Sorry for the hijack, but I all of a sudden recognize your name, Sarah. I just finished the book today.
Heh. Thankyou! Most people assume I’m dumb enough to have signed up to a message board under my real, birth name. No! It’s a cultural reference like everyone else’s!
She looks more like Mick Jaggers love child than Azaria Chamberlain.
Wonder what the other photos of her look like – and whether that was just a bit of a media “Ha ha, look at the weirdo!” jack-up.
Well, being Charles Augustus Lindbergh would’ve required her to be a 75 years old man.
Just in case you were wondering, “Azaria” is Hebrew for “God’s Help” or “Aided by God.” It’s a common Jewish family name.
Ah, yes I know that. But the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory didn’t spontaneously write itself, oddly enough. And it has it’s roots not in French Law, but British Law, as do the criminal codes of all Australian States and Territories. But thanks for taking me so literally. Once again, IANAL. Perhaps one can come along and clarify this point for us.
Sure, but that didn’t stop the local tabloid press (not a hugely common name in this part of the world), and many people swallowed it.
Sorry, but this is one of my buttons - there is no such thing as British Law.
Britain is subdivided into different legal systems. Scots Law is entirely distinct from the law of England and Wales. Northern Ireland (I know - part of the UK, not Britain) is different again.
In Scotland (and I am pretty sure in the others too) there is no need to find a body to prove a murder.
Flashbacks to when she was 9 weeks old? Well I’m convinced.
So it’s the ‘B’ word you have a problem with? Ok, amend that to English law. I was merely trying to draw a distinction between the origins of Australian law and European, or American, or Abyssinian, or wherever the poster came from, law.
But my main point, and you support this, is that in NT law at that time, and to the present AFAIK, no body need be found in order to arrest, try and convict for murder.
IANAL. IAN even close to being AL.
That absolutely can not be Azaria Chamberlain, for the woman pictured is clearly the offspring of Ms. Mary Grace Canfield, aka Ralph Monroe on ‘Green Acres.’
Hell that might just be a file photo of ol’ Mary Grace herself.
Case closed,
Happy
I am a lawyer, and I am Australian, and the point I was making is that the NT has been subject to a separate legislative system to England and Wales since 1901. That’s all. No need to get aerated.
Then can you post some info on how under NT law no body is necessary to prove a case for murder? That is, after all, the salient point here.
They have done that in America.
Well, I started this argument with my throw-away line. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that (in the NT) you can be found guilty of murder because it happened in the Lindy Chamberlain case. While her team of lawyers fought on a variety of issues, and eventually got the conviction quashed with new forensic evidence, as far as I know the issue of lack of Azaria’s body was not raised. (Except, perhaps, in the argument that all the evidence against Lindy Chamberlain was circumstantial, and that there was reasonable doubt about what happened to Azaria. However, obviously, the jury did not accept that argument.)
Before becoming a separate territory, the NT was part of South Australia, and South Australia was started as a British colony. So the NT inherited the English common law, via South Australia. Currently, the criminal law of the NT is given in the Criminal Code Act 1983, as amended – though obviously that was not the law that appied to the alleged murder of Azaria, which took place in 1980.
Hell, I was raised Seventh Day Adventist and I think they’re a cult. Mostly mainstream Protestantism, to be sure, but man, there’s some wacky beliefs there, lemmee tell you.
But I’m not Australian, so we’re both probably right.