Mothers Who Murder (2 page)

At Ayers Rock, after sunset on the evening of 17 August 1980, the Chamberlain family gathered with other campers around the barbeques near their tents. Lindy Chamberlain was holding her nine-and-a-half-week-old daughter, Azaria, in her arms, as she and her husband, Michael, chatted idly with Sally and Greg Lowe, another young couple also holidaying with a young toddler. Lindy left the group to put Azaria to bed in a carry-basket in the tent at about 8 pm. Ten minutes later, having left Azaria with her sleeping brother, Reagan, Lindy returned to the group.

Shortly afterwards, a baby’s cry came from the direction of the tent. This sent Lindy back to her sleeping children to investigate the sound. Then came Lindy’s own now famous cry: ‘My God, the dingo’s got my baby!’

For any mother, it would have been an unimaginably terrifying moment. But for Lindy, a New Zealand-born Australian destined to be at the centre of one of Australia’s most publicised criminal trials, it was simply the beginning of a near-endless nightmare. Because, just as Jack the Ripper is ground zero for serial killers, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton is a textbook case of injustice for mothers
wrongly accused of murder. Not just in Australia – this incident is infamous throughout the world.

This case began back in 1980 and did not end in a legal sense, finally, until 2012: a thirty-two-year battle for the Chamberlains. In June 2012, Elizabeth Morris, the deputy coroner for the Northern Territory, apologised to the Chamberlain family for the loss of their child, finally laying to rest rumours and innuendos that had run rife for more than three decades that Lindy had killed her daughter and disposed of her body. Importantly, this also saw a change to the wording of Azaria’s official cause of death, which now reads ‘as the result of being attacked and taken by a dingo’, leaving the doubters no room for believing Lindy had anything to do with Azaria’s tragic disappearance.

For much of the last thirty years, the case has received worldwide public attention – even a film was made – and the majority of people thought Lindy guilty of murder and Michael Chamberlain, Azaria’s father and Lindy’s then husband, of being an accessory after the fact. Because of the amount of media and public interest in this case, as well as the length of time between the disappearance of Azaria and the eventual apology by Deputy Coroner Morris, there is a lot of information available about it. As with every event, some of the information is correct, some incorrect, and some part-way in between. Of all the information made available to the public regarding Azaria’s disappearance and Lindy’s subsequent trial, a very useful website, where the information can be considered reliable, has been produced by Rick Creighton (Lindy’s husband)
¹
to put across her side of the story. This is an excellent resource for anyone wishing to learn more about this extremely harrowing and sad miscarriage of justice,
²
as
are the original court documents, which are freely available,
³
as well as Lindy Chamberlain’s book,
Through My Eyes: An Autobiography
.

THE SCENARIO

Known as Lindy from a young age, Alice Lynne ‘Lindy’ Murchison (born March 1948) married fellow member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church – a much misunderstood religious order – pastor Michael Chamberlain on 18 Nov ember 1969. The Chamberlains were blessed with two sons: Aidan who was born in 1973 and Reagan in 1976. Lindy had always wanted a daughter, so was particularly excited about the birth of their third child, Azaria Chantel Loren, on 11 June 1980. Their fourth child, also a girl, Kahlia, was born in November 1982. It had always been important to Lindy that her children’s names had strong meanings. Devoutly religious, the Chamberlains chose Azaria because in the baby book of names Lindy found that it meant ‘Blessed of God’; this exactly reflected Lindy’s feelings of good fortune by being blessed with a daughter.

When Azaria was nine weeks old, the family took a holiday to Uluru (then known as Ayers Rock), arriving on 16 August 1980. They stayed at a public campsite in a tent on the east side of the rock. They were not alone; there were many families staying at the campsite at the time, of which only six families are well known witnesses, and a total of eight groups of campers were called to give evidence from among those present. As the story unfolds, it is important to remember that none of the campers were acquainted before the holiday; the Chamberlains met some at the campsite, but they met the majority at court. None of them, therefore (unless they were involved in Azaria’s
disappearance, which there is no evidence to suggest), had any reason to tell anything other than the truth.

On 17 August, the Chamberlains were enjoying the evening at the barbeque area near their tents, chatting with Sally and Greg Lowe, another young couple also holidaying with a young toddler. At about 8 pm Lindy left to put Azaria to bed in the tent with her sleeping brother, Reagan. Ten minutes later Lindy returned to the group. A short time later a baby’s cry came from the direction of the tent. This was heard by a number of the group collected around the barbeques, including Mrs Lowe, who said that she was sure it was the cry of a baby, as opposed to that of a child, and that it had come from the Chamberlains’ tent. Lindy walked back to the tent to check on her sleeping children. Once there she cried out in distress: ‘My God, the dingo’s got my baby!’ Immediately raising the alarm, Lindy reported to the other campers that she’d seen a dingo leaving the tent carrying what she presumed to be Azaria. As the Chamberlains and other campers started searching the campsite and beyond for Azaria, Sally Lowe went to the Chamberlains’ tent to check on the still-sleeping Reagan. There she saw a pool of what appeared to be blood on the floor, which she later said led her to believe that Azaria was already dead. A large quantity of blood (for a baby
⁴
) was found in the tent, on the mattress, on a torn blanket and on the tent itself near the basket in which Azaria had been sleeping. The ranger saw the blood and dingo tracks leading away from the tent into the bush.

A huge search was initiated, comprising over 300 people, but Azaria was never found. Aboriginal and white trackers followed the dingo prints found outside the tent as far as they could, until the tracks mixed with human
shoe prints on the road. Murray Haby, a fellow camper, found drag marks in the sand, which were also witnessed by the trackers, and two shallow depressions that appeared to show areas where the dingo had set Azaria down to rest. The depressions contained the imprint of a knitted garment, and next to one there were dark patches in the sand, which the trackers took to be the child’s blood. The expert tracker stated that the dingo was walking as though it was carrying an additional load, and that he was sure the dog was carrying the baby. A week later, on 24 August, Azaria’s torn nappy and terry towelling jumpsuit (covered in a considerable amount of blood and heavily torn), booties and singlet were found by a tourist, near a boulder at Uluru. The find was reported to the police and the evidence recovered.

No other sign of Azaria was to be found until February 1986, when police, investigating the death of a tourist named David Brett, found evidence that would lead to Lindy’s release. Brett’s body was discovered eight days after the Englishman accidentally fell to his death following an evening climb on Uluru. When police searched the area looking for Brett’s missing body parts as he had been predated by the dingoes (there were lots of dens in the area) they also discovered Azaria’s matinee jacket – which for years the police had denied existed – not far from the site where the other clothes had been found near the dingo den. This was five and a half years after Azaria’s disappearance. As Lindy got used to life in prison, the Australian public had to wake up to the fact that Lindy Chamberlain might be innocent. This evidence proved crucial in supporting Lindy’s appeal case. Seven days after the jacket had been found Lindy remained in prison, until media pressure was
brought to bear and she was released, her life sentence remitted and an inquiry into the case was announced by the Northern Territory Government.

THE INVESTIGATION: THE HOW AND THE WHY

A number of police were involved in the Chamberlain investigation over the years. Initially, Inspector Michael Gilroy, Frank Morris, James Noble and John Lincoln were assigned the case. On 28 August 1980, Detective Sergeant Graeme Charlwood took over the investigation.
⁵

When investigating missing persons’ cases such as this, suspicion will always fall on the person who saw the missing person last – and that was Lindy. There were, of course, other suspects, including everyone at the campsite the night Azaria went missing. All had opportunity, as the baby was left alone with no one around, except for her sleeping brother, four-year-old Reagan. However, no one at the campsite had motive, and no one was seen with a baby or leaving the tent cradling anything that could have been a baby. The police would have interviewed everyone in the immediate vicinity at the time regardless, checking the potential for any alibis, and later interviewing all campers there that night.

As the Crown prosecutor stated at the Chamberlains’ trial, in reality there were two simple alternatives to consider – either Lindy killed Azaria or a dingo did. It appears the police favoured Lindy over the dingo hypothesis from the beginning. When a child has gone missing, and the family is under suspicion, investigators will consider a number of motives. Recent research has indicated that males and females are equally capable of killing their children, but the reasons behind the acts differ. Fathers
are more likely to kill to take revenge on their (normally ex) partners, to make them suffer emotionally.
⁶
Mothers, on the other hand, are sometimes incentivised to kill their children if they intend to commit suicide and cannot bear the thought of leaving their children without a mother. Obviously, that motive did not apply in Lindy’s case, as she had two older children who remained unharmed.

Azaria was very young, so another reason investigators may have considered is post-natal depression. The arrival of a new baby is normally a happy time, but research has significantly increased our understanding of the emotional effects of giving birth, showing that for some mothers it can also be an incredibly stressful time when a lot of adjustments are taking place. Mood changes are common and range from mild to severe. We now know that in the year following a child’s birth, a woman is more likely to need psychiatric help than at any other time in her life. The first stage is known as the ‘baby blues’, occurring a few days after birth and suffered by around 80 per cent of women. This is a transient condition which manifests in tearfulness, irritability and mood changes, which in most cases passes without further problems. When things don’t improve, mothers can develop post-natal depression, which can occur any time within twelve months after the birth, to women of any age. Again, symptoms can be mild to severe. Causal factors are varied, and each woman’s experience of post-natal depression will be unique, but it can be brought on or made worse by psychological factors, a difficult or traumatic birth, an abusive childhood, unrealistic expectations of motherhood, and difficulties in communicating effectively. Social factors also influence a woman’s likelihood of developing post-natal depression,
including lack of family and community support, a difficult relationship with a partner or family member, and social isolation and lack of close friends, particularly those with children. In the worst cases, mothers can develop post-natal psychosis, which affects around one in every 500 mothers, a much higher percentage than most people imagine. Normally occurring in the first four months after birth, this is a serious condition, partly because the mother may not know she is unwell as she has a reduced grasp on reality. Symptoms vary and can include mood swings (both elation and depression), inexplicable thoughts and inappropriate responses to the baby. It is now recognised that there is a risk to the life of both the mother and the baby if the symptoms are severe enough but remain untreated. However, with appropriate help, women suffering from post-natal psychosis recover fully.

So, looking at this case from the investigator’s perspective, and with a view to determining potential motives, we have to wonder if this was a possible reason for Lindy harming Azaria. The police talked to everyone at the campsite on the night Azaria went missing, as well as everyone who was with the Chamberlains on that fateful day or who stayed with them during the vigil that night as they waited for news of their daughter. They were all in agreement that the Chamberlains were a close, loving family, and that they reacted as would be expected of a family experiencing the trauma of having lost their daughter and sister under terrible circumstances. Lindy showed obvious signs of stress and was extremely emotional, but only after Azaria went missing. Prior to the child’s disappearance, Lindy’s mood was relaxed and she showed no signs of post-natal depression or psychosis.
She also did not fit the profile of a woman suffering from these conditions, and none of the causal factors were there. Far from it. Lindy and Michael were very close – both to each other and all of the children. The family had close relationships with members of the church, so Lindy had a good support network, which included other mothers. She was not isolated and showed no signs, either at the campsite or previously before the family holiday, that would have alerted anyone to there being a psychological problem that could put either Azaria or Lindy in danger. Therefore, it would seem that post-natal depression or psychosis could not be a cause.

However, Lindy’s response to being questioned seemed strange to the investigators, as she was feisty and defensive. What we should recognise about innocent people when they are questioned is that they often respond boldly, depending on their existing personality, as they fully believe the police will recognise their innocence. They are, as a result, more likely to waive their right to silence, thinking they don’t need it. They wonder why an innocent person would need a lawyer.