Chamberlain Legal Case and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, South Pacific Division

Seventh-day Adventist pastor Michael Chamberlain and his wife Lindy suffered one of the most notorious cases of miscarriage of justice in Australian legal history. They lost their baby daughter Azaria to a dingo at Uluru, Norther Territory in August 1980.

On June 11, 1980, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain were delighted when Azaria, their first daughter was born joining her brothers Aidan aged 6 years and Reagan aged 4 years.¹ Michael was 36 and the Pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church in Mt Isa, a small mining town in the northwest of Queensland, Australia. Lindy was 32, a supportive minister’s wife and full-time mother.

Nine-and-a-half weeks after Azaria was born, the family traveled for two days by car to Uluru (then known as Ayers Rock), a red monolith situated southwest of Alice Springs in the desert of central Australia. They were excited and anticipated being able to photograph the rock and witness its spectacular sunrises and sunsets. After arriving they set up camp in a small tent in a public camping area.

The next morning, August 17, Michael rose early to photograph the sunrise. Like other visitors he was in awe of the rock and its dominance of the surrounding red sandy desert, at its highest point over 348 meters (1,141feet) above its base which has a circumference of 9,400 meters (5.8 miles). After breakfast the Chamberlain family set off for the rock. While Michael climbed, Lindy stayed near the base caring for Azaria and the boys. The family then drove around the rock allowing Michael to take over 100 photographs of the rock’s many unique features. In the evening, after viewing and photographing a spectacular sunset the family drove back to their tent site.

Reagan had fallen asleep and was placed in his sleeping bag in the tent. Michael and Aidan walked 20 meters to a public barbecue area and began preparing their evening meal. They met and talked together with Greg and Sally Lowe and their 18-month-old baby girl. Lindy soon joined the group, holding a wriggling Azaria. Twenty minutes later Azaria was settled and asleep. Mr. Lowe watched as Lindy, cradling Azaria, walked with Aidan back to their tent which was facing the barbecue.

Lindy claimed she placed Azaria in her bassinet in the right-hand rear corner of the tent and Aidan slipped into his sleeping bag. As Lindy said goodnight, Aidan announced he was still hungry. Lindy fetched some baked beans from the car, parked next to the tent and returned to the BBQ area with Aidan. They had been absent between 5 and 10 minutes.

As Lindy began opening the can of beans, Michael heard a short faint cry he believed was Azaria. The cry was also heard by Mrs. Lowe. On being alerted to the cry, Lindy set off to investigate and about 10m from the tent she saw a dingo, (an Australian wild dog) coming out, shaking its head and appearing to have something in its mouth. Lindy dived into the tent to find the baby missing. Her cry “the Dingo’s got my baby” transformed her from a housewife to a headline.

After the alarm was raised, 400 people began a search that continued until 3 a.m. the next morning. Tracks were discovered but no other sign of the baby was found. News of the tragedy filtered to the outside world and set in motion one of the biggest media stories in Australia's history. Reporters from the newspapers and television crews flew in and found the Chamberlains willing to be interviewed.

A week after the baby disappeared a tourist discovered the baby’s clothing near the base of Ayer’s Rock, about 4,000 meters from the tent site. Rumors swamped the initial tide of public sympathy, raising suspicions that the Chamberlains had been responsible for their baby's disappearance. The suspicion and rumors were fueled by the Chamberlain’s willingness to be interviewed, their little-known religious beliefs and doubts that a dingo was capable of seizing and carrying a 10-pound baby. Investigating police formed the view that Lindy was a religious nut and had sacrificed the baby in a bizarre religious ritual.

The first inquest to determine the cause of Azaria’s death commenced in Alice Springs in December 1980.² Police suspicion had grown when an examination of the baby’s clothing failed to detect dingo saliva, hairs, or tearing that experts believed would have been evident from a dingo attack. The Chamberlains arrived at the inquest believing there was no need or reason for them to be legally represented but wisely accepted advice to obtain representation just before the inquest commenced. During the inquest, Coroner Denis Barritt expressed concerns about the quality of the forensic testing, the police investigation and a lack of action by the tourist and conservation authorities to protect tourists from dingoes.³

Barritt was so appalled at how the Chamberlains had been treated, he became the first Australian judicial officer to deliver his findings by live television. His findings were viewed by a world-wide audience. He criticized the police, the conservation authorities, and rejected the malicious rumor that “Azaria” meant “sacrifice in the wilderness.” He concluded with an apology to the Chamberlains:

You have not only suffered the loss of your beloved child in the most tragic of circumstances, but you have been subjected to months of innuendos, suspicion, and probably the most malicious gossip ever witnessed in this country. I have taken the unusual step of permitting these proceedings to be televised today in the hope that by direct and accurate communication such innuendos, suspicion, and gossip may finally cease. I doth find that Azaria Chantal Loren Chamberlain met death when attacked by wild dingo whilst asleep in the family's tent at the top camping area.⁴

The Police Commissioner announced police inquiries were continuing.

The baby's jumpsuit was taken to London where it was examined by Professor Cameron, a pathologist with an international reputation. Following his examination, he secretly reported to the police commissioner that in his opinion:

1. The blood staining around the collar of the jumpsuit could only have been caused by the baby's neck being cut or decapitated with a cutting instrument held by human hands.

2. There were impressions of two bloodied handprints on the jumpsuit.

3. The jumpsuit had been buried in soil while still covering the body.

4. There was no evidence of canine involvement.⁵

The Chamberlains were awakened early one Saturday morning in September 1981 by police swooping on their home armed with a search warrant. The police seized over 250 items of clothing, personal effects and the family car for forensic examination. A forensic biologist claimed she found significant blood staining in the inner hinge of the car's front passenger seat, the floor well and on items found in the car including a small pair of nail scissors. It was claimed that traces of blood were found throughout the car and Dr. Jones, a pathologist, identified what he thought was an arterial blood spray under the dashboard in front of the passenger seat. Testing of the bloodstains led to the conclusion that it was infant blood and could only have come from a normal child under the age of 6 months.

Professor Chaiken, a textile expert discovered that cotton loops fell from the baby’s jumpsuit when it was cut with scissors. Similar loops were found in vacuumings taken from the Chamberlains car and camera bag. He concluded that the damage to the jumpsuit could not have been caused by a dingo and had been caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the scissors found in the car.⁶

Subsequently, in a secret chambers application the findings of the first inquest were quashed and a new inquest was ordered.⁷

The second inquest began in December 1981. The police believed the Chamberlains had been too calm and too willing in giving media interviews. They argued the dingo story was a fabrication and pressed the scenario that Lindy had murdered Azaria in the car and while placing the body in the camera bag had caused an arterial blood spray to stain the car under dash area. It was claimed that the body was later buried in the sand hill behind the tent and that the Chamberlains had damaged the clothing with scissors to simulate a dingo attack. At the conclusion of this second inquest, Lindy was committed for trial on murder and Michael for being an accessory after the fact.⁸

The trial was scheduled to commence in April 1982 but was adjourned until September. By June it was obvious Lindy was expecting another child. Detractors believed the pregnancy was a deliberate ploy to gain sympathy while her supporters saw it as a demonstration of her faith.

At the trial the defense answered the Crown’s circumstantial case with equally qualified defense witnesses in every important respect. The head ranger from Ayer’s Rock testified how he had sought permission to shoot dingoes because they had become uncharacteristically bold and aggressive and had attacked other children and campers just before the Chamberlains had arrived. During his search on the night Azaria disappeared, he discovered tracks leading from the Chamberlain tent to a sand hill. As an experienced tracker he believed the marks were made by a dingo dragging and picking up a weighted object leaving a weave pattern in the sand.⁹

Lindy's doctor confirmed she had not demonstrated any sign of post-natal depression and all the witnesses who saw her that day confirmed her care and love for the baby. Two eminent professors of immunology disputed the blood-testing procedures on the material found in the car and the conclusion that it was infant blood. If there was blood in the car, all of it (except the arterial spray under the dashboard) could have come from a bleeding accident victim the Chamberlain’s had picked up and driven to the hospital before Azaria had disappeared.¹⁰

The evidence that the spray under the dashboard was an arterial spray of infant blood was hotly disputed. Defense witnesses argued that the damage to the jumpsuit could have been caused by a dingo and the cotton loops found by the police could have come from other jumpsuits. An eminent pathologist disputed Professor Cameron's opinion that blood staining on the jumpsuit was caused from a cut throat and bloodied hand prints.¹¹

The evidence of Sally Lowe was compelling as she confirmed the baby was still alive when the Crown said she was murdered and that the Chamberlains did not have the time or opportunity to carry out the prosecution murder scenario. The trial judge's summing up favored the Chamberlains but after only 6 hours, the jury returned guilty verdicts. Lindy was immediately sentenced to a mandatory life sentence with hard labor and the following day Michael was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence.¹²

On November 17, 1982 Kahlia Chamberlain was born and was immediately taken from Lindy by the prison authorities. The following day Lindy successfully applied for bail awaiting her first appeal. The first appeal was unanimously dismissed by the three presiding judges on April 29, 1983 and Lindy returned to jail to serve her life sentence.¹³ The Chamberlains’ final appeal to the High Court of Australia was dismissed by a 3 to 2 majority in February 1984.¹⁴

The case continued to divide the nation and maintain a high media profile. A petition seeking the Chamberlains pardon and an enquiry was supported by one hundred and thirty thousand signatures but met with no success. A private members bill in the federal parliament seeking an inquiry failed to get sufficient support.

The Chamberlain’s religious beliefs had worked against them. The witnesses who supported the Chamberlains had been questioned as to whether they were Seventh-day Adventists. Many of the outrageous rumors that circulated had a religious undertone.¹⁵ When Azaria disappeared there were over 40,000 Seventh-day Adventists in Australia and the church was shocked to learn how little the public knew about Seventh-day Adventists and what they believed.

Dr Norman Young, senior lecturer in New Testament at Avondale College at the time, made a number of significant observations relative to the case and the church. He wrote:

Both the Australian public and the press knew very little about the religion of the Chamberlains and the 40,000-plus fellow Australian Seventh-day Adventists. This lack was largely corrected by imagination rather than investigation. Gossip fabricated all sorts of perversities such as the following:

• Adventists couples did not desire children

• The Adventist Church practiced rites like smearing one's blood in a sacred cave

• That child sacrifice was part of Adventist doctrine

• That clairvoyants were more trustworthy than Adventist ministers.¹⁶

He added further:

The way the Adventist Church at the official level functioned during the Chamberlains inquests and trial is characteristic of this intense desire to be seen as loyal to the state. The official church’s support of the Chamberlains was very low-key and unobtrusive. At no time has there been any official statement that the church disagreed with or rejected the findings of the courts. The church of course does not feel obliged to rally to the cause of every member who comes into conflict with the law. That she has done so in this instance is certainly because she feels some disquiet about the justice of the case. If the official church believed the Chamberlains were guilty, she would distance herself from them and their predicament. However, in staying by them the church has been as usual cautious, conservative, and anxious to avoid any semblance of opposing the instruments of the state.”¹⁷

He also made the point that:

The majority of Christians would affirm that on death the departed go to heaven. Adventists, however, do not see death as the door to paradise. They believe it is not until the Second Advent and the resurrection that believers enter paradise. . . . The Chamberlains’ frequent evangelistic testimony of their Christian hope, which understandably was often misconstrued, is an outgrowth of their faith in the resurrection.¹⁸

He concluded:

Some ancient societies practiced child sacrifice; Adventists unqualifiedly condemn this custom as barbarous and pagan. There is no way that the religion practiced by Adventists could lead any adherent to suppose that a child sacrifice was anything other than an abomination to God.

In conclusion it should be emphasized that as a matter of fact neither the Adventist Church nor the dingo were on trial for the tragic death of little Azaria Chamberlain. Unfortunately, both have come in for considerable misunderstanding in connection with this tragedy. The beliefs of the Chamberlains gave them hope and comfort in their hour of the anguish. Regrettably the zeal to demonstrate "the peace of God, which passes all understanding" (Philippians 4:7) did just that and left most Australians confounded. Whom we cannot understand we soon suspect. However, many examples previously discussed demonstrate that the Chamberlains acted in a manner that was true to their religious upbringing and convictions.¹⁹

An independent investigation was pursued by two SDA church members, Phil Ward and Don McNicol. They alleged that the baby had been taken by a pet dingo named “Ding” and some people had conspired to cover up what really happened. This scenario became known as the Ding Theory.²⁰ Many SDA’s accepted and believed the Ding Theory and pressed Lindy to sack her legal team and press for an inquiry based on the alleged conspiracy.

However, Lindy examined the evidence presented by Ward and McNicol and was so concerned by the allegations and investigation that she earned the ire of many SDA supporters when she refused to sack her legal team and wrote to the Northern Territory Government disassociating herself from the Ward and McNicol investigation and its conclusions. In response, a number of SDA’s became angry with Lindy and demanded that church administrators withdraw all financial support. After careful consideration the church administrators continued to support the Chamberlains and their chosen legal team.²¹

The failed High Court appeal had exhausted all the Chamberlains’ legal rights. The only possible further review was to persuade the Northern Territory Attorney General to exercise his discretion to order an inquiry. The Chamberlains’ legal team had continued to accumulate further evidence and in June 1985 presented the attorney general with an application for an inquiry relying on:

1. Updated statements from relevant witnesses, and

2. New evidence that

•  there were dingo hairs on the clothing,
• that the alleged arterial spray was not even blood,
• support from the manufacturer of the blood test reagent that the blood forensic tests could not be relied upon,
• the damage to the jumpsuit had been caused by a dingo.
• hairs found in the tent and clothing were dingo hairs²²

The attorney general dismissed the inquiry application in November 1985 advising that after his careful consideration, the application was “not cogent or of such substance to warrant an inquiry.”²³

All legal avenues available to the Chamberlains had been exhausted.

However, in February 1986, some five-and-a-half years after Azaria disappeared, John Beasy, a motor mechanic, with others was searching for the body of a man who had fallen while climbing on Ayer’s Rock. He had been living at the rock in 1980 and had been one of those who had originally searched for Azaria. While walking between two policemen he noticed some material exposed in the sand. He picked it up and felt sand breaking from around it. He was the only searcher on that day who would have recognized that this was a small sized baby jacket of significance. It was the matinee jacket, the only piece of Azaria's clothing that had never been found.

On February 7, 1986, the attorney general ordered the immediate release of Lindy from Berrimah Jail in Darwin and announced that a Royal Commission would be held. The commission commenced on the May 8, 1986. Ward and McNicol were invited to provide evidence to support the ‘Ding’ theory. After sitting for 92 days and hearing from 145 witnesses and reviewing all the evidence, the Royal Commissioner presented his report on May 22, 1987.

In respect of the ‘Ding’ theory the commissioner concluded: “The fact that neither Mr. Ward or Mr. McNicol was able to provide the commission with any evidence which might support the story confirms my opinion that it has no foundation.”²⁴

The report substantially accepted the new evidence provided by the Chamberlains’ legal team which had been rejected by the attorney general and exonerated the Chamberlains concluding, “If the evidence before the Commission had been given at the trial, the trial judge would have been obliged to acquit the Chamberlains on the ground that the evidence could not justify their conviction.”

The Chamberlains received pardons and compensation. A pardon is an executive action to relieve its recipient from the consequences of a conviction and not a declaration of innocence. The Chamberlains successfully petitioned the government to pass special legislation to allow a further appeal.

On September 15, 1988 the Northern Territory Court of Appeal Criminal quashed the Chamberlains’ convictions and entered verdicts of acquittal. However, the Chamberlains continued to be concerned that because the first coroner’s verdict finding that Azaria had been taken by a dingo had been quashed, many people not only doubted their innocence but also ignored the risk posed by dingoes. On their application a third inquest was held in 1995. The coroner exonerated the Chamberlains but refused to find the death was caused by a dingo and entered an open finding.

By this time Lindy and Michael Chamberlain’s marriage had ended. They separated in 1990 and were divorced in 1991. Lindy married Rick Creighton in 1992 and Michael married Ingrid Bergner in 1994.

In 2012 the Chamberlains successfully applied for a fourth inquest. The coroner, Elizabeth Morris reviewed the previous evidence and a report confirming that between 1990 and 2011, there had been two hundred and thirty-nine incidents and attacks involving dingoes (including the death of a nine-year-old boy).²⁵

On 12 June 2012, the coroner broke down as she delivered her finding that Azaria had died after being attacked and taken by a dingo. She concluded by offering the Chamberlains her condolences telling them: “Please accept my sincere sympathy on the death of your special and loved daughter and sister Azaria. I’m sorry for your loss. Time does not remove the pain and sadness of the death of a child.”²⁶

On the January 9, 2017 Michael Chamberlain died unexpectantly, aged 72 years.

His memorial service was held in the College Church at Avondale College, Cooranbong, New South Wales. Stuart Tipple, the attorney who had represented the Chamberlains throughout their legal battles, addressed the mourners pointing out that when Michael drove into Ayers Rock, he was 36 years of age, exactly half way through his life. Stuart closed his address by issuing a challenge to the Northern Territory Government to make the apology Michael died still hoping for. He concluded by saying: “In 1980 there was a sacrifice in the wilderness. Michael’s expectation that if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear died. That expectation was put on the altar of political expediency and was consumed by rumor, prejudice and incompetence. He will be not rest in peace unless we remember his legacy and continue the fight on his behalf.”²⁷ The challenge for an apology remains unanswered.

Michael Chamberlain is survived by his wife Ingrid and his children, Aidan, Reagan, Kahlia, and Zahra. Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton continues to be a frequent speaker for civic groups, churches, and media.

Notes

1. This article is written from the personal knowledge and reflections of Stuart Tipple who was and remains the attorney for Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton and Michael Chamberlain through the tenure of their legal battles from the second inquest.↩

2. Transcript of the First Inquest, which commenced on the 15^th December 1980,” held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

3. Transcript of the First Inquest, February 20, 1981,” held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

4. “Transcript of the First Inquest, February 20, 1981,” held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

5. Report dated July 15, 1981 of Professor James Cameron to The Northern Territory Police Commissioner,” held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

6. From transcripts held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

7. Findings of the First Inquest quashed by the Honorable Mr. Justice Toohey on November 19, 1981, held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain↩

8. “Transcript of the Second Inquest, February 2, 1982,” held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

9. From transcripts held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

10. Ibid.↩

11. Ibid.↩

12. Ibid.↩

13. Ibid.↩

14. Ibid.↩

15. Report of the Commissioner, the Honorable Mr. Justice T.R. Morling printed at the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on June 2, 1987,” 309, held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

16. Norman Young, “Azaria; The Religion Factor,” unpublished a paper held in the personal collection of the author.↩

17. Ibid, 5.↩

18. Ibid, 7, 8.↩

19. Ibid, 9.↩

20. Report of the Commissioner, the Honorable Mr. Justice T.R. Morling printed at the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on June 2, 1987,” 285-287, held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

21. Personal knowledge of the author as the attorney for the Chamberlains↩

22. Personal knowledge of the author as the attorney for the Chamberlains.↩

23. Letter sent by the Hon Attorney General Mr. Marshall Peron to the author, November 12, 1985 held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain↩

24. “Report of the Commissioner, the Honorable Mr. Justice T.R. Morling printed at the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on June 2, 1987,” held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

25. Transcript of the Fourth Inquest, June 12, 2012,” held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain↩

26. Transcript of the Fourth Inquest, June 12, 2012, held in the professional records of the author as attorney for Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.↩

27. Life Sketch delivered by the author at the Memorial Service for Michael Chamberlain, January 16, 2017, held in the personal and professional records of the author as attorney for Michael Chamberlain.↩