But she won on appeal. Why was that?
Wasn’t it because there had never been a dingo attack before this happened, and another didn’t happen again for a few years?
I thought it was overturned because someone else was attacked, so it gave reasonable doubt that she could’ve been telling the truth.
When the case was reopened (after Lindy had done her time in gaol) the appeal court found that evidence tendered by the original prosecution team was seriously flawed and should not have led to a guilty conviction in the first place.
This is the Pit? Are you sure?
Lots of reasons, some of which have already been discussed here, include the ‘foetal blood’ in the car that turned out to not be blood, the appearance of scissor slashes on Azaria’s jumpsuit (that could have equally been canine tears), the refusal to accept eyewitness accounts from the night including testimony from the Chamberlains young son who was in the tent with Azaria when she was taken.
And the Court of Public Opinion mostly called for a guilty verdict for this weird family, so evidence that could have gone either way was weighted towards finding Lindy (especially) responsible for the death of her child.
OK, thanks. So the appeal win had nothing to do with the lack of a corpse, but rather with dodgy evidence.
Exactly.
And the strange thing is, despite all of the later stuff, there are still plenty of people out there who believe Lindy Chamberlain was guilty.
The fact that she later married an American just proves even more conclusively that she is batshit crazy. 
How can anyone remember anything from when they were 9 weeks old? Let alone a memory substantial enough to make this connection?
The memory can’t be accurate. Earliest memories that can be substantiated are from much older infants. On the other hand, even though the memory may be a false memory spawned by the belief that she is the baby, she still might really be her.
Forgive the curiosity of this ignorant American, but in what way was the Chamberlain family considered “weird”? All I ever read about the story was simple news reports.
They are Seventh Day Adventists, which some Austrailans consider a “cult.” There was talk that Azaria might have been killed as a “blood offering” to the church.
I doubt that she is, but if this woman’s story is true, Lindsey Chamberlain has an ass-whopping lawsuit against the Ozzie Government. She served 7 years for muder.
I think you would struggle to find many Aussies who think Seventh Day Adventists are a cult and I’m pretty sure that Lindy got her compensation long, long ago.
And the woman in the story is definitely dingo ugly.
Here we go $1.3million in 1992.
The Dingo was FRAMED!!!1111!!!1
What?
“A wild pack of family dogs
Came running through the yard
As my little sister played
The dogs took her away
And I guess she was eaten up ok”
Add me to list who didn’t know where that phrase came from. Also, if she isn’t this so called dingo food, she might still be able to claim Russian nobility.
Joan of Arc
Anastasia Romanov
now Azaria Chamberlain…
“walk-ins” all of them. Souls that disincarnated traumatically before their time & some time after, found host bodies in people with severe personality problems which the disembodied souls could then dominate.
What?
They would have gotten away with a slightly less than mainstream religion, had it not been for the fact that, at the news conference that was held immediately after the event, the Chamberlains (especially Lindy) appeared emotionless and dry-eyed. This turned a large section of the Australian public against them right there on the spot. From there, any dirt (or anything that could conceivably be made to look like dirt) on them was dredged up, from their having a “weird” faith, to rumours that “Azaria” (not a safe Aussie name like Sally or something) meant “death in the wilderness”.
In actual fact, the Chamberlains were given legal/police advice to try to remain in control when talking to the media. That, and they were still in shock.
And people react to grief in different ways. The gamut runs from uncontrollable wailing and sobbing to adamant stoicism. There seems to be an attitude that if the bereaved do not react in the way you (general you) would, there is something wrong. That’s a completely nonsensical attitude.
Yes, but as I recall, Susan Smith was perfectly composed, smartly dressed and fully made up when she made her TV appearances to appeal for the return of her allegedly-kidnapped children. This set off alarm bells with many people, and it turned out she was guilty.
It don’t mean a thing if you ain’t got that evidence.
By the way, the Northern Territory is not subject to British Law. It’s subject to the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory, oddly enough.