the lindy chamberlain story - by vance ferrell

VANCE FERRELL

TheLindyChamberlain

Story

THE COMPLETE STORY - FROM 1980 TO 2004

Harvestime Books

HB952The Lindy Chamberlain Storyby Vance FerrellPublished by Harvestime BooksBox 300, Altamont, TN 37301 USAPrinted in the United States of AmericaCover and Text Copyright 2004by Harvestime Books

FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES: One copy - $2.50, plus $2.50 p&h / Two copies - $4.00 each, plus $2.50 p&hIn Tennessee, add 8.25% of cost of books / Foreign: add 20% of cost of books.

I was involved with the case for eight years. Because of this Iwould often be asked at dinner parties, in pubs, in fact anywhere,for my opinion. I dont recall having much of an opinion . . Butsomething disturbed me. I returned again and again to the caseand what I saw, what I had missed, was the impossible timebracket that enclosed Azarias disappearance.

Reliable witnesses showed that Lindy would have had nomore than 10 minutes in which to kill her baby . . and return to thecampsite carrying a tin of baked beans and looking as normal aseveryone else.

It could not have happened. I would give that opinion whenasked and then everyone would argue, present their versionspicked up from no one knows where . .

The problem was the Chamberlains were members of asmall sect with strict beliefs not always in line with mainstreamchurches.

For instance, they go to church on Saturdays, a day mostAustralians set aside to worship at beaches or racetracks . .

And so they turned on the Chamberlains the hatredreserved for people who worship in different temples and theybecame obsessed.

James Oram, inSunday Telegraph, November 6, 1988

WM

1247

DA

TE O

F P

UB

LIC

ATIO

N: D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

004

The Lindy Chamberlain Story

Ayers Rock, a massive boulder in the middle ofthe Australian desert, is a popular tourist destination.During the day, vacationers climb it; and, in theevening, they watch it turn red in the sunset.

Dingoes are the native wild dogs of the continent.In late 1979, because of recent dingo attacks on chil-dren, government officials in Darwin, the capital ofthe Northern Territory (Ayers Rock National Park isin its southwest corner) issued an order that, hence-forth, no dingoes should be fed, as they previouslyhad, by the staff and tourists at Ayers Rock. It wasthought that, as a result of the ban, the dingoes wouldleave and go elsewhere in the desert in search of food.

In 1969, just after graduation from Avondale,Michael Leigh Chamberlain married Alice Lynne(Lindy) Murchison. By 1980, Michael was an ordainedminister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and anassistant to the president of Avondale College. In Au-gust of that year, the family decided to visit Ayers RockNational Park for a weekend camping holiday. Takingwith them their three children, they camped at thelarge Uluru campsite.

Their oldest son, Aidan, was six years old at thetime. Their second son, Reagan, was only three.

Lindy had given birth to a baby girl, Azaria, onlyten weeks earlier (actually only nine weeks and fourdays). Azaria had been a planned baby. Her parentshad wanted a girl; and that is what they got. She was abeautiful child, with no deformities, and had a Bibli-cal name which means Blessed of God.

In the winter of 1980, there was about one seriousdingo attack on a child at Ayers Rock every week. Butwith the school holiday season approaching, that factwas kept secret. The tourist dollar is king at AyersRock; for it is the leading tourist attraction in the en-tire Northern Territory. Fear of dingo attacks couldcut tourist revenue by tens of thousands of dollars.Although a few signs were posted, telling them not tofeed the dingoes, virtually no one was aware of thedingo danger.

(The Australian winter occurs during our sum-mer months: June through September. During partof that time, school is out and the desert is not sohot.)

There may have been 2,000 tourists there on Sun-day, August 17, 1980. That evening, as the sun wasfast westering, Lindy went to their tent, in the tourist

camp, and laid little Azaria in her carry basket on thefloor. She then went out to where her husband andthe tourists were gathered around a campfire. Ratherquickly she was alerted by a cry; and she went back tocheck on the baby. As she neared the tent, she sawsomething that looked like a dog run out the door withsomething in its mouth, immediately turn at the tentcorner, and disappear. Inside the tent, the baby wasgone.

Immediately, she rushed out. Michael, Michael,the dingos got my baby!

The Australian media called it the trial of the cen-tury. The most lurid, sensational stories were spreadby the press all over the nation: Adventists were saidto be a weird people. Someone looked for the defini-tion of the babys name, Azaria, in the Oxford En-glish Dictionary; but they accidently (?) obtained themeaning of Azazel (the scapegoat of Leviticus 16),which was said to be sacrifice in the wilderness. (Asmentioned earlier, Azaria is a Hebrew word, mean-ing Blessed of God.)

It was said that the Chamberlains purposely wentto Ayers Rock in order to slay the infant. Lindy wassaid to have buried the child in the sand after doing it.On and on went the wild stories; all of them wereuntrue. Nearly the entire nation was led to believe thatthe baby was killed in the desert in an Adventist reli-gious ritual.

The nation was stirred to its core; and a great ma-jority of the people were convinced that Lindy hadmurdered her child.

Certain things helped bring that conviction about:One was the fact that Lindy was the type that showedlittle emotion in public. If she had wept openly as mostmothers would, it would have helped.

Another problem was that the Northern Territorygovernment was extremely anxious to sidestep the factthat it was responsible for what had happened! Thatorder, to not feed the wild dogs, should not have beengiven or it should have been followed up by getting ridof the oversupply of dingoes in the area,especiallythe one that had become so vicious.

Another problem was the fact that the dingo whichtook the babywas known. It was Ding, the specialpet of one of the staff families at the park. Althoughborn wild, like all the other dingoes, Ding had beenpartially tamed by members of several families thatworked at Ayers Rock Park. But there was one family,

THE LAST PART OF THE MYSTERY HAS FINALLY BEEN SOLVED

PART ONE OF FIVE

WHAT HAPPENED WHEN AN ENTIRE NATION TURNED AGAINST ADVENTISTS

2 Waymarksthe Cawoods, who gave him the most attention andlove. Prior to the ban on feeding dingoes, they fed himevery evening. They even let him into the house oncold nights, so he could warm himself by the heater.On one occasion, Ranger Ian Cawood had wormedDing.

Ding was a healthy young male, the same color asthe red Ayers Rock soil. He had distinctive markingsbecause he was part dog, was somewhat larger andstronger than other dingoes, and was the pet of aboutsix families at Ayers Rock. Ding was a semi-domesti-cated creature. And, in his travels from home to home,he had acquired several other names, includingScarface and (among aborigines) Kulpunyathedevil dog. He was an easily recognized red dingo, witha white band around his neck. With a tail longer andbushier than pure dingoes, he was a large, strong male.

But new rules banned tourists and park staff fromfeeding dingoes. So Ding had been losing weight rap-idly. The problem was that dingo males bring the foodto their mates with young; and it is believed that Dingmay have sired a litter and, while himself starving,was trying to forage for food to take to both motherand pups. The new no-feed order affected all the din-goes; Ding was the most deprived because he was themost domesticated. Without food from the park staffand tourists, Ding became desperate for food. Onephoto, taken about the time of Azarias death, showedDing to be an emaciated animal, with his ribs clearlyshowing.

Crazed by hunger, he began attacking children. Thefirst of these was an aboriginal girl. This attack wasnever reported to authorities. Then, on June 23, onlytwo months before Azaria died, Ding attacked thedaughter of one of the staff families (Amanda Cranwell).But her parents did not disclose this incident untilApril 1984.

Little Amanda, only four at the time, was draggedout of the family car by the head and neck. MaxCranwell, the father, later said, I feel we could be inthe position of the Chamberlains ourselves. As thingshave gone on, we have felt that the same thing couldhave happened to usand Phyllis [his wife] might nowbe in jail.

Ding was clearly identified in that attack. Otherattacks were against tourists. In that two-month pe-riod of attacks, no dingo was shot, except for the al-leged shooting of Ding.

The morning after Ding attacked Amanda, IanCawood told Max that Ding had been dealt with. Wordspread among the staff that Ding had been shot. Keepin mind that the Cawoods, more than the others, hadfor over a year provided a special home for Ding. Al-though (like all the others) they obeyed the no-feedingban, they did not want to kill their pet.

So Cawood drove Ding to a slaughterhouse atCurtin Springs Station, about 60 km [37.3 mi] east ofAyers Rock. He was well-fed there. It is known that an

aborigine (Nipper Winmatti), from Ayers Rock, laterrecognized Ding at the slaughterhouse. Thinking hehad gotten lost, the aborigine may have brought Dingback on his truck. Or perhaps, missing his families,Ding went back by himself. Either way, once back atAyers Rock Park, he rapidly began starving again.There are photos which confirm this. (The aborigineswere the original natives of Australia, when the Brit-ish first arrived and settled the land.)

There were nine confirmed sightings of Ding aliveafter Cawood claimed to have dealt with himsev-eral by the staff houses. Therefore we can have cer-tainty that Cawood had not shot him before the attackon Azaria.

Because he had earlier attacked the two children,as well as several tourists, all the workers knew thathalf-starved Ding was dangerous. It was their respon-sibility to shoot the animal, but none did; even though,from the sightings they knew he was still alive. Theyknew it was the pet of some of the families.

It is known that Ding walked about Ayers Rockvillage for about 12 hours that day, before the babywas taken. Among those who saw him was the ab-origine, Nipper Winmatti, who knew the dingo well.

A few minutes before Azaria disappeared on thatfateful evening, a dingo was seen walking toward theChamberlain tent. A mother with a busload of chil-dren from Sydneys Newington College saw itand de-scribed it as a big red dingo. When shown a set ofdingo photographs, she identified one as the dingo shesaw. It was Ding.

A social worker, from the Australian county ofVictoria, and a Victorian Trainee schoolteacher alsosaw a dingo walking toward the Chamberlain tent.When separately shown a series of 15 dingo photos,both selected a photo of Ding as the animal they saw.

At about 8 p.m. on August 17th, Lindy put Azariato bed; she first rubbed her bottom with a lanolin-based cream. Lanolin is a fatty substance extractedfrom sheeps wool. It may have attracted the dingo.

Just before putting the infant to bed in the tent,Lindy had been talking to Greg Lowe, a Tasmaniantourist, at the barbecue site. Because he did not knowwhich tent was the Chamberlains, he watched as shewent to it. From where he stood he had a clear sight-ing, from the side, and saw her back out of the tent,after laying the infant down. She had both arms free.(This was important, because the later accusation wasthat she carried the infant to her car and killed it.)

She put her left arm around her six-year-old son,Aidan. Her right arm was in full sight of Greg Lowe;and it was holding nothing. Then, wearing the samefloral dress she earlier had on (not the tracksuit trou-sers the Crown alleged she changed into), he saw herwalk toward her car. About four-and-a-half minuteslater, he again saw her; and he and his wife, Sally, con-versed with her at the campfire. She had been out of

3The Lindy Chamberlain StoryWM

1247

sight of the other campers for about 10-12 minutes.During that time, she was later charged with hav-

ing (1) changed from her floral dress to a tracksuit,(2) taken Azaria to her car, and (3) killed her there,using a pair of scissors, and (4) changed back into thefloral dress. All in a space of 10-12 minutes.

Yet Lindy was only out of Greg Lowes sight forabout four and a half minutes.

Her oldest son, Aidan, was six years old at thetime. He was with his mother the entire 10-12 min-utes she was away from the campfire and with Azariain the tent. But he did not testify in the court trial,because Lindy did not want him emotionally hurt bywhat would have been a grueling cross-examination.

Lindy rejoined her husband around the campfire;and, as they stood there conversing with Greg and SallyLowe, a life-changing event was taking place.

Looking for food, Ding crept into their tent. Reagan,the three-year-old Chamberlain child, suddenly awokewith Ding standing on top of him. Like AmandaCranwell, he had nightmares for years afterward. Al-though too young to address the court, the boy neverchanged his story: The dingo stood on top of me.

It is of interest that, if Azaria had not been in thetent, the dingo would have attacked Reagan and prob-ably killed her.

Les Harris, president of the Dingo Foundation,later said that Ding would not have been able to tellthe infant Azaria apart from any other small animala rabbit or a bandicoot. Harris explained that he wouldhave picked her up and then killed her with a violentshaking, breaking the infants neck.

Azarias last cry was heard around the campfire.It was between 8:02 and 8:03 p.m. That was bubbycrying! said Aidan Chamberlain to his father, who wastalking to the Lowes. Turning to Lindy, Michael said,Wasnt that bubby crying? Immediately, Lindy wentto the tent.

It is highly significant that Aidan, Michael, and Sallyall heard the baby cry while Lindy stood beside themafter the time when the prosecution alleged that Azariahad already been murdered by her in the car. SallyLowe described the cry as being a cutoff cry and anurgent one.

The dingo came out of the front opening of thetent just as Lindy came hurrying to the front entrance.But, because of a shadow cast by a wooden fence, shecould not clearly see what was in its mouth. As thedingo came out, it was shaking whatever was in itsmouth, which Lindy initially thought to be a sandshoe.

(It should be mentioned here that Chief ConstableFrank Morris later testified that, when she was inter-viewed by him at 8:30 p.m. that evening about thedeath of her baby, she said she actually saw the babyin the dingos mouth. But Lindy denies this. Through-out the trial and all that followed, Lindy was alwaysvery careful to only speak the truth as she knew it.)

The description she later gave of the animal ex-actly fit Ding. Suddenly, in great fear for the safety ofher children, Lindy ran to the tent. As she did, shenoticed a dingo standing near their car. (It very likelywas the second one which was to follow Ding.)

A quick look inside told her what had happened;and, shouting, she ran to the group. Michael! Michael!A dingos got my baby! Judith West, who was read-ing in a nearby tent, heard her shouted words.

The Chamberlains quickly shouted the problemto everyone standing around; and Michael and GregLowe ran from the barbecue area in the direction whereLindy saw the dingo go.

(The front of their tent faced west, the direction ofthe campfire. When Ding came out of the tent with thebaby, it went to the tent corner, turned and ran east.)

There were two dingoes by the Chamberlains tent;one was Ding. As the people began shouting, both ani-mals ran east from the campsite, knowing it was thequickest way to hide.

About a hundred yards east of the Chamberlaintent was a lengthy sandridge, which ran north to south.Upon reaching it, an animal could disappear over itand not be seen. But even without it, a dingo could behard to see among the desert brush.

Michael and Greg chased after one dingo whichheaded due east. They were close to it; but, when theysaw that it was carrying nothing, they gave up the chaseand began searching among the brush.

The second dingo, which was Ding, ran southeastwith no one immediately after it. It ran about 150meters [164 yd] and then stopped. But a Victorianschoolteacher, Murray Haby, was trying to track it. Tothe left (north) of him were the other men; so thethought came to mind to change directions. Turning afull 90o to the right, he searched along the sandridgetoward the south, hoping to find where that seconddingos tracks cut across the sandridge.

Murray found the tracks! He later described themin a Channel 10 interview as rather deep, as if thedingo was carrying something. His evidence was latercorroborated by two native tracking experts.

Following those tracks, Murray arrived at a spotwhere there was a cloth impression in the sand. Thetracks went around it in a circle that was about threeor four meters in diameter. From there, the tracksheaded south. Murray followed them until they disap-peared on the edge of a tourist parking lot.

A tourist rushed in his car over to the Police Sta-tion; but no one was there. Running next door, hebanged on John Beaseys home. John opened it andtold him to go across the road and tell the ranger (sec-ond in charge) what had happened. It was Cawoodshome; but no one was there. Returning to Beasey, hedemanded help. John went next door and woke upSenior Constable Frank Morris. They were the firstpark staff to learn what had happened.

4 Waymarks

More WAYMARKS - from HCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305 USA

PILPILPILPILPILGRIMS RESGRIMS RESGRIMS RESGRIMS RESGRIMS RESTTTTTContinued on the next tract

(It should be noted that there were three homesclustered together by the police station: Beasey wasonly a mechanic. The other two were Morris, headpoliceman, and Cawood, the second-in-command ofthe park rangers. One or another of this cluster ofbuildings will repeatedly enter into this story.)

Then Beasey headed south, alerting the rangersthere, while Morris went north, alerting other parkattendants. Morris found Ian Cawood and Ranger IainMarshall drinking at the bar at the Ayers Rock Chalet.

Cawood later testified in court that, as soon as hewas notified, he drove directly to the campground tohelp in the search. But Iain Marshall later told privateinvestigators that Cawood first drove to his home. (Helater testified that he did not spent the last part of thenight at home; but he was searching known dingo lairsduring that time.)

Meanwhile, Anna Marshall, the rangers wife, ranin and told Roberta Downs, the full-time nurse at AyersRock, A child has been taken by a dingo! Then therewas silence for a time, as the two women looked intoone anothers eyes. Both knew what had happened. Itwas Roberta who only a few days before had arguedwith Anna about the dingo attacks, telling her, Do wehave to wait till a child is seriously injured or killedbefore we do something? (Roberta was to become aclose friend of the Chamberlains.)

The searchers were told by staff to go to the Sun-rise Hill parking area. Sunrise Hill is a paved portionof that long sandridge. It is customary each morningat dawn for tourists to go there and, with the morningsun behind them, watch the brilliant red sunrise onAyers Rock to the west. From Sunrise Hill, the tour-ists were fanned out in a wide-ranging searching party.By this time, all the tourists knew they were searchingfor a dingo which had taken baby Azaria. Not one ofthem had the slightest suspicion that the babys motherhad killed it. That theory was a later government fab-rication, foisted on an ignorant, gullible public.

For the first two and a half hours, all 300 search-ers aimlessly wandered through the desert brush.During that time, the top-ranking staff had time todecide what they should do to begin the cover-up.

About 10:30 p.m., the tourists were called together;and, by order of Chief Constable Frank Morris andChief Ranger Derek Roff, they were divided into threegroups of 100 each and told to walk shoulder to shoul-der throughout their assigned area. One group wassent east, one north, and the other south.

The police were careful not to send the camperstoward the west. The rangers homes, which Ding con-sidered home base, were in that direction. Because ofDings attacks over the previous two months on chil-

dren, the rangers knew about the dingo attacks. Theyknew that the only dingo which had made most or allof the attacks was Ding, a staff family pet which hadnot been shot.

Ding had been positively identified by three people,as he walked toward the tent that night; and two track-ers positively identified the tracks, carrying the babyaway from the tent, as belonging to him. His footprintswere larger than those of regular dingoes.

Holding the infant by the head, Ding immediatelyran offjust as Lindy approached the tent and sawhim leave.

Ding carried Azaria, by the head, to a location onthe sandridge to the east of the camp, about 100 meters[109.4 yd] from the tent. Putting her down, the dingopicked her up at the center of gravity. For this reason,the only saliva was on a matinee jacket which was notfound until 24 years after the Azaria attack. Moreon that jacket later in our story.

According to Lee Harris of the Dingo Foundation,Ding would have carried Azaria, by the head, a shortdistance; then he would set her down and picked upher body at the center of gravity. It is known that din-goes will do a 90o turn when under mild pursuit. Thesecond dingo had also turned south upon reachingthe sandridge. Ding may have circled the baby severaltimes before heading south with the infant, as a warn-ing to the other dingoes, to not steal his prey.

We know part of Dings travels that night, frominformation supplied by a private investigator who,shortly afterward, hired aborigines to track the ani-mal. Those people, descendants of the original inhab-itants of Australia, have uncanny tracking abilities inthe desert sand. In addition, Ding had easily identifi-able tracks. Because he was part dog, Ding was a some-what larger dingo with bigger feet than regular din-goes.

According to two trackings that night and two morethe next morning, Ding then carried his prey to thebackyard of a home of an Ayers Rock ranger (theCawood home, located a little southwest of the camp).This was Dings special home, where he had earlierbeen fed and cared for.

Something happened in the backyard of that homethat particular night. Val Cawood had also been at thebar with her husband. As soon as the alert reachedthem, she immediately drove homeand found some-thing in her backyard. Trackers later found Dings frontpaws sinking deeper into the sand, indicating that hewas carrying something heavy, all the way to that back-yard.

Continued from the preceding tract in this series

WM

1248

Val then went across the street and asked LynBeasey for assistance. Lyn quickly went next door andasked Margaret Morris, the constables wife, to babysither children. She did this until early the next morn-ing, when Lyn returned. Neither Val nor Lyn wouldever say what they did in the backyard that night. Thethree women lived next to each other and had ex-tremely close friendships; so much so that they tendedto shut out others.

(John Beasey, was a full-time mechanic, workingfor Conservation Commission at Ayers Rock; and hewas the first park worker to be told about the disap-pearance of the infant. Ian Cawood had lived most ofhis life at the park; and, at the time of the attack, hewas a ranger (second in charge). Frank Morris wasthe constable in charge of the Ayers Rock Police Sta-tion. These three families, living close to one another,were at the center of the cover-up.)

About 10 p.m., Lyn went back home to change outof her clothes. They may have become dirty, althoughshe claims that she needed to put on warmer cloth-ing. We know it was very cold that night and the twowomen were outside in back of the Cawood home formany long hours during that time.

At about 11:30 p.m., Roberta Downs drove pastthe Cawood home. She was surprised to see threewomen in the backyard at that late hour: Val Cawood,Lyn Beasey, and Vals 18-year-old daughter, Debbie.Roberta was deeply concerned that the Chamberlainswould have a difficult time sleeping on this very coldnight; so she was headed to a motel to arrange sleep-ing accommodations for them, for the remainder oftheir stay at the park.

Later when a private researcher asked Val Cawoodabout what she wore that night, she inadvertently ad-mitted that she burned the slacks she had worn. Whatspilled on those clothes that she needed to burn them?

At one point in the later trial, when Lindy wasasked about the bloody handprints on the terryclothjumpsuit, she said they could have been those of Mrs.Cawood. They were somewhat small handprints; andMrs. Cawood was a woman of small stature.

Gradually, at the time and in later years, evidenceaccumulated that the body of baby Azaria was ulti-mately taken to an out-of-the-way part of the base ofAyers Rock. But did Ding take it there, or did Val orLyn? It is highly significant that the native tracker saidthat, when Ding left the backside of the Cawood homethat night, he was running fast and was not carrying aload. They did not afterward find animal tracks fromthe Cawood home carrying anything away.

Meanwhile when the first one to follow Ding (Mur-

ray Haby, who had found the clothing print in the sand)lost the dingos track at the parking area, he decidedto keep looking. Soon he found Dings tracks again.He followed them almost to the back fence of theCawood home. But when he arrived there, Murraydecided he was following the wrong animal; for surely,he reasoned, a wild animal would not go behind a pri-vate home. Thinking the tracks must be those of adomesticated dog, he turned back and rejoined thegroup searching to the east, north, and south.

That same night, Chief Ranger Derek Roff went toNipper Winmatti, an aboriginal tracker, and asked himto track the dingo which had taken the infant. Monthslater, the Northern Territory Attorney General rejectedthe Winmatti evidence; for Roff later claimed that thetracker never searched for anything that night. Thiswas said because what Winmatti discovered that nightwould have exonerated Lindy completely. The ab-origines have an astounding ability to track movementsin the sand.

Hurrying to the Chamberlain tent, Winmatti sawthat two dingoes had been there; one was larger thanregular dingoes and one was regular dingo size. Thelarger one sniffed at the back corner of the outside ofthe tent, smelling something inside.

Heading to the tent entrance, the large dingo wentinside and stood over three-year-old Reagan. Winmattisaw the tracks over the boy. Then the tracks led to theback corner of the tent, where the dingo pulled thebaby out of its carry basket. From then on, the frontpaws of the tracks sank deeply in the sand, as thedingo traveled. It was obviously carrying the baby. Justoutside the tent door, the tracker saw a few drops ofblood.

The deep tracks went around the side of the tentand southeast toward the sandhill. At this juncture,Winmatti ran home for warmer clothes. Arriving back,he followed the tracks to the sandhill, where theyturned southwest for about 150 yards [137 m]. Dur-ing this time, twice he saw drag marks for about 12feet [3.65 m] on the left side of the dingos tracks(caused by the babys booties). Arriving at the placewhere Azaria had been put down, Winmatti saw whatobviously was a cloth impression in the sand. Winmattipaused and named (for Roff, who accompanied him)the parts of the body which rested on the ground: thebabys bottom and her two feet.

He saw the tracks of the dingo in the three-meter[9.84 ft] circle. He also saw the second dingo tracksdraw near. Obviously, the larger dingo was circling towarn off the intruder. Picking up the body, the largedingo headed south, along the sandridge.

As Winmatti followed the tracks, he noticed a scar

PART TWOOF FIVEThe Lindy Chamberlain Story

8 Waymarks



in the dingos front left paw. The dingo also had aslightly incorrect placing of its feet as it walked, indi-cating a muscle problem in its front leg.

A few days later, Winmatti saw Ding walking openlynear the Cawood home. Examining his footprints inthe sand, it was clear that they matched; Ding hadtaken the infant. The big red dingo with the whiteband around its neck was Ding. Winmatti told jour-nalists and they printed his story. But the jury wasnever told about this, nor any discoveries by the threedifferent trackers that night and the next morning:Murray Haby, Nipper Winmatti, and Nui Menigerie.

If they had been permitted to tell their stories, allthree would have led the jury to the Cawood homeand to the real killer: Ding.

Continuing to follow the tracks, they led Winmattito the Anzac Pole, a flag pole and memorial to Aus-tralias war dead, located close to Sunrise Hill park-ing area. But, beyond this point, the tracks had beentrampled over by the searchers. Repeatedly, Winmattitried to find them, but failed. It was not until ten hourslater, in the daylight, that Winmatti found where thebaby was taken.

When Winmatti told the officer in charge of AyersRock police station, Chief Constable Frank Morris, thatthe tracks went to Cawoods home, Morris thankedhim for the information, handed him a carton of beer,and told him he need not tell anyone else. That effec-tively silenced the tracker for a time as the initial in-vestigation proceeded. (Among his duties, Morris wasrequired to enforce the liquor laws which said that noaborigines could have beer at Ayers Rock. He normallyenforced this rule rigidly.)

At around 12:45 a.m., each of the three groups ofsearchers arrived back at Anzac Pole. There they sawan aborigine who was reading tracks. It was NuiMenigerie, a second native tracker. They also saw twopark officials there with him. Menigerie had been askedby Stewart Mitchell (unaware of the cover-up plan), apark ranger, to search for the child.

About twenty of the searchers joined the trackerin his search. Among those who stayed to observe thetracker for awhile was Max Whittaker and his daugh-ter Rosalie. Like the Lowes, the Whittakers were tour-ists who had pitched their tent close to the Chamber-lains. Although called to testify in court, the prosecu-tor was careful not to ask the Lowes and Whittakersabout the tracker or the fact that Derek Roff and oneother park official was with him. (As for the defenseattorney, he was a disaster; more about him later.)Indeed Roff denied, to the press, that any trackers hadsearched that fateful night!

With the help of a strong fluorescent flashlight in

the hand of Rosalie Whittaker, Menigerie kept going.They traveled a quarter of a mile [.4 km] and, likeMurray Haby, they tracked to Cawoods backyard, ar-riving there about 1:15 a.m.

Entering it, they found Val Cawood standing there.But after looking around very briefly, someone in au-thority called out, Okay, well call it quits! Well callthe search off for the night. Hot chocolate is beingserved at the camping area. Come and have a drink.Meanwhile, well go and search the known dingo lairs.

The search party left; and, apparently, all was quietagain at the Cawood home. But then, between 2 to 3a.m. Peter Elston, the commercial pilot at Ayers Rock,arrived. He was searching for Roberta Downs, hisfiance. Since, at this very late hour, a light was on atthe Cawood house, he stopped there. Since mostpeople entered it by the back door, he quietly walkedaround to the backand found Val Cawood, LynBeasey, and Margaret Morris huddled around a spotin the back corner of the yard. It was the very samecorner where Winmatti later claimed to have lost thedeep tracks. Elston later told a private investigatorthat he saw a shovel in Vals hand.

When asked where Roberta was, they told him thatshe was with the Chamberlains at the Uluru Motel.

Elston says he could sense that the women didnot want him there. So he blurted out, What are youdoing? Not having time to think of something differ-ent to say, Val answered that they were searching thebackyard because dingoes sometimes brought prey toa house. He watched them walk around for a few min-utes; then he left there, in the middle of what was re-ported to have been a bitterly cold night.

When later individually questioned by private in-vestigators, Lyn said she had only been on the Ca-woods back veranda, had not gone into their back-yard, and had not done any searching that night. Valsaid they searched all the backyards that night.

Just as happened most other days in the year, thenext morning the sun came up with piercing beauty ina cloudless sky, turning Ayers Rock burning red, thenbrilliant gold. It was now 11 hours since Azaria haddisappeared. As by prearrangement the previous night,several hundred tourists and nearly all the officialsgathered outside the police station which, as you willrecall, was next door to John Beaseys and Frank Mor-ris homes, and across the road from Ian Cawoodshouse. Not one person had any doubt that a dingohad taken baby Azaria. Everyone grieved with Lindyand Michael; and all wanted to do what they could tohelp in this second search.

Although Nipper Winmatti (the aboriginal tracker)

WM

1249

had followed Dings tracks the night before, this morn-ing, he went back to the Chamberlain tent with hiswife, Barbara, to see if he could learn more. She wasalso an excellent tracker. But most of the tracks aroundthe tent had been obliterated by the tourists. Becausethe searchers had been kept away from that south-westerly area, they once again found the tracks intacton that part of the sandridge, along with the bootiesdrag marks, the cloth imprint in the sand, and theheel marks dragging through the sand.

Once again they came to the area where Winmattiended his search the night before. But now, in the day-light, bypassing the parking area at Anzac Pole, theyfollowed a path that runs parallel to the road goingtoward the Cawood house. Once again, they foundDings heavy tracks, which led them to the backyardbehind Cawoods home. Then they noticed somethingodd: Now the tracks totally stopped about one metershort of a horizontal metal bar (actually a piece of waterpipe), supported by vertical pipes about two metersapart, with a couple strands of barbed wire under-neath, which served as Cawoods back fence. Enoughroom for Ding to go in and out while keeping peopleout. It was obvious, as Winmatti looked over the fence,that all the tracks in the backyard had been carefullywiped out. The entire backyard had been worked over.

Winmatti and those with him arrived at the backfence at about 7 a.m., just as the searchers were as-sembling on the road in front. Upon seeing Winmatti,Derek Roff (chief ranger at Ayers Rock) and Ian Cawood(ranger, second in charge) came around to whereWinmatti was standing.

When Winmatti told the two rangers that the tracksled to Cawoods backyard, Cawood became angry, ac-cused him of lying, told him that the dingo carryingAzaria had gone south, and that was where he shoulddo his tracking! Then Cawood offered Winmatti moneyif he could find any tracks in that backyard. It was aninteresting comment.

Because they had to get several hundred peoplestarted on the mornings search, Cawood and Rofffound it necessary to hurry away.

Left alone once again, Winmatti led his teamaround the outside of the rear fence to its other side.There he found the tracks again! They were theprints of the same dingo; but now the animal was trav-eling light and running, as though he had been chasedoff.

Ding had been tracked into the southeast cornerof Cawoods backyard; and he left from the northeastcorner. Apparently he left through the front entrancegate to the backyard, which was at that corner.

The aborigines followed the tracks for about half

a kilometer [3/10th of a mile]; then they gave up. Itwas obvious to them where the baby had been taken;so they gave up the search for where the dingo hadgone thereafter.

At this point, the matter of blame should be dis-cussed. First, there were a few of the park officials.The Cawoods wanted a pet and had partly domesti-cated Ding, which was also a buddy to several of theother rangers. When the order went out to not feeddingoes, they obediently stopped feeding Ding. WhenDing brought the dead baby to their backyard thatnight, they did what many in their situation would do:They decided to eliminate the evidence. A few closefriends helped.

Keep in mind that Vals husband had earlier givenassurance, to Max Cranwell, that he had taken careof Ding; this meant he had shot the dog. They couldbe blamed if Ding was found to be the culprit.

In addition, orders had earlier been issued not tomake pets of the dingoes; for doing so would makethem too familiar with humans. And they might comenear their facilities and tents.

But they never imagined that their silence andinitial cover-up would result in the imprisonment ofthe dead babys mother! Fortunately, after Lindy wasconvicted and imprisoned, some of the other staff con-fided in a few investigative reporters.

From then on, they and several other ranger fami-lies lived in constant dread that their secret would bediscoveredand they would be blamed for the deathof Azaria.

What started out as a minor cover-up, in the eyesof the law, became a major crimewith a sentence oflife imprisonment for the infants mother. This put in-credible pressure on the eleven people to remain quiet.If they confessed in those early years, some of thoseeleven might have gone to jail instead.

Second, there were the main park officials. Theorder, to not feed the wild dogs, was a foolish one; thishad started all the trouble. Either the animals shouldbe fed or (if a ban was imposed) every dingo in thearea should have been shot, when children began be-ing attacked. Local officials knew that Ding was theone who had attacked four-year-old Amanda Cranwell.He had grabbed her by the head and neck and draggedher out of the family car! In the two months prior tothe death of little Azaria, he had attacked other chil-dren of tourists. Ding was larger than the averagedingo; and, in spite of his partial domestication, wasapparently fiercer than other animals. His attacks werebrazenly done, even in full daylight.

Yet the park officials had not shot Ding and theother dingoes in the area. Ding never tried to hideout; but he regularly walked the streets of the settle-


PART THREEOF FIVEThe Lindy Chamberlain Story

10 Waymarksment. Several photographs had been taken of him andhis distinctive markings during those two months be-fore the August 17 killing. All through the initial cover-up, local park officials had no thought that it wouldlead to putting Lindy Chamberlain in prison.

The problem was that the evidence about Ding wasso strong, that in order to cover over it, a human cul-prit had to be found. Because of that, the govern-ment stepped in.

This brings us to the third group: There were theofficials, of the Northern Territory, who plotted theworst evils of all. They worked purposely, step by step,to get Lindy Chamberlain given a life sentence inprison: they did this in order to cover up a series ofmistakes made within their territory.

Ayers Rock was the largest park in the NorthernTerritory and its primary money maker. They recentlybuilt an expensive airport as part of the park facili-ties, replacing the aerodrome landing strip (henceforthused only for private planes). Hundreds of thousandsof tourists went there each year, especially during thewinter while school was out (June to September); andthousands more came the rest of the year. When theyarrived, they spent money.

Shortly after the dingo attack, the Northern Terri-tory government moved the main Ayers Rock airportto a site that is adjacent to the massive Yulara Village,which is the new tourist complex. Costing $150 mil-lion, the Village is the biggest single investment everattempted by the Northern Territory government. Butit was understandable; since Ayers Rock brought themost money into its coffers.

They did not want tourists to think that wild dogswere going to kill their children, when they arrived atAyers Rock.

If news of the dingo attacks and the dingo killingbecame well-known, tourism at the park would fall offdramatically; and the Territory would lose massiveamounts of money each year. It really had nothing elseto offer but thousands of square miles of desert, plusalligators in a few northern rivers.

With all this in mind, Territory officials set towork to frame Lindy Chamberlain as the killer of theinfant.

There was a mystery regarding what happened thatnight behind the Cawood home. The conclusion ofseveral private investigators was that the women hadtaken the baby from Ding, chased the animal off, andburied the body.

But why did they remain in the backyard most ofthe night? Why was the clothing found over by AyersRock later? Why did the clothing have regular soil onthe clothes when foundwhen there is only sand overby the Rock? Why was the jumpsuit in such excellentcondition, when it was first found?

In view of later findings and the final disclosuremade a few months ago in 2004, I will suggest that

this is what happened: The women took the baby fromDing, chased him off, and then buried the body, andguarded it that night, lest Ding return for it.

Either a dingo dug up the baby and carried it off,or the Cawoods secretly placed the infant over by theRock to be found laterand remove suspicion fromthem. It was obvious that everyone knew that a dingohad taken the baby.

If Ding carried the baby off to the Rock, he had todo it within a day or twofor he was shot dead only afew days later. Yet the latest evidence reveals he wasnot the one discovered with the baby at the base of theRock, a day or two before Goodwin found the jump-suit. More on this later.

Additional tracking, done the day after the mo-mentous event, showed that neither Ding nor any otherdingo had yet carried the heavy infant away from theCawood home. So, if a dingo carried the baby to theRock, he only had perhaps three days at the most inwhich to do it.

It is highly significant that, when the clothing waslater found in a remote area at the base of Ayers Rock,the same alkaline soil was on the clothing that was inthe backyard of the Cawood residence. Throughoutthe entire region for hundreds of square miles, every-thing was sand, except for some hauled-in dirt in thebackyards of the staff homes.

It should be mentioned here that Lee Harris, presi-dent of the Dingo Foundation of Australia, later toldan investigator that the only dingo which would takeits prey to the Cawood home would be a dingo whichwas a pet at that house. He also said that the onlyhuman who could take prey from the mouth of a semi-domesticated dingo would be that dingos master.

But there were still other unsolved factors whichwere not to be solved until over two decades later:

Why had the clothing been carefully taken off theinfantinstead of being torn off by an animal intenton devouring the child? Why was the clothing found atthe Rock, not in the Cawood backyard? Why was theterrycloth jumpsuit taken off at the Rockin a man-ner which could only be done by human hands?Lastly, if the clothing was found over by the Rock, whywas no evidence ever found of the baby nearby? Theanswers are coming later in this present report.

A short time after Azaria disappeared, the tracker,Winmatti, saw Ding near the Cawood home. That waswhen he examined Dings footprints in the sandanddeclared he was the one who had taken the infant.Where did he find him? between the BP store and thesandhill, out in the public, apparently in no hurry togo anywhere. Immediately, Winmatti ran to IanCawood, thinking he would want to shoot Ding (notknowing that Cawood would not want to do that). Grab-bing his gun, Cawood ran across the campground. Butarriving at a spot a little out of range of the dingo,


1249

Cawood shot at him. As might be expected, the bulletskipped on the ground and Ding ran off into the bush.Derek Roff later commented that Ding knew Cawoodso well, he could have walked up to him and shot himthrough the head. A ranger told an investigator thatCawood was an excellent shot and never missed, evenwhen out of range.

But Winmatti did not give up. He got his 40-year-old son, Colin; and, taking a couple camp dogs, theypursued Ding. Setting a camp dog on him, they hopedto kill the dingo; but he was extremely vicious. ThenColin hit him a glancing blow on the head with a nullanulla, before he ran off. Thinking he would die soonafter, they left.

Later that same day, on the main road close toCawoods home, Peter Elston and Roberta Downs sawthe police officer, Frank Morris, put a bullet throughDings head. Falling dead, Morris picked up the body,threw it on the back of his truck, and drove off. Thiswould be the only justice done in the Azaria case forsix long years.

It is of interest that Morris later denied havingkilled Ding after the Azaria attack. Keep in mind thatDing was supposed to have been shot by Cawood priorto the arrival of the Chamberlains to the park. Yet therewere seven confirmed sightings of Ding after Cawoodis supposed to have shot him.

On Thursday, August 21, the Chamberlains arrivedhome at Avondale. About 10 p.m. that evening, Lindycalled her close friend, Jenny Ransom. They spokeuntil about 2 a.m. Lindy broke down and wept four orfive times. Jenny recalls Lindys words: If I am trueto the Lord, then I know that baby will be placed backin my arms just as beautiful as what she was on thatday that she was taken.

Seven days after the infants death, on Sunday, Au-gust 24, a tourist named Wally Goodwin was walkingaround Maggie Springs,when he found part ofAzarias clothing. It was the jumpsuit. He quickly sentsomeone in his group to contact the police.

Senior Constable Frank Morris immediately spranginto action. He set up road blocks, to keep all touristsaway. Then he brought in John Beasey, Derek Roff,Ian Cawood, and Constable Gordon Nobleand hadthem walk throughout the entire area, obliterating alltracks. When that was done, Winmatti was told to goto the area and search it for tracks.

Meanwhile, the press was having a field day. Wildtheories and accusations continually increased. Ad-ventists all over Australia were looked upon with sus-picion. People were beginning to think that all thepeople in the church might be as evil-minded as Lindy.

All this came at a time of theological upheaval inAustralia. The Standish brothers and a number ofolder, retired Adventist ministers had opposed Des-mond Fords influence in the schools and churches of

Australia in the 1970s. By 1980, when I began writingabout the theological crisis in Australia and how it hadentered the U.S., the situation was rapidly worsening.For about fifteen years, Ford had converted the Avon-dale faculty and Division staff to new theology con-cepts: only believe salvationregardless of conduct,standards, beliefs, and practices. He left Australia inthe late 1970s. As the leading Bible teacher at PacificUnion College for several years, Ford had, by the early1980s, indoctrinated a majority of the faculty and manyof the students at that California school with his lib-eral views. The 1980 Glacier View meetings revealedthat many other Bible teachers in the church alreadypartially shared his errors. That was understandable;for all our men who had obtained doctoral degrees inareas of religion in outside universitieshad beenmolded to one extent or another, by their professors,in down with the law antinomianism.

It was only one month after the Glacier View meet-ings in Colorado ended, that Azaria was killed in Aus-tralia and the wrath of the nation fell on our people there.

Two government inquests were held and, then, alengthy trial. Excitement was at a fever pitch through-out the nation. Nearly everyone wanted Lindy impris-oned.

Coroner Denis Barritt, a former Melbourne detec-tive, held the first inquest. The location was AliceSprings, in the south central part of the Northern Ter-ritory. A number of people, including Nipper Winmatti,were questioned. Winmattis testimony was extremelyimportant; yet, because of his cautious ways and poorEnglish, the significance of what he had to say was notproperly understood. In addition, aborigines do nottrust whites; so they do not give information unlessspecifically asked.

Another problem was that an officer at the parkhad brought him a case of free liquor the night before.It had its intended effect; and Winmatti was still par-tially drunk the next day, when he testified in court.

Half a dozen times, Winmatti said the tracks wentwest; but his words were always overruled as thoughhe had said south. He also said that the dingo whichdid go south was not the one with Azaria.

Here is just one example of the confusion duringWinmattis testimony:

In an attempt to get Winmatti to say he had nottracked the dingo that first night, the questioner, Mr.Macknay, asked this confusing question: You did nottrack in the night time, only daytime? Winmatti an-swered, No. From that, it was declared by the pros-ecution that he had not tracked that night, but only onsome later day when tracks had been ruined.

When asked how many of the dogs paws he couldsee in the sand, Winmatti replied, Four. Immediatelysomeone spoke up, to explain that aborigines couldonly count up to five; so his statement about four wasmeaningless.

12 Waymarks



After the inquest, Tom Loftus of the Sydney DailyMirror decided to figure out what Winmatti was reallysaying. After talking to him at the Rock, Loftus, in aJuly 1983 article, wrote:

He trailed them [the paw marks] to a roadway,where they had proceeded west to the house, then oc-cupied by Ranger Ian Cawood . . Mr. Winmatti escortedthe Mirror team along the route he had tracked andshowed where he had lost the tracks at a crossroadbeside the rangers residence.

The government could just as easily have obtainedthis information themselves; but they did not want it.

Coroner Barritt concluded his official findings withthis astounding statement:

The body of Azaria was taken from the posses-sion of the dingo and disposed of by an unknownmethod, by a person or persons, name unknown.

He also wrote that a dingo took the child while itslept in the family tent; but that a person or persons,using a pair of scissors, disposed of the body.

Two points here: (1) The body had been taken bya dingo, not a person. (2) A person got hold of thebody later.

Why did Mr. Barritt come to those conclusions?It was because of the terrycloth jumpsuit (which

at the time was frequently, but improperly, referred toas a jacket). You will recall that it was found near thebase of the Rock by Wally Goodwin seven days afterthe infant disappeared.

The problem was that this jumpsuit had obviouslylater been removed from the infant by human handsbecause the buttons had been carefully cut off of it;then the jumpsuit had been carefully removed fromthe infant. An animal would have torn through it allin the process of devouring the dead child.

(In addition, there was no dingo saliva on thejumpsuit. It was therefore concluded, by the prosecu-tion in the court trial, that no dingo had ever touchedthe body.)

Of course, if Winmattis testimony had been prop-erly understood, a far different conclusion would havebeen reached at the later trial jury.

But the jury was never told about this or any dis-coveries by the three different trackers that night orearly the next morning: Murray Haby, Nipper Winmatti,and Nui Menigerie,all of whom arrived at the sameconclusion: A dingo had carried the body to the back-yard of the Cawood home. If they had been permittedto tell their stories, all three would have led the jury tothe Cawood home and to the real killer: Ding.

But, instead, in order to protect the tourist dol-lars, flowing into Ayers Rock, and avoid a terrific scan-dal about permitting starving dingoes to remain in the

park after children had been savagely attacked, atrumped-up charge against Lindy was pushed throughthe court.

It is highly significant that Mr. Barritt exoneratedthe Chamberlains, at the conclusion of the inquest,and extended his sympathy. Consider his words:

You have not only suffered the loss of your be-loved child in the most tragic circumstances; but youhave all been subjected to months of innuendos, sus-picion, and probably the most malicious gossip everwitnessed in this country.

Barritt also severely castigated the Northern Ter-ritory police forensic unit that investigated the inci-dent; and his comments were carried live on nationaltelevisionwhich greatly embarrassed the police. Asa result, they determined to pursue their investiga-tion until they came up with more evidence; so aregular trial on murder charges against Lindy couldbe held.

During the actual jury trial, Roberta Downs, thecamp nurse, testified that she was a passenger for threehours in the Chamberlains car, shortly after Azariawas killed; yet there was no smell of blood in the car.

(It is significant that everyone who got to know theChamberlains recognized their solid characters andquickly sided with them. This included not only Ro-berta, but also the Whittakers, Lowes, and others. Af-ter providing the Chamberlains with lodging at themotel, Roberta rode in the car with them to Avondale,to help minister to them in their grief; afterward shereturned to Ayers Rock, where she was the park nurse.)

Before testifying at the Chamberlain trial, MurrayHaby, the schoolteacher from Melbourne, was told notto mention that he had followed the dingos tracks thatnightor that they led him to the backyard of theCawood home. But he told the truth anyway.

Derek Roff had been the chief ranger at Ayers RockNational Park for 15 years before Azarias death. Onthe night of Azarias death (before he understood thesignificance of what had happened), he asked NipperWinmatti to come and track. But, in court, he deniedhaving asked him or that Winmatti did any trackingthat nighteven though Roff accompanied him.

You will recall that, after learning where the tracksled, at about 10:30 p.m. on the night Azaria died, Roffand Constable Morris organized a search party whichsent the people north, south, and eastbut not west,where the Cawood house was located.

Although Roff was twice present when a group oftrackers arrived at Cawoods house about 1:15 a.mthat night and present again when two other aborigi-nal trackers followed tracts to Cawoods house at 7a.m. the next morninghe testified that the aborigi-

WM

1250

nes believed the dingo carrying Azaria went south intothe wilderness.

Joy Kuhl was a botanist, said to be a forensic ex-pert. At the trial, she claimed to have found fetal bloodin the Chamberlain car. Thirty-one top Australian sci-entists disagreed with her findings. At the time of thetrial, she was employed in forensic laboratories inSydney. But when the trial was over, she was given ahigh-paying, permanent job with the Northern Terri-tory police.

Sally Lowe testified in court that she heard thebaby cry after the time that the government allegedthat Lindy had killed the baby. Prior to taking the standin the trial, Sally was given an extensive grilling byNorthern Territory police, who asked her to changeher evidence. They wanted her to say that what sheheard was a bird call.

On Friday, October 29, 1982, the jury found Lindyguilty of murder; and she was sentenced to life im-prisonment. When the foreman of the jury announced,Guilty as charged, her whole being almost collapsed.

Lindy was imprisoned in the Berrimah Jail inDarwin, the capital of the Northern Territory. She waspregnant at the time she was sent to prison; and hernext baby was taken from her 30 minutes after shegave birth to it in jail.

Michael Chamberlain was found guilty as an ac-cessory to murder. But the judge did not agree withthe jurys verdict on this; so he only gave Michael a$300 good behavior bond. Normally, in Australia, ac-cessory to murder would carry a sentence almost assevere as murder itself.

By the time the trial and the appeals began, thechurch had financed much of the cost for the Cham-berlain caseso far, well-over $500,000; individualchurch members raised about half of it .

Phil Ward had known Lindy and Michael back atAvondale College, before they were married. Withintwo-and-a-half days after Lindy was convicted and sen-tenced to life imprisonment, Ward formed a three-manteam to investigate. A massive cover-up had been per-petrated; and he was determined to set her free.

The second team member was Don McNicol, a Sev-enth-day Adventist and former policeman; he volun-teered to help solve the Chamberlain case. He spentthe next 18 months in virtually full-time work on thecase.

The third man to join the team was ArthurHawken. He was a former builder who had to retireearly because of a back injury. For a number of years,he traveled once a year to central Australia, to collectsemi-precious stones. While doing this, he became

close friends of leading aborigines. He was made anhonorary member of the Central Australian Aborigi-nal tribe. Hawken had earlier been personally asked,by Lindys parents (Pastor and Mrs. Cliff Murchison),to find out if the aborigines knew anything aboutAzarias death. His work proved invaluable in helpingto solve the mystery surrounding the disappearanceof the baby. Whereas hardly anyone else knew how toeffectively do so, Hawken had learned how to talk tothe aborigines.

Hawken was a patient, careful researcher, and justwhat the team needed. He had already collected hoursof taped interviews with the aborigines. Ward providedtravel and lodging funds for Hawken to work moreefficiently.

The next day (only four days after the court ver-dict), Ward booked a flight for Hawken to central Aus-tralia. As soon as he left that day, the other two flew toAlice Springs. Knocking on the door of the first coro-ner, Denis Barritt, they asked if they could speak withhim and he agreed. When they told him about NipperWinmattis conclusion, that the dingo had gone toCawoods house,for the first time Barritt suddenlyrealized what had happened.

Barritt told them that the first person in Ayers Rockthey should see would be Chief Ranger Derek Roff. Headded the strange remark, Its very interesting. Hisevidence gets better with the passing of time.

Ward and McNicol decided to fly north to Darwin,the capital of the Northern Territory, and talk to LindyChamberlain at the Berrimah Jail. It was the size of alarge house, with only a wire cyclone fence around it.But nothing was accomplished during their brief con-versation.

Although Lindy had been sentenced to hardlabour for life, she was never made to do any. Recog-nizing that the sentence could be enforced, she fearedto cooperate with private investigators.

Early in their investigations, the team had a radiomicrophone stolen; and, soon after, McNicols luggage.It was only later that they discovered, from a high-placed contact, that the Northern Territory police wereresponsible for the thefts.

The investigations of the three men continued fora year-and-a-half. A major problem they encounteredwas opposition from other pro-Chamberlain groups.Although friends of the Chamberlains, they could notdecide whether or not humans had intervened withthe dingo and Azaria, after the animal initially ran offwith the infant.

Another problem was Stuart Tipple. He was ayoung country lawyer who had been hired by the SouthPacific Division (formerly Australasian Division) inWahroonga, to defend the Chamberlains. Yet while hedid no investigating himself, he consistently opposed


PART FOUROF FIVEThe Lindy Chamberlain Story

14 Waymarksall efforts by others to figure out what had happened,so Lindy could be freed. The Chamberlain case washis first criminal case in private practice; and heseemed to have no idea what to do. So he did nothingand opposed what others tried to do. The only thinghe seemed good at was continually counseling withleaders in the Division office as to what his next moveshould be.

The teams other main opposition came from theleaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Aus-tralia. Both they and Tipple came up with the theorythat any investigations would jeopardize Lindyschances of being released. It is very possible that pres-sure may have been placed on them by the govern-ment. At any rate, church leaders consistently opposedthe teams work.

Eventually, in order to stop the investigation,church leaders went so far as to contact the Queens-land police and ask them to arrest Wards fellow in-vestigator, Arthur Hawken! Although the police turneddown the churchs request as foolish, Ward, a Sev-enth-day Adventist himself, was deeply shaken thathis own church leaders would try to have part of hisstaff arrested.

Keep in mind that, by the early 1980s, the leader-ship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in Austra-lia, was solidly new theology in belief. Lowered stan-dards and modified teachings prevailed in conferencechurches and at Avondale College. The Sabbath waslightly regarded and worldliness prevailed in thechurches. Unfortunately, many faithful believers hadfound it necessary, because of harassment, to sepa-rate into independent groups.

Before he realized the full extent of the animosityby church leadership to their investigation, Ward madethe mistake of acceding to a request by Pastor RonCraig and Stuart Tipple to meet with them. Duringthe conversation, he told them part of what they hadso far discovered.

Immediately afterward, all that he told them wasforwarded to Northern Territory police. From then on,Territory police began harassing the team.

If new theology church leaders, to protect them-selves from problems with the government, are will-ing now to abandon faithful church members to im-prisonment, what would they do later, when an ex-treme National Sunday Law is enacted?

When Ward flew to Ayers Rock, he interviewedChief Ranger Derek Roff at his office. Roff was veryfriendly and agreed that a dingo might have taken theinfant and killed it. Several new and important pointscame out of the two-hour taped interview. One wasthat, if the body had been buried, a dingo would havedug it up shortly afterward. Another was the first newsto Ward: about a special dingo at Ayers Rock, calledDing, which had been partly tamed by the Cawoodsand fed by them, although he also got food from other

staff homes. But, Roff added that he had been toldthat Ding had been shot by Cawood eight weeks be-fore Azaria disappeared. Roff also said that Ian Cawoodwas the only one among the staff with a high-powerrifle and that he was an excellent marksman.

Then came a very special discovery. Roff casuallymentioned that, at the time Azaria disappeared, it wasthe one time in the year when all the brush was green.He gave Ward the exact figures from his rainfall chart,establishing that the vegetation was especially greenon September 17, 1980.

Roff also penciled a map, showing Ward exactlywhere everything was located in the park and whereeveryone lived. For the first time, Ward realized thatthe Cawood home was west of the campground, notsouth.

That evening, after leaving Roff s office, Wardwalked through the brush near the campground anddiscovered that none of it tore at his clothing. Wheneverything was green, there would be even less possi-bility of damage. So Ward bought a terrycloth jumpsuitof the same make as was on the infant; and, on a re-turn trip to the Rock when everything was green, hewrapped it on his leg and walked through the brushfor an hour. Not a stitch or loop was pulled, nor theslightest damage occurred.

Yet the prosecution had said that, because thejumpsuit was undamaged, the infant could not havebeen carried off that night by a dingo.

On a second taped visit to Roff, Ward asked aboutwhat the dingoes in the park were like before the feed-ing ban was imposed. Here is a portion of the tape:

Ward: Dingoes go into tents though?Roff: They do at the Rock.Ward: Do they go near houses?Roff: Yes.Ward: Do they eat at houses?Roff: Oh yes, they did. But everybody, at that time,

was feeding them. The motels were. Drivers were in-ducing them to walk up the aisles of their buses. Theywould be fed biscuits. People were encouraging theminto their houses . . That is the trouble, you see. Weget them used to this thing. Then, of course, the moreyou feed them, the more they are used to and the morethey want. And that is where the problem is. That iswhy I feel very sure that it could certainly have been adingo [that took Azaria].

As the trial had progressed, and Roff realized thatLindy was going to prison when he knew she was in-nocent, he began telling facts in the courtroom. Al-though resolutely declaring that no one at the parkhad any involvement, Roff said a dingo probably tookthe infant. That is why he could say so much to Wardon these interviews.

Denis Barritt was right when he previously toldWard, Its very interesting. His evidence gets betterwith the passing of time.

Later in this second taped interview, Roff said this:


1250

You know, Ding was a very handsome dog. A veryquiet dog. It is unbelievable that he attacked that child.Yet Im stuck with the idea that he must have. Therewas a history of four kids attacked up to the time thatI came back from a trip.

It had been Derek Roff who had issued the orderin the summer of 1980, that no one should feed thedingoes anymore food.

After returning to Sydney, Ward learned that Divi-sion officers, determined to stop his investigations,had ordered Michael Chamberlain not to speak to histeam anymore. Running low on funds, Ward mortgagedhis home in order to raise money to keep the investi-gation going.

On a later trip to central Australia, Ward andMcNicol stopped in to visit Iain Marshall and his wifeAnna. He had been a ranger at Ayers Rock in the sum-mer of 1980.

He told the investigators that it had been extremelycold that night; and, yes, there had been many dingoattacks in the preceding months. In addition, it wasnot customary to shoot troublesome dingoes. But one,named Ding, had been a special problem. Upon in-quiry, Marshall said that, to his knowledge, the onlydingo which had attacked children was Ding. He ex-plained that this was due to the fact that Ding was theonly dingo which had been tamed; and this made himunafraid to attack humans.

Anna then showed them color photos of Ding,which she said were taken about the time when Azariawas borneight weeks before the infants death. Sheadded that it was only a few days later that Ding at-tacked Amanda Cranwell, pulling her out of the car.Ward was shocked to see how thin the animal ap-peared.

It was not until after leaving them that night thatWard realized that it was the feeding ban, imposed acouple months earlier, which had caused the dingoesin the area to starve. They had become used to hand-outs; and there were just too many dingoes in the areaand not enough wild game. This was why Ding wasattacking people.

The next morning, they returned to the Marshallhome and took pictures of the photo. Mr. Marshalltold them that the public was ordered not to feed thedingoes anymore; so this instruction was not only givento the staff. Signs had been posted for weeks all overthe area.

The next person they visited was Ranger RohanDalgleish, who by this time was living in Alice Springs.Because he had only arrived at Ayers Rock six weeksbefore Azarias death, he had a crystal sharp memoryof what happened and when. He explained that noth-ing was ever done to stop dingoes from attackingpeople! None were ever shot. And, before Azaria wastaken, Ding had not been shot either, but taken to aslaughterhouse at a distance.

Over a period of many months, much more infor-mation was collected; and the totality of it was devas-tating. Earlier in this report, you will read it and morebesides. Ward believed he now had enough evidenceto get Lindy Chamberlain out of prison. It had not beeneasy to obtain. He had received two threatening phone calls andhad equipment stolen. Twice, team members had caughtpolicemen snooping on them. One was tailing theircar so obviously, that McNicol stopped his car andtold him that he, McNicol, would drive more steadily,so as not to lose him.

But now they had the evidence! Surely church lead-ers and their hired lawyer, young Stuart Tipple, wouldbe thrilled to open up the case again and exonerateLindy!

But, unbelievably, Tipple refused to even see Ward.He absolutely refused. But he did say that there wasone way to get the information to him. Put it all inwriting and mail it to me, Tipple said.

There seemed no other way to get the matter be-fore the court; so Ward and McNicol sat down andlaboriously spent two full days typing up all the data.It was prepared in the form of a set of legal statements,called affidavits; and then it was personally mailed toTipple. They also sent copies to Denis Barritt, whohad become their friend. He received his copy on Janu-ary 26, 1983; and he replied that there was enoughevidence here to definitely get Lindy out of prison.

Ward and his team were thrilled. The church wouldbe vindicated, Lindys name would be cleared, and shewould be set free.

But Ward still did not grasp the fact that churchleaders would rather leave one of their members inprison than to do anything which might cause discom-fort to the government.

On Friday, the 28th, Ward still had not been con-tacted by Tipple. Yet the first appeal case was only oneweek away. That Friday afternoon, Ward phonedTipple, who was not there. At 4:40, Tipple calledbackand told Ward he wasnt going to use any of theaffidavit material for the appeal. He did not say whetherhe had read it, or what he thought of it, or why herefused to use it. He just said he wasnt going to use it!

Ward had thought his work was done. NowChamberlains attorney could carry it on to victory.

Ward felt crushed.When Ward later phoned Barritt, a veteran police

detective, he was once again assured that there wasenough evidence in the affidavit to free Lindy.

Three days later, a car hit Ward; and he almostdied from broken bones. He wondered, afterward,whether it had been an accident.

Months later, when he finally recovered, Ward con-tacted his own attorney, Trevor Nyman, who told himthere was a way he could pursue his own private pros-ecution of the people who were at Ayers Rock on thenight Azaria died. That would bring the entire matter

16 Waymarks


PILPILPILPILPILGRIMS RESGRIMS RESGRIMS RESGRIMS RESGRIMS RESTTTTT

out in the open and, in the process, clear Lindy.This charge would be conspiracy to pervert the

course of justice, by concealing the identity of the dingowhich took Azaria Chamberlain from her tent.

But, checking with contacts he had made on vari-ous levels (many of them high-placed), Ward andNyman learned that there was one individual whowould prevent their case from going through.

He was the only person Ward did not dare to name,a man very far up in the Northern Territory govern-ment. According to what Wards contacts told him, thisgovernment leader had considerable influence overChief Minister Paul Everingham, Solicitor GeneralBrian Martin, Attorney General Jim Robertson, andsenior people in the police and Crown law depart-ments. Knowing that there was not enough evidenceto convict Lindy Chamberlain, it was arranged for evi-dence and the judicial process to be rigged. If Wardsevidence was presented to the Appeals Court, AyersRock Park would lose millions of dollars and what theNorthern Territory government had done would be ex-posed.

Ward was told that, after Denis Barritt, the coro-ner in the first inquest, severely reproved the North-ern Territory police, it was arranged that a second in-quest would be heldthis one under the supervisionof a different coroner.

Further forensic examination had found a smalladult handprint on the jumpsuit (Val Cawood was asmall adult); but, at the second inquest, it was chargedthat the handprint belonged to Lindy. Fetal bloodwas supposedly found in Lindys car. A man from Dar-win was selected as coroner for the second inquest;he had already been told what his decision should be.Witnesses were instructed, in secret signals which theyshould follow in the courtroom, telling them when tosay yes, no, or when to stop speakingeven in mid-sentence.

But no evidence about dingoes was provided tothe court; since none of it was good.

After the second inquest, the government also sup-pressed new evidence about another baby that hadafterward been killed within the Northern Territory!Once again, it was a pet dingo; this one near TennantCreek. The dingo took an aborigines baby. Three mensaw it; and one of them, named Green, shot at thedingo, wounding it as it dropped the baby. Running toit, they found the baby already dead.

When Lindy was charged with murder, two of thosemen told the police that they would testify at the trial.But police were sent to Tennant Creek and threatenedthem. They were told that if they did, they would becharged with failure to report the death when it oc-

curred. So Green and Rodgers kept quiet.As the court trial date neared, one forensic expert

found he had made a mistake. The trial was delayedwhile he was told to give the faulty evidence as thoughit were true.

After a guilty verdict had been handed down againstLindy, thirty-one top scientists signed a document, dis-agreeing with the forensic blood tests about fetalblood having been in Lindys car. (In reality, there wasno blood of any kind in the vehicle.)

The government immediately contacted all the jurymembers and told them to state, in writing, that theblood evidence had not been significant in their deci-sion. Although only one member of the jury did so,that one statement was widely published in the Aus-tralian news media. As long as the public was kept inthe dark, officials in the Northern Territory and AyersRock were winning.

How is it in our own nation? How much of whatwe are told is really true?

At this juncture, Phil Ward decided to go to presswith a book disclosing his findings. The small, 192-page book, Azaria! What the Jury Were Not Told, waspublished in August 1984. It contained 54 pieces ofevidence not presented to the trial jury. All of that in-formation, plus more, is presented in this present re-port.

As soon as the book was printed, Ward mailed acopy to every second house in the Northern Territory;so its citizens could learn what was being done. It isremarkable what a free press can do.

One columnist, Malcolm Brown of the SydneyMorning Herald, had strongly defended the Chamber-lains throughout the entire controversy. In response,they often received 100 letters a day from readers (AlanGill, Sidney Morning Herald, September 16, 1988).

That same year, the next major event occurred. Anationwide television network phoned Ward and askedhim to appear the next day on Good Morning, Austra-lia. He did not realize that it was a trap.

Ward was quite used to public speaking and radioand television appearances; but, awakening at 2 a.m.the next morning, he was impressed to kneel by hisbed and pray for help in what the day would bring.

Arriving at the station, he was ushered into thestudio. Less than a minute into the interview, a thoughtflashed to mind; and Ward raised the subject of libelwrits. Not expecting him to say that, the interviewerwas quite surprised. What would you say if writs wereserved on you? he asked.

That would be fantastic, replied Ward. It wouldgive me a chance to prove everything I say in court!

Continued on the next tract

WM

1251

There was a rustling sound at the other end of thestudio as a man suddenly walked in. Well, announcedthe interviewer, theres a man who has seven writs hewants to serve on you.

With glee, Ward replied, Thats the best thing tohappen in the Chamberlain case in months!

Here is the background on this:Ward had given that affidavit to Tipple, the Cham-

berlains attorney, only two weeks before the first ofthe Chamberlains two Appeals Court hearings. ButTipple refused to use the evidence supplied him byWard.

Ward was later to learn that, under Australian law,if evidence is provided to an attorney in a case, and hedoes not use it, that evidence cannot be used in an-other case originated by the one who searched out theevidence. This meant that, although he wanted to, PhilWard could not initiate a lawsuit to get Lindy out ofjail.

But he knew that if he was sued, he could use thatevidence! And now the suit had been filed.

Those suing Ward are the seven people residing atAyers Rock National Park at the time of Azarias death.They include the police officer in charge of the AyersRock Police station, two rangers, the wives of thesepark officials, and the adult daughter of one official.

After reading the preceding part of this report, youknow that this would consist of the Morris, Cawood,and Beasey families.

If those people were guilty, why would they risktaking legal action? The answer is the nature of Aus-tralian libel laws. In Australia, the right to a fair trial islegally more important than freedom of the press. Oncecharges are made against someone, the media cannotcomment on the case, lest they prejudice a jury. Be-cause of these legal facts, those who are guilty some-times sue the media for libel to stop the media fromreporting on their activities. After the media interestdies down, the suit is usually withdrawn.

But this plan backfired because a new legal prece-dent had just been enacted, that the people taking outlibel writ cannot withdraw it without the approval ofthe person they are suing.

Ward had determined that he would not grant thatapproval. He wanted to bring all the data out into pub-lic, in court.

Just before the writs were served on Ward, law-yers for the seven demanded that he place a retractionof his book in every major newspaper in the nation.Because he refused to do this may be another reasonthe writs were servedto force him to print those re-tractions. Ward estimated his libel suit would cost him$250; but he had many friends, including Adventists,

who were raising money to help him.However, future developments in the case changed

the whole picture.

The third major event of 1985 was the publicationof John Brysons 560-page Evil Angels,which (whena U.S. publishing house printed the book) spread thenews of the scandal to America.

Although not an Adventist, Bryson had grown upin Melbourne next to an Adventist family that had be-friended him as a youth. In his book, Bryson (an attor-ney and writer) vividly portrayed how everything wentwrong by the police, the media, the second inquest,the court trial, and the two appeals. He inferred thatthe police were like evil angels, trying to destroy aninnocent woman. They bungled the initial investigationof the missing child. The press exploited insignificantdetails, as though they meant something important.Experts, called in to test evidence, proved incompe-tent. The prosecution pieced together an explanationfor its murder chargethat not even on-site televisioncrews (trying to reenact what happened at the camp)could make convincing.

Yet, in spite of all this, Lindy had still been con-victed of slitting her infant daughters throat with apair of scissors.

By the end of 1985, both court appeals by theChamberlains had been lost; and there was no furtherright to appeal. The situation appeared hopeless.

Yet the evidence collected by Ward and his two as-sociates had been given to Stuart Tipple, the Chamber-lains lawyer, two weeks before the first of those twoappeals. The evidence which could have freed Lindyhad sat unused on his desk.

Tipple, apparently a rather spineless individual,was working for the South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists, headquartered at Wahroonga. It wasrather obvious that his studied opposition, to Wardsinvestigations, found its origin in the Division office.

Church leaders were legally obligated, under theTrustee Act, to exercise due diligence in seeing thatthe $250,000, given by church members to clear theChamberlains, was spent in the best possible way. Re-jecting Wards evidence outright was not due diligence.

By late 1985, leaders of the several laity groupswho had given money to the church, to defend Lindy,were angry with Division leaders for refusing to usethe evidence discovered by Phil Wards team. In orderto protect themselves, those Division leaders did twothings: First, they placed a clause in the Divisions con-stitution, protecting themselves from legal action andrequiring the Division to pay their legal costs for anycriminal or civil action against them. Second, they madesure that they retired on or before the 1985 General


PART FIVEOF FIVEThe Lindy Chamberlain Story

18 WaymarksConference Session.

Unfortunately, the leaders who took their place con-tinued to oppose Wards efforts to free Lindy. They andtheir predecessors had earlier worked closely withDesmond Ford, in pushing the new theology into everyconference office and local church in Australia and NewZealand. When men are ruled by a belief in loweredstandards and behavior does not count,their per-sonal standards and behavior can get pretty bad.

Throughout the two inquiries and the court trial,Lindy Chamberlain had maintained that, before layingAzaria in her carry bed, she had placed a terryclothjumpsuit on her and, then, a matinee jacket over that.The terrycloth suit had been found by a tourist, WallyGoodwin, near Ayers Rock seven days after Azaria dis-appeared; yet there were problems with it: First, it wasin relatively good condition; and, because it had nodingo saliva on it, the inference was made that no dingohad carried the child off. This was considered evidenceagainst her.

After publication of the two books (Wards andBrysons), public indignation over the imprisonmentof Lindy Chamberlain steadily increased.

The Christmas 1985 issue of the Australian edi-tion of People magazine published its latest yearly voteby the people of the nation, as to the Australian I wouldmost like to meet. The nations prime minister couldonly make second place. The public declared that theywould most like to talk to Lindy Chamberlain. Sympa-thy for the mother kept increasing.

To make matters worse for the government, thelibel suit against Phil Ward was steadily nearing. Theevidence he could present in court would stun the na-tion. Yet the government could not stop the suit fromprogressing. But a sudden development changed thewhole picture.

On Saturday, February 2, 1986, while searchingfor the body of a tourist who had fallen from AyersRock, one of the tourists in the search party found thatmissing matinee jacket! It had dingo saliva on it in ex-actly the area where the body would have been car-ried.

At this juncture, under pressure from the entirenation, the Northern Territory caved in. Six days later,Lindy was released from prison in Darwin, by an offi-cial pardon from the Northern Territory Judiciary. Thedate was Friday, February 8, 1986. But, unwilling totravel on the Sabbath, she waited till Sunday to returnhome to the Avondale College campusand to her fam-ily. All through those years, Michael had continued towork there.

To welcome her arrival, yellow ribbons were dis-played all over the campus and on the homes.

Although her life sentence had been remitted, sheremained convicted of having murdered her child. Sogroups, which had previously supported her, now

joined in demanding an overturning of the previousconviction.

At the same time she was granted a pardon, theNorthern Territory Judiciary announced that a formalinquiry would be made into the case, that they wouldbe willing to allow someone outside the Territory to bein charge of the case, and that fresh evidence gath-ered by Territory police would be consideredalongwith other possible evidence.

Even though pardoned, Lindy was not exonerated.According to the court record, she was still a criminal.When interviewed shortly afterward by Sixty Minutes(the Australian version), and asked, Why dont youjust let the whole thing drop, now that you are out ofjail? She replied that she had to fight to clear her name.

Finally, on Thursday, September 15, 1988, duringa brief hearing, three judges of the Northern TerritoryCourt of Criminal Appeal unanimously ruled that theirconvictions over the death of their child, Azaria, wererendered null and void.

For the first time in eight years, Lindys jaw quiv-ered; and she wept and wept. Beside her stood herblond husband, Michael, who was also close to tears.

But their legal dispute with the government wasnot over. They wanted the Northern Territory to repaythem for their years of suffering. If payment was notforthcoming, they said they would consider civil ac-tion.

Unfortunately, even though they had been fully(fully!) vindicated, the Division president refused torehire Michael Chamberlain as a denominational pas-tor in any capacity. For the sake of the churchs publicimage, they told him to find a job somewhere else.Michael was crushed.

In November 1988, the first major motion pictureever made about Adventists was released: The $8 mil-lion A Cry in the Dark, featured Meryl Streep and SamNeill. It was based on Brysons book; and it created asensation, as several continents learned of the scandalAustralians hoped to keep to themselves.

Still later, Lindy was awarded a very large sum ofmoney by the government for what she had suffered.She took the money, divorced Michael, and marriedsomeone named Creighton.

AT PRESS TIMEWe had to slightly reduce the typesize of this final tract, because new information has justarrived from relatives of Lindys second husband:

On top of all her other troubles, after Lindy was re-leased from prison, she learned that her husband violatedthe marriage agreement. That was why she divorced him.Later, on a lecture trip to the U.S. she met a single Adventistman in Seattle, Richard Creighton, about five years youngerthan herself, who had a carpet business. At a later time(about 1995), they married. Eventually, they left Seattle andmoved back to Australia where they now live. His parentshave a carpet business in Pennsylvania.


1251

On the day after Lindys conviction was squashed(September 16, 1988), the Northern Territory Austra-lian made this statement:

The mystery surrounding the disappearance ofAzaria Chamberlain remains as baffling today as it dideight years ago. Probably the full story about what hap-pened at Ayers Rock will never be revealed.

Because of the findings of Phil Ward and JohnBryson, part of the mystery had been solved. Yet thereremained several unanswered questions:

One question is Why did Val stand out in the coldfor hours that night? I will suggest that she was guard-ing the buried child until her husband returned fromthe search. Cawood probably told his wife to bury thebody and remain by it through the night until he re-turned.

While both were at the Chalet bar, the Cawoodswere alerted to

the lindy chamberlain story - by vance ferrell

Documents