Talk:Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment[edit]

There's more to do here than I have time for at the moment.

Agent bio

Mark Hurd 10:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Wasn't the fillum called Evil Angels outside the US? Albatross2147 12:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the first paragraphs mentions that Azaria is their first daughter, and at the time of the camping trip is two months old. It then states that they brought their three children on the same camping trip. Can't really be both ways...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.240.179 (talkcontribs) .

I cannot seem to find the statement you are quoting. If it were there, it would be incorrect. Feel free to change things like this in the future. Be Bold! Ansell 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement is correct. Azaria was the first daughter of the Chamberlain's. The other two children were male, making the statement accurate.

Fair use rationale for Image:Lindy-and-Azaria-on-Rock.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Lindy-and-Azaria-on-Rock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo says Azaria is with her mother, yet she was two months old when she was killed. No two month old can stand on her two feet only supported by the hands. If supported under their arms, they can touch the ground, but not with straight legs. The baby on the photo is also clearly older, I will guess five-six months. And yes, I know what I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.197.149 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

When did she come to Australia?[edit]

Did she really live in Australia from the age of only 1? How come she still has such a broad New Zealand accent, like she lived there till she was 25, and only then moved to Oz? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

her demeanour during the trial[edit]

This is missing in the article but it is the most fascinating thing about her case. She was so collected that the jury could not believe she could be innocent. Compare http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions, which discusses a similar thing at lenght. Does someone have the resources to add this into the article? Moonsell (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Idem. Are there any experts out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.137.175.104 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Was there even a suggestion of some motive?[edit]

So, am I to assume - from omission - that she was convicted of a murder without a motive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.37.116 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Matinee Jacket and Jump suit[edit]

Can we get one please? as its clear to see the cut marks where not done by any animal!

Also did the inquest Release the DNA of the blood and dingo slavia? on the jacket? Interesting they didnt?Ghhghghhgg (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR we are not here to push theories that have been discredited in a court of law. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Forensic Pathologist.[edit]

The ABC ran a doco on the English pathologist that the NT prosecutors used. In fact he was not a member of any pathology body, at the time of the trial, and probably never was. He claimed the blood in the car's carpet contained foetal haemoglobin, analysed some time (months) after the event. Foetal haemoglobin is only detectable for a matter of hours after leaving the body, otherwise baby blood is identical to adults'. The Englishman was unaware of this Pathology-101 fact. The blood on the jump suit, via a photo, was later identified to be bull dust, which the Englishman was unfamiliar with. The jump suit immediately went missing from the police evidence lockup. All in all, the Chamberlain trial was just another Australian mock trial. A charlatan "expert" giving evidence to police; evidence that was prearranged by the police. Another good example of a rigged trial was that of R v Button, Brisbane Supreme, 2000. Button was an Aboriginal man accused of raping his niece. The semen sample taken matched that of Button's DNA. At least, that's what the pathology report from the John Tong Centre indicated. It turned out that JTC had no such Button record on theirs books. The Qld Police had completely falsified a pathology report and presented that to the court as evidence.220.245.43.121 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)