dingo is in the clear over baby azaria

Dingo in clear over Azaria Chamberlain death, says cop

Wes Hosking
From: Herald Sun
June 11, 2012 12:00AM


TWO days away from the inquest ruling that could find a dingo killed Azaria Chamberlain, the only policeman at Uluru that night remains adamant there was human interference.
Lindy Chamberlain & Azaria

Lindy Chamberlain holding her baby daughter Azaria in mid 1980 before hear death. Supplied

Retired officer Frank Morris, who was at the Chamberlains' campsite within 10 minutes of the alarm being raised 32 years ago, said there was no way a dingo was to blame.

"There was human intervention, there definitely was," he told Channel 9 tonight.

Mr Morris did not say Azaria's parents Lindy and Michael were involved.

But he believes someone dumped the nine-week-old baby's singlet, jumpsuit and booties.

"At the end of the day, the dingo didn't put them there," he said.

"They were put there by a human."

Ms Chamberlain, now Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, was jailed for murder over Azaria's death and her husband given a suspended sentence after being found guilty of being an accessory after the fact.

Both were exonerated and their convictions overturned after a royal commission in 1987.

They have relentlessly fought to have their daughter's death certificate changed from "unknown" to reflect that a dingo killed the baby.

Northern Territory coroner Elizabeth Morris's findings will be streamed live from the Darwin Magistrates' Court on Tuesday.

The paedophiledingo was spotted by Lindy earlier, looking at the baby during a walk as I remember. That's one of the things that argues against her imo. It's registered in you subconscious at least - mothers have strong instincts, especially new mothers. That's one.
The other one is the full story shouted out for the world to hear right at the start 'They've taken her!''That' dingo's got my baby!

Not 'Help!' or even more normal the name of the child 'Maddie!' 'Azzie!' That's two.

Wasn't it also the case that the parents didn't search?

tigger wrote:The paedophiledingo was spotted by Lindy earlier, looking at the baby during a walk as I remember. That's one of the things that argues against her imo. It's registered in you subconscious at least - mothers have strong instincts, especially new mothers. That's one.
The other one is the full story shouted out for the world to hear right at the start 'They've taken her!''That' dingo's got my baby!

Not 'Help!' or even more normal the name of the child 'Maddie!' 'Azzie!' That's two.

Wasn't it also the case that the parents didn't search?

no they didnt search the campers and aborginal trackers did

tigger wrote:The paedophiledingo was spotted by Lindy earlier, looking at the baby during a walk as I remember. That's one of the things that argues against her imo. It's registered in you subconscious at least - mothers have strong instincts, especially new mothers. That's one.
The other one is the full story shouted out for the world to hear right at the start 'They've taken her!''That' dingo's got my baby!

Not 'Help!' or even more normal the name of the child 'Maddie!' 'Azzie!' That's two.

Wasn't it also the case that the parents didn't search?

i dont know if lindy is guilty and we will probably never know but instict tells us that you dont leave a 9 week old baby in a tent in a known dingo area alone ( with her 4 year old brother ) human intervention has always been mentioned in this case so so if it wasnt lindy who was it who took azarias clothes off eher body and took them 5km to the rock ???

Justiceforallkids wrote:

tigger wrote:The paedophiledingo was spotted by Lindy earlier, looking at the baby during a walk as I remember. That's one of the things that argues against her imo. It's registered in you subconscious at least - mothers have strong instincts, especially new mothers. That's one.
The other one is the full story shouted out for the world to hear right at the start 'They've taken her!''That' dingo's got my baby!

Not 'Help!' or even more normal the name of the child 'Maddie!' 'Azzie!' That's two.

Wasn't it also the case that the parents didn't search?

i dont know if lindy is guilty and we will probably never know but instict tells us that you dont leave a 9 week old baby in a tent in a known dingo area alone ( with her 4 year old brother ) human intervention has always been mentioned in this case so so if it wasnt lindy who was it who took azarias clothes off eher body and took them 5km to the rock ???

I agree that we will never know but it's never sat well with me - must read the report again but whose word do we have for it that Azaria was in the tent at that time? This could be a case of hiding a accident which happened earlier.

The religious angle was used - they said they were persecuted because of their beliefs. Kate said exactly the same thing and would you believe it, Philpott's wife was wearing two or three crosses on chains round her neck at the press conference. One I can believe, more is over-egging the pudding.

lindy was seen holding azaria at the bbq/campsite according to those at the camping ground then put her to bed asleep and a few minutes later they heard lindy screaming a dingo has got my baby

Justiceforallkids wrote:lindy was seen holding azaria at the bbq/campsite according to those at the camping ground then put her to bed asleep and a few minutes later they heard lindy screaming a dingo has got my baby

I have just re-read Lindy's book (obviously written from her own point of view). She was holding the baby at the barbeque, all bundled up as it was cold.

The police questioned the other campers who were at the BBQ and one was asked if he actually saw the baby's feet move or did Lindy 'jerk' them so as to appear as if the child was alive??

There do seem to be similarities in the 2 cases....both mothers of 3 , husbands don't seem to be much help. Michael (Chamberlain) was pressing Lindy to finish up and one of the other kids decided he was still hungry, so she had to traipse back to the BBQ. All in all a stressy bedtime scenario.

How did she know a dingo got her baby, did the other children tell her so?


If she screamed then surely the dingo would of dropped the baby with frIght thinking off his own preservation and ran off?


A 9 week old baby is far to big for the dog to hold in it's jaw, surely and I know some dingos are big but to be brave enough to walk Into a campsite full off people near a barbecue, I don't know.


I will never be 100% sure that she NEVER had anything to do with the disappearance off her daughter unlike the mccanns which without physical evidence I'm 99% sure going by what i have seen or read in the files that they had something to do with the disappearance off Madeleine.

I don't know how bold a hungary dingo would be, to sneak into a campsite full of people. If it was a case of the tents being a long way off from the BBQ area, then that is probably different. Did Mrs Chamberlain ever say she actually saw the dingo carrying her baby off?

LJC wrote:I don't know how bold a hungary dingo would be, to sneak into a campsite full of people. If it was a case of the tents being a long way off from the BBQ area, then that is probably different. Did Mrs Chamberlain ever say she actually saw the dingo carrying her baby off?

here

http://www.lindychamberlain.com/content/legal/maps

it still begs the question how did the clothes get all the way to the rock and folded???

lindys open letter

A letter to Open-Minded Australians

It is hard to believe it is thirty years since my darling baby was taken. For some odd reason everyone says you will soon forget. Why is it that people expect me to forget a part of myself? Why would you? Loss of a loved one, particularly a child is not something you forget any more than you can get out of your mind that you once attended school. That does not mean you dwell on it all the time. It is simply there in the fabric of your life and history. In some ways it seems forever and in others it is like yesterday still. Yesterday are the happy memories, and the years are the pain.

I choose to dwell on the happy memories and not on the pain. Dwelling on the pain is only something that those who wish you harm hope that you will do. They want you miserable. I don't wish to be miserable. That is why I learned what forgiveness really is and put it in to practise. You always hear people say to forgive, but they don't tell you how to do it and that is key. Once you learn that, you wonder why you didn't do it before. Forgiveness is for yourself, it puts the responsibility on those who hurt you, and lets you get on with your life. It does not say it is ok to hurt me, then hurt me again. It simply says yes you hurt me, you had no right to do that to me but you did. I acknowledge that you did that and that I am not responsible for your actions. I will not take over the continuation of you actions towards me by allowing you or them to dwell in my mind and continue to fester and ruin my life. I have taken back control of my own life and head space and move forward. I am moving forward, not looking backward.

So, have I forgiven everyone involved in creating the fiasco of the last thirty years and the public so willing to believe the worst and spread nasty rumours? Of course I have. I have handed the hurt back to those who caused it and it is up to them as individuals to ask God to forgive them for what they did, because I forgave long ago and moved on. Oh and despite what some headlines have said in the last twelve months, that does include the police, politicians and lawyers of the NT. It would be nice to get a voluntary apology, but I am no longer holding my breath.

Did you know that the truth is not a defence for libel in Australia? Ridiculous as that sounds that is the law as it currently stands. So if you tell the truth about someone you can be charged with libel if you say something a person has done wrong but which they want to remain hidden. They can have you charged in court because you told the truth and revealed their dirty dealing. Of course once you are in court (or under parliamentary privilege) you can say whatever truth or lies you like and no one can touch you for it. I believe one should be able to tell the truth openly without having to be dragged into court by corrupt people covering their trails. Unfortunately the way the law stands now I cannot tell you of any internal deals, deliberate lies, affairs or favours that I may know of that may make what happened in my case a lot clearer. If I did I would be charged with libel and the truth doesn't count in Australia yet.

Now it seems like in the centuries to come there will still be arguments over who said what, where and how. It seems to me that it is ridiculous that people will believe all that stuff. Can they not even try to think for themselves but believe everything they are told to think by someone else? In the last couple of weeks I discover I apparently did twice the amount of time in prison that I actually did, in Berrimah Prison no less, despite it being quite obvious that I was in Darwin Prison and Berrimah was only the suburb. Berrima Gaol is in NSW. Only very subtle changes you say and nit picking. Yes you are right that the difference is small in one way - it is only one wrong word. Now look at it another way. One prison does not exist at all and the other is thousands of kilometres away. Now it becomes not such a small thing but totally misleading. This is where lies and rumours start. When the truth is dealt with this way, subtly leaving a word out here and changing one there, then it goes into the archives unchallenged because someone else thinks it is too small to matter and another mistake is let slide, or a deliberate omission or addition let go and you soon can bury the truth so deep that only the most vigilant will ever find it again.

Of courses you can start rumours like the one where I was supposed to have hit on the policemen who raided us! They wish! Of course they didn't bring that up in court. It is much easier to besmirch a person's reputation by starting a rumour or making a statement with no basis in fact that will surface accidentally or on purpose some time. Bury the fact that until the police told us we had to stay near the tent we had both searched. By belittling and burying it on the one hand and on the other use it as the excuse to say we sneaked away to bury Azarias' body, in the end was so successful that even the jury came to believe we didn't search, despite testimony to the contrary.

It is no wonder that the eyewitnesses resent being disbelieved again and again when they hear and see the stupid lies and innuendoes resurface again and again. You see it is the questions not asked in court that are often the most important. For example Murray Habys' evidence that he had found what the Aboriginals later confirmed were the tracks of the dingo that took Azaria and the marks where it had put her down. When we met him after he had given his evidence he told us he was not supposed to mention this, and only an odd question allowed him to say what he wished about what he had found. With selective or very technical evidence it is no wonder that modern day juries are no longer equipped to make an informed decision. We need an updated system for the modern age we live in so that there is less likelihood of the guilty going free (because they take advantage of the current inadequacies) and the innocent being charged because they expect the truth and fairness that once a court was based on. Now it is just a lethal game.

Come on Australia. Surely you cannot be proud of the fact that you can let yourself be duped again and again and come back for more of the same. We used to be a proud nation who saw through corruption and were willing to give a fair go. How many times do you have to be hoodwinked and led along by the nose before you demand something better from our courts, police force, politicians and media? There are good, honest, truthful people in all these fields. We need to support them in their struggle to clean up their profession and stand for truth and justice. Hitler got as far as he did because good people didn't wake up to the importance of the small details that did not look threatening on their own, until the avalanche engulfed all and it was too late to fix.

Painful as it may be at times we need to stand up and be counted. Change starts with the individual, the family, the local community, the town, the state, the country. It is not easy to decide not to let the small things slip, or give in to the bully because of the pain or embarrassment it may cause us, but if you don't do it you may as well die now. Grow a backbone before the world turns on you. Give up the desire for gossip and sensationalism. Use your brains for something useful. You may surprise yourself what you can achieve.

I thank God that the crown eyewitnesses in my case did have backbones as did quite a few ordinary Australians who were willing to stand up and say "hey I don't know what happened but something is not right here and we need all the facts" which paved the way for new legislation allowing for royal commissions in Australia now. This allows for all of the evidence, rumours, tip-offs and questions to be exhaustibly investigated. The commissioner in our case was asked to find our guilt or innocence. Although we argued otherwise, he did not feel he had been given the power to rule on whether cause of death was a dingo or not so did not rule on that. Despite that (the Crown always claimed that it was either me or a dingo), Moreling in his finding said we would be guilty "íf, in spite of so many considerations pointing to their innocence, the conclusion was reached that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that a dingo did not take the baby. In the light of all the evidence before the Commission, I am of the opinion that such a conclusion cannot be reached."

Our family will always remember today as the day truth was dragged in the dirt and trampled upon, but more than that it is the day our family was torn apart forever because we lost our beautiful little Azaria. She will always ever be what this ongoing fight for justice has been all about. She deserves justice. In light of all the evidence before the Commission, this should be reflected on her death certificate and not the open finding that is there now. It is not like the eyewitnesses are dead or that there was not a recommendation from the Royal Commission and the NT Supreme Court who quashed our convictions. It would not take more taxpayers money to do it. These courts were exhaustive, why not adopt their recommendations and stop wasting everyone's time, money and intelligence. Lindy or a dingo was the NT claim. Their own Commission proved it was not me, as I had told them all along, so why don't they accept their own claim now? It makes one wonder are they really after the truth, or just too stubborn or proud to admit that a mistake has been made? Who knows the reason, but most of all please do not forget that a beautiful little girl died tragically on this date thirty years ago.

Regards,
Lindy

Imo in both the above posts the long quotes from Lindy are ghostwritten - and by a much better ghostwriter than Kate employed, that's for sure.

The letter to 'Australia' - it doesn't make me change my mind - quite the contrary - the letter is an out and out PR exercise imo.

There is JonBenet Ramsey, the Dingo baby and Maddie - a lot of similarities and no solution.

tigger wrote:Imo in both the above posts the long quotes from Lindy are ghostwritten - and by a much better ghostwriter than Kate employed, that's for sure.

The letter to 'Australia' - it doesn't make me change my mind - quite the contrary - the letter is an out and out PR exercise imo.

There is JonBenet Ramsey, the Dingo baby and Maddie - a lot of similarities and no solution.

If Kate McCann employed a ghost writer, she should ask for her money back.

Ye gods I hope that Kate's book was written only by herself - the thought of there being another person capable of dreaming up what was in it is too much for me to deal with!

As for the Chamberlains, their behaviour - especially when compared now with the McCanns - seems suspicious but at the time I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Now I just can't make up my mind at all!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Ye gods I hope that Kate's book was written only by herself - the thought of there being another person capable of dreaming up what was in it is too much for me to deal with!

As for the Chamberlains, their behaviour - especially when compared now with the McCanns - seems suspicious but at the time I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Now I just can't make up my mind at all!

But it had really long words in it, many of more than three syllables, going by the literary quality of the diary - the ghost writer is a Mills and Boone fan with a hint of chick lit thrown in.

p. 230 of the bewk

“On the night of 1 September I dreamed about Madeleine for the first time on four months…it was such a dreadful experience…Although I was dreaming, I could feel her. It was as if parts of my body that had been hibernating for months suddenly began to stir. I could sense the cold, dark days lifting as I luxuriated in warmth and light. And Madeleine was holding me, her little arms wrapped tightly round me, and it felt so good, I could smell her, I could feel her with every one of my senses as I soaked up this heavenly moment. My Madeleine. I wanted to stay like this for ever. And then I woke up. Ice began to course through my body, driving out every endorphin and remnant of warmth. I didn’t understand. What was happening? How could this be? I could still feel her! A heavy boot connected with my stomach and the ache in my chest was worse than I’d known it. I was struggling for breath, almost as if I were being strangled. Please God, don’t let her go! Stay with me, Madeleine. Please stay with me. Don’t go – stay with Mummy. Please, sweetheart, hold on. I love you so much. I started to cry. The crying built into seismic sobs. An unearthly sound, like the howl of a wounded animal, was coming out of my mouth. The crushing pain in my chest intensified to the point where I thought I was going to die.

Dreadful experience - but Maddie was holding her (note: not Kate holding Maddie). It was a heavenly moment and warmth and light etc. surely that would have been a comfort imo.
Then we get an overdose of violence, endorphin to remind us she's a doctor, heavy boot, ache in chest, struggling breath, strangled, seismic sobs, unearthly howl and wounded animal, finishing off with a crushing chest pain (I thought the boot was in the stomach?) and death.

Dreadful prose and so overdone it doesn't actually convey the emotion at all. We still never learn anything about Maddie only about Kate.
The cold dark days lifting? They were in Portugal the whole time, Kate and Gerry had terrific suntans - how hot do you want it?
'

tigger wrote:
Then we get an overdose of violence, endorphin to remind us she's a doctor, heavy boot, ache in chest, struggling breath, strangled.

Could be worse, l thought she was going to write she was awakening to torture from that wicked PJ....!

margaret wrote:

tigger wrote:
Then we get an overdose of violence, endorphin to remind us she's a doctor, heavy boot, ache in chest, struggling breath, strangled.

Could be worse, l thought she was going to write she was awakening to torture from that wicked PJ....!

Lol.....the 'boot' bit, I always wondered if it was Gerry giving her a dig in the ribs.

i do think taht it isa good sign even all these years later that the police are still working on azarias case

I've never ever believed the dingo story.

BREAKING NEWS: A fourth coronial inquest finds Azaria Chamberlain was taken by a dingo. Full coverage on 7 News tonight at 6.

A NORTHERN Territory coroner has found that Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton's daughter Azaria was taken by a dingo.

NT coroner Elizabeth Morris handed down the findings of a fourth coronial inquest into the disappearance of the nine-week-old baby at Uluru in 1980 in Darwin today.

it still doent explain the folded clothes

A dingo took Azaria Chamberlain - ruling

AAP
From: Herald Sun
June 12, 2012 10:59AM


Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton arrives in Darwin for a ruling on the fourth inquest into her baby's disappearance. Picture: Justin Sanson Northern Territory News

UPDATE: A DINGO killed Azaria Chamberlain after it dragged her from a tent at a campsite at Uluru in 1980, Coroner Elizabeth Morris has ruled.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Recommended Coverage
Lindy in Darwin for Azaria result

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

The coroner told a packed courtroom in Darwin that a dingo or dingoes were to blame for the attack at Uluru, which originally saw Azaria's mother Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton jailed for murder and her husband Michael given a suspended sentence for being an accessory after the fact.

Both were later exonerated after a royal commission in 1987.

The finding means Ms Chamberlain-Creighton, as she is known after remarrying, and her ex-husband Michael Chamberlain have finally won recognition that a dingo killed their nine-week-old daughter.

The inquest was the fourth into the death of Azaria since she disappeared on a camping trip.

The decision will mean that Azaria's death certificate will be changed from "unknown".

In 1988, the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal overturned all convictions against the Chamberlains but a coronial inquest in 1995 delivered an open verdict.