sense with the Lindy case is that a dingo stole her baby. Once they started trying to prove that Lindy had time to kill the baby, bury it, rebury it, tear the clothes and so on, things got too convoluted and it just doesn't work. So what's the thing that makes the most sense with Darlie? That she killed the boys and injured herself. Nothing else works

 

[beesy]

I don't know. Not long ago a three year old was attacked by neighborhood dogs here in the states and one of the parents was convicted of murder, only to discover some years later that it was a dog attack. A wrongful conviction can and does happen, esp in the deaths of children when parents do not have the money to do expensive testing to prove their innocence. Forensic experts can make mistakes[/color]

I remember that case. The girl was even still alive when her parents or parent(which?) found her and she mumbled "the dogs did it" before passing out. Is that the one? There was something about how the cuts didn't look like bite marks or nails. Did they get a new trial? I know they(or he/she?) were released. I recall that somehow they did find some bruises which looked like paw prints. I don't know if they had to exhume her or not.

That did not happen to Darlie though. She had one of the best criminal attys in the area, and even in these many years after the conviction has never hired outside forensic experts to dispute the state's case. The most her attys have ever said about the expert's in their case is they "could have" been wrong because of x. y, and z. They never say "the experts are wrong because our tests prove it." Or even, "the blood could have been caused by blah-blah-blah and our tests prove it could happen that way." You'd think in ten years they would have something significant to free her if there was anything out there to be had.

Even without alllllllllll the evidence they have, this right here shows she's guilty. Nobody to dispute any of the evidence, no testing, only her word and Darin's. I bet if she hadn't received the DP, everybody would think she is guilty. Most of these people are using Darlie in their campain against the DP.

 

[kez]

How's this for coincidence? LOL, just as we were discussing it
A 25-year-old woman has walked into an Alice Springs newspaper office claiming to be Azaria Chamberlain.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16385163-421,00.html

Lindy was definitely cleared, I don't know why Breehannah6 thinks she hasn't been or where she heard the jacket was folded. Lindy has come back to Oz with her husband Rick Creighton and is on the Speakers circuit. They were building a guesthouse on the Oz coast at one stage, but I'm not sure if that went ahead.


That article is pretty good reference too, I also like this one, which is http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/chamberlain/chamberlainhome.html it's got partial police interviews as well as a basic chronology and summarises the various coroners hearings accurately. It also has some photo's from the time. Lindy also has a site in progress http://www.lindychamberlain.com/

I have no clue why they didn't follow standard crime scene procedure, I also don't understand why the aboriginal trackers were basically all but ignored, especially in that area. I've always been amazed that she was convicted, eyewitness & tracking evidence was discounted as well as forensics being incorrect. :doh:

I guess what I think is, Darlie and her supporters have had a long time to disprove any incorrect evidence and hasn't. The Chamberlains and their supporters re-tested, re-interviewed and re-investigated,they didn't just talk about it, they did it.

 

[beesy]

How's this for coincidence? LOL, just as we were discussing it
A 25-year-old woman has walked into an Alice Springs newspaper office claiming to be Azaria Chamberlain

Thanks for the link. Um, hmmm well, she's not the prettiest young lady I've ever seen, bless her heart. Of course she went to the paper first, not the cops. I like the flashbacks she has. She can remember being 9 weeks old. LOL

 

[kez]

Thanks for the link. Um, hmmm well, she's not the prettiest young lady I've ever seen, bless her heart. Of course she went to the paper first, not the cops. I like the flashbacks she has. She can remember being 9 weeks old. LOL

You're welcome Beesy. I thought that was interesting too, I can't even remember when I was under 10! LOL
I don't think she looks at all like the other 3 children. It's strange the way they worded the first story released, it was the male who encouraged her to go to the media. My head just spins sometimes!

 

[accordn2me]

A wrongful conviction can and does happen, esp in the deaths of children when parents do not have the money to do expensive testing to prove their innocence. Forensic experts can make mistakes.

:clap:

That did not happen to Darlie though. She had one of the best criminal attys in the area, and even in these many years after the conviction has never hired outside forensic experts to dispute the state's case. The most her attys have ever said about the expert's in their case is they "could have" been wrong because of x. y, and z. They never say "the experts are wrong because our tests prove it." Or even, "the blood could have been caused by blah-blah-blah and our tests prove it could happen that way." You'd think in ten years they would have something significant to free her if there was anything out there to be had.

If the judge would grant them access to the evidence, maybe they would test it.

Mulder, bless his heart, may have been "one of the best criminal attys in the area" at one time, but he came across as a bumbling idiot in Mark Tolle's court room. That would be accordn2me reading the transcripts.:razz:

 

[Breehannah6]

No I am so dumb I thought a dingo folded the clothes!lol NOT!

The first inquest the coroner said that there was person or persons unknown involved in the disposal of this babies body!Long before they arrested her charging her with murder. The drag marks (,that actually led to the home of a person who owned a cross dingo dog that was never seen again after that night)were NEVER reported that all came out years later.
The gist of it is
if you read the book is that a dingo cross mutt took the baby back home and the owner disposed of the dog clothes and baby! The Australian public were never given the whole picture! They did take photos of the blood splatter on the tent,but lets face it the Northern Territory was really outback in 1980. I suppose people would believe it if it happened today but the fact is it was reported aborigines had children that had been attacked and we all said what a "load of rubbish".
The point I am making is when kids die the first people they look at is the parents! and if they dont look the part we then convict them in the media.
I am aware that someone in here is from Oz and if she is over 45years old she will admit we didnt think police had made mistakes and we all believed Lindy Chamberlain was as guilty as you think Darlie is! In hindsight we all say yeah it wasnt the same there were heaps of blunders and yes a baby was taken by a dingo but in 1980 we thought she was as guilty as sin and the NT police had done a great job !!! I think it was all very dodgey all of a sudden she was released when they found the matinee jacket all low and behold years later her story suddenly may have been true.
If we had the death penalty here in Oz she would have got it! So large was the public beliefe she did it and was hated for it! I am not sure how many years she was in jail quite a few! She had her supporters too! Who we thought were other religous nuts! people blackbanned companies when they heard the gave to the Seven Day Aventists Church to help her legal fees.
I said the reason I think the 2 are the same is not because of the way the deaths of the children took place but the public opinions, and the fact they were both mothers accused of killing their own young children.
I can see that unless I totally agree and say I think Darlie and she alone is totally guilty then I best post nothing in this particular forum. So this will be my last post!

 

[Goody]

I remember that case. The girl was even still alive when her parents or parent(which?) found her and she mumbled "the dogs did it" before passing out. Is that the one? There was something about how the cuts didn't look like bite marks or nails. Did they get a new trial? I know they(or he/she?) were released. I recall that somehow they did find some bruises which looked like paw prints. I don't know if they had to exhume her or not.

I think new experts proved the injuries were canine. Working from memory though so don't carve that in stone.

 

[Goody]

Thanks for the link. Um, hmmm well, she's not the prettiest young lady I've ever seen, bless her heart. Of course she went to the paper first, not the cops. I like the flashbacks she has. She can remember being 9 weeks old. LOL

Hey, Beesy, some people remember being in the womb. Couldn't prove it by me, but that is what they say.

 

[Goody]

I said the reason I think the 2 are the same is not because of the way the deaths of the children took place but the public opinions, and the fact they were both mothers accused of killing their own young children.
I can see that unless I totally agree and say I think Darlie and she alone is totally guilty then I best post nothing in this particular forum. So this will be my last post!

I am sorry you feel that way. I don't think anyone meant to chase you away.

Many of us don't think that Darlie and Darlie alone is responsible for this. I for one am not convinced she acted alone. There just isn't evidence to back it up. If there were, I would be all over it, trust me on that one!

As for your comparing the two cases, about the only thing they do have in common is that they were both accused of killing their own children. I don't think there is that much public opinion sympathetic to Darlie, but she has some supporters who continue to believe in her innocence. I don't know how they can study the evidence and think that, but each to his own.

I hope you change your mind and post again. You can disagree with us all you want and we will probably argue our postions, but please don't take it personally. We are just responding to your words, not your person.

 

[kez]

Hi Breehannah6,

I lived in Townsville at the time, I've followed the case because my daughter was around the same age as Azaria. No, I'm not quite that age, if it was me you were referring to, but yes, many Aussie's felt she was guilty & that the NT police were wondeful. I think Lindy was arrested & convicted not only because of inept investigation & faulty forensics but also because of political interference as well as public prejudice. Tourism would have died there if they had admitted the dingoes were a problem. At the time, forensics was also a new science here, although that is not an excuse. This is just my opinion though.

Lindy was in jail for 3 years, is the book you are talking about written by Phil Ward? The Chamberlains dismissed his theory about Ding the domesticated dingo during the royal commission in 1997/98 and the publisher was sued for defamation & lost.
I'm not sure though if that's the book you are talking about.

I totally agree with you about the parents being looked at first, as they should & then rule them out & work from there. As far as I am aware though, sadly for Lindy, she was the only person I have heard of convicted for not looking the part with evidence & witnesses that didn't match the prosecutions theory.

I don't think you're dumb, if you have that impression, I apologise. I just didn't know where you had gotten that info from & that's what I was replying to. Anyway, I really didn't mean to upset you at all or to the point where your leaving this forum [Darlie] Over the years so much info, both true & false has come out, it gets confusing to remember it all, well for me anyway LOL

 

[beesy]

No I am so dumb I thought a dingo folded the clothes!lol NOT!

She never got a new trial ,they just released her when they found the clothing she said the baby had been wearing folded up neatly in a pile in a cave many years later!! And there was no way they could have put them there!

Isn't this your post? Unless I'm reading it wrong, you are saying the baby's clothes were "folded up neatly in a pile"? So I am wondering who folded the clothes. They weren't folded. Even without reading an article I could figure out that clothes left in a dingo laire would not be folded. Maybe aliens..

The drag marks (,that actually led to the home of a person who owned a cross dingo dog that was never seen again after that night)were NEVER reported that all came out years later

Well I did read several different articles and all of them say that one of the volunteers saw the paw prints and drag marks, and the depression that night. He showed them to several other people. Whether he told the police that night and they forgot such an important clue or whether the men never told anybody else I don't know. Either way it supports your "cops are idiots" theory.

They did take photos of the blood splatter on the tent,but lets face it the Northern Territory was really outback in 1980. I suppose people would believe it if it happened today but the fact is it was reported aborigines had children that had been attacked and we all said what a "load of rubbish

Well, again I read that they didn't. They just looked at it and it showed high velocity. By not taking the pix they boosted their theory that Lindy was quiltly. She didn't go into the tent and shake the baby. And when most dogs pick up something they shake it around in their mouths for a bit, bingo, high velocity blood spatter. Besides, I tend to doubt you since you said the clothes were found folded:doh:

The point I am making is when kids die the first people they look at is the parents! and if they dont look the part we then convict them in the media.

Wrong again, someone close to the victim is always looked at first. You are more likely to be killed by a loved one than by an unkown person. Not with just kids and parents. Look at the stats

we didnt think police had made mistakes and we all believed Lindy Chamberlain was as guilty as you think Darlie is!

Of course police make mistakes. It does not happen with as much evidence as there is against Darlie. They had very, very little evidence to even charge Lindy, much less convict her.

In hindsight we all say yeah it wasnt the same there were heaps of blunders and yes a baby was taken by a dingo but in 1980 we thought she was as guilty as sin and the NT police had done a great job !!! I think it was all very dodgey all of a sudden she was released when they found the matinee jacket all low and behold years later her story suddenly may have been true

. Again Darlie has used up all of state appeals. The defense has been working like all get out looking for evidence to get her a new trial. Lindy got out after a few years, something happened to prove her innocense. No matter how it happened, it did. Something would have come up by now to free Darlie especially as hard as her supporters are working. They've been working on it since '97

If we had the death penalty here in Oz she would have got it! So large was the public beliefe she did it and was hated for it! I am not sure how many years she was in jail quite a few! She had her supporters too! Who we thought were other religous nuts! people blackbanned companies when they heard the gave to the Seven Day Aventists Church to help her legal fees.
I said the reason I think the 2 are the same is not because of the way the deaths of the children took place but the public opinions, and the
fact they were both mothers accused of killing their own young children

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I can see that unless I totally agree and say I think Darlie and she alone is totally guilty then I best post nothing in this lar forum. So this will be my last post

I think Darin was involved in the cover up possibly more. He didn't hire a hit man though. Most of us feel Darin was involved somehow so you don't have to say she did it alone. You are asking questions, we are answering them. You just don't like what we are saying and have chosen to ignore all the evidence we've given you. Blood in the front seat was not enough to convict Lindy, and it's truly a shame that she was.There was reasonable doubt coming out the ying yang in that case. So 1 person gets screwed and everybody else who is convicted is innocent too. I don't care what you believe about Darlie. Not once have you said, "gee, that is a little suspicios" and there have been plenty of times you could have said that. I'd like for you to stay, but you continue asking the same questions and don't appear to be learning anyhing. Your call though

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I'd like for you to stay, but you continue asking the same questions and don't appear to be learning anyhing. Your call though[/b][/color]

Beesy, pull your claws back in and have a bowl of milk and move on. She knows its her call whether she stays or not. :slap: