A cry in the dark!

[zara 4]

Did this film make up your mind,or did it leave you with more questions,personally i have my opinion,i've been on to the website where everyone is arguing it out and it seems split 50/50,but i stick by my original opinion???cheers

[Danni79]

I hate things like this, I am not a fan of mystery drives me mad I just wanna know the truth!!! I don't think it helped me anymore I kept changing my mind throughout......I guess we'll never know......x x

[don1]

I haven't seen the film but I have researched the case at very great length (assuming the case you are referring to is Lindy
Chamberlain)

The so called "expert evidence" given in this case could only be described as moronic as could the actions off the police.

Now I cant give you my several weeks of searching the internet in one post but let me give you just one example from hundreds.

Tha first cop on the scene decided that a dingo couldn't carry off a 10 pound baby, and how did he come to this conclusion? He put 10 pounds of sand in a plastic bucket, put the handle between his teeth and tried to run the 400 hundred yards to where the dingos tracks and because HE couldn't do it he conluded that a dingo couldn't.

If this moron had rung any university and asked for the Natural History dept he would have been told that dingoes routinely carry off wallaby's that weigh TWICE the amount of Azaria.

If you think this cop is a clown you should look into this, it is priceless, the so called "experts" that gave evidence made this cop look smart by comparison.

[squiperly]

I kind of felt that the dingos had taken the baby, but I don't like to think about it too much, cos if they did, how terrible for Lindy and her husband to have been acused of murdering their baby when they'd already suffered such a trauma.

[don1]

Let me give you one more example.

The first "expert" on the stand gave evidence that a dingo couldn't possibly have done it for the following reason:

He produced the skull of a 2 month old baby and the skull of a dingo and then demonstrated to the court that the TOP of the baby's head wouldn't fit into the dogs mouth.

So what? The dog would look into the bassinet (cot) and see a baby's face looking upwards and grab the baby by it's face and throat and that CERTAINLY WILL fit into the dogs mouth.

On the prosecutions side there were one or two points that couldnt be explained but they were not big points and the defendant doesn't have to explain them.

The next "expert" on said, and these are her words not mine, the only way this baby's jump suit could get blood around the neck is if the baby's throat was cut from ear to ear.

Really? Why wouldn't the same thing happen if a dingo sank its powerful jaws into a small baby's face and neck area possibly severing the jugular vein?

The conviction of Lindy Chamberlain was a travesty.

[unruliejulie]

i have always been in the belief that Lindy Chamberlain was innocent. I don't think at any point in this film, i believed that she had done anything to harm her baby. It's very difficult to try and wrap your head around a Mother doing something to her own child anyway!

[electricblue]

But jules it does happen doesn't it?Some mothers are capable of such a thing!Its wether people believe them capable meaning the difference between punishment and getting off scot free,in this case certain bungling 'experts' could have meant the mother literally 'getting away with murder'

[unruliejulie]

electricblue, i dont think she is innocent because i can't imagine a mother doing that, i made my decision from watching the film and reading various articles over the years. I know mothers can do this but it is difficult to understand. I think even when women hurt children, we find it incomprehensible, take Myra Hindley and the public reaction to her for example, so for mothers to do it, geez, it beggars belief. Fortunately is is very rare.Do you think she was innocent or guilty?