The Dingo Took Over My Life. Stuart Tipple

be addressed. He abided by a request from a television crew to telecast his findings nationally. Appearing before an international audience on 20th February 1981, he said neither of the parents, or for that matter their two sons, had had anything to do with the baby’s death, but there had been “human intervention” in relation to the damage to the clothing and the way it was handled and deposited after the dingo took the baby. Barritt accepted the primary evidence that a dingo had been responsible. He did not find the scientific evidence to the contrary convincing. Of Kenneth Brown’s evidence, that a dingo had not caused the damage to the jumpsuit, he said Brown had admitted he did not have expertise in bite marks made on clothing, so it would be “dangerous to accept his evidence in that regard”.

      Barritt was severely critical of the police, whom he believed had been biased in their investigation, a bias fuelled by a disbelief in Lindy’s story. He was particularly harsh on Myra Fogarty, whose evidence on finding less blood than might be expected from a dingo attack had been in his view a tacit attempt to advance the murder theory. Constable Fogarty had not been taught the principles of scientific observation and had been given a critical examination which was beyond her competence. Supervision in the section, Barritt said, had been “negligent in the extreme”. Sergeant Sandry, he said, appeared sceptical of the dingo theory when he interviewed dingo experts, according to a report of the finding in the Sydney Morning Herald. Sandry and Fogarty had, like Morris, not appreciated just how critical what they did would become. In different circumstances their performance would not have been remarked on at all. In professional terms, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But Barritt was adamant that the police should have done better. “Police forces must realise, or be made to realise, that courts will not tolerate any standard less than complete objectivity from anyone claiming to be making scientific observations,” he said.

      These deficiencies in the police investigation had compounded the problems of the Chamberlains who had been subjected to “probably the most malicious gossip ever witnessed in this country”. Barritt said he had had advice from a Hebrew expert that “Azaria” meant “With the Help of God”, and that the name for “Sacrifice in the Wilderness” was similar-sounding but different. Another meaning for Azaria given at the inquest said it meant “Blessed of God”. The confusion probably arose because directly under the definition of “Azaria” was “Azazel”, which meant “Devil”, “Bearer of Sins”, or the name of a demon in the wilderness to whom a goat was sent.

      Barritt said the NT Parks and Wildlife Service had a responsibility to protect human life, particularly in circumstances where there had already been dingo attacks on children. The service had a responsibility to protect children coming into national parks and where there were dangerous animals, they should be eliminated from parks or at least those parts where there was a high frequency of visitors. He acknowledged that the service had a responsibility to preserve wildlife. If there were laws forbidding the destruction of particular wildlife, then the inherent danger of these creatures should be publicised. The death of a baby, he said, was a high price to pay for conservation. And that, it seemed, was that. The safeguard, of the balanced, objective look of an experienced coroner, had worked.

      Michael and Lindy Chamberlain emerged from the courthouse and displayed an enlarged picture of Lindy holding Azaria, then returned, it was hoped, to resume their lives as an SDA pastor and wife. Azaria’s death certificate registered at Alice Springs on 6th March 1981 read: “Inquest held 20 February 1981 D.J. Barritt, Coroner. Severe crushing to the base of the skull and neck and lacerations to the throat and neck.”

      In Gosford, Stuart Tipple had followed the case with intense interest. He was aware of the rumours that there had been foul play. He did not think Michael would have done anything like that, or been party to it in any way. It was with “a feeling of great relief”, he said later, that he heard Barritt’s finding which exonerated the parents.

      Of course, the inquiry was not over. If, as Barritt said, there had been human intervention, then who was it? The person or persons responsible could face several charges: of interfering with a corpse, unauthorised burial and failure to report a death. It was a matter for the police to answer that unsolved question. The NT police held onto the jumpsuit and other exhibits from the inquest. A senior police officer at Alice Springs said, quite justifiably: “The hearing can be reopened in the future if fresh information comes to light.” There were other factors too. The NT Police had their noses totally out-of-joint. The NT Conservation Commission did not like his remarks either. The NT Government appeared anxious to demonstrate it could handle its affairs as well as anybody else. The case acquired a political significance which it would never have had the same event occurred in New South Wales, Victoria or any other states. Cases like the Ananda Marga prosecutions or the Blackburn case in New South Wales, or the Cessna-Milner case which involved allegations of improper conduct, had embarrassed the governments but had hardly threatened their hold on power.

      In Darwin, Myra Fogarty resigned from the NT Police Force. In Adelaide, Kenneth Brown wanted to continue the inquiry. He later denied that he had felt humiliated and wanted to vindicate himself, and to be fair the criticism of him was not damning. It was just a point made from the bench about one corner of his professional expertise, but it was stated in front of an international audience. He did think more could be found out, and perhaps he should seek the advice of a world authority, Professor Cameron, who had invited Kenneth Brown to work in his laboratory in 1975. It would also be possible to consult Bernard Sims, who lectured in forensic odontology at the same college, and who had written book, Forensic Dentistry, which had been regarded for years as an authority on the subject and which Brown himself had referred to in his work in South Australia. Brown asked the NT Government for the baby’s clothes, and he received them on 27th May. He travelled to Britain with the clothing. He was going to what he might have thought was the forensic “Privy Council”, the London Hospital Medical College, to have matters reviewed. The safeguard of Barritt’s finding, the common-sense view of a genial worldly-wise former frontline detective, was now under threat.