Selene Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 This case has always interested me and finally, there is some closure for the mother and father.From the Coroner's current findings report:On the night of 17 August dog tracks were observed on the southernside of and very close to the Chamberlains’ tent. The same night MrRoff and Mr Minyintiri, both experienced trackers and familiar withdingo behaviour, saw tracks of a dog carrying a load which theybelieved to be Azaria. It was within the bounds of reasonablepossibility that a dingo might have attacked a baby and carried itaway for consumption as food. A dingo would have been capable ofcarrying Azaria’s body to the place where the clothing was found. Ifa dingo had taken Azaria it is likely that, on occasions, it would haveput the load down and dragged it.2 Re Conviction of Chamberlain (1988) 93 FLR 239 at 2423 S34, Coroner’s Act NT (1993)Hairs, which were either dog or dingo hairs, were found in the tentand on Azaria’s jumpsuit. The Chamberlains had not owned a dogfor some years prior to August 1980.The quantity and distribution of the sand found on Azaria’s clothingmight have been the result of it being dragged through sand. Thesand would have come from many places in the Ayers Rock region.The sand and plant fragments on the clothing are consistent withAzaria’s body being carried and dragged by a dingo from the tent tothe place where it was found. It is unlikely that, if the clothing hadbeen taken from the Chamberlains’ car, buried, disinterred, and laterplaced where it was found it would have collected the quantity andvariety of plant material found upon it.It would have been very difficult for a dingo to have removed Azariafrom her clothing without causing more damage than was observedon it. However, it would have been possible for it to have done so.Mr Roff, the chief ranger at Ayers Rock and a man of greatexperience, thought that the arrangement of the clothing whendiscovered was consistent with dingo activity. Other dingo expertsdisagreed. I think it is likely that a dingo would have left theclothing more scattered, but it might not have done so.The blood found in the tent was at least as consistent with dingoinvolvement in Azaria’s disappearance as it was with her murder inthe car. The pattern of blood staining on the clothing does notestablish that the child’s throat was cut with a blade.The absence of saliva on Azaria’s jumpsuit which was conclusivelyproved at the trial is made more explicable by the finding of thematinee jacket which would have partially covered it. The fact thatno debris from the baby’s body was found on the jumpsuit is alsomade more explicable by the finding of the jacket.There is great conflict of expert opinion was to whether the damageto the clothing could have been caused by a dingo. It has not beenshown beyond reasonable doubt that it could not have been. Therewere marks on plastic fragments of the nappy similar to marks madeby a dingo on another nappy used for testing purposes. However,there was no blood on the nappy.There was a dingo’s den about thirty metres from the place where theclothing was found. There is no evidence that the existence of theden was known to the Chamberlains, or for that matter, to anybodyelse and in fact it was unknown to the chief ranger and his deputy.Here is the link to the complete newspaper story from News.com.au:http://www.news.com.au/national/dingo-took-azaria-coroner-finds/story-e6frfkvr-1226392715293 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now