Trial and Conviction: Chamberlain - Case Study Example

Trial and Conviction: Chamberlain Introduction Chamberlain trial and conviction is arguably the most famous criminal case in Australia. Nine week old baby, Azaria, belonging to Chamberlain mysterious disappeared in the course of family camping escapade to Uluru in 1980 September. The child’s parents vehemently stated that a dingo had taken their daughter in her court while she slept in the tent. The body of Azaria was never found, but majority of her clothing was later recovered after a week some kilometers away (Evans, 2003). After the clothing was examined and preliminary inquiries some members of the investigation team formed by the police were persuaded that it was human as opposed to dingo intervention. The first coronial inquest the Chamberlains were absolved from the responsibility of their daughter’s disappearance (Horswell, 2004; Wells & Olson, 2003). However, the inquest did not dismiss the possibility of the human involvement with regard to the location and condition of the clothing that was recovered. Other inquests confirmed different findings casting doubts into the innocence of Mrs. Chamberlain and her husband Michael as an accessory to the murder of their daughter. One issue that is common or consistently emerging in the Chamberlains case is the glaringly inconsistency of facts and forensic evidence presented before the prosecution that is brought about management of complexities. There were presumptive or screening tests that were inconsistent and the crime scene preservation, processing as well as reporting were incomplete. There was clear absence of expert reports entailing basis of opinions as well as assumptions and their limitations (Smith & Bond, 2014). The reconstruction of eyewitnesses’ narrative was done to collaborate with the independent evidence presented in the court without coherence. This essay discusses management of complexities in the Chamberlain case amidst glaring inconsistent forensic evidence and reconstruction of narratives to prove that a murder had happened through human intervention. Emerging forensic investigation issue in Chamberlain case Lindy Chamberlain was wrongly convicted by flawed forensic evidence and by prosecutors and investigators unwilling to reconsider their preconceived assumptions in the wake of contradictory evidence (Edwards, 2009). The prosecution of Lindy Chamberlain alongside her husband Michael is a cautionary saga that in the practice of forensic science has to keenly consider. Reliability on the forensic evidence provided in the case was lacking and the prosecution struggled to demonstrate how Mrs. Chamberlain had participated in the murder of her own daughter or failed to show any motive of the murder. The prosecution assembled a narrative against the Chamberlains that contained disparate elements that made up their circumstantial case for infanticide (Edwards, 2010). Relying on forensic testimony, they strived to highlight inconsistencies in the Chamberlains claims together with details of their actions in the course of the disappearance that were reconstructed to appear irrational and eventually suspicious. The forensic evidence presented by the prosecution showed that foetal blood had been stumbled on in Chamberlain car. The blood was discovered following exhaustive examination that entailed a spray pattern. The blood was consistent with a child’s arterial spray underneath the passenger side dash. A camera bag and Lindy’s clothing were additional things established to have foetal blood. One emerging issue in the Chamberlain case is the contest facts that did left a lot of gaps due to complexities of the evidence. No inquiry that showed exhaustively that the Chamberlains had been involved in the murder of their infant daughter (Marshall, 2002; Neufeld, & Scheck, 2003). When the clothing belonging to Azaria were recovered and examined; technicians and scientists consulted by the State insisted the damage was a result of cutting by scissors found in Chamberlains car. Small tuft of cotton linked with cutting jumpsuit and human hairs, which were consistent with that of a baby, were found in the car as well as the camera bag (Jamieson & Moenssens, 2009). The jumbled up scientific evidence were loosely priced together to form the prosecution case. The scientifically buttressed evidence appeared to make, the otherwise bizarre, prosecution case almost plausible. The facts and narrative were conjured up independently and served for the purpose of supporting and accommodating each other (Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, 2001). The case construction as well as the investigation drew upon the knowledge of scientists, lawyers, and technicians. Owing to specific orientations, not all artefacts collected were regarded as interesting or relevant (Fraser & Williams, 2013). This method of reinterpretation to churn out a comprehensive and ultimate version can result only in firm conclusions if copious interpretive uncertainties are disregarded. What is regarded as evidence is irreducibly connected to a specific reconstructed narratives. No attempt should have been made to align the vision color, duration and intensity of luminol reaction to the positive presence of human blood without having confirmatory scientific backing. In cases where no such testing is carried out, or the outcome of the tests are negative then the presence of blood has to be omitted from the report (Bernhart, 1999). Reporting such will only rely on guesswork and scientifically misleading information. Experts can tell the difference false positive reactions when luminol is sprayed and true positive reactions with regard to the reaction, the color and the duration it lasts. Expert witness’ evidence had to be relied on in Chamberlain case instead of only basing on positive luminol test (Hariman, 1990). No motive throughout the trial was demonstrative of the parents conspiring to murder their infant daughter. This was not a big deal to the prosecution since they only went ahead to demonstrate that the murder had occurred to due human intervention and not a dingo as alleged by the Chamberlain (Gans & Urbas, 2002). This method of confirming absence or presence of blood was not pursued in the case. There many art facts but little forensic evidence could be drawn to place the accused at the murder scene at the described time and pattern of events. The prosecution connected the forensic evidence and some of the eyewitnesses’ testimony reconstruction to a claim that Mrs. Chamberlain had cut the throat of her daughter using a pair scissors in the family car. The narrative reconstructed by the prosecution was evidently vague concerning the price timing and order of what then allegedly happened (Cunliffe, 2011). Coroner Ashley Macknay questioned Linder Chamberlain but evidently failed to demonstrate the will or motive of a mother to murder her own daughter. Barrit on the other hand concluded that the child met her death after an attack by a dingo while sleeping in the tent of her family. The parents were absolved of any wrong doing. The findings by Coroner Barrit were expected to discourage those investigators who were inclined to prove Lindy Chamberlain as a murder but they ended up doing the opposite (Ubelaker, 2015). The prosecution had an advantage of having a long time in terms of years to come up with a variety of cases. The reconstructed was punctuated with ever changing and increasingly refined reconstruction of assortments of arte facts as well as tests obtained from ongoing investigation (Cross, 2010; Pyrek, 2010). The defense had not time to reconstruct a plausible defense narrative that would have convinced the jury. In the course of Galvin inquest the evidence content was kept a secret from the defense until after the Chamberlain had testified and they were only allowed to respond and anticipate incriminating and leading questions. A fourth inquest into the murder of Azaria was opened in 2012 by Coroner Elizabeth Morris. In her inquest the coroner considered emerging evidence with regard to attacks of dingo in humans (Bell, 2008). It was concluded indeed dingo were dangerous animals with the capability of attacking and injuring and even killing human beings. This case proved to very complex to the prosecution and they relied of reconstructed testimonies to sew together their rather inconsistent and independent forensic evidence (Cole, 2005). All the facts from the scene of the crime were not preserved when or examined scientifically to give meaning to the narrative presented by the prosecution. It is unfortunate that complexity of issues had led to the wrongful conviction of Chamberlain. Conclusion The trial and conviction or Lindy Chamberlain highlights a major merging issue in forensic evidence in the case. Managing of complexity seemed to the most consistent issue in the case. The forensic evidence used was not thoroughly interrogated to either discredit or incriminate the claims of the accused. Circumstantial evidence and reconstruction of narratives seemed to be the only way that the prosecution managed to convince the jury that the Chamberlains were guilty of murder despite other inquest casting doubts into the absence of a motive for the parents to conspire to murder their infant daughter. The foetal blood found in the car and other items was not adequate to sustain a conviction of the accused without disapproving other emerging theories. Managing of complexities where several items with forensic evidence were present seemed to be the major problem that led to the wrongful conviction of Lindy Chamberlain. Pressure from the media and the suspicion about the religious beliefs of the parents seemed to convince the jury of human intervention into Azaria’s disappearance and murder. There is a lot that has to be done where enormous scientific evidence is in a particular case. In the chamberlain’s case a lot of uncertainties and inconsistencies were allowed and only reconstruction of narratives was used to create a comprehensive case to convict the accused. References Bell, S. (2008). Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, London: Infobase Publishing. Bernhart, A. (1999). When Justice Fails: Indemnification for Unjust Conviction, 6 University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 73. Edwards, H.T. (2009). Solving the Problems that Plague the Forensic Science Community, 50 Jurimetrics (5). Cole, S.A. (2005). More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95: (985), 1001–17. Cross, R. (2010). Evidence for Murder: How Physics Convicted a Killer, Sydney: UNSW Press. Cunliffe, E. (2011). Murder, Medicine and Motherhood, Melbourne: Hart Pub. Edwards, H.T. (2010). The National Academy of Sciences Report on Forensic Sciences: What It Means for the Bench and Bar, 51 Jurimetrics 1. Evans, C. (2003). A Question of Evidence: The Casebook of Great Forensic Controversies, from Napoleon to O. J., New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Fraser, J., & Williams, R. (2013). Handbook of Forensic Science, Melbourne: Routledge. Gans, J. & Urbas, G. (2002). DNA Identification in the Criminal Justice System, 226 Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Australian Institute of Criminology. Hariman, R. (1990). Performing the Laws: Popular Trials and Social Knowledge in Robert Hariman (ed), Popular Trials: Rhetoric, Mass Media, and the Law, New York: University of Alabama Press. Horswell, J. (2004). The Practice of Crime Scene Investigation, New York: CRC Press. Jamieson, A. & Moenssens, A. (2009). Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Marshall, L.C. (2002). Do Exonerations Prove that “the System” Works?’ 86(2) Judicature 83. Neufeld, P. & Scheck, B. (2003). Commentary, in The Innocents, Umbrage Editions Pyrek, K. (2010). Forensic Science under Siege: The Challenges of Forensic Laboratories and the Medico-Legal Investigation System, London: Academic Press. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P. & Dwyer, J. (2001) Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right, Sydney: Signet. Smith, L., & Bond, J. (2014). Criminal Justice and Forensic Science: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan. Ubelaker, D.H. (2015). The Global Practice of Forensic Science, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wells, G.L. & Olson, E.A. (2003). Eyewitness Testimony, 54 Annual Review of Psychology 277. Read More