AN Australian coroner has ruled that a baby girl who disappeared from a beauty spot 32 years ago was taken by a dingo.
Nine-week-old Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from her parents' tent near what was then known as Ayers rock in a case that bitterly divided Australians and inspired a Meryl Streep film. Her parents, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton and Michael Chamberlain, had maintained the wild dog had taken their child from the beginning.
The first inquest in 1981 also blamed a dingo. But a second inquest one year later charged Ms Chamberlain-Creighton with murder and her husband with being an accessory after the fact.
Then-pregnant Ms Chamberlain-Creighton was convicted and served more than three years in prison before that decision was overturned. Mr Chamberlain was convicted of being an accessory but later cleared. A third inquest then left the cause open.
The eyes of the now-divorced couple welled with tears as the findings of the fourth and last inquest into their daughter's disappearance were announced.
"We're relieved and delighted to come to the end of this saga," a tearful but smiling Mrs Chamberlain-Creighton told reporters outside the court.
Mr Chamberlain said: "This has been a terrifying battle, bitter at times, but there's now a chance to put our daughter's spirit to rest."
He said his quest for a death certificate that acknowledged his daughter had been killed by a dingo had seemed to be a "mission impossible", and added: "This battle to get to the legal truth about what caused Azaria's death has taken too long.
"However, I am here to tell you that you can get justice even when you think that all is lost. But truth must be on your side."
One of the jurors who convicted the mother, Yvonne Cain, said: "I'm absolutely thrilled to bits. I'd always had my doubts and have become certain she's innocent. When people say she's guilty, I say: 'You have no idea what you're talking about – I was there.'"
The case became famous internationally through the 1988 movie A Cry in the Dark.
Many initially did not believe a dingo was strong enough to take the baby. Opinion swayed against the couple – some spat on Mrs Chamberlain-Creighton and howled like dingoes outside her house.
No similar attacks had been documented at the time, but in recent years the wild dogs native to Australia have been blamed for three fatal attacks on children.
Few doubt the couple's story now, but the latest inquest made it official that Azaria was killed in a dingo attack.
An expert on dingo behaviour, Brad Purcell, said he was not surprised one would enter a tent and take a baby while older siblings slept. Mr Purcell suspects many people blamed Mrs Chamberlain-Creighton for leaving the baby in a tent where a dingo could have been attracted by her crying.
He said: "She was almost being condemned because she wasn't acting as a responsible parent."
However, not all Australians accept the latest ruling. A policeman who was at Ayers Rock the night Azaria disappeared said he still believes there was some human intervention.
Frank Morris, who has since retired, said that he was not trying to blame the parents, but thought someone played a part in moving clothing Azaria wore that night. He added: "We don't know who. That is the $64,000 dollar question."
Azaria's parents and her three siblings, including sister Kahlia, born in prison, collected the new death certificate.
Coroner Elizabeth Morris said she was "satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently adequate, clear, cogent and exact and that the evidence excludes all other reasonable possibilities".
The latest inquest heard new evidence of dingo attacks, including three fatal attacks on children since the third inquest.
Ms Morris noted experts disagree on whether a dingo could have removed clothing worn by Azaria so neatly.
She said: "It would have been difficult for a dingo to have removed Azaria from her clothing without causing more damage than what was observed. However it would have been possible."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article