It does not surprise me that the Dingoes that attacked the children had injuries. The coincidence that this could have been the same animal in the 1980 case and the most recent one is remote. A better explanation is that these animals have been ousted from their group because of their injuries (since they can not contribute to the hunt) and have chosen easier prey (human babies) for food. Since no sighting of other Dingoes was mentioned, it appears these animals were hunting alone, which is uncharacteristic of the species.
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at this link:
In Australia, do dingoes really eat babies? (22-Sep-2000)
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
IIRC the evidence that clinched the the appeal for the Chamberlains was the discovery of clothes that the baby was wearing fairly near to the campsite.I believe that there were tear marks consistant with those made by an animal like a dingo dragging with its teeth.
It was said at the time of the appeal that the Chamberlains had been convicted more on their reaction on the loss of their child than on the actual evidence which was shown to be weak.
When the baby went missing there was a huge search and they were interviewed, as victims often are, on tv with the efforts of the search teams going on around them.Lindy in particular was held by much of the viewing public as not having the “appropriate” reaction for a mother with a missing child - she did not cry enough for the cameras I guess.
There were lots of pet theories by so called experts as to why this was and why she just had to be guilty - all broadcast across the country.
It’s reckoned that this was still fresh in the minds of the jury when the case came up for trial - in effect she had already been found guilty by a media audience, ie the people of Australia.