probably not human blood.
Other evidence potentially raised suspicion. Rex Kuchel, a forensic botanist from Adelaide, a part-time scientific adviser to the South Australian Police, had examined sand and vegetation embedded in the jumpsuit. He had been looking for pulled threads which he expected had an object covered in the jumpsuit material been dragged through vegetation. Rather, he thought, the jumpsuit – presumably with the baby’s body in it – had been buried in sand hills east of the campsite, then dug up and carried to where it was found at the base of Ayers Rock. In his experimentation, he had arranged for an effigy of a baby to be dressed in a jumpsuit and dragged through vegetation at Ayers Rock. The result, he said, was quite different. It was pointed out by Ashley Macknay that he had made his observations taken from pictures by a professional photographer rather than direct observation. There had been damage to the undergrowth by the person dragging the effigy. But he had not been on the spot and had not been able to determine what other people had been through that area.
Kuchel agreed under questioning that wild animals, and even domestic animals, sometimes buried their prey. But if the clothing was buried, where? Dr Barry Collins from the Minerals Department of South Australia said that 90 percent of the soil found on the baby’s clothing was consistent with the soil found at the site of the Chamberlains’ tent and 10 percent from the area round Ayers Rock. That seemed to support the burial theory. Had a dingo done the burying? Or had it been done, for whatever reason, by a person or persons? Sergeant Barry Cocks, of the South Australian Police, fresh from his involvement in the Edward Charles Splatt case, gave evidence supporting human intervention. From ruptures in the jumpsuit, he had concluded that a “bladed instrument”, a knife perhaps, or a pair of scissors, had been used. Kenneth Brown said he had examined the clothing and also examined dingo skulls and had concluded that a dingo’s teeth could not have done the damage to the baby’s clothing. So that laid it squarely on the line that there had been human intervention. Had it been someone at Ayers Rock? Or had it been the parents? And if so, why? Was it to fabricate evidence of a dingo attack?
A dingo expert, Dr Eric Newsome, senior researcher at the CSIRO Wildlife Research Division, said it was unlikely a dingo would have taken the baby but he did not discount the possibility. He said crows or eagles could have taken the clothing to where it was found at the base of Ayers Rock. That left open the possibility that a dingo had taken the baby but that person or persons had intervened afterwards. Another possibility, never brought up, was that in the week since Azaria disappeared and when the clothing was found at the base of Ayers Rock, an animal might have got at it and moved it of its own accord. Nevertheless, Macknay was not persuaded by much of the scientific evidence. In his submissions to Barritt on 19th February, he was particularly critical of the evidence of both Kuchel, Cocks and Brown, according to a report of proceedings by the Sydney Morning Herald. “What has happened, I submit, is that [they] were in pursuit of finding points to support the theory that no dingo had any part to play in this,” he said. The three rejected that suggestion, maintaining that at all times they were professionally objective.
Denis Barritt, satisfied that the baby was dead and that she had been taken by a dingo, decided that the issues raised by the suspicion and gossip surrounding the case should be addressed. He abided by a request from a television crew to telecast his findings nationally. Appearing before an international audience on 20th February 1981, he said neither of the parents, or for that matter their two sons, had had anything to do with the baby’s death, but there had been “human intervention” in relation to the damage to the clothing and the way it was handled and deposited after the dingo took the baby. Barritt accepted the primary evidence that a dingo had been responsible. He did not find the scientific evidence to the contrary convincing. Of Kenneth Brown’s evidence, that a dingo had not caused the damage to the jumpsuit, he said Brown had admitted he did not have expertise in bite marks made on clothing, so it would be “dangerous to accept his evidence in that regard”.
Barritt was severely critical of the police, whom he believed had been biased in their investigation, a bias fuelled by a disbelief in Lindy’s story. He was particularly harsh on Myra Fogarty, whose evidence on finding less blood than might be expected from a dingo attack had been in his view a tacit attempt to advance the murder theory. Constable Fogarty had not been taught the principles of scientific observation and had been given a critical examination which was beyond her competence. Supervision in the section, Barritt said, had been “negligent in the extreme”. Sergeant Sandry, he said, appeared sceptical of the dingo theory when he interviewed dingo experts, according to a report of the finding in the Sydney Morning Herald. Sandry and Fogarty had, like Morris, not appreciated just how critical what they did would become. In different circumstances their performance would not have been remarked on at all. In professional terms, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But Barritt was adamant that the police should have done better. “Police forces must realise, or be made to realise, that courts will not tolerate any standard less than complete objectivity from anyone claiming to be making scientific observations,” he said.
These deficiencies in the police investigation had compounded the problems of the Chamberlains who had been subjected to “probably the most malicious gossip ever witnessed in this country”. Barritt said he had had advice from a Hebrew expert that “Azaria” meant “With the Help of God”, and that the name for “Sacrifice in the Wilderness” was similar-sounding but different. Another meaning for Azaria given at the inquest said it meant “Blessed of God”. The confusion probably arose because directly under the definition of “Azaria” was “Azazel”, which meant “Devil”, “Bearer of Sins”, or the name of a demon in the wilderness to whom a goat was sent.
Barritt said the NT Parks and Wildlife Service had a responsibility to protect human life, particularly in circumstances where there had already been dingo attacks on children. The service had a responsibility to protect children coming into national parks and where there were dangerous animals, they should be eliminated from parks or at least those parts where there was a high frequency of visitors. He acknowledged that the service had a responsibility to preserve wildlife. If there were laws forbidding the destruction of particular wildlife, then the inherent danger of these creatures should be publicised. The death of a baby, he said, was a high price to pay for conservation. And that, it seemed, was that. The safeguard, of the balanced, objective look of an experienced coroner, had worked.
Michael and Lindy Chamberlain emerged from the courthouse and displayed an enlarged picture of Lindy holding Azaria, then returned, it was hoped, to resume their lives as an SDA pastor and wife. Azaria’s death certificate registered at Alice Springs on 6th March 1981 read: “Inquest held 20 February 1981 D.J. Barritt, Coroner. Severe crushing to the base of the skull and neck and lacerations to the throat and neck.”
In Gosford, Stuart Tipple had followed the case with intense interest. He was aware of the rumours that there had been foul play. He did not think Michael would have done anything like that, or been party to it in any way. It was with “a feeling of great relief”, he said later, that he heard Barritt’s finding which exonerated the parents.
Of course, the inquiry was not over. If, as Barritt said, there had been human intervention, then who was it? The person or persons responsible could face several charges: of interfering with a corpse, unauthorised burial and failure to report a death. It was a matter for the police to answer that unsolved question. The NT police held onto the jumpsuit and other exhibits from the inquest. A senior police officer at Alice Springs said, quite justifiably: “The hearing can be reopened in the future if fresh information comes to light.” There were other factors too. The NT Police had their noses totally out-of-joint. The NT Conservation Commission did not like his remarks either. The NT Government appeared anxious to demonstrate it could handle its affairs as well as anybody else. The case acquired a political significance which it would never have had the same event occurred in New South Wales, Victoria or any other states. Cases like the Ananda Marga prosecutions or the Blackburn case in New South Wales, or the Cessna-Milner case which involved allegations of improper conduct, had embarrassed the governments but had hardly threatened their hold on power.
In
