Seven Studios partners with Acast on Lindy Chamberlain podcast

The facts are a bit sloppy in this podcast. Just listened to Episode 1: Before the trial, there were two inquests. An inquest is not a trial, so Lindy was not “retried.” She also was not found “not guilty” at the first inquest, as this is not the purpose of an inquest. An inquest determines whether there should be a trial. The first inquest said no. The second said yes. And then it was asked “what changed between February 1980 and October 1982?” February 1980 was 6 months before the incident even occurred. Playing so fast and loose with the facts is one of the reasons for the miscarriage of justice in the first place.

I want to see the podcast. I had been interviewed as an applicant for the job of Magistrate in the NT, a couple of months before the death of Azaria. I didn’t get the job, but if I had, I would have been the SM who dealt with the initial court appearance of Lindy. Lucky I didn’t get the job!!

I had the opportunity to read the royal commission report. Things that were never told. LIKE the Ph in the soil of the baby jacket, was particular to the dirt in the Ranger’s back yard. That the [edited under Mumbrella’s comment policy] trackers were not interviewed for three years after the death. That on the committal of Michael the magistrate said.”I have heard reports that you are a man of good character, you are guilty of being an accessory to the event, but your sentence is suspended”. How in all goodness if he were an accessory what makes him of better character? Once again gender bias as the whole of the case was worked in – so twisted and dreadful. Lindy was totally innocent.

John Buck, you and your crew have done a bloody good job of putting together some of the many layers that are involved with this unfortunate case. For me, there is nothing new in that batch of 10 podcasts. Am so glad Sally agreed to have an input.
For a long time neither of us had any confidence in either of press, scientists, courts, the judiciary, police, politicians or any other. Doesn’t leave much of a framework, does it.
I think most of us would agree that any purported scientist entering the court room should have their information assessed by a peer panel before entering the arena of histrionics and combat.
Sally and I knew some of the stuff given to the court against the C’s was either planted, absolute crap, or simply manufactured. The crown was able to take advantage of that, even if so eloquently assisted by their cohorts of the time. (For instance, cop tapes tell the story of a lawyer who indicated to them, it would be useful if a spray was found under the dashboard. Another is that the Demaines were withheld from the Darwin courtroom, even though he had been subpoenaed to the trial. One could go on & on, but there is no relief from this. The realisation that a govt could clobber one of it’s own citizens in preference to heeding a magistrate’s unwelcome advice sends shivers down the spine. The public need to be protected from such shenanigans. What is the answer – I have none. Any Ombudsmen in the NT might have been under similar pressure as the 2nd Coroner. And before some stupid idiot tries to jump on my bones, yes, I have spoken to a juror of that awful scenario. For goodness sake, make it easier for people of that ilk to comprehend court tactics, just the same as the scientists have, and to be able to judge things for the better.
Anyone who has experienced bad matters within the court system , can also make presentations to the Law Reform Commission. Won’t help you now, but it might help someone in the future.