‘Dingo’s Got My Baby’: Trial by Media | Retro Report | The New York Times
Odsłon: 603330 | Ocena: 6153 | Czas: 14m 4s |
‘Dingo’s Got My Baby’: Trial by Media | Retro Report | The New York Times
Is this a black mirror episode?
I remember when I was a child hearing my parents make a dingo ate my baby joke I asked them what they were talking about and my mother explained the story very roughly. I was a child and I remember being completely horrified that someone could make a joke about that and I felt sick
This trial just seems like it’s built on lies and reinforced by horrible forensic work and sexism
Why were they targeting the mother and not the father?
Once you belong to a religion, all your credibility is gone. End of story.
as a seventh day adventist,,,,,, i am ~disgusted~
hhhhh australia rlly thought
Wait this is true....
I’m not hating but how would someone be like missing child the child’s clothes not to far there was dingos near by soooo
The mom did it?
That doesn’t make sense Dingos are k9s that are more aggressive when they are hungry and dogs bite so what makes people think dingos won’t bite or eat someone
Lindy Chamberlain and her then-husband Michael, a Seventh Day Adventist pastor, had three children before the loss of their infant daughter Azaria in a wild animal attack. Her real "offence" consisted of failing to act, speak and even dress in the culturally-prescribed, "appropriate" ways that much of the Australian community deemed to be the norm for a grieving mother. Add to that the dogmatism and hubris of the Northern Territory Police, the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General, as well as the damning forensic science findings—later discovered to be wrong—of the recklessly inept Cambridge professor, James Cameron. Commercial television and elements of the press, notably the major Darwin newspaper and the Murdoch tabloids, fueled the public hysteria. In that toxic climate, which allowed the outrageous procedural unfairness and error that had characterised the investigation to extend into the conduct of the subsequent trial, a wrongful conviction became inevitable, and imprisonment followed. Michael Chamberlain was convicted also: on the charge of being an accessory to murder after the fact. But to the chagrin of the Crown Prosecutor he was spared a custodial sentence so that he could continue to look after the surviving children. After some years the emergence of new physical evidence and the competent re-examination of what had been so egregiously mishandled previously led to the quashing of the parents' respective convictions, and slowly, grudgingly and painfully the miscarriage of justice was remedied. Even so, the human injustice suffered by the Chamberlains and their family continues to exact its toll today.
Lindy and Michael Chamberlain were no more nor less negligent of their child's safety than many other parents who camped at Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park in 1980. They, like other Australians, didn't foresee (as many ratbag conspiracy theorists continued not to see even after the fatal attack) that dingos might be a potential threat. Fault can certainly be attributed, which it belatedly was, to the Park authorities and the Northern Territory Government. The former were present all the time and observed the local dingo population becoming gradually less timid and avoiding of humans, motivated by the increased food-scavenging opportunities provided—too often deliberately—by the growing numbers of tourists. Yet nothing was done to curtail this ominous change in behaviour or to alert visitors to any emerging threat. Although they had at least reported their concerns to the NT Government, the latter also failed to take timely preventive measures that might have been politically controversial or risked affecting the lucrative tourist industry. The Chamberlains were tragically unfortunate that their visit coincided with the occasion that one hungry animal at last felt bold enough to enter a camper's tent.
Hypocrisy and petty-mindedness, which find public expression in stereotyping and scapegoating, are not unique to any country. But the Chamberlain affair unleashed these vices in a peculiarly Australian cultural context. Not since the spectacular and bloody outlaw career of the Kelly gang a century earlier, which culminated with the trial and execution of Ned Kelly, had Australians been so rancorously divided by a court case and the nation's collective psyche been disturbed so deeply. But whatever the broader societal rights and wrongs of that earlier saga, that Ned was guilty as charged was never seriously in question. Who in 1980 could have imagined that once again an often complacent and self-regarding society was about to be confronted with an uncomfortable view of itself that it is still finding very difficult to acknowledge.
I’ve always thought she was obviously 100% innocent and still do, but it is interesting that the baby onesie was literally completely intact. Odd, considering it more then likely would have been torn to shreds at-least a little? But again, I don’t think the mom was guilty at all, it’s just interesting.
Ever since Susan Smith was on TV "begging" for the made-up man who took her kids to give them back, I've watched carefully for tears. The women who are lying are making crying faces, but there're no tears. They make sniffling sounds, but there's no tear-snot to snort up. Whenever I see the fake crying I change channels.
Give it a week and the police are arresting the mom. They know too. At that point, they're just playing along until the mom confesses. It really hurts the people who're genuinely in a tragic situation since the public becomes skeptical of any strange abduction story. :-(
Baby Azaria, not to be confused with Hank Azaria.
really goes to show how vicious people are.
A BABY ATE MY DINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 years in prison after losing her new baby?!! Poor woman! What a travesty.
Some people are acting like believing she's innocent means we're morally blaming the dingo or prosecuting the species. They are just wild animals trying to eat and survive, and they don't typically prey on babies or children. However, during that era, they were increasing in numbers near that campsite because of feeding opportunity - availability of human garbage, smell of meat on campfires, people throwing them food and tidbits for entertainment/novelty. Most dingos, coyotes, and assorted wild dogs (purebred or cross) would never attack or intentionally prey on a child, but when they've lost their fear of humans and an easy meal presents itself, they're going to take it. It's not their fault. This is how wildlife works. This is such a tragic case, rife with mob mentality overreaction and melodrama (human sacrifice at a family campsite? really?). The wild dog saw an opportunity and against it's typical behaviour, it just went for it. Pure instinct. The baby probably died within seconds and it was carried off and consumed near the dingo lair. The matinee jacket was found right at a dingo lair years later. People were seeking ridiculous, lurid fiction when they concocted these crazy murder scenarios. I'm amazed some people still think she's guilty. The dingo isn't guilty either - it was just trying to eat and survive and maybe feed it's own offspring. It's nature. This was just a tragic accident and lack of forward thinking by the Chamberlains on the dangers of leaving a baby unattended in an area frequented by canine carnivores.
This is rubbish, I was there
What A Shame , I am so ,Sad
Oh my God y’all are SHEEP. She was in on it and ... I won’t say anymore but this was sacrificial. This thing went deeper than what y’all are seeing here.
Wow congratulations australia. You ruined a mothers who lost her daughter.
All the entertainment media that saw fit to make this into a punchline or joke should remove the reference from their movies, television episodes containing it. I still will not watch the Seinfeld episode that has the joke and it really caused me to not watch the show as much as I had previously done.