First Inquest

As is common in cases where someone dies in unusual or suspicious circumstances a coronial inquest was held to try and determine the manner and cause of death. The inquest was to turn out to be just the first into her death. It was held from 15 December 1980 to 20 February 1981 in Alice Springs. The coroner was Stipendiary Magistrate, Denis Barritt. He found that a dingo snatched and killed Azaria Chamberlain. The parents, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, were not implicated in any way with the disappearance of their child.

Second inquest

In committing the Chamberlains for trial, the coroner who performed the second inquest and recorded findings as to the cause and manner of Azaria's death stated that although the evidence was, to a large degree, circumstantial, a jury properly instructed could arrive at a verdict; with regard to the clothing evidence. He surmised that the Chamberlains knew dingoes were in the area, attempted to simulate a dingo attack, recovered Azaria's buried body, removed her clothing, damaged it by cutting, rubbed it in vegetation, and deposited the clothes for later recovery.^[15] On this basis and that of blood evidence of unknown origin found in the Chamberlains' car, the Chamberlains were prosecuted and convicted for the murder of their two-month-old baby, with Lindy sentenced to life imprisonment without parole^[1] and Michael Chamberlain suspended for three years as an accessory to murder.^[9] The stain believed to have been blood that was found in the Chamberlains' car was later determined to be most likely a sound-deadening compound from a manufacturing overspray.^[16]

Prosecution claims

The prosecution's theory was that, in a five- to ten-minute absence from the camp fire, Lindy returned to her tent, did whatever was necessary to stop her young son Aidan from following her, changed into tracksuit pants, took Azaria to her car, obtained and used scissors to cut Azaria's throat, waited for Azaria to die (options were carotid arteries or jugular – all experts said there was an absence of evidence of arterial bleeding on the jumpsuit blood stains and it would take up to 20 minutes if the death was from cutting the jugular), hid the body in a camera case in the car, cleaned up blood on everything including the outside of the camera case, removed the tracksuit pants, obtained baked beans for her son from the car, returned to the tent, did something to leave blood splashes there and brought her son Aidan back to the campfire without ever attracting the attention of other campers except for camper Greg Lowe who gave evidence that he observed her to go to the tent with Azaria and Aidan and then walk to the car with her left arm around Aidan and her right arm unimpeded.^{[10]: p. 14} She also counted on her son not noticing she had taken Azaria and returned without her and asking her publicly where she had taken Azaria. She then later returned to the tent and immediately claimed that she saw a dingo taking her baby with evidence implicating a dingo being purely coincidental. No-one noticing alleged blood on Chamberlain's clothes in the hours after the disappearance was purely fortunate. Chamberlain opening the car where the body was allegedly hidden to give a dog the scent of Azaria from the clothes in the car was a daring act. She also must have somehow done it without her husband's knowledge or he was also incredibly daring given that he left his children in her care afterward and he told the police that he had given them the wrong camera case and then gave them the one that was allegedly used to conceal the body.^[9][12][16]

In the second inquest, concerning the clothing evidence alone:

1. The clothing of the deceased child had been buried prior to its finding and probably contained the body of the child when buried.
2. Soil type of a pH found on the clothing is consistent with the pH of the soil at the camp and also with the consistency of the soil in clothing and at the site and is inconsistent with the type of soil and pH in the area in which the clothing was found.
3. There is no evidence on the clothing of dragging or catching nor the presence of saliva. It was argued that the absence of saliva was not remarkable as a witness gave evidence of heavy rain in the area. The clothing was not subjected to heavy rain as there is evidence that such heavy rain would have adversely affected the bloodstaining on the clothing and this is not the case. This lack of presence of saliva and dragging is inconsistent with a dingo carrying the body a distance of some four kilometres.
4. The jumpsuit was completely done up by studs to the neck which remained closed while the child was bleeding.
5. After the blood had dried the two top studs were undone prior to the clothing being buried whilst containing the body of the child.
6. There is evidence provided by fluorescent examination to suggest the presence of a palm print of a small adult right hand and some evidence of the presence of a left hand caused by a person holding the child when that person's hands were contaminated with wet blood.
7. Single holes or indentations which appear in the clothing could be consistent with teeth marks of an animal but the absence of tissue stains in conjunction with those holes make it inconsistent with an animal holding the body of the child. The evidence clearly establishes that the clothing has been cut and in places torn by a person or persons and in particular the cut on the collar was made after the bloodstaining had occurred, It was argued that one area of damage in the general area of the elbow may be consistent with an animal tearing, but the evidence is very strong that such a tearing by an animal would be inconsistent because of the lack of evidence of the presence of tissue staining which would inevitably be involved if an animal had caused the damage to the clothing.
8. Vegetation contamination on the clothing is inconsistent with vegetation found at the scene and inconsistent with the likely contamination which would have occurred if the clothing with a body in it had been carried by an animal. This supports the view that the vegetation contamination was caused by human intervention.
9. The clothes as found were not strewn around the area and this is inconsistent with an animal being responsible for their placement.
10. The clothing was found adjacent to a path near the base of a rock and adjacent to a dingo's lair.
11. Scissors were found in the Chamberlain's car on which there was present human fetal blood staining on the cutting edge and on the hinge areas. There is evidence to support that when comparable scissors are used to cut through blood that blood would be deposited on the cutting edge. An inference can be drawn that these scissors were used to cut the deceased's clothing. There is no weight to the argument that the subject scissors were unable to cut clothing as this was after the stud had been removed from the scissors to enable certain tests.

From this evidence it was concluded that both Chamberlains were implicated in covering their crime.^{[10]: p. 14}

The prosecution's expert testimony for forensic evidence included that of James Cameron, a scientist who had also given crucial evidence in a case in England which was later overturned when his expert evidence was proved wrong.^[12] With regard to the timing of the baby's cry and Chamberlain's whereabouts, the prosecution also claimed that the Chamberlains convinced fellow camper and witness Sally Lowe to say that she heard Azaria cry after Chamberlain returned to the camp fire.^{[10]: p. 6}

Evidence that a dingo took Azaria Chamberlain

Camper Sally Lowe and Michael Chamberlain gave evidence that they heard a baby cry at a time when Chamberlain was with them at the barbecue area and Azaria was believed to be in the family tent.^{[10]: p. 10}

Witness Judith West, who was camped 30 metres (98 feet) away, testified to hearing a dog's low, throaty growl coming from that direction, a sound that she associated with growls her husband's dogs made when he was slaughtering sheep.^{[10]: p. 18}

Chamberlain gave evidence that, in response to others hearing Azaria cry, she went to the tent. Halfway to the tent, she thought she saw a dingo emerging from the tent having difficulty getting out of the tent and shaking its head vigorously. Her view of its nose was obscured. She cried "Michael, Michael, the dingo's got my baby!" and ran into the tent to check on her children. Azaria was missing. She chased in the direction she thought it had gone, and called out to her husband for a torch.^{[10]: p. 16}

Police Detective Sergeant John Lincoln gave evidence that he took photographs of large paw prints a few centimetres from Azaria's cot and found what was probably blood outside the tent. He collected samples but they were not tested.^{[10]: p. 11}

Lowe also gave evidence that she had brought Reagan out of the tent after the occurrence. When she was in the tent she observed a pool of blood in the tent about 15 cm by 10 cm (6 by 4 inches).^{[10]: p. 15} However, the amount of blood was disputed. Another witness who entered the tent that night, police Constable Frank Morris, gave evidence that there were only a few drops of blood on a couple of blankets and a sleeping bag in the tent.^[9]

A scientific witness located blood on the wall of the tent. Scientist Dr. Andrew Scott agreed that the spray mark of blood was consistent with a dingo carrying a bleeding baby. However, he did not believe that it was human blood.^[10] Canine hairs were located in the tent and on Azaria's jumpsuit. The Chamberlains did not own a dog.^[9]

Les Harris, then President of the Dingo Foundation, gave evidence that his opinion based on years of studying dingoes is that a dingo could have enveloped the head of a baby in its mouth and carried the weight of a baby over long distances. He produced photographs of dingoes enveloping the head of a baby-sized doll in its jaws.^{[10]: p. 12} However, forensic expert Professor James Cameron gave evidence that, based on studying plaster casts of dingo jaws, it was impossible for a dingo to open its jaws wide enough to encompass a child's head.^[10]

Tourist Max Whittacker gave evidence that he attended a search later on the night of the disappearance with people including the head ranger and an Aboriginal tracker. He claimed to have been called by the head ranger to help him and the Aboriginal tracker to follow dingo paw prints and scrape marks in the sand in a westerly direction. He was led to believe they were following the trail of a dingo carrying a heavy object believed to be Azaria's body. "I now know that the Aboriginal's account of following these tracks west that night has been denied by rangers and the Aboriginal's account of this incident has not been accepted."^[10]

Although expert opinion varied as to whether the clothes damage could have been caused by a dingo some took the view that it could have been. Further, marks on nappy fragments were similar to marks resulting from a dingo on another nappy that was used for testing purposes.^[9] Azaria's clothing was found only 30 metres (98 feet) from a dingo's den, although no one, including the chief ranger and his deputy, was aware of the den at the time.^[9]

Claims of human interference with clothes

Some evidence indicates human intervention between the time of discovery of Azaria's clothes and the time that the police photographed them.

Camper Wallace Goodwin, who was the first to discover the jumpsuit, singlet and nappy, gave evidence that the whole of the jumpsuit was undone, that the clothes were lying on the ground naturally not artificially, and that he believed the singlet was beside the jumpsuit not inside it.^[10] However, police Constable Frank Morris, the first police officer to examine the clothes after Goodwin located them, gave evidence that only the top four buttons were undone and the singlet was inside it. He stated that he picked up the clothes to check the inside for human remains and then returned it to the ground and photographed it.^[10] The singlet that had been placed back in the jumpsuit was inside out. Chamberlain gave evidence that she always ensured that singlets were not inside out.

Post-conviction

Shortly after her conviction, Chamberlain was escorted from Berrimah Prison under guard to give birth to her fourth child, Kahlia, on 17 November 1982, in Darwin Hospital, and was returned thereafter to prison.^[8] An appeal to the Federal Court against conviction was subsequently dismissed. Another appeal against her conviction was rejected by the High Court in February 1984.^[3]

Release on new evidence

New evidence emerged on 2 February 1986 when Azaria's matinee jacket, which the police had maintained did not exist, was found partially buried adjacent to a dingo lair in an isolated location near Uluru.^[8] Five days later, on 7 February 1986, with the discovery of Azaria's missing jacket supporting the Chamberlains' defence case, Chamberlain was released from prison, and her life sentence was remitted by the Northern Territory Government.^[1][16] In 1987, a Royal Commission began investigating the matter further.

Morling Royal Commission

The purpose of the royal commission was to enquire into and report on the correctness of the Chamberlain convictions. In reaching the conclusion that there was a reasonable doubt as to the Chamberlains' guilt, Commissioner Trevor Morling concluded that the hypothesis that Chamberlain murdered Azaria had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although the commission was of the opinion that the evidence afforded considerable support for the dingo hypothesis, it did not examine the evidence to see whether it had been proved that a dingo took the baby. To do so would, in the words of Morling, involve a "fundamental error of reversing the onus of proof and requiring Mrs Chamberlain to prove her innocence" (at p. 339 of the report).^[17]

Third inquest

After the Chamberlains were acquitted by the Supreme Court in September 1988 and their convictions overturned, a third inquest in 1995 took place, with the coroner's report stating that it was a "paper inquest" rather than a full inquest since there was little new evidence and the second inquest was never fully completed.^[9] The coroner considered the Morling Royal Commission's report enquiring into the correctness of the convictions against Chamberlain along with submissions made on behalf of the Chamberlains, and returned an open verdict in Azaria's cause of death, or, insufficient evidence by the prosecution that failed to meet the required standard of proof for conviction. Specifically, he wrote

"After examining all the evidence I am unable to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Azaria Chamberlain died at the hands of Alice Lynne Chamberlain. It automatically follows that I am also unable to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Michael Leigh Chamberlain had any involvement in the death."

He also wrote that because the evidence for the death-by-dingo hypothesis was never developed, "I am unable to be reasonably satisfied that Azaria Chamberlain died accidentally as a result of being taken by a dingo."^[18] He noted that

"Indeed, the evidence affords considerable support for the view that a dingo may have taken her. To examine the evidence to see whether it has been proved that a dingo took Azaria would be to make the fundamental error of reversing the onus of proof and requiring Mrs Chamberlain to prove her innocence."^[17]

2012 inquest

The Chamberlains continued to push for a resolution to the investigation into the death of Azaria as being caused by one or more dingoes without human interference.^[19] A new inquest began in February 2012^[20][21] and new figures on dingo attacks on Fraser Island were collated by the Queensland Government's Department of Environment and Resource Management and provided as evidence at the Azaria Chamberlain inquest.^[11] Coroner Elizabeth Morris said that the new evidence in relation to dingo attacks on infants and young children had helped convince her to reopen the investigation.^[20] After 32 years of intense media interest and public excoriation, the Chamberlains stated they remained unsatisfied with bare acquittal and presumed innocence, and were keen to finally, and definitively, determine how their daughter died.^[11][22] On 12 June 2012, an Australian coroner made a final ruling that a dingo took baby Azaria Chamberlain from a campsite in 1980 and caused her death.^[23][24] Morris apologised to the Chamberlain family while an amended death certificate was immediately made available to them.^[25]