Lindy's Murder Case Essay

[The public] would rather accuse an innocent woman of murder than the clear killer, a dingo, the wild dog of Australia. [Because] of the poorly processed evidence and preconceived notions towards Lindy Chamberlain, the court unjustly pronounced the guilt of the grieving mother. [During] the investigation, the police carelessly handled the evidence, and the public, who were unable to believe Lindy’s tragic tale, quickly dismissed her cry for help. [In the 1980s], when Azaria Chamberlain, who was the daughter of Lindy, was murdered, dingoes were not known as the dangerous dogs Lindy depicted. Ian Barker, an Australian barrister called Lindy’s tale of Azaria’s death “a fanciful lie, calculated to conceal the truth.” Even a well-learned lawyer

[Similarly] to Lindy, Elizabeth Diane Downs had been prosecuted for the attempted murder of her two eldest children and the murder of her youngest daughter. [On the contrary to Lindy], Elizabeth was rightfully charged and convicted. She claimed that a strange man had shot her and her children before she could escape him and drive to the hospital, but several witnesses testified and claimed that she drove at a slower pace than one would in her situation. During this time, Elizabeth was in an affair with Robert Knickerbocker, and he informed authorities that Elizabeth had possessed a handgun which investigators soon confirmed. When Christie Downs, Elizabeth’s eldest child, awoke from her coma, she testified against her mother claiming that Elizabeth did indeed shoot her. [Posessing] the motive and the murder weapon to commit homicide Elizabeth was justly convicted. On the other hand, there were no witnesses to deny Lindy Chamberlain’s story, and when she was taken in for questioning, investigators reported that she possessed no motives to kill. [Since] Lindy, however, held no evident motive to kill her own, she was deemed innocent. Though it was unknown at the time, dingoes like mothers can

[In the course of gathering evidence], what was thought to be blood speckled across the backseat of Lindy’s car like red paint on a canvas, was later reevaluated. According to the National Museum of Australia, when the forensic tests confirmed the previous faulty results, the lasted results concluded that the police mistook blood for car deadener spray and juice stains. [Lindy Chamberlain’s] innocence was then further proven when Azaria’s manatee coat, which had been lost, was found near a dingo lair with blood stains that were identical to Azaria’s. According to Lindy’s story, a dingo took Azaria, and when officials found a manatee coat drenched in Azaria’s dried blood, Lindy’s story was once more supported, proving her innocent. The trust in faulty results caused a sheet of guilt over Lindy’s actual