After all the hubbub was over, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain were all smirks and frowns, always trying to put people off the real truth. Azaria’s body was never found. Too little blood loss was evident at the supposed scene of the crime for authorities to prove death had occurred. Lindy was subsequently acquitted of murder on appeal.
    It was always their intent to blame The Dingo, but what went wrong was that The Dingo was not a baby eater.
She heard the injured Azaria “crying in the night” and since the sound was alike that which her pups made, she investigated and found Lindy trying to dig a hole to bury the baby in, with her bare hands.
The Dingo then took the baby to safety, near the aborigine campsite, where she alerted an aborigine male. He took the baby to his woman and she cared for the wounded child until she handed her over to some white-folk.
Lindy had dropped the baby on the cement at Ayer’s Rock Camping Ground Barbeque Site, causing severe hip damage that plagues the now twenty-five years old young lady with sclerosis still.
    THE WHOLE STORY WAS “COOKED-UP” TO “COVER UP” LINDY’S ATTEMPTED MURDER OF HER OWN BABY GIRL. THE POLICE ARE COMPLICIT IN THE STORY IN AN EFFORT TO HIDE THEIR BUNGLING SHAME AT NOT CHARGING LINDY AND MICHAEL WITH PURJORY AFTER THE FACT OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE OVER NOT INITIALLY CHARGING LINDY WITH “ATTEMPTED INFANTICIDE” IN THE ABSENSE OF THE BABY’S BODY.
      So you should be seeing, people, that Lindy and Michael Chamberlain flim-flammed the entire world for the money they knew they would get when the prosecutor’s case fell to peices.
      For evidence in the media, look at the events of and after 26/8/05 in The Northern Territory News and The Local Alice Springs Newspapers. Also, check for the story of The Reappearance Of Azaria Chamberlain on the Wikipedia Website.

Hmm, strange you omitted the most pertinent question of the whole sorry affair! Was Azaria really Elvis’ lovechild?

This Wikipedia entry seems to be what Raceman refers to.

A modern version of the Tsar daughter.

I’ve read many accounts of this whole saga (I doubt there are many Aussies who don’t have more than passing knowledge on the case) and I firmly believe that while it’s unlikely that a dingo did take Azaria, Lindy didn’t kill her child (although I still think the child died). The whole investigation was one stuff up after another, vital evidence and witness accounts weren’t taken into consideration, it was a complete nightmare. I don’t think anyone will ever really know what happened out there but I find it very hard to believe that a dingo ‘rescued’ Azaria and took her to a ridiculously stereotyped Aboriginal camp who eventually handed her over to some ‘white fellas’.

I have to admit that I havent re-investigated this one recently to see any recent theories on what happened.
But, does anyone else remember about 5 years ago, on Fraser Island I think it was, that a dingo stole a baby out of a campsite. It didnt get very far with everyone chasing it, but it had gone in, picked up a baby, and might have taken it a long way if no-one had spotted it.
As for whether she did anything or not, the courts said she didnt, but a court of law also said OJ didnt do it, so who knows.

Gee, I never heard this one before!

Dingos stealing an injured baby who is then raised by aborigines until 25 years old?  Did I get it right?

Oh, my nit-pick:

Criminal courts never rule that someone was innocent of a crime.  They rule ‘Not Guilty’ which actually means, ‘not proven guilty in a court of law’ which is way different than declaring someone innocent.  (That way, if new evidence comes in, proving or strongly suggesting someone is actually guilty, they do not look as inept as they actually are.)

This is a very minor point, and I brought it up only because I have not yet had enough coffee, and only three of my five brain cells are activated yet, and it is the best I can do!

Dan the Often-Less-Than-Agile-Minded

In Oz (and the US), you are innocent until such time as you are proven guilty.

Courts do not prove (and cannot declare) you innocent as, by law, you are innocent unless they prove you guilty. Hence ‘not guilty’ merely indicates that your pre-existing state of innocence is unchanged. In Scottish courts there is the additional complication of a verdict of ‘not proven’, which indicates that the jury does not feel itself competent to decide the matter.

The presumption of innocence is also a universal human right, guaranteed by U.N. charter and violation of the principle is a human rights violation (c.f Gitmo).

I had always heard of the movie…and knew it was based on a real thing…but I didn’t know much about it.  I googled it…

Scary stuff.

David B. - 21 April 2006 12:39 PM

In Scottish courts there is the additional complication of a verdict of ‘not proven’, which indicates that the jury does not feel itself competent to decide the matter.

 

Interesting!  I never knew that, about ‘not proven’!

I like it, it sums up the outcome much better than ‘not guilty’.

Those Scotts!

Dan the Legal Eagle

Ain’t 21st century technology wonderful?

I’m sure some tabloid TV show would love to bankroll this project.  The “parents” don’t have to agree to a DNA test.  Just follow them to the local Starbucks or McDonalds and carry off those cells the minute they hit the trash. 

Film the whole docudrama with soundtrack and interviews with relatives and dramatization of the lab results, clips from the movie. 

And in the final scene she could band on the “parents” door and scream, “Why did you do it…..”