Lindy Chamberlain exonerated - a dingo did it.

[Sideroxylon]

You are making an assumption about what other commenters may or may not do. I think this assumption is (at best) unwarranted, but even if were not, nothing would prevent lionking or yourself from making the same comparison on the Knox/Sollecito thread. That thread is moderated; therefore, there can be no "poo storm" that falls outside the MA, as judged by the mods.

The similarities between the two cases are striking, IMO.

Have at it then.

 

[Rolfe]

It may very well be that defending such a position would require delving into the evidence of the Knox case again, causing a massive derail. Probably wise that he doesn't do that.

Exactly.

That's why I said I didn't want to start a derail with this. Anything more than a short summary would indeed be likely to derail this thread. It would be more appropriate to cover the issue in the moderated thread, and then nobody would be in any danger of breaching the MA. I don't think "caught up in" is exactly how I would describe Lionking's relationship with the poo storms in the Knox thread, but that's by the by.

As I said, the similarities between the Chamberlain case and the Knox case are extraordinarily striking - even down to the malicious forensics treatment of tests for blood. It's now understood that the blood testing carried out in the Chamberlain case was entirely misleading, not least because forensics seemed to feel it was their job to make the prosecution case stick. The Australian people now seem to realise that, and repent of their earlier demonisation of Lindy.

Lionking, as an Australian, seems to understand this well. And yet his posts in the Knox thread have been entirely from the viewpoint of believing in guilt. "Mixed blood", luminol traces, they all seem to be things he accepts. He hasn't been posting in the Knox thread recently. I would certainly welcome his considered views if he was prepared to give them rather than merely sniping at those who believe Knox to be innocent.

Why does someone who understands what happened in the Chamberlain case not accept the proposition that the exact same thing happened in the Knox case? What's the difference?

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

similarities across three cases

Have at it then.

The Gather article actually covers three cases, the third being Duke lacrosse.

Withholding of forensic results
The forensic scientist in the Chamberlain case destroyed plates that pertained to its tests for hemoglobin F. Although this may have been routine practice in her lab, it prevented their examination by defense experts who might have been able to discover the flaws in this experiment. The DA and a scientist from an independent laboratory conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case. The prosecution withheld crucial electronic data files that underlie the DNA evidence in the Knox/Sollecito case. They also failed to disclose that the TMB presumptive blood tests were negative. These are all examples of why "open discovery" laws should be adopted universally, IMO.

Unvetted forensics
The test for fetal hemoglobin (Hb F) was something that Ms. Joyce Kuhl made up and performed about thirteen months after the incident. It is difficult to believe that the Hb F would be unaltered by the extremes of temperature in that time. Some background reading here and here. The manufacturer of the antibodies against Hb F supplied a statement that undermined the proscution’s case. In the Knox/Sollecito case Ms. Stefanoni made up a new type of low template DNA profiling, which also produced results that were highly questionable. IMO forensic scientists should use tests that have been through the process of peer-review.

Twisting the results of forensic tests to make them seem inculpatory
In the Chamberlain case the prosecution’s expert witnesses downplayed the notion that there could be a false positive in the ortho-tolidine presumptive test for blood. One witness even opined that the test would turn a different color if there were an interference such as copper ion. There is an unconfirmed report that Ms. Kuhl’s superior replied to the question of whether false positives were possible by saying, “Not in my laboratory.” Both ideas are pernicious nonsense. In the Knox/Sollecito case the prosecution belittled the idea that luminol was only a presumptive test by implying that the luminol-positive substance had to either be blood or turnip juice. That is a bunch of bologna. Forensic scientists have established two tiers of tests, presumptive and confirmatory, for a reason.

In the Duke lacrosse case some pointed to a partial DNA profile on a fake fingernail as evidence of guilt. The partial profile did not exclude Duke student David Evans, but pro-guilt commenters ignored the obvious possibility of secondary transfer of DNA, inasmuch as it was in his house. Likewise, some pointed to the existence of mixed DNA between Ms. Kercher and Ms. Knox and evidence of guilt. Yet the most unsurprising forensic result produced in the case was that Ms. Knox's bathroom had her DNA.

Courtroom appearance/demeanor
Lindy Chamberlain was criticized for changing dresses every day (it was hot), as well as what was discussed in the Gather article. In their book “Until Proven Innocent” Taylor and Johnson wrote (p. 180) about former Duke lacrosse player Collin Finnerty’s facing a wall of photographers while awaiting his first appearance before a judge: “He tried to remain expressionless. In that atmosphere, if he had smiled the media would have called it a smirk; if he had frowned they would have called it an angry glare.” Nevertheless one USA Today sportswriter wasn’t sure if Mr. Finnerty’s expression was one of shock and fear or smugness. Ms. Knox was often photographed smiling at friends; IMO this was an attempt by photographers/editors to portray her as not taking the trial seriously. At Perugia Shock Frank Sfarzo wrote of Amanda Knox, “If she smiles it's wrong, if she cries it's wrong, if she moves it's wrong, if she's still it's wrong, if she watches it's wrong, if she doesn't watch it's wrong."

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps the most shocking thing about the Chamberlain case is that it's taken - what - thirty years for the truth to be generally accepted. The affair has completely ruined Lindy Chamberlain's life, no less than the Meadows thing ruined Sally Clark's. (And how are Donna Anthony and Angela Cannings getting on - does anyone know?) It's hard enough to lose a baby to an event which isn't your fault - wild animal attack in the Chamberlain case, "cot death" for the other three. To be jailed as a murderer on top of all that is absolutely unimaginable.

The root cause in all these cases seems to be prosecutors who develop and idee fixe about guilt, then pursue that idea with no thought for establishing the actual truth of the matter. Public opinion then joins in on the side of the prosecutors, and demonises the alleged culprit, mainly as a result of sensational press coverage. This effect was less marked in the three English cases, but it still happened. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/512099.stm (Note the comments from neighbours in that, though, saying nobody believed she was guilty.)

I don't see how this is going to stop, so long as prosecutors develop tunnel vision, and seek to build cases against chosen suspects rather than seeking the truth. And so long as the media sensationalises the prosecution allegations, bringing public opinion to bear against the hapless victim.

Lindy Chamberlain, Sally Clark, Donna Anthony and Angela Cannings were all convicted of murders that simply didn't happen at all. Sion Jenkins, Barry George, Stefan Kiszko, Paul Esslemont, David Asbury and Amanda Knox were convicted of murders carried out by someone else. In only the Knox and Kiszko cases is the identity of the real murderer known. All of these people were demonised by the press in a way calculated to turn public opinion against them. Reasons they must have been killers ranged from lying on a job application to being "a bit of a weirdo".

I can't see anyone in that list who got a normal life back, except maybe Barry George who was an antisocial misfit in the first place. Knox is the latest victim, and one who seems to have the best chance of making it through, possibly. The thing that seems most likely to prevent that is the blinkered refusal of people who have way too much invested in hating the poor girl to consider re-evaluating their position.

In my view, the most harmful attitudes are those that refuse to try to justify their position, but merely go on holding it and re-stating it with no attempt to explain. Explanations can be engaged with, and seen through if they're threadbare. Blatant assertions can't, and in that way I think they do the most damage. Which is why I find myself repeatedly offended by Lionking's attitude. But if he won't go to the appropriate thread (s) and engage with the debate(s) in question, then I guess there's nothing to be done.

Rolfe.

 

[catsmate]

Wrt the Chamberlain case, in addition to the dubious serological/analytic evidence there was also:

• Cameron's non-existent "bloody handprint" and failure to consider post-mortem bleeding
• Malcolm Chaikin evidence that a "bladed instrument" had been used to cut the baby's jumpsuit. This was later refuted when it was shown that canine teeth could leave the same marks.

 

[catsmate]

The root cause in all these cases seems to be prosecutors who develop and idee fixe about guilt, then pursue that idea with no thought for establishing the actual truth of the matter. Public opinion then joins in on the side of the prosecutors, and demonises the alleged culprit, mainly as a result of sensational press coverage. <snip>
I don't see how this is going to stop, so long as prosecutors develop tunnel vision, and seek to build cases against chosen suspects rather than seeking the truth. And so long as the media sensationalises the prosecution allegations, bringing public opinion to bear against the hapless victim.

I suspect that one of the factors in the Chamberlain case was the criticism of the police and some evidence in the first inquest. This caused Kenneth Brown to involve James Cameron, whose dubious science gave support to the move for a second inquest. The police were eager to see the case reopened and the second inquest gave them the verdict they wanted, despite the problematical evidence

 

[Chris_Halkides]

correction

Courtroom appearance/demeanor
Lindy Chamberlain was criticized for changing dresses every day (it was hot), as well as what was discussed in the Gather article.

ETA
Oops, make that the Ground Report article. Sorry about any confusion.

 

[stilicho]

I couldn't understand the hatred of her at the time. A dingo is a wild dog, they eat things.

When the forensic evidence came up saying that there were holes in their story, I accepted the evidence, but wasn't completely convinced.

....

Good for her to receive official exoneration even if it took so long. AFAIK, her story was largely distrusted in the Australian hinterland and not so much among more educated folk.

 

[stilicho]

The Gather article actually covers three cases, the third being Duke lacrosse.

Withholding of forensic results
....

Unvetted forensics
....

Twisting the results of forensic tests to make them seem inculpatory
....

Courtroom appearance/demeanor
....

Withholding of forensic results
....

Forensics and laboratory standards are a moving target and always shift faster than any attempt to establish legal requirements to go along with them. This is a red herring.

Unvetted forensics
....

Peer review is an essential scientific principle. There is an ongoing struggle between scientists and law enforcement on this issue. The only way to really resolve this is to set up laboratories capable of independent peer review once a new technique has been discovered. That's expensive since they'd wait around doing nothing until a ground-breaking case emerged. Even after all that waiting there's a chance that the new forensic technique will not be deemed acceptable in a court of law.

Twisting the results of forensic tests to make them seem inculpatory
....

This is the legal side and not the scientific side. The forensics are simply a tool used by the lawyers to fit or refute a narrative. That much is often lost on those who imbue forensics with the magical ability to solve crime without any statements or even really the need for trials.

There's always an innocent explanation for the most damning forensic evidence.

Courtroom appearance/demeanor
....

Individuals have been freed or executed on the basis of their behaviour alone. I suppose the best example of this was Socrates, who brought a majority condemnation against himself first, and then earned a nearly unanimous death sentence by mocking the court and its proceedings.

Those on trial or even those under investigation are held to account for their behaviour, words, and actions. This may appear quaint or archaic but it's the way human beings interact.

I think it's important that defendants get to face their accusers in an open venue.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Without wishing to start a derail, I have always found it very strange that you can see the Lindy Chamberlain affair for what it was, and yet you have always posted very negatively about the Amanda Knox case, which has many similarities.

Without going too deep into derail this is a valid point, but does carry with it some consideration.

My impression, take it as you will, is that Lindy Chamberlain was widely denounced for her demeanor and attitude after the death of her daughter, while Amanda Knox was wildly denounce for her actions after the death of her daughter. A subtle but not unimportant distinction. Partying at clubs

FTR I think both Lindy Chamberlain and Amanda Knox are innocent, but while the two cases do carry many similarities as to how the media reacted to them, I don't think a direct 1:1 comparison can be made.

ETA: And I just realized I had a total brainfart and have confused the Amanda Knox murder trial with the Caylee Anthony murder trial and my point is completely pointless and makes no sense. Nevermind.

 

[Antony]

Without going too deep into derail this is a valid point, but does carry with it some consideration.

My impression, take it as you will, is that Lindy Chamberlain was widely denounced for her demeanor and attitude after the death of her daughter, while Amanda Knox was wildly denounce for her actions after the death of her daughter. A subtle but not unimportant distinction. Partying at clubs

FTR I think both Lindy Chamberlain and Amanda Knox are innocent, but while the two cases do carry many similarities as to how the media reacted to them, I don't think a direct 1:1 comparison can be made.

ETA: And I just realized I had a total brainfart and have confused the Amanda Knox murder trial with the Caylee Anthony murder trial and my point is completely pointless and makes no sense. Nevermind.

At least you didn't declare Sarah Scazzi guilty ...

 

[Rolfe]

ETA: And I just realized I had a total brainfart and have confused the Amanda Knox murder trial with the Caylee Anthony murder trial and my point is completely pointless and makes no sense. Nevermind.

I did wonder what the hell you were talking about!

Rolfe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's what I get for posting and playing Dragon's Dogma at the same time.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

spray pattern and additional problems in the test for fetal hemoglobin

A reporter wrote, "A clue that everyone was way off track came late in the trial with the presentation of part of the dashboard of a Holden Torana, similar to the car the Chamberlains had driven, that had a spray pattern on it. The Chamberlains' vehicle was found to have a spray pattern on the underside of the dashboard and that was asserted to have been from a spray of blood when Lindy cut the baby's throat. Joy Kuhl identified it as blood containing foetal haemoglobin. It turned out that the pattern was from bituminous sound-deadener inadvertently sprayed through an aperture in the floor of the car during manufacture. Workers were meant to have put a plug in the aperture while treating the bottom of the car."

Here is a letter from the manufacturer of the Hb F antibodies. The highlighted portion on the second page is a good executive summary. The manufacturer made it clear that the antibodies are not suitable on their own for the job Ms. Kuhl wished them to perform, which (as I see it) was to be a confirmatory test for Hb F. I am a little swamped, but I may return later.

 

[Robert2]

That was a glue used on the firewall of the HOLDEN.
It cannot be explained how that assumed to be babies blood got under the dash behind the cardbord layer and underfelt. That was INSAME yet taken as evidence by highly paid people.
Were they out the back on the old brandy LIKE ?

 

[anglolawyer]

I heard this earlier this morning. The thing that I could never comprehend was that while there was little or no evidence that the baby had been taken by a dingo, there was equally little or no evidence that Lindy killed her, and yet that was the conclusion that not only the public but the courts went with. Perhaps it was because the dingo story seemed less plausible, but the problem with that is that it was justice by false dilemma. Disproving or discounting one doesn't prove the other. There were other possibilities, too, such as the Azaria being abducted by another person at the camp, etc. Let's face it, just as much evidence for that, or aliens for that matter, as for anything else. I also never understood where the idea about Lindy slitting Azaria's throat with scissors came from. Did they just make that up? Every time I see that mentioned, there is never any hint as to how that originated.

How awful to not only have to deal with the uncertain disappearance and death of your child, but to have to spend four years in prison and to be vilified for the next 32 years of your life.

This whole case vividly illustrates the critically important need for EVIDENCE.

And it shows how far we have to go to conduct criminal trials in a fair, rational and objective manner.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Withholding of forensic results
....

Forensics and laboratory standards are a moving target and always shift faster than any attempt to establish legal requirements to go along with them. This is a red herring.

SNIP

Courtroom appearance/demeanor
....

Individuals have been freed or executed on the basis of their behaviour alone. I suppose the best example of this was Socrates, who brought a majority condemnation against himself first, and then earned a nearly unanimous death sentence by mocking the court and its proceedings.

Those on trial or even those under investigation are held to account for their behaviour, words, and actions. This may appear quaint or archaic but it's the way human beings interact.

I think it's important that defendants get to face their accusers in an open venue.

Withholding. The defense should be able to see what the prosecution and the forensic scientists see. That target is not moving.

Courtroom Demeanor. Behavior is not easy to evaluate, as Kevin_Lowe just pointed out in the Knox/Sollecito thread. And memories of behavior change with time, as the Todd Willingham case shows.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

investigator bias?

Dr. T. Raymond wrote, "It is notable that approximately 5 months after Mrs Kuhl’s work, duplicate samples from the car were sent to Mr Bryan Culliford acting on behalf of the prosecution and Dr Patrick Lincoln on behalf of the defence. Mr Culliford stated that he detected blood in the majority of the samples sent – Dr Lincoln stated that he either did not detect blood or that he detected non-specific reactions! Both were highly respected forensic biologists at that time." One wonders whether investigator bias, or possibly subconsciously attempting to please one's employers was at the root of this discrepancy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Excerpt from Ms. Kuhl's testimony

"Q: 'Now, at the inquest, did you swear this? "Human fetal hemoglobin is different from adult hemoglobin. While a baby, or a fetus, is in uterus it does not have any adult hemoglobin.”'
A: 'Yes, I did.'

Q: 'That was demonstrably false.'

A: 'I used that statement for the - for purposes of making things clear and simple. It was not a false statement.'

Q: 'I say false in the sense of incorrect?'

A: 'It was incorrect, scientifically. It was used as an indication of the relative amounts.'

Q: 'You are perfectly entitled to give any explanation which you have, but the fact is, scientifically that statement is utterly incorrect.'

A: 'Scientifically, it is not correct. Yes...'" link here.
It is remarkable that the jury still chose to believe Ms. Kuhl.

 

[Robert2]

I might add The Chamberlains were New Zealanders.
Lindy is only a nick name as she was born Alice Lynne Murchison of Whakatane.
Michael was from Christchurch and went to BOYS HIGH SCHOOL.