The Disappearance Of Azaria Chamberlain

Central Australia has long been famous for its red sand, open wilderness and the monolith known as Ayers Rock. However, in August 1980 it became recognised as the backdrop for one of the most captivating and intriguing court cases in the history of Australian law. The case was the mysterious disappearance of an infant girl, 9 week old Azaria Chamberlain. There was no body, no eyewitnesses, no motive and no confession. In order to make its case, the prosecution relied on erroneous forensic science and flawed expert witness testimony. In 1982 the initial trial, based almost exclusively on expert witness testimony, resulted in the baby’s mother, Lindy Chamberlain, being convicted of murder while the father, Michael Chamberlain, was found guilty

The Queen 1984). While there were indicators of the presence of fresh human blood on items located within the tent at the time, not all articles contained foetal blood, with some blood traces being undetermined as to what type it was or whether it was foetal. Some items were not tested immediately after, but rather a year later, and may have been washed in that time period, which raised the possibility of inaccurate testing (Chamberlain v. The Queen 1984). Owing to the delay in testing, it was thought Lindy would most likely have noticed the stains and, in her best interests, have attempted to remove them. Expert evidence further suggested that, had Azaria been taken from the tent by a dingo, there would be evidence of more blood upon examination. According to evidence by Lindy, the child was tucked under blankets in a wicker basket, although very little blood was found on two of the blankets, with none being identified on the rest of the bedding or the basket (Chamberlain v. The Queen 1984). Additional evidence found that “the superficial tissues of the human head, face and neck are very well supplied with blood vessels” (Bowen C.J. 1983, pt.29). Professor James Malcolm Cameron stated a canine seizing the skull of Azaria would most likely have caused a serious crushing injury and considerable bleeding. Cameron also testified it was

Further, the Report found there was indication of a failure to implement procedures to ensure evidence testing was without bias, with no attempt made to preserve evidence for additional testing should the need arise. Lastly, the Report discovered the evidence of the park ranger and bush trackers, alongside the reinvestigated forensic science, corroborated the theory a dingo had taken the baby. As this essay has examined, much of the forensic science was unsubstantiated and erroneously tested and the prosecution case relied consistently on expert witness testimony that failed to show a distinct lack of impartiality and depended on unproven laboratory procedures, further failing to rely on more accurate and objective evidence that led to the eventual exoneration of