Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Lindy and Michael Chamberlain

By Crispin Hull - posted Monday, 5 March 2012

Lindy Chamberlain was 64 yesterday (Sunday 4 March 2012). She has spent half her life fighting the accusation that she murdered her baby daughter Azaria at Ayers Rock in 1980.

She is continuing the fight now. She is wants the Darwin coroner to find that Azaria was killed by a dingo and for her death certificate to reflect this.

I covered the Chamberlains' appeals in the Federal and High Courts in 1983 and 1984. That and subsequent events have been an instructive experience.


At the end of the Federal Court appeal I was convinced of Lindy Chamberlain's guilt. Ian Barker QC, for the Crown, put an incisive case, as he did at the trial.

In the Federal Court Barker was there to argue that the jury's guilty verdict was safe and satisfactory.

He used the rope analogy. Each strand of evidence, he said, was not in itself convincing, just suggestive of guilt. But taken together they formed a strong rope.

He cited the foetal blood in the Chamberlain's car; the infrared image of a hand on the jump suit (which had been found a week later); blood splatter evidence; vegetation; sand grains only on the surface of the blood drops; evidence of dingo jaw width; scissor-like slicing of the fabric of the jump suit and so on.

It was like an early version of CI. Very convincing when taken together.

It convinced the Darwin jury, especially when another ingredient was added.


Barker told the jury that Territorians knew that crocodiles were dangerous and could take a baby or an adult, but that dingoes just did not do that. Territorians knew that.

It was the frontier mentality. Lindy's lawyer was from Melbourne – down south where they don't understand these things. And the jury bought it.

They bought it despite the judge, Justice James Muirhead, summing up in a way that a sophisticated jury would suggest an acquittal was warranted.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Crispin Hull is a former editor of The Canberra Times, admitted as a barrister and solicitor in the ACT and author of The High Court 1903-2003 (The Law Book Company). He teaches journalism at the University of Canberra and is chair of Barnardos Australia, the children’s charity. His website is here:

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Crispin Hull

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy