It’s Official: A Dingo Did Eat Her Baby

It is now official: a dingo did eat her baby. The terrible story of the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain in 1980 became an international sensation with a movie, “A Cry In The Dark,” and the famous tag line “A Dingo ate my baby.” Azaria’s mother Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton was jailed for murder and her husband Michael given a suspended sentence as an accessory after the fact. However, both were cleared in 1987. Now a coroner says the mother was telling the truth from the start and that dingoes were likely responsible. The finding confirms the view of many and confirms the chilling nightmare created by the state for this grieving family. We previously discussed the new investigation and evidence.

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton cried with the finding and stated that “No longer will Australia be able to say the dingoes are not dangerous and will only attack if provoked.” She was given a new death certificate with a changed cause of death entry from “unknown” to “as a result of being attacked and taken by a dingo”. What a bitter success that must be for the family.

Source: Au.News

33 thoughts on “It’s Official: A Dingo <em>Did</em> Eat Her Baby”

  1. Malisha,

    It’s like a pit bull who clamps down and won’t turn loose. Even when the pit bull knows it’s wrong, it won’t turn loose. You have to shoot it in the head to make it turn loose.

  2. Malisha,

    That could be said of many persons here, ie not backing down. Does the job attract those predisposed or those who lack and wish to have such a mindset?
    One of my defense attorneys was a former DA. And a good
    judge can contain the worst DAs if they will. Thank goodness.

    As for covering up mistakes. How many cases of righting ones own or even others wrongs do you see IRL?

  3. CLH – “Is there something in the legal mindset, or in the mindset of prosecutors that draws them to the DA’s profession, and then creates a degree of hubris that forestalls any kind of acknowledgment of the most basic human propensity of fallibility? Is that mindset created by the job, or do people already possess it when they enter into a position of authority?”

    It’s about hubris, exactly. Once they say, “We did right and YOU were wrong!” they don’t back down and after all, why should they if they can just cover up.

  4. Dredd 1, June 12, 2012 at 9:27 am

    I did not see the evidence that changed the mind of officials from what is was for decades.
    ================
    Maybe they should have seen the evidence in the first place. The justice system? How about the Salem Witch trials?

    Don’t think for one second you might be next.

  5. CLH,

    OTPOTOT
    You’ve got a´n interesting job title. Maintenance/Production Manager. Two diametrically opposed goals. Keep it in good shape/keep it producing. Best solved in one mind if qualified..

  6. OS:

    As you know, investigation of homicides involves probabilities. There is considerable data to show that infanticide is usually the act of a parent (http://www.psychiatryjournal.co.uk/article/S1476-1793(08)00217-6/abstract) and hence this was the working theory to begin the investigation. That does not explain ignoring countervailing evidence but in most criminal investigations there is countervailing evidence.

    The initial evidence was that blood was found in the tent where the baby was sleeping; the tent zipper was left open by the mother, and the parents were remarkably composed in talking to police. Later, baby clothing belonging to the child was found at the base of a boulder five miles away and no dingo saliva or hair was found on them thus discrediting the parents story. Subsequent forensic examination contended that the cut marks on the clothing were the work of a sharpened instrument and not dingo teeth. Also a botanist testified that no traces of indigenous plants were found on the clothing discrediting the theory that the child was drug by the dingo. An Aboriginal elder contended that tracks showed something had been drug from the campsite, but he could not be sure it was the child. However, a “specialized physician” examining two small holes the base of the neck of the baby’s vest said they were not made by dingo teeth. Taken as a whole the evidence pointed to the parents and in the absence of prior experience with unproved dingo attack the charges seemed well-placed.

    Subsequent forensic work and proof of at least 10 unprovoked dingo attacks (2 of them fatal) got authorities to revisit the case. This was a tragic case with a happy ending since it seems justice prevailed.

  7. What is so hard about admitting the possibility of wrongdoing? My knowledge of psychology is pretty much non existent (because I don’t want to find out that I am, actually, crazy).

    Does anyone know of any studies that match personality types with a propensity for dodging any acknowledgement of wrongdoing, even simple humanistic good faith mistakes, even when that responsibility would not likely have any real impact on a career? I currently work as a maintenance and production manager on night shift at a factory. The people I always keep around are those capable of acknowledging when they’ve made a mistake, so that the mistake can be corrected (especially among the maintenance techs- mistakes can slow down production, and cost the company nearly 20k per minute of down time).

    Is there something in the legal mindset, or in the mindset of prosecutors that draws them to the DA’s profession, and then creates a degree of hubris that forestalls any kind of acknowledgment of the most basic human propensity of fallibility? Is that mindset created by the job, or do people already possess it when they enter into a position of authority?

  8. Rich,

    Not a criticism but an observation based on yours.

    Essentially all but the 10 (?) percent are without resources to defend themselves against the attacks from the system, if it turns its attention on you.

    Whatever agency in whose eye you fasten.

    Most people know this, since childhood, and bend their backs so as to avoid drawing attention to themselves.

    Although some seeking to hide in the herd, will search them out and bleat with the rest. Be it teabaggers, evangelists, dominionist, radical muslims, or any group we wish to denigrate for the moment. Do suggest a few.

    But so is mankind. We are bred so. Conscious breeding and selection/repression by our rulers. And that goes many generations, far far beyond historical times.

    And it is not the amygdala which is the problem, to kick sand in a certain direction. Hee hee, Dredd ol’ buddy.

  9. There is good reason to start with parents (or family members and others with frequent contact), but this seemed an egregious attempt to go after someone with few resources.

  10. It would seem to me that the state is but a reflection of us. Unfortunately so.

    We, daily, make decisions without any conscious reflection based on preconceptions. Most of them never proven or even otherwise fact-based.

    The changes have to start eventually with us.
    When will you start?

    Although eliminating death sentences and making improvements to the system should not wait for changes in us.

  11. This case bothered me from the very beginning, not because they suspected the parents (that is, in fact, natural) and not even because they seemed to “rule out” other explanations and the evidence that other explanations were just as plausible. The main reason it bothered me was that I realized that the resistance to finding out what really happened was stiffened by the starch of “not wanting to be proven wrong.” The case should, in a way, be compared to the Todd Willingham case in Texas where the father was condemned (and executed) for having killed his children by arson. The forensic evidence was just plain laughable (and thus horrifying) and included the idiotic notion that the fire had burned in the shape of a Pentagram, thus carried Satanic meaning. Texas government not only refused to be “proven wrong” even after the proof was available, public, and obvious, they proceeded to kill the defendant and they STILL resist governmental action accepting responsibility for the prosecutorial misconduct and denial of due process under color of state law that led to Willingham’s death.

    This mother was not just innocent, she was a victim of a state-sponsored conspiracy. Yes, I said the C word. Although it was not the same as a conspiracy where some people get together and say, “Let’s destroy this family by having a dingo eat the baby and then jailing mom and ruining dad’s life too,” it was a conspiracy of collusion, laziness, cooperation in wrongdoing, cover-up, resistance, fraud and official anti-public protectionism.

    Most of all, we should admit that the state CAN make mistakes and we should provide for real (not cosmetic, not illusory) ways of seeking a remedy when it does. That should be one of the most important pieces of a democracy. After all, in a tyranny, you can always just behead the tyrant. In a democracy, you don’t have an option like that so you have to figure out how to balance the power between the person and the state, making neither one a deity because neither one is. If Texas could have said, WHILE WILLINGHAM STILL LIVED, “Oh let’s see, maybe we made a mistake,” without all hell breaking loose, both the state and obviously the person would be better off.

  12. Dredd,

    They played at dueling forensic experts for a bit and that’s what got her released from prison (the evidence that convicted her was pretty slim to start with), but the big shift toward what has finally happened came when there were other recorded Dingo attacks on children.

  13. Dredd,

    Sometimes one only needs to open ones mind to see the truth as it was then and it is now……

  14. The knee-jerk reaction of many investigators to first suspect the parents needs to be revisited. I know this is what they teach in criminal justice classes, and in some cases it is true; however, to tar everyone with the same brush is a mistake. Studies done by Dr. Jerome Bruner at Yale back in the 1960s showed that if one has a preconceived notion of an outcome, it tends to blind them to even the most obvious clues and cues leading to the truth.

  15. “the chilling nightmare created by the state for this grieving family.”

    People need to think about this sort of thing when they think of government as their savior. The state has a lot of power and it is not always used for the good.

Comments are closed.