Another UK miscarriage of justice?

[catsmate]

Indeed but a system where the police and courts are under pressure to detect and convict means either completely overhaul the system or speed up appeals and have an overseer to make people apologise and admit mistakes. The latter is more practicle.

Agreed. However I'd also like to see better vetting of expert witnesses and standards for scientific testimony, a more independent forensic science service with better access for the defense, and a judicial system better versed in science.

While I agree with your summary of the three failings, I don't think your above statement is entirely accurate. You paint a picture of an investigative team that decided from the outset that there had been murder, and forged ahead blindly on that assumption. I don't think that's necessarily accurate.

To begin with, the investigative team were initially divided in their opinion, and the head of the investigation believed the Chamberlains at first.

Secondly, the original coroner's finding was that the baby was killed by a Dingo, but he still ruled that a person had been involved in the incident, based on the evidence of the clothing.

"...the body of Azaria was taken from the possession of the dingo and disposed of by an unknown method, by a person or persons name unknown..."

In my mind this is indicative of a lack of understanding of Dingo behaviour, and left open a sliver of doubt that foul play was involved.

Agreed I may have overstated things somewhat. However Coroner Barritt also stated that neither of her parents "in any degree whatsoever responsible for her death" and was criticised by the police for his verdict (they also weren't happy at his criticisms of their forensics).
Really the people I blame for the whole fiasco are James Cameron (the pathologist) whose dubious science triggered Operation Ochre and Paul Everingham then NT Attorney General, who gave in to police and public pressure far too easily.
However the belief in the guilt of the Chamberlains was there, the dubious science merely caused it to solidify

I certainly think the prosecution settled into the position you describe above as far as the trial went, but I don't think the evidence supports the idea that they'd taken that position from the outset, and I think their original investigations were carried out in good faith.

I'm less sure of this; there were a number of "off the record" comments to the press starting shortly after the first inquest concluded (FEB1981) that fanned the flames. This was months before the intervention of Cameron and the search of the Chamberlains' house (SEP1981) and the second inquest and indictment (DEC1981-FEB1982).

 

[gumboot]

I am sure that accurately describes those who still say she was in the house. I think that since there is no evidence she was there it should be accepted she was not.

I think an official statement from the head of the police organisation, accepting the findings of the public inquiry, is the very least that they should do.

But remember the basis of her compensation claim was not simply that she had been wrongfully prosecuted (being prosecuted as a suspect and then acquitted is not itself grounds for compensation) but rather that her prosecution was malicious and caused by the dishonesty of the fingerprint experts.

The Public Inquiry's findings don't actually support this.

 

[gumboot]

Agreed I may have overstated things somewhat. However Coroner Barritt also stated that neither of her parents "in any degree whatsoever responsible for her death" and was criticised by the police for his verdict (they also weren't happy at his criticisms of their forensics).

I think criminal investigators can possibly fall into the trap of seeing everything as a crime. When your only tool is a hammer...

Really the people I blame for the whole fiasco are James Cameron (the pathologist) whose dubious science triggered Operation Ochre

Definitely agree on this. And it's not the only case where his "expert" testimony has been determined to be faulty.

It's interesting that one of the recommendations in the case Rolfe is discussing is that it needs to be made clear at trial that the interpretation of fingerprint experts is opinion and not fact. It's a recommendation that I think could be applied to a lot of expert testimony.

and Paul Everingham then NT Attorney General, who gave in to police and public pressure far too easily.

In fairness to him I think the new evidence was - as presented by the prosecution - pretty damning. I'm not sure if it was properly countered by the defense at the hearing, but it seems to me the full scope of the prosecution's questionable science wasn't really established until after the trial. I can sort of understand the Attorney-General being misled about the significance of the evidence presented to him.

However the belief in the guilt of the Chamberlains was there, the dubious science merely caused it to solidify

I think it's telling that one of the jurors commented after the fact that it basically came down to whether they believed Lindy Chamberlain's testimony that a Dingo took her baby or not. And as we know, the court of public opinion had determined its verdict before the trial.

I've talked to friends who were on a jury before who admitted that all of the evidence pointed one way, but that they ruled the other way, based solely on their gut reaction to the accused's testimony.

 

[catsmate]

I think criminal investigators can possibly fall into the trap of seeing everything as a crime. When your only tool is a hammer...

Oh hell yes. I'm reminded of TWA 800 and a rather bizarre case in the UK that I was involved in a few years ago where a odd chain of events in a corporate IT department led to a panic and significant police involvement without a crime.

Definitely agree on this. And it's not the only case where his "expert" testimony has been determined to be faulty.

I've promised not to rant so I'll just say he's the only expert witness to have been criticised for his evidence by two Royal Commissions.

It's interesting that one of the recommendations in the case Rolfe is discussing is that it needs to be made clear at trial that the interpretation of fingerprint experts is opinion and not fact. It's a recommendation that I think could be applied to a lot of expert testimony.

That's a good point, especially given (firstly) the undermining by recent research of some of the basic precepts of fingerprint identification and (secondly) the bloody awful misuse of probability and statistics in courts.

In fairness to him I think the new evidence was - as presented by the prosecution - pretty damning.

Well when he first saw it it hadn't been examined by anyone else.

I'm not sure if it was properly countered by the defense at the hearing, but it seems to me the full scope of the prosecution's questionable science wasn't really established until after the trial. I can sort of understand the Attorney-General being misled about the significance of the evidence presented to him.

Part of this was because samples presented in evidence were destroyed before the trial and thus couldn't have been re-checked.

I think it's telling that one of the jurors commented after the fact that it basically came down to whether they believed Lindy Chamberlain's testimony that a Dingo took her baby or not. And as we know, the court of public opinion had determined its verdict before the trial.

Yes. Interestingly, given the recent re-investigation in the Madeline McCann case and the new trial of Amanda Knox, one of the factors cited was Mrs. Chamberlain's demeanor.

I've talked to friends who were on a jury before who admitted that all of the evidence pointed one way, but that they ruled the other way, based solely on their gut reaction to the accused's testimony.

And this is why I'd prefer to opt out of a jury trial.

 

[gumboot]

And this is why I'd prefer to opt out of a jury trial.

What's that saying? If you're innocent, choose trial by judge. If you're guilty, trial by jury.

 

[catsmate]

What's that saying? If you're innocent, choose trial by judge. If you're guilty, trial by jury.

Exactly. There are moves afoot here to persuade the government to accept the option to repudiate of trial by jury.