Download PDF

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CHAMBERLAIN CONVICTIONS

Report of the Commissioner The Hon. Mr Justice T. R. Morling

1987

Presented 2 June 1987 Ordered to be printed 5 June 1987

Parliamentary Paper No. 192/1987

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER THE HON. MR JUSTICE T. R . MORLING

ISBN 0 7245 1298 5

Government Printer of the Northern Territory

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CHAMBERLAIN CONVICTIONS

Co mmissioner: The Hon. Mr. Justice T. R. Marling

Secre tary: Mr. J. G. F lynn

G .P.O. Box 4752 Darwin N .T . 5794 Australia Telephone: (089) 89 4385

G .P.O. Box 7091 Sydney N.S.W. 2001 Australia Telephone : (02) 234 4608

22 May 1987

His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Ni nian Stephen, A.K, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.B.E., Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief, Government House,

CANBERRA A.C . T. 2600

Your Excellency,

In accordance with Letters Patent issued to me on 2 April 1986 by the Government of the Commonwealth I now

have the honour to present to you the report of my inquiry. A report in identical terms is being made to His Honour the Administrator of the Northern Territory .

As I have concluded the task required of me I

return herewith the Letters Patent.

Yours sincerely,

Royal Commissioner

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CHAMBERLAIN CONVICTIONS

Commissioner: The Hon. Mr. Justice T . R. Morling

Secretary: Mr. J . G. Flynn

His Honour Commodore E.E. Johnston, A.M. I O.B.E. I

G .P.O. Box 4752 Darwin N.T. 5794 Australia Telephone: (089) 89 4385

G.P.O. Box 7091 Sydney N.S.W. 2001 Australia Telephone: (02) 234 4608

22 May 1987

Administrator of the Northern Territory , Government House, DARWIN. N.T. 5794

Your Honour,

In accordance with my appointment as Commissioner under the Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Act 1986 I now have the honour to present to you the report

of my inquiry. A report in identical terms is being made

to His Excellency the Governor-General in accordance with Letters Patent issued to me by the Government of the

Commonwealth.

Yours sincerely ,

(T.R. Morling) Comm i ssioner

CONTENTS

1 ESTABLISHMENT AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION 1

2 THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY 7

3 PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE CONVICTIONS 11

4 THE EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL 13

5 THE CASE PUT TO THE JURY BY THE PROSECUTION 45

6 BLOOD IN THE CAR - LAY EVIDENCE 54

7 BLOOD TESTS - NATURE AND GENERAL DIFF ICUL TIES 59

8

The age of any blood in the car 64

Distinguishing specific immuno-chemical results from non-specific results 69

Whether non-specific reactions wash out 70 Whether non-specific reactions will be indicated by reactions with all anti-sera 71

General reasons for suspecting that reactions obtained were non- specific 72 Limitations of the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum 75

Residual foetal haemoglobin in adult blood 75 The necessity for detailed testing of the anti-serum before use 76

The testing of the anti-serum before use 77

The testing of the anti-serum after use 78

The cross-over electrophoresis test 81

The necessity for proper controls 83

Dilution of samples 86

Whether the anti-serum was specific to foetal haemoglobin 88

Conclusion 92

BLOOD IN THE CAR - SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS

A. FINDINGS OF BABY'S BLOOD

94

94

1. THE SPRAY PATTERN UNDER THE DASHBOARD 94

The various tests 94

Evidence at the trial 99

Appearance of the "arterial" spray 100

Mrs Kuhl's positive tests 1 01

Conclusion as to the spray pattern 106

2. XHE CARPET ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE 106

3. THE OFFSIDE REAR OF THE PASSENGER SEAT AND THE FLOOR BENEATH 108

The ridge of the hinge 109

The flakes from the vinyl behind the hinge 113

The haptoglobin tests - the passenger seat hinge 114

The bracket beneath the hinge 117

The bolt hole area of the floor 117

The floor well beneath the passenger seat 118

The ten cent coin found in the

floor well 122

Conclusions 123

4. OBJECTS IN AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAR 124

The scissors The towel The chamois and its container The camera bag

B. SUPPORT FOR MRS KUHL BY OTHERS

C. MRS KUHL'S EXPERIENCE

D. PGM GROUPING TESTS

E. WHETHER ANY BLOOD WAS FOUND

124 126 130 133

136

138

139

144

1. RELIANCE UPON THE ORTHO-TOLIDINE TEST 144

2. FINDINGS OF HUMAN BLOOD NOT ALREADY CONSIDERED 147

The window handles The nearside hinge of the driver's seat camera bag - zip clasp of

middle compartment

3. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BLOOD IN THE AREA OF THE OFFSIDE HINGE ON THE

147

148

150

PASSENGER SEAT OR ON THE FLOOR BENEATH 151

F. THE VOLUME OF ANY BLOOD 155

G. EXPLANATIONS OF BLOOD IN THE CAR 158

1. MR LENEHAN 158

2. OTHER EXPLANATIONS 160

H. CONCLUSIONS 160

9 BLOOD IN THE TENT 162

The items stained 162

10

The blankets in the bassinet 163

Mr Chamberlain's sleeping bag 163

Reagan Chamberlain's parka 165

The floral mattress 165

The tent itself 166

Mrs Chamberlain's sleeping bag 167

Mrs Chamberlain's running shoes 168

Aidan Chamberlain's parka 170

The volume of blood 170

Was the blood dropped directly or transferred from another blood soaked item? 171

The distribution of the blood stains in the tent 173

Comparison with the blood on the clothing 175

Whether the small quantity of blood in the tent was inconsistent with dingo involvement 176

Comparison with the quantity of blood in the car 180

General 180

STAINING ON AZARIA'S CLOTHING 182

Description of staining 182

Where were the injuries on Azaria's body? 187 Did bleeding which caused the blood staining occur before or after Azaria's death? 189

What caused the injury which produced the bleeding - blade or canine teeth? 191

Professor Cameron's evidence 191

The absence of tissue other than blood 193

Did the damage to the clothing occur before or after the blood was shed upon it? 197

Were there human hand prints in blood on the jumpsuit? 199

Conclusion 201

11

12

13

14

15

THE pAMAGE TO AZARIA'S CLOTHING

Introduction The finding of the matinee jacket The evidence at the trial Additional evidence before the Commission

Dingo experiments Planar array The single fibre with the classic scissor cut Comparisons between Azaria's clothing and other clothing damaged by canids Dr Griffith's experiments The severance in the left arm of the

202

202 204 208 209 210 212

215

215 217

jumpsuit The evidence of the forensic Damage to the nappy

217

odontologists 218 220

Ability of a dingo to remove the clothes from Azaria's body

SOIL AND VEGETABLE MATTER ON THE CLOTHING

Was the clothing buried? The origin of the soil

The origin of the plant material Conclusion

FURTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE CLOTHING

221

224

224 226 229 235

237

Hairs on Azaria's clothing 237

The absence of dingo saliva on the clothing 238

The place where the clothing was found 239

The arrangement of the clothing when discovered 240

OTHER SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE

Tracking evidence The space blanket Tracksuit pants Evidence of Aidan Chamberlain New evidence of Mr Lowe Mrs Lowe's evidence The blankets in the bassinet Dingo activity at Ayers rock The Ding Theory

EVIDENCE OF MR AND MRS CHAMBERLAIN

242

242 250 258 263 269 270 276 279 285

288

16

17

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE STANDARDS

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

310

322

The two strands in the Crown Case 322

The first strand - effect of new evidence 323

The second strand - effect of new evidence 328 Are there doubts as to the Chamberla i ns' guilt? 330

Conclusion 340

APPENDICES

A Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Act 1986 and Appointment of Commissioner 343

B Letters Patent 356

C Advertisement 360

D Topics and witnesses 362

E List of expert witnesses 368

F Glossary of terms relating to blood tests 373

CHAPTER 1 ESTABLISHMENT AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION

On 29 October 1982, in the Supreme Court of the

Northern Territory, Alice Lynne Chamberlain was conv icted on a charge of murdering her 17 August 1980. On

Chamberlain, the husband

daughter Azaria at Ayers Rock on the same date , Michael Leigh

of Alice Lynne Chamberlain and

Azaria's father, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to that murder.

Mr and Mrs Chamberlain hav e always maintained their

innocence of the charges upon which they were convicted. They sought an enquiry into the correctness of the

convictions and, in consequence, the Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Act 1986 ("the Act") was passed by the Parliament of the Northern Territory. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for the establishment of a Commission of

Inquiry having the purpose specified in s.4. 1986 the Attorney-General of the Northern Australia, in pursuance of s. 3(2) and (3)

1.

On 1 April

Territory of of the Act

appointed , me as the Commissioner to constitute the

Commission.

Pursuant to s.4(1) I am required to report to His

Excellency the Administrator on the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence and material information received by me on the matters set forth in the recitals to the Act, which are

in the following terms:

"1. On 29 October 1982, in the Supreme Court of

the Northern Territory -(a) Alice Lynne Chamberlain was convicted on a charge of murdering her daughter Azaria at Ayers Rock on 17 August 1980; and

(b) Michael Leigh Chamberlain was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to that murder.

2. Doubts or questions have arisen as to

their guilt or as to evidence in the trial leading to their conviction."

By Letters Patent issued by His Excellency the

Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on 2 April 1986 pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth), I was appointed to be a Commissioner to inquire into the same

matters as are referred to in the recitals to the Act.

Copies of the Act and the Letters Patent are

respectively Appendices A and B to this report.

Since I am required by the terms of the Act and of

the Letters Patent to inquire into and report on identical matters it will be convenient hereafter to refer

collectively to the two inquiries as "the Inquiry" and to the two Commissions as "the Commission". In fact the two

inquiries were conducted simultaneously.

2.

Mr John Flynn was appointed Secretary of the

Commission.

Prior to the first hear i ng of the Commission

advertisements were inserted in a number of newspapers which are referred to in Appendi x C. The text of the

advertisements and dates on which they appeared are also recorded in that Appendix . S i milar adv e r tisements were

published throughout Australia on 21 and 23 July 1986 .

The first sitt ing o f the Commission was held at

22 Mitchell Street, Darwin on 8 May 1986, when I granted

leave for the following to appear:

Mr C.A. Porter , Q.C . and Mr w.w. Caldwell to assist

me

Mr I. McC . Barker Q. C . and Mr M. F . Adams for the

Northern Territory Go v ernment and the Northern Territory Police Force

Mr J. Winneke , Q.C . and Mr B . Woinarski for Mr and

Mrs Chamberlain

Mr M.R. Einfeld , Q. C . and Mr R. Bennett for Ian

Stanley Cawood , Valerie Grace Cawood, Debbie

Therese Connor , Arthur De rek Roff, Francis John Morris, Margaret Annette Morri s, and Lynette Joy Beasy

Subsequently, Mr Barker Q. C . announced that he also appeared with Ms E. Fullerton and Mr Winneke Q. C. announced that he also appeared with Mr . K. Crispin.

3.

10 June 1986 Mr A.S. Gillespie-Jones Q.C.

applied for leave to appear for Mr P. Ward and Mr D.

McNicol. Mr Gillespie-Jones stated that his clients wished to be represented because they believed their credit might be attacked during the course of the Inquiry as a result of a book written by Ward relating to the events surrounding

Azaria's disappearance. Mr Gillespie-Jones submitted that his clients should be granted leave to be represented on the grounds of natural justice. I refused leave to Mr

Gillespie-Jones to appear because at that stage of the

proceedings no allegation had been made against his clients except for civil claims by several persons that they had

been defamed in Ward's book. I informed Mr Gillespie-Jones that he could renew his application for leave to appear

should subsequent events give rise to a situation where his clients' interests could or might be adversely affected by the proceedings of the Commission. However, he did not

renew his application. The leave to appear granted to Mr Einfeld Q. C. and Mr Bennett was withdrawn shortly after 10 June 1986 as their clients no longer had any interest in the evidence led thereafter to the Commission.

I decided, without objection from any party, that I

would admit as evidence in the proceedings before the

Commission the evidence tendered at the two coronial

inquests into the death of Azaria Chamberlain and at the trial. Senior counsel assisting me made it clear that he

proposed to call as witnesses before the Commission the principal witnesses who had given evidence in the earlier proceedings and, with the exception of one witness who was prevented by illness and another who had died since the

trial, all the who gave significant evidence in

the earlier proceedings also gave oral evidence before me.

Since the convictions giving rise to the Commission were recorded in proceedings brought against Mr and Mrs

4.

Chamberlain in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory it was appropriate that a significant part of the

Commission's proceedings should be heard in the Territory. Indeed, since the Commission's inquiry was so intimately connected with the enforcement of the criminal law in the Northern Territory I was reluctant to take evidence

elsewhere. Most of the non-scientific evidence was taken in Darwin because that city was as convenient as any other city in which to take this evidence. However, there were a great many scientific witnesses resident in Sydney,

Melbourne and Adelaide. To have required these witnesses and witnesses from overseas to give their evidence and in Darwin would have considerably increased the cost of the Commission and, accordingly, I took most of their evidence

in Sydney, the balance being taken in Melbourne. The

evidence of these witnesses was lengthy and, in the result, much more time was spent taking evidence in Sydney than in Darwin. However, I was at all times conscious that it was

in the public interest that the Commission should sit in the Northern Territory since it was embarked upon an inquiry upon matters arising out of convictions recorded there. It was particularly appropriate that the final addresses of

counsel should be heard in Darwin so that members of the

Northern Territory public could, if they so wished, observe the proceedings and hear counsel's submissions on the

evidence furnished to the Commission.

I indicated at the outset of the Commission that

all witnesses except Mr and Mrs Chamberlain were to be

called by counsel assisting me. Evidence was called on

some 92 sitting days and was taken from 145 witnesses. All the evidence was taken in public. Counsels' final

submissions occupied a further 9 days. comprehensive written submissions.

5.

I also received

Searching enquiries and investigations were made by those assisting me in an effort to ascertain any evidence which might bear upon the circumstances surrounding Azaria's disappearance and the guilt or innocence of her parents. As a consequence of these enquiries the evidence before the

Commission was much more extensive than the evidence at the trial.

It would not be profitable to refer in this report to all the evidence which was before the Commission. I

shall refer to the most significant of it in later chapters. I set out in Appendix D some of the more important topics in

respect of which evidence was given, and the witnesses who gave evidence on those topics. Where a witness gave

evidence on more than one topic his or her name has been

included under several headings. For the sake of

completeness I have included in Appendix D the names of a few persons whose statements were tendered in evidence but who were not called to give oral evidence. Mr and Mrs

Chamberlain gave evidence on most issues and their names are not included under any particular topic.

Many of the witnesses whose names are referred to in Appendix D are experts of considerable distinction and experience in their particular disciplines. They are listed separately in Appendix E.

6.

CHAPTER 2 THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY

It is plain that the words used in the Letters

Patent and in the Act to define the nature and scope of my

Inquiry have been borrowed from s. 475 of the Crimes Act

1900 (N.S.W.). Indeed, both the Letters Patent and the Act (s.4(2)) provide that in determining the nature and scope of the Inquiry I am to be guided by the meaning given to like

terms in sub-s. 475(1) of the last-mentioned Act.

Section 475(1) provides as follows:

"475. (1) Whenever, after the convi ction of any

person, any doubt or question arises as to his

guilt, or any mitigating circumstances in the case, or any portion of the evidence therein, the

Governor on the petition of the person convicted, or some person on his behalf, representing such

doubt or question, or the Supreme Court of its own notion, may direct any Justice to, and such Justice may, summon and examine on oath all persons likely to give material information on the matter

suggested."

7.

I am of the opinion that since I am required by the

Letters Patent and the Act to inquire into the matters which have been referred to me and to report thereon it is

inappropriate to treat any party appearing before the

Commission as carrying an onus in the strict legal sense. I do not think that it is proper to regard Mr and Mrs

Chamberlain as carrying an onus to establish that there is a doubt as to their guilt. Nor is it proper to regard the

Crown as carrying an onus of establishing that there is no doubt as to their guilt. I am of the view that to resolve

the question whether there is a doubt or a question as to Mr and Mrs Chamberlains' guilt, or as to the evidence at their trial, I must ask myself whether the evidence persuades me beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty or that the

evidence at their trial is free from doubt. Counsel who

appeared for the Northern Territory Government and for Mr and Mrs Chamberlain agreed with this formulation of the approach which I should take in resolving the doubts or

questions upon which I have been asked to report. In

effect, what I am required to do is to consider the whole of the evidence led before me and, without placing an onus of proof on any party, to decide whether there is a doubt as to the Chamberlains' guilt. In determining whether I am

persuaded beyond reasonable doubt of the Chamberlains' guilt they, of course, are entitled to the benefit of any

reasonable doubt which I may hold.

My view as to the nature of my task is consistent

with the view taken by judges of the Supreme Court of New

South Wales who have undertaken inquiries under s. 475 of the Crimes Act ( N. S. w.). Thus in his report into the

convictions of Timothy Edward Anderson, Paul Shawn Alister and Ross Anthony Dunn, Wood J. said (p. 60):

"I am satisfied that the direction of an Inquiry

pursuant to Section 475 of the Crimes Act, although predicating the existence of a doubt or question as

8.

to the guilt of the Petitioners, does not involve a revival of the presumption of innocence in their favour, or impose an onus on the Crown to produce

evidence to remove the doubt and re-establish their guilt. A submission to this respect was rejected by Slattery J . in his report of the Inquiry into

the conviction of Loraine May P r ice (October 1984) As his Honour there said:

(p.7) 'This section is available where a

person has been convicted of an offence and a doubt or question is postulated as

to guilt or to a mitigating circumstance in the case or to any portion of the

evidence therein. The section contem­ plates that His Excellency the Governor, after receipt of a petition, or a Supreme Court Judge of his own motion, may direct

a Justice of the Peace to conduct an

inquiry on the "matter suggested", that is, the postulated doubt or question as to guilt or as to any mitigating circumstance or as to any portion of the evidence, as

the case may be.'

I am similarly satisfied that the section does not impose any onus on the Petitioners to establish

that their convictions were wrongly procured. Questions of onus appear to me to be foreign to the type of Inquiry the section contemplates.

The Inquiry must commence with the fact that a conviction has been recorded, and that questions or doubts have been raised sufficient to justify the Governor, on the petition of the person convicted or some person on his behalf, or the Supreme Court

of its own motion, to direct a Justice to conduct

an Inquiry and to summon and examine on oath all

persons likely to give material information on the 'matters suggested'."

And at p. 63 of his report Wood J. said:

"I respectfully accept as correct the conclusion of Slattery C.J. at C.L. in the Price inquiry, so far

as that concerns the task Ofthe Justice when

inquiring into questions or doubts concerning guilt. It is my view that I should consider the

evidence at and the conduct of the trial, in the

light of the further evidence and submissions

received in the Inquiry, in order to determine

9.

the questions or doubts as to guilt have

been resolved or remain. In this regard, I take

the view that guilt has the meaning given to it in

the trial process, that is, guilt established

beyond reasonable doubt. So far as any question

or doubt may concern a conflict of evidence or the reliability of a witness, or may depend on fresh

evidence concerning aspects of the case proved by the Crown, it seems to me that I must weigh those

matters and express my own opinion in the report. So far as the question or doubt may concern a

possible miscarriage of justice or involves the possibility that the convictions were improperly obtained, due to some error in the trial process,

it seems to me that I must explore whether or not

there was a mishap, and report my conclusion both as to its occurrence and as to its significance in relation to the guilt found by the convictions."

I do not mean to convey by what I have written that

it would be proper for me to find that there is a doubt as

to the guilt of Mr and Mrs Chamberlain if the evidence

before me were substantially the same as the evidence at

their trial. If that were the case and if, unlike the

jury, I entertained a personal doubt as to their guilt, the question would arise whether such a doubt is a doubt as to

their guilt within the meaning of those words in the Act and in my Letters Patent. That is a question which does not

arise because the evidence before me is much more extensive than, and in important respects different from, the evidence at the trial.

10.

CHAPTER 3 PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE CONVICTIONS

Two coronial inquiries were held into the

circumstances surrounding the disappearance and presumed death of Azaria. The first inquiry concluded on 20 February 1981 when the coroner, Mr D. Barritt, S.M . found that Azaria met her death when attacked by a wild dingo whilst asleep in

her family's tent at the top camping area at Ayers Rock

shortly after 8 p.m. on 17 August 1980 .

On 18 November 1981 an order was ma de by Toohey J .

in the Supreme Court of the Northern Teiritory quashing the previous inquest and directing that another inquest be held.

A second coronial inquiry concluded on 2 February

1982 when the coroner, G . Galvin, C.S.M. decided that Mrs Chamberlain should be charged with the murder of Azaria. He further decided that Mr Chamberlain should be charged

pursuant to s. 9 of the Criminal Law Consol i dation Act that he, between 17 August 1980 and 16 December 1981 at Ayers

Rock and other places in the Northern Territory did receive

11.

or assist his wife who to his knowledge was guilty of the

offence of murdering Azaria. Accordingly he charged him with those offences.

By an indictment presented to the Supreme Court of

the Northern Territory on 13 September 1982, Mrs Chamberlain was charged that on 17 August 1980 at Ayers Rock she did

murder Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain. By the second count of the indictment Mr Chamberlain was charged as an accessory after the fact, the particulars being that between 17 August 1980 and 16 December 1981 at Ayers Rock, Alice

Springs and other places in the Northern Territory he did receive or assist his wife, who to his knowledge was guilty of the offence of murdering Azaria, in order to enable Mrs Chamberlain to escape punishment. Each pleaded not guilty. The trial was lengthy and the jury did not return their

verdicts until 29 October 1982 when it found both Mr and Mrs Chamberlain guilty as charged. Mrs Chamberlain was

sentenced to imprisonment for life. Mr Chamberlain was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment, but the trial judge ordered that he be released upon him entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour.

Mr and Mrs Chamberlain appealed against their

convictions to the Full Court of the Federal Court of

Australia. That Court (Bowen C.J., Forster and Jenkinson JJ) dismissed the appeals (see 46 ALR 493). An application for special leave to appeal against that decision was made to the High Court. The application was granted, but the

High Court (Gibbs C.J., Mason and Brennan JJ, Murphy and Deane JJ. dissenting) dismissed the appeals. (See

153 C.L.R. 521).

12.

CHAP TER 4 THE EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL

The trial was lengthy and occupied some 35 days.

The e vidence before the jury was exhaustively examined on the hearing of the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. Comprehensive summaries of the most

significant eviden ce appear in the joint judgment of Gibbs C.J. and Mason J. and in the judgment of Brennan J. I have

freely borrowed from those judgments in making the following summary of the more important evidence upon which the

Chamberlains' guilt was established to the satisfaction of the jury.

On 13 August 1980 the Chamberlain family left their

Mount Isa horne in their yellow hatchback Torana car to

travel to Central Australia for a holiday. They arrived at Ayers Rock late on the .e v ening of Saturday, 16 August and

pitched their tent next to their car in the top camping area situated to the east of the Rock itself. The position of

the top camping area in relation to t he Rock and its

surroundings can best be appreciated by reference to the

13.

plan as "Plan of Ayers Rock and Environs" which

is reproduced.

Azaria disappeared from the tent about 8 p.m. on

the evening of Sunday, 17 August. The evidence at the trial was that at the time of her disappearance there were five

families camped in the top camping area and that Mr and Mrs West and their 12 year old daughter were camped furthest to the north. However, it emerged in evidence to the

Commission that another family, Mr and Mrs Dawson and their three children were camped north of the West family. The Chamberlains were camped next to the Wests. Much further to the south were the Haby and Whittaker families. Mr and Mrs Lowe and their daughter aged 18 months were camped in a tent

pitched more or less due west of the Chamberlains' tent.

With the exception of the Lowes' tent, all the other tents

were more or less in a row. To the west of these tents and

parallel to them was a low post-and-rail fence which

separated the tents from a barbecue area. Between the fence and the barbecue area there were some low bushes and

vegetation and there was another low post-and-rail fence close to and on the eastern boundary of the barbecue area. To the east of the tents was an unsealed roadway and further

again to the east were low red sand dunes covered by dune

vegetation.

The barbecue area was about 20-25 metres west of the Chamberlains' tent. It was illuminated by a 100-watt yellow portable flood light attached to a post. The light shone across the barbecue area in an easterly direction so that, according to at least some of the evidence, some of

the light reached the Chamberlains' tent. There was no

other light in the immediate vicinity of the Chamberlains' tent at the time of Azaria's disappearance. The

Chamberlains' tent had flaps which opened to the west, that is, facing towards the barbecue area and the Rock. The

14.

matinee

Maternity -1 cove

jacket

Where Mr McCombe Mrs Chamberlain hod a conversation

AYERS ROCK

Distance from tent to dingo den

baby's cl othes 4006· 72 m

AYERS ROCK

Area)

AND ENVIRONS

positions 9f the various tents in relation to the barbecue area can be seen on the plan identified as "Plan of Barbecue Area" which is reproduced. The photograph identified as "Camping Area Showing Barbecue and Chamberlains' Tent" shows

the barbecue area and the position of the Chamberlains' tent on the night of 17 August. The photograph identified as

"Chamberlains' Car and Tent" shows the approximate position in which the Chamberlains' car was parked at the time of

Aza r ia's disappearance. The car was, in fact, facing

slightly north-west. Both photographs are reproduced.

At the time of the alleged crime Mr and Mrs

Chamberlain were aged 38 and 34 respectively. They were married in 1969. They had two sons - Aidan, who was then

aged 6 years and 10 months, and Reagan, then aged 4 years

and 4 months. Azaria was a normal healthy baby aged 9-1/ 2

weeks. The Chamberlains were persons of unblemished

character. He was the pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist Church at Mount Isa and she shared his religious beliefs. The evidence established that Mrs Chamberlain was a devoted mother in good mental and physical health. There was no

evidence to suggest that she suffered from post-natal

depression following the birth of Azaria, indeed the medical evidence was to the contrary.

Shortly before 8 o'clock on the evening of

17 August Mr and Mrs Chamberlain were at the barbecue for the purpose of preparing their evening meal. Aidan and

Azaria were with them, but Reagan was already in the tent

and apparently asleep in his sleeping bag. Mrs Chamberlain was nursing Azaria. She was sitting on a rail at the

barbecue chatting to Mr and Mrs Lowe who were also preparing their evening meal. She appeared contented and exhibited no signs of stress, anger or mental instability. It was

common ground at the trial that Azaria was then alive.

16.

/·

l I .

,) t...---

1 ' ,.....--1

/ '

' ( \

f L7 \

j- \ b.b.q.

- table 13 o \ \

/

(/ \ \ - / _Dowsons' tent

\ \ \ 13 table •• ,

Acac ia - b.b q. table 13 , '\ _ ....... Wests

\0 \ - b b q •

\ table

\ table 13 or------!..\

4m b.b.q. \ ,

tent \b.b.q. table

seat b.b.q. \ 1111""'"' bottle 411 - - I bhq. stand , clothes line light \ J:& \ijt" refuse area , ablution · \ \ table block \ __.j \lJ) -.....__---- " b.b.q. . )

tent

tent

c.hamberlains car

.....-I

serf Oak ;n high \table

\ H b '

)

I high /' , ;;.__..--- q ys Kombi von

\ ( (' \

'\ \ low scrub table \ \ •

· spinifex etc. '\

\ \ \bbq -

\ y \IJl table \ ,

to p of sand ridges approx .

1 100 m from posts \

\

I

I

\

I

(

\

,,

I

I

\

\

\

}

l

\

I

l \ \ I I \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ L_1t,\ / \ \ "'''" j Aoodo W"'""''"' oomo ' --- / \ "-------- ----- """ / -""-J -\. e ) J b--- PLAN OF BARBECUE AREA f ) \

()

8 '0 s· tQ

Mrs Chamberlain left the barbecue area carrying Azaria and followed by Aidan. She walked in the direction of her tent with the apparent intention of putting both

children to bed. Her account of what then occurred was as follows. She returned to the tent, and placed the baby,

who was then asleep, in a bassinet and tucked her under the blankets. The bassinet was at the rear of the tent. Aidan

said that he was still hungry so she went to the car and

obtained a tin of baked beans. She returned to the tent and then went back to the barbecue area with Aidan. There is

no doubt that Mrs Chamberlain did return to the barbecue area accompanied by Aidan and carrying a tin of baked beans . Estimates of the length of time she was absent from the

barbecue area varied at the trial from 5-10 minutes. When she returned to the barbecue area she appeared normal and composed.

The Crown case was that during this short absence from the barbecue area, Mrs Chamberlain took Azaria from the tent into the car, sat in the front passenger seat and cut

the baby's throat. The Crown alleged that Azaria's dead body was probably initially left in the car (possibly in a camera bag) and later the same evening buried in the

vicinity of the barbecue area by Mr or Mrs Chamberlain.

According to Mrs Lowe, after Mrs Chamberlain had returned to the barbecue area with the can of beans she

(i.e. Mrs Lowe) heard Azaria cry. Her evidence included the following:

"A.--- Well she was just standing there. I heard

the baby cry, quite a serious cry but not

being my child I didn't sort of say anything. Aiden (sic) said: 'I think that's bubbie

crying', or something similar. Mike [Mr

Chamberlain] said to Lindy [Mrs Chamberlain]: 'Yes, that was the baby, you better go and

check.' Lindy went immediately to check. I

20.

saw her walk along the same footpath that

they'd been on.

Q. What happened next? A.---She was in the area

on that footpath closest to where the car and tent was, only inside the railings, and yelled out the cry: 'That dog's got the baby.'"

According to Mrs Lowe, the cry which she heard

definitely came from the tent. She was positive that it was the cry of a small baby and no t that of a child. She said

the cry was loud and sharp a nd that it seemed to stop

suddenly. Mr Lowe, who was engaged in conversation at the time, did not hear any cry. He said that Mr Chamberlain

said to his wi fe : "Was that the baby?", that Mrs

Chamberlain went to check on the baby and that when she was about 5 yards

baby."

away she cried out: "That dog's got my

Mrs West, who was in her tent at the time, said

that she heard the growl of a dog from the direction of the

Chamberlains' tent and that some time afterwards she heard Mrs Chamberlain cry out: "My God. My God. A dingo has got

my baby." She v ariousl y described the interval of time

between hearing the dingo growl and hearing Mrs Chamberlain cry out as fairly soon afterwards and 5 or 10 minutes later. Mrs West's husband also said that he heard the growl of a

dog.

It was a dark night and the only significant source of light in the vicini t y of the barbecue area and the

Chamberlains' tent was the floodlight to which I have

referred. The e vidence a t the t ria l varied as t o whether

the effect of the lamp wa s to provide a strong light or a

very poor light at and in the tent. Ho wever, it was clear

that people standing at the barbecue area might not have

been able to see a dog or dingo at or near the t ent since,

21.

quite apart from the lighting conditions, their vision would have been obscured by the low vegetation between the

barbecue area and the tent and the post-and-rail fence to the west of the Chamberlains' tent and car.

Mr Lowe's description of what happened immediately

after Mrs Chamberlain cried out was as follows:

"Well she [Mrs Chamberlain) chased in a direction where she was pointing where she said a dog had

gone, and then she veered back towards the tent

and checked the tent to find out whether the

child was still in the tent or not, but by this

time of course the outburst had .... raised a hue

and cry and Mike and I raced from the barbecue

site across to the tent and asked which direction the dog had gone, and we proceeded to search

immediately."

Initially, when the alarm was raised, some of the people who were in the vicinity of the barbecue area went searching on the sand dune to the east of the camping area

on the other side of the road which passed behind the

Chamberlains' tent. Mrs West said that Mr Chamberlain, who appeared to be very distressed, came running up and said

that he wanted to get into his car but that he could not

find the keys. In his evidence, Mr Chamberlain said that he wanted the keys to operate the ignition so that a spotlight which plugged into the car's cigarette lighter could be

turned on. The keys were found later in the evening. Mrs

Chamberlain said that she had put them under a pillow in the tent because she had no pockets in her clothes. She did not remember her husband asking her for the keys.

Very soon after Azaria disappeared Mr Chamberlain approached the Whittakers' tent. At the time the Whittakers were listening to a programme of Christian hymn singing being broadcast on the radio. According to Mrs Whittaker, Mr Chamberlain said:

22.

"If you are Christian people can you be praying? A dingo has taken our baby. She was nine weeks old

and she is probably dead by now."

Another of the campers, Mr Haby, said that Mrs

Chamberlain approached him and said: "A dingo or a dog has taken my baby- have you got a torch? - I need a torch."

Mr Haby said that he asked Mrs Chamberlain how she knew and

she replied that she had seen a dog or dingo coming out of

the tent when she was walking to the tent and that she had

looked in the tent and found that the baby was missing. Mr

Haby said: "Did you see the dingo-dog carry out the baby?", to which Mrs Chamberlain replied: "No, it wasn't carrying anything." She said that the dingo had gone in the

direction of the sand dune which Mr Haby then proceeded to search.

Mrs Chamberlain told Mrs Whittaker that she thought at first that the baby had fallen out of the bassinet and

that she searched around and could not find it. At about

8.25 p.m. when Mr Derek Roff, the ranger in charge of the

area, first arrived on the scene she told him that she did

not see anything ip the dingo's mouth. Constable Morris, a local police officer, said when he first arrived she told him that the dingo appeared to have something in its mouth, and about an hour later she said that, when she had seen the dingo near the entrance to the tent, it had had nothing in

its mouth. She also said that she did not recall making

her earlier statement.

On 18 August, when interviewed by Inspector Gilroy,

Mrs Chamberlain said that she did not see anything in the

dingo's mouth "because that was below the level of the

light". She said that she saw the dingo coming out uf the

tent flaps, yelled at it to get out of the road and "dived

straight for the tent to see what had made the baby cry".

23.

When she was further interviewed by Detective

Sergeant Charlwood at Mount Isa on 30 September 1980, Mrs Chamberlain said: "Halfway back I saw the head and chest of a dingo trying to get out of the tent. It was shaking its

head from side to side with its nose down, the way it was

shaking it looked like it was trying to get something

through the tent fly. Our shoes were all along the inside

of the tent, whatever it was the dingo was having difficulty getting it out. I thought it may have had my husband's

shoe and it was swinging by the laces." Later in the same

interview, she said: "When I had previously yelled at the dingo it had run out of the tent across the front of the car

and into the shadow. As I was calling to Michael I was

running in a direction the dingo had gone around the front of the car. Michael said 'What'. As I reached the front

corner of the car left hand corner at the time Michael

answered slightly I noticed the dingo

behind the rear of

standing motionless and the car in its shadow.

Approximately the middle of the distance between the two railings. It had its back to me but at a slight angle with

its whole body visible, its head was turned slightly as if listening. I did not see anything in its mouth, my mind

refused to accept what was happening, I'm glad I did not.

As I appeared it ran swiftly on an angle to the right into

the scrub towards the sand hills. I did not hear it move,

the night was very quiet."

At the first inquest Mrs Chamberlain said: "When I last saw it (the dingo) before I went into the tent - the

last time I saw it it was heading out of the tent past the

car. I didn't follow it with my vision because I was more

interested in what was in the tent than following it".

Mrs Chamberlain's evidence at the trial included the following:

24.

"Q.- What was the dog doing when you yelled out?

A.- Shaking its head.

Q.- It was the focus of your immediate attention, of course? A. - Yes.

Q. Here was a dog emerging from the tent,

shaking its head, with, as you believed, your baby in its mouth? Is that right? A. - With, as I

believed, a shoe in its mouth.

Q. - When did you decide it was the baby? A. -

Well, I realized just a split second after that ,

that she'd cried and been disturbed, and started to run, and as I neared the tent, I could see it

was empty . That's when I reali z ed it was the

baby.

Q. - The dog was then, what, going past the front

of the tent? A. - I couldn't tell you where the

dog was, when I thought that.

Q. -When you were at the rail, the dog was within

your vision, was it not? A. - I think - no; it'd

gone before that.

Q. - You watched it leave? A. - I watched it

leave just a few feet, that's all; just in a

split second. Q. - It turned and went south, did it? A. - It

came out the tent, going south.

Q. - You watched it? A. - Like I said, just for a

split second. I wasn't concentrating on what it

was doing.

Q. - Is it the position that you did not see the

baby in its mouth? A. - That's correct.

Q. - Did you see anything in its mouth? A. - No.

Q. - Why? A. - Its nose was below the light level

from the barbecue . It was obscured by the scrub

and the railing, from where I was at that time.

Q. - Do you say that it had vanished by the time

you got to the rail? A. - That's right.

25.

Q. , - You say, do you, seriously, that you did not

see the baby in the dog's mouth? A. - That's

right. Q. -At any stage? A. - That's right.

Q. -As it went past the tent, did it appear to be

carrying anything? A. - I couldn't see what it

was carrying, I could only just see the top of its

head."

Mrs Chamberlain's description of the animal she had seen included the following statements. She told Inspector Gilroy on 18 August that she had seen "a youngish dog, and

certainly a very fit dog" come out of the tent when she was

half-way back to the tent from the barbecue area. She said that she had seen a similar dingo earlier that day. In

referring to these same dingoes, she said to Detecti v e

Sergeant Charlwood in an interview on 30 September 1980: "They were both the same golden colour neither had dusty coats . The shape of the bridge of the nose was similar,

the pointed ears were straight on both sides and had a fe w

longer hairs on the outside edge making them look a little distinctive . "

After a short time a large number of persons joined in the search. These persons included Mr Roff and

Constable Morris. They organized a search consisting

of some 250-300 people who combed the sand dune t o the eas t of the tent and areas to the north and south of it until

about 3 a.m. Some tracks and drag marks apparently made by dingoes or dogs were found, but the baby was not, nor has

her body ever been found.

Mr Haby found tracks on the sand dunes east of the

camp site. The biggest of the tracks, which he said were

easy to follow, led to a plac e on the top of a ridge. I n

his opinion, a dog or dingo had put something down there.

26.

He said that it "had left an imprint in the sand which to me

looked like a knitted jumper or woven fabric and then it

obviously picked it up because it dragged a bit of sand away from the front and kept moving He described the

impression as being roughly oval in shape and approximately 7 inches by 5 or 6 inches in size. He also said that near

the imprint on the sand was a drop which, according to him, could have been blood or saliva. He said that it was dark

in colour but not red. The place where he made these

observations was about 100 yards from the tent. He said

that he showed the imprint to Mr Roff and Constable Morris.

Mr Roff gave evidence that he was told that a track

had been found on the top of the sandhill and that he went

to see it. He saw a drag mark about 8 or 10 inches in

width and followed it. He described the mark as follows:

"Well, it was a shallow drag mark and obviously

something had been dragged along, and obviously in that track in areas there was dragging

vegetation, leaves and grass material, and there were other points where I formed the impression, an object had been laid down, forming an

impression, the pattern of which . I related at the time in my mind, and I have had no occasion to

change that concept; a pattern very similar to what I would relate, or I did relate, to a crepe

bandage."

He said that the impression could have resembled a

mark made by a knitted garment and that the object which had been carried seemed to have been quite heavy and that there were three areas where it had apparently been put down. He saw the drag mark again the following day. He then joined a

group of Aborigines, who were following the tracks of a

large dingo which they tnought might have been associated with the drag marks.

27.

Constable Morris also saw two sets of drag marks. One was a deep drag mark, possibly half an inch deep by half

an inch wide, and the other a short and shallow mark about

one-eighth of an inch wide. The tracks seen by Haby and

Roff led to near the Anzac Memorial, which was on the top of the dune to the south-east. On the evening of 17 August

Constable Morris also saw on the southern side of the tent some dog or dingo tracks that apparently ran eastwards

towards the sand dunes. On the following afternoon he saw what appeared to be fresh tracks hard up against the rear of the tent. The bassinet had been standing in that corner of the tent. On the same afternoon Inspector Gilroy saw some

large paw prints at the rear right hand corner of the tent

and also at the front of, and close to, the tent. These

prints appeared to be fresh. Mr Roff said that he did not

see any dingo tracks near the entrance to the tent on the

night of 17 August, although he examined the entrance of the tent to try to see any dingo tracks which might have been

there. The ground at the entrance to the tent was sandy,

and many people had walked over it that night.

A number of witnesses saw blood in the tent,

although the lighting conditions made observation difficult. There were spots or sprays of blood on the blankets and

other articles in the tent. Mrs Lowe was the only person

who saw what she described as "a dark red wet pool of

blood", about six inches by four inches in size. The floor

of the tent was practically covered by blankets, sleeping bags and other and these were subsequently examined

by Dr. Andrew Scott, a forensic biologist. He found three stains of blood, the largest about half an inch across, on one blanket, and a thin smear on another. According to Mrs Chamberlain these blankets were wrapped around Azaria when she was placed in the bassinet. There were small quantities of blood on a sleeping bag. There was also a large area of

blood staining on a floral mattress, and some smeared blood

28.

on a parka; The articles on which blood was found were in

various parts of the tent. There was no blood on the

bassinet, which was positioned in the right hand rear corner of the tent.

There were some very small spots on the flyscreen of the tent and on the rear wi ndow. These spots were not

shown to be blood. There was also a spray pattern on the

outside of the southern wall of the tent. Dr Scott thought that spots making up this patte r n were blood, but not human blood. No-one observed a trail of blood leading from the

tent. It was common ground at the trial tha t the blood on

at least some of the articles in the tent was baby's blood

and was that of Azaria .

It was the Crown's contention that the blood in the tent was transferred blood, i.e. that it had come from the

person or clothing of Mrs Chamberlain when she re-entered the tent after having killed the baby in the car.

According to the Crown, much more blood would have been

expected to have been in the tent if a dingo had taken the

baby in its jaws and carried i t from the tent. However,

counsel for Mr and Mrs Chamberlain submitted that the tee th of the dingo may have occluded the wounds made by its bite

and thus prevented blood from escaping from the wounds.

There was evidence that there were many dingoes in the vicinity of the camping area at Ayers Rock and more in

the surrounding area. Dingoes had become accustomed to human beings at the Rock and had lost some of their natural fear of them. They wer e accustomed to foraging around the camping area and had been known t o bite children. Mr Roff

said that he had become so concerned by the conduct of the

dingoes that he had written to his superiors expressing his concern and stating that "children and babies can be

considered possible prey " . There was evidence that, two

29.

days befoFe the disappearance of Azaria, a dingo had taken a cushion from under a woman's head while she was sleeping. The dingo later attempted to pull a sleeping bag from her

feet. Several young children had been bitten by dingoes near Ayers Rock during July and August 1980. On 16 August a boy of 9 and a girl of 12 were attacked in separate

incidents. There was also evidence that dingoes had

sufficient strength to carry a wallaby up to 25 lbs. in

weight. At the time of her disappearance, Azaria weighed only 9-1/2 lbs.

After she returned to Mount Isa, Mrs Chamberlain sent a pair of her tracksuit pants to be dry cleaned. There were marks on these pants which resembled blood stains and which responded to a cleaning agent for blood. The marks

were on the front and below the knee. The pants were made

of a dark blue material with green insets towards the bottom of the legs. All the marks were on the dark blue material.

The Crown case was that Mrs Chamberlain must have been

wearing the pants when she committed the murder. She was not wearing the pants either when she left the barbecue area carrying the baby or when she returned to it after she had

obtained the tin of baked beans. If she killed the baby and was wearing the pants at the time of the murder, she must

have put them on in the tent and taken them off again before she returned to the barbecue. Mrs Chamberlain said that she put the pants on about three-quarters of an hour or an hour after Azaria disappeared because it was cold. No other

witness could remember her wearing the pants on the night of the 17th. Mrs Whittaker said that during the evening Mrs Chamberlain had no covering on her legs except socks .

However, another witness, Mrs Elston, had, before the trial, made a statement in which she had said that she had seen Mrs Chamberlain wearing pants some time after 10 o'clock, but at the trial she could not remember whether Mrs Chamberlain had worn the pants. It appears to have been all but conceded

30.

at the trial that there was blood on the pants, but it was

suggested by the defence that the blood must have dropped on to the pants while they were lying folded in the tent .

Some time after Azaria disappeared the Whittakers '

daughter Rosalie procured a gas light and placed it near the front of the Chamberlains' tent. This appears to have

provided quite a good light in the v icinity. However, no

one saw any sign of blood on any article of clothing that

Mrs Chamberlain was wearing that night. In September 1980 she handed the track shoes that she had worn on 17 August to the police at Mount Isa and said that they had previously

had blood on them which had been removed by washing. She

said that the blood must have got on to the shoes when she

crawled inside the tent. The shoes were tested for blood, but the test proved negative.

According to Mrs Chamberlain an article which she described as a space blanket was in the tent at the time of

Azaria's disappearance. She said that when she returned to Mount Isa she observed dusty paw marks on the space blanket and pointed them out to a police officer who took possession of the blanket. Constable Brown of the Queensland Police

gave evidence that he picked up the space blanket from Mrs Chamberlain's home but could see no paw marks on it. Mrs

Chamberlain said that she drew the paw marks to the

attention of the officer who picked up the blanket. She did not identify the officer. She also said that other members of her family had seen the marks on the space blanket, but

they were not called at the trial to support her statement.

Mrs Chamberlain also said at the trial that she saw tear or cut marks in a blanket that had been in the tent and

suggested that these may have been caused by the dingo.

Professor Chaikin said however that the marks had been

31.

caused b¥ moths, some of whose larvae were still in the

marks.

After Azaria's disappearance Mrs Chamberlain appeared distressed and shocked. For most of the evening, until she left the campsite with her husband at about

midnight, she was in the company of other campers.

According to the evidence at the trial there were two or

three occasions on which Mr and Mrs Chamberlain went away together. On one or two occasions they were away for about 10 minutes, and on another occasion for about 15 or

20 minutes. They said that on these occasions they were

joining in the search for Azaria. It was not suggested by

any witness that their actions were in any way unusual and they were not seen carrying anything resembling the body of a child or anything in which the body of a child could have

been concealed. Nor were they seen to be carrying any

digging implements. Several people entered, or looked into, the tent and no one saw Azaria's body. Mrs West

remained near the car from the time when the alarm was given until Mr and Mrs Chamberlain left the camping area and Mrs Lowe was also there until about 10 p.m. Neither saw anyone

remove anything from the car during that period.

There would have been little opportunity for Mr and Mrs Chamberlain to clean up any obvious blood in the car.

There does not appear to have been any wash basin in the

tent. There was an ice cream container which was believed to have had bottle teats in it floating in a sterilizing

solution but there was no evidence that the solution

contained blood. None of the persons who went into the tent noticed that it did. When the contents of the tent were

being packed later in the evening Mrs Elston saw Mrs

Chamberlain pour the solution on to the ground. There was no evidence at the trial to explain how Mrs Chamberlain

could have washed her hands to remove any blood which might

32.

have been on them after she murdered Azaria, if indeed she did. The only water supply in the area was in an ablution

block situated to the south-west of , but near, the barbecue area.

Mr and Mrs Chamberlain stayed at the camping area

until about midnight when they were persuaded to spend the rest of the night at the Uluru Motel nearby. Some of their

belongings were packed into their own car and the balance into a police car. Mrs Chamberlain and the two boys were

driven to the motel in the police car. Mr Chamberlain drove to the motel in his own car, accompanied by Mrs Elston who sat in the front passenger's seat. She saw, in front of the

driver's seat, a camera bag which she described as being

very full. She asked Mr Chamberlain if he would like her to hold the bag while he was driving, but he said "that it was

okay, and that he always kept it there, because he kept his

cameras in it and when he was driving along he could take

pictures of things as he saw them". There was evidence that this was in truth his practice. Mrs Elston helped load the car and unload it at the motel, but noticed no blood.

Aidan was not called to give evidence at the trial. According to Mrs Lowe, he told her some time after the

search had begun that the dog had got the baby in his tummy. Mrs West said that during the evening she asked Aidan if the dingo had taken the baby, and he that it had.

Mr and Mrs Chamberlain remained at the Uluru Motel

until Tuesday, 19 August. On the day following Azaria's

disappearance neither Mr nor Mrs Chamberlain joined in the search for her, nor did they enquire about the progress of the search. They returned to the camping area where Mr

Chamberlain took photographs which he dispatched to a

newspaper. On the night of the 17th Mr Chamberlain made a statement to Mr Roff that he and his wife were reconciled to

3 3.

the fact they would never see the baby alive again. He

said this only about 25 minutes after the alarm was raised. Furthermore, at about 8 o'clock on the following morning, before he had received any report of the search that had

taken place prior to that time, Mr Chamberlain told his

mother in the course of a telephone call: "We don't ever

expect to find the body". On 19 August Mr and Mrs

Chamberlain left Ayers Rock to return to their horne in Mount Isa.

On 24 August Mr Goodwin, a tourist, found clothes

which Azaria had been wearing when she disappeared. The place where the clothes were found was about 200 metres from the road on the south-west side of the Rock about 4 krn from

the camping area. It was located among the boulders near the base of the Rock, not far from two dingo dens. There

were dingo pads and tracks in the vicinity of the dens. The Chamberlains visited this area on 17 August during which time Mr Chamberlain, who was a keen photographer, took

photographs.

At the time of her disappearance Azaria had been wearing a white· cotton singlet, a disposable nappy and

bootees which were all covered by a white cotton and nylon towelling jumpsuit fastened with press studs from the crotch to the neck. According to Mrs Chamberlain, Azaria was also wearing a matinee jacket but no trace of the jacket had been

found as at the date of the trial. I shall refer later to

the finding of this jacket in February 1986. WhenAzaria's clothes were found, at least the four top press studs of the jumpsuit were open. The back of it was against the ground

and the feet were facing up in the air. The two bootees

were inside the feet of the jumpsuit. The singlet was

inside out, opposite to the way in which Mrs Chamberlain said that Azaria had been wearing it when she disappeared. The disposable nappy was damaged. According to Mr Goodwin,

3 4.

the singlet was in the jumpsuit when he first saw it, but

Constable Morris' recollection was that the singlet was not in the jumpsuit but was lying nearby. Mr Goodwin's

recollection was that the clothing was in a more compact or tidy arrangement than Constable Morris remembered.

There was no trace of the baby's body, or any

remains of it, in the vicinity of the clothing. The collar

of the jumpsuit and the top section of the singlet were

heavily blood stained. A portion of the left arm of the

jumpsuit appeared to have been torn or ripped out. There

was a hole and what appeared to be a linear cut on the

collar of the jumpsuit. There was some vegetation and dirt on the clothing. There was evidence at the trial that

dingoes sometimes bury their prey. There was also

scientific evidence from which it would have been open to the jury to infer that the clothes had been buried, not near the base of the Rock where they were found, but in an area

with a different type of soil. One such area was under

bushes on the side of the sand dunes about 100 metres east

of the camp site, but there were other areas of a similar

soil type.

There was evidence from which it might have been inferred by the jury that the jumpsuit had been rubbed with vegetation and that Azaria was not in the jumpsuit when the vegetation was rubbed on to it. The vegetable matter on the

jumpsuit and singlet came from plants which grow in the area where the clothing was found. The principal deposit of

vegetable material consisted of fragments of the plant

parietaria,a plant which grows only in shady conditions and in damp soil such as is found near the base of the Rock. It

does not grow on sand dunes or on the plain. Some of the

fragments of parietaria had become embedded in the fabric of the jumpsuit, some of it adhering to the inside back of the

garment, within the V formed by the undone top studs. This

35.

part of the garment could not have been rubbed directly on to the ground or on to a parietaria bush if Azaria had been

inside the jumpsuit at the time. The vegetable material on the singlet was on the outside of the garment, i.e. the side which would have been closest to Azaria's body and which became the outer surface after it had been removed from her

body. The singlet also had three crease lines which

protected a clean segment of the garment when dirt had come into contact with its surface.

Expert witnesses called at the trial differed as to the cause of the damage to Azaria's clothing. According to the Crown's witnesses, the damage was the result of cutting by a sharp instrument, probably a pair of scissors, and was not caused by the teeth of a dingo. The Crown's witnesses

included Dr. Brown, a forensic odontologist, Mr Sims, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Odontology at London Medical College, Professor Chaikin, Head of the School of Textile Technology at the University of New South Wales, Professor Cameron, Professor of Medicine at the University of London, and

Sergeant Cocks, a senior police officer who conducted some experiments on a jumpsuit.

Professor Chaikin examined the jumpsuit under a scanning electron microscope. In his opinion the jumpsuit had been cut, probably with very sharp scissors . He

concluded that the damage to the jumpsuit was not caused by a dingo and based this conclusion on his observation that all fibres at the end of the yarn were in the same plane,

whereas when fabric is torn there is a distortion which

prevents the fibres from coming together. He also

particularly based his conclusion on his finding of small cotton tufts adhering to the fabric at the edge of the

damaged areas of the jumpsuit which he said occur as a

result of cutting, but not as a result of tearing. He

described this as "the strongest evidence". He concluded

36.

that the ap,parent tears on the left arm, left shoulder and collar of the jumpsuit and a small hole in the back of it

had been cut with sharp scissors. He was of the opinion

that the damage to the garments could not have been caused by a dingo.

There was no evidence of the presence of tissue

remains or blood stains on the cut edge of the hole in the

left arm of the jumpsuit, except for a drop of blood below

the hole apparently unconnected with any injury to the

baby's left arm. Dr Scott tested the jumpsuit for proteins that are found in dingo and dog saliva, but could find none. However, it was recognized at the trial that if Azaria had been wearing a matinee jacket at the time of her

disappearance saliva may have been deposited on that

garment. In addition, any saliva which may have been on

the jumpsuit may have been washed away by a shower of rain which fell in the area before 24 August. There were two

holes in the back of the singlet, although there was no

damage to the corresponding position of the jumpsuit.

Professor Chaikin's opinion was that the holes were made either by cutting or by holding the singlet under tension and puncturing it with possibly a knife or the blades of

scissors. He was unable to produce such holes by

mechanically driving a dingo's tooth into the fabric.

However, he would not exclude the possibility that an animal could cause damage of the kind observed in the singlet by

holding part of the garment in its paws and part in its

teeth and thus placing the fabric under tension. There was other evidence at the trial confirmatory of Professor

Chaikin's opinion.

A witness called by the defence, Dr Orams, a Reader in Dental Medicine and Surgery at the University of

Melbourne, asserted that the damage to Azari a's clothes could have been caused by the teeth of a dingo. Dr Orams is

37.

an in the field of animal dentistry and skulls, but

does not have expertise in textiles. He was of the opinion that the damage to the jumpsuit and singlet was consistent with damage done by the dingo's carnassial teeth. He based this opinion on his knowledge of the scissor-like action of

those teeth and upon his belief that there were tears, as he described them, in the clothing. However, he agreed that the scissors-like teeth of a dingo leave an uneven shredded edge unlike the cut edge made by sharp scissors.

Some evidence was directed at the trial to the

question whether a dingo could have removed the baby from the jumpsuit. The defence relied upon an experiment in

which a dingo had removed the carcass of a kid from a

similar jumpsuit, undoing only two press studs.

There was no evidence at the trial which directly showed that Mr or Mrs Chamberlain was responsible for

cutting Azaria's clothing or putting it where it was found. There was evidence that on the day before the baby's

disappearance Mr Chamberlain had taken photographs of the place where the clothes were later found. However, it is

clear from other evidence that Mr Chamberlain was a very enthusiastic photographer and took many photographs of the Rock and its environs.

Mrs Chamberlain had seen a dingo early on the day

of 17 August near an area known as the Fertility Cave at the base of the Rock. She said this dingo was similar to the

one that she alleged she had seen outside the tent. The

Fertility Cave is at the south-west base of the Rock, but it is some little distance east of where Azaria's clothes were found.

There was much evidence at the trial as to the

blood stains on Azaria's singlet and jumpsuit. According

38.

to Dr Scott; the volume and pattern of blood were consistent with an injury to the major vessels of the neck . Dr Jones,

a pathologist, said that the most likely injury which would

have caused the staining of the jumpsuit, assuming Azaria to be inside it, was a lacerated or incised wound across the

front of the neck. However, he agreed that the blood stains were also consistent with massive head injuries producing substantial bleeding. Professor Cameron said that, in his opinion, the blood staining to the jumpsuit and singlet

could not have been caused by any injury except a cut

throat. However, he qualified this opinion by conceding that he could not totally exclude some head injuries, but he was positive that the principal injury was a cut throat.

He also said that he could see on the jumpsuit what appeared

to him to be the impression of a small adult hand in

transferred blood. Dr. Plueckhahn, a pathol ogist, who was called for the defence, expressed the opinion that the

pattern of bleeding on the baby's clothing was consistent with heavy bleeding from either the throat, neck or head. He did not agree that it could be said that the bleeding

resulted from a cut throat rather than from any other form of head injury.

The police did not take possession

Chamberlains' Torana car until 19 September 1981. of the

The car,

and a number of articles which Mr and Mrs Chamberlain told the police were in the car or in the tent on the evening of

17 August 1980, were thereafter tested in order to determine whether there were any stains or traces of blood on them and in particular whether any blood found contained foetal haemoglobin. Foetal haemoglobin, except in amounts of less

than 1%, is normally only present in babies under six months old.

There was a great deal of conflicting scientific evidence given at the trial in relation to this issue. It

39.

is for present purposes to say that Mrs Kuhl, a

forensic biologist employed by the Health Commission of Ne w South Wales, carried out a number of tests between September 1981 and January 1982. She acted under the general

supervision of Dr Baxter, who was then the senior forensic biologist of the Health Commission. He agreed with the

conclusions which Mrs Kuhl expressed in evidence. In

making her tests Mrs Kuhl used a number of plates and gels

to determine whether samples of stains and deposits taken from the car and its contents contained foetal haemoglobin. These plates and gels were destroyed soon after the tests were made. This was in accordance with the practice of the Health Commission's laboratory at that time. Mr Culliford,

the Deputy Director of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory in London read Mrs Kuhl' s evidence and her laboratory work notes, and said that he approved of her methods and

conclusions. However he, in common with the experts called for the defence, were unable to see the plates or gels used

by Mrs Kuhl in her testing.

The samples taken from the Chamberlains' car

included samples taken from the floor under the front

passenger's seat, a bolt hole under that seat, the hinge on the off-side of that seat, the vinyl behind the hinge, a ten cent coin found on the floor, the carpet at the side of the

driver's seat near the door panel, a small pair of scissors, a towel, a chamois container, the zip clasp and side buckle of the camera bag, and from under the glove box.

Samples of blood found on Azaria's clothes were found on analysis to contain 25 % of foetal haemoglobin to 75% of adult haemoglobin. Immunological tests were applied

to the samples, using an anti-serum which was intended to react specifically with the antigens associated with the distinguishing molecular chains (called gamma chains) of the foetal haemoglobin molecule. The immunological tests

40.

applied by Mrs Kuhl were known as the Ouchterlony Test, the Cross-over Electrophoresis Test and the Tube Precipitin Test. According to Mrs Kuhl's evidence, 22 of the samples gave positive reactions to the anti-serum. The experts for

the defence disputed that the anti-serum that was used in the tests was, in the concentrations used, specific only to antigens associated with gamma chains. They contended that the concentration of adult haemoglobin antigens in the

samples tested may hav e reacted with unwanted antibodies in the anti-serum to give a reaction falsely interpreted as a reaction with foetal haemoglobin antigens and accordingly that the anti-serum was not mono-specific.

Another test, the haptoglobin test, was carried out by Mrs Kuhl upon two samples which did not require the

use of anti-serum. Professor Boettcher, one of the defence experts, rejected the validity of this test in the absence of a control which was known to contain foetal and adult

haemoglobin. Professor Boettcher is Professor of Biological Science at the University of Newcastle.

Evidence was given that in October 1981 Detective Metcalfe observed a spray pattern under the dashboard next to the glove box compartment. The pattern felt sticky to

the touch. This could not have been Azaria's blood since

her blood would have dried within about t wo hours after it had been shed. Mrs Kuhl's testing of the spray pattern

area using the Ortho-tolidine Test proved negative. Later, in November 1981, Dr Jones saw a metal plate we lded under

the dashboard. The plate appeared to have o n it spots

consistent with blood. A presumptive Ortho-tolide Test carried out on these spots by Constable Max Scott proved positive. dashboard.

Dr Jones collected four samples from under the

He sent three of these to Mrs Kuhl, one of them

being taken from the metal plate and t wo fr o m another part of the glove box support area. He observed two patterns of

41.

staining on the metal plate. One pattern appeared to be a

splash of large drops along the front edge, and the

other a spray pattern of droplets. The latter spray pattern was described in evidence as being of the kind which would be formed by ejection of blood from a small artery .

Testing the three samples by the use of the anti-HbF

anti-serum, Mrs Kuhl concluded that each contained foetal haemoglobin. Mrs Kuhl concluded that a sample taken from the edge of the metal plate was not blood.

In May 1982, Mr Culliford was given a number of

samples, including one from the steel plate. With one

exception, he was of the opinion that the samples were of

blood. One of the samples which he thought was of blood was taken from the leading edge of the metal plate.

The Chamberlains' car had been used as a

demonstration model by a dealer from September 1977 until Mr Chamberlain bought it in December 1977. There was evidence that Mr Chamberlain discovered, in another 1977 Torana car, a metal plate on which there was a similar pattern to that

found on the plate removed by Dr Jones from his car.

The defence relied upon the evidence of Mr Tew, who did some electrical work on the car in November 1980. He

said he saw some blood stains on the console of the car but

did not notice any blood under the dashboard although he did work in the area in which the spray was said to have been.

Except in relation to the marks observed under the glove box, the defence did not dispute that blood was found in the car. It was proved that a M .r Lenehan was, on

17 June 1979 , involved in an accident near Port Douglas and was picked up by the Chamberlains and driven by them to

Cairns in their Torana car. He bled profusely from a scalp wound. He said he lay in the back of the car, which was a

42.

hatchback, with his head towards the front passenger's seat. To enable him to lie in this fashion at least one of the

rear seats appears to have been lowered to make a flat

surface upon which he could lie. There was also evidence

that Aidan and Reagan had nose bleeds while travelling in the front passenger's seat of the car and that Azaria

sometimes v omited when sitting on her mother's knee on the front passenger's seat. There was also evidence that

children were often carried in the car and that sometimes they would have bled from minor injuries.

The Crown called evidence of an experiment on a car seat similar to the front passenger's seat in a Torana. The experiment showed that when someone was sitting on the seat and blood came in contact with the side of the seat, the

blood would flow down the side in a pattern which

corresponded to the pattern which Mrs Kuhl observed on the side of the front passenger's seat of the Torana and would flow or drip behind the hinge and into the bolt hole.

Mrs Kuhl tried to ascertain the group to which the blood found in a number of samples belonged. She found that the blood was probably group 0, and that its

Phosphoglucomutase (which is an enzyme) grouping was PGM 1+ . The grouping as group 0 is insignificant, but since Mr

Lenehan's PGM grouping was PGM 2+1+ the test, if accurate, shows that the blood tested was not his. However, Dr

Cornell, a consultant biochemist, gave evidence that it is difficult to obtain a reliable PGM grouping f rom blood which is old and denatured. Mrs Kuhl did not ascertain Azaria's PGM grouping, as she could have done by testing the blood on

the jumpsuit. Instead she relied on the fact that Dr Scott, using a method permitting a less detailed classification, found Azaria's blood to be PGM 1. If Mrs Kuhl's tests were

correct, the blood she tested could have been Azaria's.

4 3.

There was other evidence before the jury, but the e v idence to which I have referred formed the substantial

bas i s for the Crown's case on the one hand and the defenc e

on the other.

4 4.

CHAPTER 5 THE CASE PUT TO THE JURY BY THE PROSECUTION

The evidence at the trial being as I have described it in Chapter 4, the Crown Prosecutor submitted to the jury that a strong case had been made out establishing Mr and Mrs Chamberlain's guilt. I shall refer later in this report to

several important respects in which the evidence before the Commission differs from the evidence at the trial upon which the prosecutor baied his submissions. It is convenient to refer to these submissions for the purpose of later

demonstrating that some of the most persuasive of them could not have been put to the jury, and others could not have

been put with the same force, had the evidence been as it is before the Commission.

I should make it plain that no criticism can be

made of the manner in which the Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury. No complaint was made, nor could it have been

made, by defence counsel that the Crown Prosecutor was not entitled to address the jury in the terms which he used.

45.

The Prosecutor put to the jury that the evidence

before them left no room for any conclusions other than that Azaria had been taken by a dingo or murdered by her mother. The jury was invited to accept that the evidence pointed

overwhelmingly to Mr and Mrs Chamberlain's guilt and that the notion that a dingo had taken Azaria was preposterous and not capable of belief.

It was conceded that the Crown had not established any motive for the alleged murder and the jury were invited not to speculate as to what the motive might have been.

Counsel submitted that the amount of blood found in the tent was inconsistent with Azaria having been attacked there by a dingo and invited the jury to disregard the evidence of Mrs Lowe that she saw a pool of blood in the tent shortly after

Azaria's disappearance. It was further submitted that the periods of time when the Chamberlains were alone after

Azaria' s disappearance were of sufficient duration to enable them to have buried her body in the area to the east of the

camp site without being observed by searchers or persons in the vicinity of the barbecue area. That the child had been buried in that area was said to be established by the

presence in her clothing of soil found only in the area near the camp site. The Crown claimed that the evidence

established that Azaria' s clothing had been deliberately rubbed in vegetation which grew only near the base of Ayers Rock and that this indicated human involvement rather than dingo activity.

The jury were invited to disbelieve Mrs

Chamberlain's evidence that she saw a dingo at the tent.

Her statement that she had not seen Azaria in the dingo's

mouth was said to be part of a deliberately vague account of the alleged sighting of the dingo so as to better achiev e

her object of deceiving people into thinking that a dingo was indeed involved in the disappearance of her child. The

46.

absence of blood or drag marks on the ground outside the

tent and the fact that the child's cloth i ng was found 4 km

from the camp site without it having collected anything in the nature of seeds, sticks or other vegetation along the way were said to demonstrate that the child had not been

taken to the base of Ayers Rock by a dingo.

It was submitted that Mrs Chamberlain had given different and unsatisfactory accounts o f the mo v ements of the alleged dingo after she first saw it, and that her

statements as to its existence and movements should be

disbelieved.

The Crown claimed that her statement that she had seen a dingo looking at her near the Fertility Cave was a

deliberate attempt to implant in the minds of investigating police the idea that a dingo may have taken Azaria to a

place somewhere in the vicinity of that cave so that a

subsequent search would reveal the presence of the child's clothes in that area.

It was asserted that it was "overwhelming and

unassailable that the jumpsuit was cut by scissors" and that if the jumpsuit had been damaged by scissors so as to

simulate damage by a dingo it was obviously done by Azaria's parents or one of them. Reliance was placed upon Professor Chaikin's evidence that the jumpsuit had not been torn, that the fibre ends in the severed fabric were all in the same

plane and that the damage to the fabric could not have been caused by a dingo biting it.

Great emphasis was placed upon the evidence that there was blood containing foetal haemoglobin in the front of the Chamberlains' car and on articles found in the car in September 1981. Since this evidence appears to have been of

such crucial importance at the trial and was so heavily

47.

relied upon by the Crown, it is appropriate to quote part of '

prosecuting counsel's address to the jury on this matter:

"What I say to you is this: that you've got Mrs

Kuhl, who in her routine daily work as a forensic

biologist using anti-serum tested to her

satisfaction and to the satisfaction of Doctor

Baxter, doing standard tests using standard

techniques on old blood, managed to get 22 positive results for foetal haemoglobin . Which said to her that she was dealing with the blood of a child

under 3 months old. You've got Dr Baxter, another government employee, checking the work of one of his biologists and he agreed with her 22 times, and you've got Mr Culliford, totally detached from it all, checking her notes, her evidence, her work

methods, and agreeing with her 22 times. Now

clearly this is very prejudicial and embarrassing evidence to the accused. Clearly it is damaging

to them to have a car with traces of foetal blood

in it; to have a camera bag with foetal blood on

it, and I notice that it's not suggested how that

might have got there. Not even Mr Lenehan can be

blamed for the blood found on the zipper because

the bag was only acquired 3 months before the

event. I'm not going to go into Joy Kuhl' s

findings in detail because you remember them. You remember where she found foetal blood. You

remember the scissors and the inside of the chamois container. You remember under the dash- I'll take you to that in a minute. You remember under the

passenger's side seat, the 10 cent coin, the stains around the bolt hole, all of which have been

photographed. You remember the stains down the

vinyl of the passenger seat. You remember how she simulated similar bleeding to show how it happened. You've got the photograph there, how you have to

sit on the seat for the blood to flow down under

the hinge, and you remember the blood that she

found under the hinge. Now you'd think, wouldn't you, that this would require a great deal of

explaining even if it's adult blood. She says it

is foetal blood, and I suggest to you that she

ought to know, and Dr Baxter ought to know what it

is he's dealing with, because you know really, if the suggestions made about their work in this court have any substance, people in New South Wales are in constant danger of being wrongly convicted

whenever there's some blood involved, and it's

really, I suggest, rather too ridiculous to

contemplate that she would come into this, in the course of her daily work, as a professional

48.

forensic biologist, and muck it all up not knowing whether she was dealing with adult blood or the

blood of a child under 3 months of age. What we

ask you to do is to respect her opinions."

The jury were invited to prefer the evidence of Mrs Kuhl and Dr Baxter to that of Professor Boettcher because he was an academic who was not actively engaged in the routine work of testing blood stains. The same criticism was

offered of Professor Nairn's evidence.

It was submitted that the blood in the car could

not have come from Lenehan as it was in the wrong group and

was not foetal.

The concession was made that the Crown had not

proved that Azaria's body or her clothes had been placed in the camera bag. However, much was made of the evidence as

to the finding of blood on the camera bag. This was put to

the jury:

"What we do say is that the positive reactions to

the ortho-tolidene tests which were obtained by Mrs Kuhl, and be.fore that by Doctor Scott, indicate

quite clearly that there had been blood in the bag, that the foetal haemoglobin identified on the

zipper, was a remnant of the child's blood, and at

one stage there'd been a lot more there.

The position is as follows the

ortho-tolidene test gives a presumptive reaction. It's a two stage test. You only get the reaction

to blood, when you add the hydrogen peroxide, and then you get a distinctive blue stain. The

experienced forensic biologist will usually

recognise it as a typical blood reaction, and there are very few things which will give that typical

blood reaction.

There are things which will react to the

test, positively, but they are distinguishable in appearance. I think 2 of the things suggested here by Mrs Kuhl, which can give this reaction, are some sorts of rust, and water from the River Murray . I

respectfully suggest you may discount the latter as

49.

any relevance, and it's difficult to

a camera bag would be filled with

sufficiently to give positive reactions ortho-tolidene test .

see why rust, to the

... But you don't look at the evidence of the

positive reactions to the ortho-tolidene test in isolation . When you've got - you have typical

blood r eactions inside and the positive findings of foetal haemoglobin outside, you don't have to be a genius, do you, to conclude that there was blood

both on the inside and on the outside at some

stage . And it was put to you, that, look, we

didn't say the body was in there, because there'd be so much blood that you would expect to have

found a lot more. Well, that rather begs the

question if the bag in the meantime has been

washed .

Well, we can't prove it was washed. But how - let's assume for the moment that the positive

reaction she obtained on the inside of the bag from those inside surfaces, was in fact a human blood. How did it get in there, and what happened to it .

Why wasn't there enough for her to identify as

blood by one of the confirmatory tests. If

there'd been blood on the surfaces of the inside of the bag, if there was enough there to give her a

reaction, it's pretty obvious that at some stage it's been washed off. That's a fairly simple

equation. The blood was there- it's been cleaned off. Still, there was enough on the zip to produce a positive reaction to protein and foetal

haemoglobin."

Great reliance was also placed on what was asserted to be an arterial blood spray pattern on the metal plate

which had been removed from under the dashboard of the

Chamberlains' car. After putting to the jury that Mr

Culliford had confirmed that the substance on the plate was blood, counsel said:

"It's not paint or gum arabic or anything else, it's blood, and we suggest to you that the obv ious

conclusion that you can reach when you consider

50.

that the other 3 samples were found to contain

foetal haemoglobin is that the blood all came from the one place, and you remember that it's coming

upwards on a trajectory of about 45 degrees. That was the evidence of Dr Jones, which is why we say

it's consistent why Dr Jones said it is

consistent with having come from an artery. It is baby's blood. It came, the Crown says, from the

child when she was killed." I don't know that you're asked to find

that all Toranas are sprayed under the dash with

the blood of an infant as some sort of benediction or ceremonial right when the cars are sold. We know that on the real plate there's blood. We

know the blood is part of the pattern . It's been

dug out of the pattern."

It was submitted that Mrs Chamberlain's statement that she saw a paw print on the space blanket was a lie, and

comment was made upon the failure of the defence to call

other persons, such as Mrs Chamberlain's mother, her brother and her sister-in-law, who Mrs Chamberlain claimed also saw the paw marks.

It was put to the jury that Mrs Chamberlain changed into the tracksuit pants after she left the barbecue area and before murdering Azaria and that the marks seen on the pants were of blood which splashed on to the pants after

Azaria's throat was cut.

It was further submitted that Mrs Chamberlain lied to the jury when she said that the cuts or marks on the

purple blanket were caused by a dingo. These marks, so it

was said, were caused by insects, and must have been known by Mrs Chamberlain to have been so caused.

Mr and Mrs Chamberlain's conduct immediately after

Azaria's disappearance was said to be inconsistent with the behaviour which might have been expected of them if their child had been taken by a dingo. It was claimed that Mr

51.

Chamberlain's failure to make an extensive and continued '

search for his child showed that he knew what had happened to her. The failure was also said to have been due to his

desire to stay near the car.

It was put to the jury that no hairs which could be

attributed to a dingo were found on the blanket, jumpsuit or singlet. Reliance was placed upon Dr Harding's evidence that he obtained hairs, which were probably cat hairs, from the purple blanket and upon his evidence that three

non-human hairs obtained from Azaria's singlet were also probably cat hairs. It was asserted that at least one dingo hair would have been found on some article of Azaria's bed clothes or clothing if she had been carried off by a dingo. The absence of saliva or dingo hairs was described as

"negative evidence pointing to positive conclusion which is this: that the baby was not taken by a dingo. Therefore

she was murdered."

The prosecution relied upon other facts which I have not mentioned but to which reference has been made in Chapter 4.

The Crown's case as put to the jury is encapsulated in the following remarks with which the Crown Prosecutor concluded his address to the jury:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we say that no dingo had anything to do with the death of Azaria

Chamberlain. You're entitled to find that there were no dingo hairs, there was no saliva, there was no dingo damage to the clothes. The damage to the

jumpsuit was caused by a pair of scissors. The

soil in the clothes carne from under the thryptornerne bushes on the dune east of the tent, and the child

was buried there. The plant fragments came from

the clothes being rubbed in vegetation where they were found. The clothes were taken there by human beings, by road, and not through the bush. That

they were laid down in a way no dingo would leave

52.

them at a place not far from the Uluru Motel. The

booties and singlet were left in the jumpsuit, and there was no dingo damage to the blanket - or the

space blankets. The insignificant quantity of

blood in the tent came from the a c cused, Alice

Lynne Chamberlain, when she returned to the tent, because she had on her the blood of the child .

The blood in the car came from Azaria . The

blood in the camera bag, came from Azaria. All

these things, we put to you, you are entitled to

find as facts. If there was no dingo, the ch i ld

was murdered. The question, who did it, is

brutally answered. You can leave out Michael

Chamberlain, and you can leave out the two boys,

and no-one else was there. It is not consistent

with reason to suggest that it was anyone but the

accused, Alice Lynne Chamberlain.

You are entitled to find that she invented

the dingo lie. She had blood on her pants and her

shoes. She had the opportunity. She's lied about the animal; its appearance, what it did , where it

went, what she did. She's lied about the blood in

the car, the tracksuit pants, the dress, the giggle hats, the space blanket, and the baby's blankets. We submit to you, with respect you are entitled to find that she's lied constantly and persistently

and so has her husband.

Well, what does all this mean. In our

submission this case has strength, it has cohesion, and it has volume, and each bit supports the

others, but the whole case does not depend on every part. It's not a chain which each link depends

upon another. It's the proverbial bundle of

sticks - if you put them altogether, they can't be broken. And if you put only part of them together, you can't break the bundle. There's only one

conclusion, we say, there's only one ve r dict open to you, and that is that each accused should be

found guilty."

53.

CHAPTER 6 BLOOD IN THE CAR LAY EVIDENCE

The Crown's case at the trial was that Mrs

Chamberlain took Azaria from the tent to the front passenger seat of the car and there cut her throat. I invited counsel

for the Crown to identify an alternati v e location where

Azaria may have been murdered but none was put forward.

There is agreement among the experts that a mortal wound to the throat would have caused copious bleeding, and probably would have caused the person doing the deed and the front seat area of the car to be spattered with blood. The

experts are agreed that even if a towel or similar object

were used to stem the flow, it would have been very

difficult to prevent the spread of observable amounts of blood on the person and on some parts of the car. Before

considering the scientific evidence as to the presence of blood in the car, it is necessary t o consider the evidence

of lay witnesses relating to the question whether blood was spilt in it on 17 August 1980.

Mr and Mrs Andrew Demaine l ived in a caravan in the

top camping area and were alerted to the disappearance of

54.

Azaria at about 8.30 p.m. on that night. They went

immediately to join in the search with their red setter

cross dog which was on a lead. In response to a request by

Mrs Chamberlain that the dog help in tracking the baby, Mr Demaine took the dog to the passenger side of the car, where Mrs Chamberlain reached into the passenger door (it being a two door car), picked up an article of Azari a's clothing

from the back of the car and put it under the dog's nose.

The dog and Mr and Mrs Demaine were standing beside the

passenger door when it was open for this purpose. They then went off with the dog to assist in the search. It would

have been foolhardy for Mrs Chamberlain to have acted as she did if she was aware that fresh blood had been spilt in that area only a very short time before.

At the trial, counsel for the prosecution submitted to the jury that they should conclude that Mrs Chamberlain had endeavoured to keep people away from the car after

Azaria's disappearance for fear that they might notice signs of the alleged murder. It appears that the Demaines were

present at the trial under subpoena, but were not called to give evidence. Their evidence would have greatly weakened this submission.

There is a body of evidence relating to the

question of the opportunity Mrs Chamberlain may have had to clean up a spillage of blood in the car. Since she was

away from the barbecue area for only about 5-10 minutes

there would have been very little time for her to have

cleaned up the car thoroughly. She was under observation by others, particularly Mrs Whittaker and Mrs West, for most of the time between the raising of the alarm and her departure for the motel later in the evening. Except for the occasion described by Mr and Mrs Demaine, Mrs Chamberlain was not

seen to enter the car. She was under the observation of

other persons throughout this period except for the

55.

occasions ,on which she was seen to go off into the darkness with her husband. It therefore appears that she had little or no opportunity to clean up any blood in the car after the alarm was raised and before leaving for the motel.

Mrs Elston travelled in the passenger seat of the car to the motel around midnight. She did not see, feel or

smell any blood and she did not pick up any blood on her

clothing. She was an experienced nurse and believed that, if there had been a large amount of blood around, she would have detected the smell of it. Mrs Whittaker also had

experience as a nursing sister and believed that blood,

particularly when fresh, has a distinctive smell. When the car was being packed prior to the Chamberlains going to the motel, she stood near the open driver's door but did not see or smell any blood. However, some of the expert medical

witnesses doubted whether it was possible to smell pure blood in the absence of other tissue. Mrs Elston also

observed the loading of camping gear from the tent into the car and said that this was done by some person other than

Mrs Chamberlain. Mrs Elston also spent some ten minutes in the driver's seat of the car on the following morning but did not notice any blood.

In addition to Mrs Whittaker, Constable Noble and Mrs West assisted in the packing of the car on the night of

17 August and Noble participated in its partial unpacking at the motel. Neither of them saw any blood.

On 18 August, Pastor Cozens packed items into the

car. He did not see any sign of blood. After the

Chamberlains returned to Mount Isa, Mrs Chamberlain's brother, Alex Murchison, cleaned the car inside and out. To dry it down he used the chamois which was in the car at that

time. He did not see any blood on the car or on the

chamois.

56.

On 1 October 1980 at Mount Isa Senior Constable

Graham carried out an inspection of the interior of the car. Graham's inspection took not less than 2 hours t o complete, using a powerful torch, in the late afternoon and evening. He examined the interior of the car thoroughly, taking up

the front floor carpet, but not the underfelt. He did not

find any suspicious staining. He looked no t only for blood, but for signs that blood might have been remov ed. Had

blood been removed from the carpet he would have expected to see signs of it, such as a clear spot if the carpet had been

spotted or staining on the underside of the carpet where

moisture had penetrated. He would have expected to hav e been able to identify signs of removal of blood from the

vinyl or metal surfaces of the car, since there would have been variations in surface textures and colours if stains had been removed without using the same method on the whole of the surface. He did not detect any sign of blood having

been removed from the car.

Graham made a report of his examination to

Inspector Charlwood. In their evidence to the Commission Charlwood and Graham raised doubts as to whether the

examination of the car was rendered unsatisfactory by poor lighting. However, in a statutory declaration made before he gave evidence Graham made no mention of his inspection being in any way hampered by inadequate lighting. I am

satisfied that Graham was able to carry out a proper and

thorough inspection of the car for the purposes he

described.

Mr and Mrs Demaine, Constable Noble, Pastor Cozens,

Mr Murchison and Senior Constable Graham did not gi v e

evidence at the trial and the evidence of Mrs Elston and Mrs Whittaker was more limited on that oc c asion.

57.

Evidence was given at the trial by Rohan Tew and

Floyd Hart, Mr Tew's employer, in relation to work done on the car in November 1980 when they installed a cassette

player and speakers. Tew was called by the Crown to give

evidence of his observation of spots which may have been '

blood on the side of the console. Although a contradictory statement had been taken from Hart by Senior Constable

Metcalfe on the same day as a statement was taken from Tew , Hart was not called by the Crown. Metcalfe informed Hart

that he would not be required to give evidence, and assured Hart that his statement would be given to defence counsel. This assurance was not complied with . However, after

seeing a report of Tew's evidence in a newspaper Mr Hart

rang the representatives of the defence and he was later

called as a defence witness. Hart's statement was not

drawn to the attention of the Crown Prosecutor, although Metcalfe handed the statement to his superior officer. On the evidence, I am unable to say precisely why the statement was not drawn to the attention of the Crown Prosecutor and was not given to the defence.

Hart gave evidence at the trial and again before

the Commission of his inspection of the car when the work was carried out and of his failure to see any sign of blood, despite his careful inspection. Tew's evidence at the

trial and before the Commission was somewhat confusing. I accept his statement that, in relation to any spots in the

car that he might have seen, he could not be sure whether or

not he had bled in the car himself. Accordingly, little of significance can be drawn from his evidence.

It is in this context that the scientific evidence as to the presence of blood must be considered.

58.

CHAPTER 7 BLOOD TESTS NATURE AND GENERAL

DIFFICULTIES

An understanding of some of the technical matters

referred to later in this chapter may be assisted by

reference to the glossary of terms relating to blood tests which is contained in Appendix F.

On 19 September 1981, the police took possession of

the Chamberlains' car with their consent. The car and its contents were then the subject of very detailed examination and testing by the Health Commission of New South Wales, Division of Forensic Medicine, in Sydney. This work was

principally carried out by Mrs Joy Kuhl, a forensic

biologist. Mrs Kuhl was responsible to Dr Simon Baxter,

the senior forensic biologist employed by the Health

Commission. In her initial inspection of the car, Mrs Kuhl was assisted by Senior Constable Metcalfe. She examined carefully and conducted "screening" tests for blood on

everything in the car. She said that she examined and

tested, inch by inch, every surface inside the car,

including the ceiling. The examination took three full

days. Scrapings or swabs from various surfaces inside the

59.

car and from articles in the car were then tested for the

presence blood and for the presence of the blood of a

young baby. Attempts were made to determine blood grouping where the quantity of material allowed.

The results obtained by Mrs Kuhl and their proper interpretation were the subject of much evidence at the trial. They were the subject of much more lengthy and

complex evidence before the Commission. They give rise to three main questions:

(i) Did the tests establish the presence of a

young baby's blood?

(ii) Did the tests establish the presence of any

blood and, if so, in what quantities and in what places?

(iii) If the presence of blood was established,

was its quantity and location consistent only with it being Azaria's blood or was

its presence reasonably explicable

otherwise?

At the trial, while the defence disputed that

baby's blood had been detected in the car, it did not

dispute that blood was found there, except in relation to the marks observed under the glove box, and attempted merely to explain its presence. Before the Commission, no doubt in the light of the further scientific evidence which had

emerged, the identification of any blood at all was

disputed. As will be seen, some of the evidence which is

now relied upon by the Chamberlains, in particular that of

Dr Lincqln, was available before the trial but was not

called. Whether the failure to call Dr Lincoln was due to

considerations of expense, his home being in London, or to

60.

other considerations was not explained. Nevertheless, there has been no challenge to the reliability of that evidence on the basis merely that it was not called at the trial.

Initially I shall direct my attention to the first of these questions although aspects of the second will also arise in the course of such consideration.

It is necessary to explain in some detail what was involved in the tests that Mrs Kuhl carried out. The

preliminary or "screening" test for the presence of blood used by Mrs Kuhl was the ortho-tolidine test. A dry filter paper is rubbed on the substance or surfac e to be tested, a

drop of the reagent ortho-tolidine is then added to the

paper and the paper is observed for any colour development. If there is no colour development at this stage, a drop of

hydrogen peroxide solution is added to the same spot on the paper and it is again observed for colour development. The presence of blood, and some other substances , is indicated by a bright blue colour which develops very quickly after

the application of the hydrogen peroxide solution. The test depends upon the peroxidase-like activity, as a catalyst, of the haem molecule occurring in red blood cells. It is a

very sensitive test and the presence of blood and some other substances will be detected in minute quant i ties which are not visible to the naked eye. At the trial, considerable

reliance was placed by the Crown on Mrs Kuhl's result s using this preliminary test. The conclusions which can be drawn from these results are considered below.

After applying this screening test, Mrs Kuhl

obtained samples from a number of objects and surfaces by scraping or swabbing and then tested these samples using immuno-chemical methods. These methods depend upon the exposure of the sample in solution to various anti-sera,

each of which is designed to react with a specific blood or

61.

component of blood. Each anti - serum contains antibodies to antigens present in a particular type of blood. Where

antibody and antigen are brought together in appropriate conditions they will combine and a visible band of

precipitation will appear, thus indicating the presence of the appropriate antigen.

Mrs Kuhl used three methods of exposing the samples to anti-sera. The method used in most of her tests was

cross-over (or counter-current) electrophoresis. A layer of gel is applied to a glass plate and a number of holes, in

groups of two, are cut into the gel to form wells. A

solution of the sample to be tested is placed in one of the

holes in each group and in the other is placed an

anti-serum. An electric current is then applied across the plate causing the migration of particles from each well towards its adjoining well. If conditions are appropriate, where particles meet between two wells and they constitute

antigen and antibody, the precipitin band will be formed. Further details of the washing and staining of such plates are discussed below.

The second method used by Mrs Kuhl was the

Ouchterlony (or immuno-diffusion) test. This also involves the cutting of wells into a layer of gel on a glass plate.

Normally a central well is surrounded at the same distance by a number of other wells. Again the sample in solution

is exposed to various anti-sera placed in adjoining wells. However, there is no use of electric current. The plate is

allowed to rest in a humid chamber for a period, usually

24 hours, while the particles gradually disperse from the

wells through the gel. Again, where antigen meets

antibody, a visible precipitin band should be formed. In a number of respects, the results obtained from this test are different from the cross-over test and relevant comparisons are made in relation to specific tests later in this report .

62.

A third method adopted by Mrs Kuhl was the tube

precipitin test. An anti-serum is placed in a tube and the sample in solution is then layered carefully with a

micro-syringe over the anti-serum, so that there is no

mixing between them. Where the antigens to the antibodies in the anti-serum are present in the sample, in appropriate conditions one will see a precipitation line at the

interface between the two liquids.

In many tests, Mrs Kuhl exposed samples from the

Chamberlains' car to several different anti-sera. The

particular anti-sera used varied from test to test, but

included anti-human, which reacts with a number of proteins found in the serum of human blood; anti-haemoglobin,

designed to react with the haemoglobin in red blood cells; anti-adult haemoglobin and anti-foetal haemoglobin. Various anti-animal anti-sera were also used.

A very important aspect of Mrs Kuhl's testing was

the use of the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum. It is necessary to explain in some detail the basis upon which it was used. Human blood contains a number of different types of haemoglobin, the two principal types being adult

haemoglobin and foetal haemoglobin. At birth,

approximately 50-80% of a baby's haemoglobin is of the

foetal type. Over the first six months of life, the

proportion of foetal haemoglobin rapidly declines and that of adult haemoglobin increases so that, from a.bout six

months onwards, a child will have less than 1% foetal

haemoglobin, with most of the remaining haemoglobin being of the adult variety. The only exceptions to this are people with certain extremely rare blood diseases. The molecular chains making up adult and foetal haemoglobin have what are

called alpha chains. The adult type also has so-called beta chains, whereas the foetal type has gamma chains. Thus, the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum is designed to react

63.

with the gamma-chains of the foetal haemoglobin molecule . An which also reacts with alpha chains would not

be specific to foetal haemoglobin, but would also react with adult haemoglobin.

It was found that Azaria's blood contained

haemoglobin in the approximate proportions of 25 % foetal and 75 % adult . It follows that, in order to use the

anti - f oetal haemoglobin anti-serum to distinguish between Azaria's blood and adult blood (a term generally used to apply to the blood of a child over the age of si x months),

it mu st be used in such a way that a 25 % proportion of

foetal haemoglobin will be detected but a proportion of less than 1% will not be detected, or a determination of relati v e proportions must be made.

A number of other tests were conducted by Mr s Kuhl , and an explanation of these appears below where specific tests are considered . However, since her tests using

i mmuno-chemical methods are critical to a conclusion as to whether the blood of a baby was detected in the car, it is

desirable to discuss some of the general difficulties raised by the use of these tests for this purpose, before dealing

with individual tests. A great deal of the detailed

e v idence before the Commission on these general difficult i es was not given at the trial.

The age of any blood in the car

Normally the blood tests referred to above are

carried out in forensic laboratories within a relatively short time after the blood is shed . The forensic biologists who gave evidence were mostly experienced in testing samples a few months old or less. If Az aria's blood was shed in

the car, i t would have been at least 13 months old by the

64.

time it was tested by Mrs Kuhl. If any of the blood tested

was that of Mr Lenehan, who bled in the car on 17 June 1979,

it would have been at least 27 months old. Blood shed as a

result of many of the other incidents referred to by Mr and Mrs Chamberlain is also likely to have been more than

13 months old. In 1979, the car was in use by the

Chamberlains at Innisfail, Queensland, and, during 1980, at Mount Isa. It was brought to Cooranbong, New South Wales, by Mr Chamberlain in December 1980.

While the car was usually garaged in both Innisfail and Mount Isa, one would expect that in the course of

ordinary use it would from time to time have been parked in the sun. The interior temperature of a car parked in the

sun in a hot climate will increase significantly above the exterior shade temperature. Although there are many

variables which may affect the temperature reached, if a car is exposed to a temperature in the order of 40°C for an hour with the windows closed, the interior temperature may rise by as much as a further 40°C above the exterior temperature.

In the summer months at Mount Isa, high temperatures are experienced . During November 1980, the temperature was frequently above 38°C and, on three days, was over 41°C.

It is therefore likely that any blood in the car was exposed to very high temperatures - possibly as high as 80°C. The question arises as to whether the immune-chemical tests used by Mrs Kuhl could produce reliable results in respect of

samples of such an age and which had been exposed to such

high temperatures.

Dr Siegfried Baudner, the production manager of Behringwerke, a company based in Marburg, West Germany and the manufacturer of the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum, gave evidence in relation to the effect of heat upon the

properties of blood. He said that if blood is exposed to a

temperature of 80°C for half an hour, it will not produce

65.

any immuno-chemical reaction. The loss of such reactivity is a function of temperature and time. Mr Anthony Raymond, a forensic scientist and head of the Biology Department at

the State Forensic Science Laboratory of Victoria, who carried out a great deal of work at the request of the

Commission, said that temperatures above 60°C have a

deleterious effect on the nature of blood. Mr Peter

Martin, a forensic biologist and the Deputy Director of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, London, said that in his experience denaturation of proteins occurs quickly under hot humid conditions. "Denaturation" is a word used frequently in this context to refer to the process

of modification of the molecular structure of a protein as a result of aging, and/ or exposure to adverse conditions , with a resulting alteration of its properties.

If, as a consequence of aging and exposure to

adverse conditions such as heat, the immuno-chemical

reactivity of blood merely lessened or disappeared, this may not prevent such tests being used reliably upon old blood stains. It was Mr Peter Martin's experience that, as dried blood stains age and, as long as they stay dry, reacti v ity

just disappears. Th.e experience of Dr Patrick Lincoln, senior lecturer in blood serology in the Department of

Haematology at the London Hospital Medical College, was similar, although neither he nor Mr Martin could rule out the possibility of denaturation of blood causing false results. The difficulty is that, as Mr Martin pointed out,

relatively little work has been done on immuno-chemical testing of stains more than one year old . Dr Lincoln said

such testing was novel. He had never heard of anyone

performing the task which Mrs Kuhl was asked to perform -namely the detection of foetal haemoglobin in a family car where any possible sample would be more than a year old.

For these reasons, the assistance that can be derived from

66.

the experience of scientific wi tnesses with forensic

experience is limited.

More assistance is to be derived from the evidence of three witnesses with a great deal of relevant research experience. Professor Orjan Ouchterlony is Emeritus

Professor of Bacteriology in the Medical Faculty in the

University of Goteborg, Sweden. Amongst his many

achievements was the introduction, in 1948, of the technique referred to from time to time in this report as the

Ouchterlony plate or method. He expressed the view that immune-chemical reactions with denatured blood may occur in a different way from those occurring with fresh blood.

When an antigen/antibody reaction occurs, the antibody is

linking up with parts of the molecular structure of the

protein which are called antigenic determinants or epitopes. These determinants may be on the surface of the molecular structure or within the structure. If denaturation has

occurred, the molecular chains may unfold and the

determinants may change place. They may come out from a

hidden position to an open position and those which

originally were in an open position may go into a hidden

position. This may have a significant effect on how the

molecules react immunologically.

Professor Richard Charles Nairn is Emeritus

Professor of Pathology and Immunology at Monash University. He agreed with Professor Ouchterlony on this question. He

explained that, with denaturation, more primitive protein antigens are likely to be exposed from the interior of the molecules and these are likely to be common to, in this

particular case, gamma chains, beta chains and alpha chains. Accordingly he thought it not at all unlikely that a

different kind of specificity could be obtained as a result of denaturation.

67.

More particular views about the anti-foetal

haemoglobin anti-serum used by Mrs Kuhl were expressed, both by Professor Nairn and by Professor Simon Leach, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Melbourne. They considered the way in which the anti-serum was prepared by Behringwerke and concluded that the anti-serum was likely

to contain a proportion of about 10% of antibodies to

denatured foetal haemoglobin.

The significance of this to Mrs Kuhl's tests was

explained by Professor Leach. The beta chains distinctive of adult haemoglobin and the gamma chains distinctive of foetal haemoglobin possess molecular structures which have a great deal in common. The distinguishing characteristics are on the exterior of the folded up chains. The common

components are in the interior of the molecules and these are exposed when haemoglobin becomes denatured.

Accordingly, the antibodies which are reactive to denatured gamma chains in foetal haemoglobin possess a reactivity to

the internal antigenic determinants of the gamma chain , which are very similar to the internal antigenic

determinants of the beta chain. These internal

determinants are available for reaction in denatured adult haemoglobin. This leads to the possibility of cros s

reactivity and false positive results when testing denatured adult haemoglobin with this anti-serum. Although Professor Leach did not know whether the proportion of antibodies to the denatured haemoglobin would be great enough to produce a visible band of precipitation, and therefore a false result, his view was that the anti-serum can only be used to

distinguish between denatured adult and baby's blood if the anti-serum is purified, so as to remove the antibodies to denatured haemoglobin, before it is used.

These views do not appear to be inconsistent with the evidence of Dr Baudner. He maintained that the anti-

68.

serum was specific when used with fresh samples. However, he agreed that, as blood denatures, the structure of the

protein alters and the anti-serum may pick up and react with denatured protein other than foetal haemoglobin. He had noted in 1983 that non specific immune reactions can be

observed under certain conditions due to denaturation of adult haemoglobin in adult blood.

Mr Leo Freney, a senior forensic scientist attached

to the Queensland State Health Laboratory, expressed his view in more picturesque terms . He agreed that testing a

blood stain 13 months old is very unusual and said:

II

It's what I call tiger country, the old

stains: you've got to be very careful with them."

Although Mrs Kuhl might not be expected to have

been aware of all the difficulties posed by the age of any

blood in the car and the temperatures to which it had been

exposed, they do raise doubts as to the reliability of her immuno-chemical results and, in particular, those depending upon the use of the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum.

Distinguishing specific immuno-chemical results from non-specific results

All of Mrs Kuhl's immuno-chemical results depended upon the sighting of precipitin bands, which she recorded in her work notes and in the laboratory's result book as

specific antigen/ antibody reactions. However, in each of the three types of test used by her, other reactions can

occur which produce the appearance of a band of

precipitation but which are not the desired specific

antigen/ antibody reactions. These are generally described as "non-specific reactions". These may occur as a

69.

consequence of a reaction between proteins or between a protein and a carbohydrate or as a consequence of other

causes. Since, in accordance with the laboratory' s

standard practice, the plates upon which the tests wer e

conduc ted were not retained and no photograph was taken of them, it has not been possible for any other expert except Dr Baxter to consider the proper interpretation to be place d

upon the appearance of the bands of precipitation observ e d by Mrs Kuhl. Dr Baxter gave evidence at the tr i al and

before the Commission of his observation of plates upon which positive findings of foetal haemoglobin were made, and I shall consider this evidence later in this report.

The question arises as to whether the metho ds use d by Mrs Kuhl and her experience were sufficient t o

distinguish accurately between the specific and non-specifi c reactions which she observed.

Whether non-specific reactions wash out

In her use of the cross-over electrophoresis

method, Mrs Kuhl customarily washed the plate in saline

solution over night after electric current had been appli ed across the plate. Where she had doubt about the appearanc e of any bands, she gave the plate an extended washing fo r

48 hours or over a weekend. In her experience, often bu t

not always such extended washing caused such non-specifi c reactions to wash out. In order to distinguish n on-specifi c reactions, she appears to have relied upon this washing ou t and, in respect of such bands as remained after wash i ng, the observation of reactions with all anti-sera or at least with an animal anti-serum.

Professor Ouchterlony , Dr Baudner and Mr Peter

Martin agreed that non- specific reactions may be o btai ned

70.

which may or may not wash away. Mr Raymond, who thoroughly tested the car in 1986 at the request of the Commission,

subjected 32 samples taken from the car or from Azaria's

clothing to the cross-over technique. He obtained reactions in respect of 18 of these tests but, upon further

confirmatory testing and drawing upon his experience, he rejected the results in all of these, except that in

relation to the jumpsuit, as being true specifi c reactions, although the signs of precipitation were not removed by washing. In respect of all but one of these tests, Dr

Baxter agreed with Mr Raymond's findings.

It therefore appears that, while many non- specific precipitates wash out, the failure to wash out cannot be

depended upon in making this important distinction.

Whether non-specific reactions will be indicated by reactions with all anti-sera

If bands of precipitation remained after washing, Mrs Kuhl apparently relied upon her observation of reactions between the sample and anti-animal anti-sera on the same plate. In many of her tests, samples were exposed to one

or more of a selection of animal anti-sera, such as

anti-dog, anti-pig or anti-sheep. In her view, a non

specific reaction would be indi cated by the presence of a reaction against the anti-animal anti-sera, or certainly against at least one of them. In contrast, although several of the reactions which Mr Raymond obtained when testing

samples from the car using the cross-over electrophoresis method occurred when the sample did not react against all anti-sera, they were rejected by him as being spurious and not true antigen/ antibody reactions. Professor Barry

Boettcher, Professor of Biology at the University of

Newcastle, agreed that non-specific reactions which do not

71.

wash out will not always be indicated by a reaction to all

anti-sera. As Professor Ouchterlony pointed out, in the cross-over electrophoresis test, it is possible to obtain precipitates which are not immune-precipitates and the use of controls is not sufficient to differentiate between

these. In order to do so, other methods of testing must be

used. One such test is to use the Ouchterlony plate in a

comparative way, with identical controls, so that the bands of precipitation, when they coalesce, indicate that the substances forming the adjoining bands of precipitation are

identical. The usual thing is to run the cross-over

electrophoresis test as merely a presumptive or preliminary test, which is then verified or confirmed. Dr Baudner

agreed that it is possible to obtain precipi-tates which cannot be distinguished, as being specific or non-specific, in the absence of identical controls producing lines of

identity as on the Ouchterlony plate. This wa s not

possible upon the cross-over electrophoresis plates used by Mrs Kuhl.

It appears, therefore, that Mrs Kuhl depended upon bases for distinguishing between specific and non-specifi c reactions which, in the particular circumstances of thi s case, may have been unreliable.

General reasons for suspecting that reactions obtained were non-specific

As referred to above, Mr Raymond exhausti ve l y

examined and tested the car in 1986. He obtained a number

of positive responses of v arying qualities to the

ortho-tolidine screening test and subjected some 32 samples, including one from Azaria's jumpsuit, to the cross-over test against various anti-sera. Of these, some 1 8 samples

produced reactions and were subjected to confirmatory

72.

Ouchterlony tests. Only one of these produced lines of

identity indicating a true immuno-chemical reaction, and that was in respect of the jumpsuit. From these tests, his

experience and a further screening test discussed below, Mr Raymond concluded, with Dr Baxter's concurrence save in one instance, that all the reactions obtained using the

cross-over technique, with the exception of that in respect of the jumpsuit, were non-specific or spurious. It

therefore appears that, in 1986, there was present in the

car some substance which was capable of throwing up

non-specific or spurious reactions upon cross-over electro­ phoretic plates. Mr Raymond could not of course be dogmatic about whether similar reactions would necessarily have been obtained by tests of the same areas in 1981. However he

did express the view, which was clearly warranted, that

there were avenues where persons might be mistaken if what they were doing was not properly controlled and they were not fully competent.

The question whether adequate controls were used is considered below.

A further basis for doubt as to Mrs Kuhl's

distinction between specific and non-specific reactions is seen in her work notes of individual tests . Although these reveal quite a number of reactions which she found to be

non-specific, there are other reactions where she described the bands of precipitation with anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum as being "fuzzy", but never-theless recorded a positive finding of the presence of baby's blood. Items 34

and 35 of her work notes, being separate scrapings from the area under the glove box of the car, are examples.

According to Mr Martin, such fuzzy bands do not meet the

criteria necessary for detecting immuno-chemical reactions and they would be inconclusive in determining the presence of foetal haemoglobin. Mr Raymond agreed. Mrs Kuhl' s

7 3.

readiness to interpret these bands as being specific

reactions raises the question whether there were other

results recorded as positive which were similarly doubtful.

Professor Boettcher also saw an indication of

non-specific reactions in Mrs Kuhl ' s recording of stronger reactions between samples and the anti - foetal haemoglobin anti-serum than wi t h other anti-sera. Professor Nairn

agreed that this feature of Mrs Kuhl's notes was strange, particularly when the recorded result was stronger with anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum than with

anti-haemoglobin. This was because only 25 % of the

haemoglobin present would be of the foetal type if the blood were Azaria's, whereas 100 % of the haemoglobin present would be reacting with the anti-haemoglobin anti-serum. Mrs Kuhl' s response was to point out that these tests, as

conducted by her, were non-qualitative in the sense that the results did not permit the concentrations of particular antigens to be measured. While this is clearly correct (and the Crown pointed to other recorded results in experiments conducted by Dr Baxter and a Mr Rees in 1974 to show that

this sort of thing was not unknown) in the absence of a

clear explanation of why it occurred in particular instances it remains a matter of concern.

Among other possible causes of non-specific

reactions which were suggested was the presence of ammonia. Mrs Kuhl had difficulty dissolving some of the material found in the car, and eventually used a 5 % ammonia solution to dissolve it. While the ammonia in such a solution is

easily got rid of, an extract cannot be tested directly in ammonia solution, since ammonia may react with anti-sera t o produce a precipitate. Dr Baxter agreed that testing of

samples wi thout ensuring that the ammonia has evaporated out of the solution can cause error. Mrs Kuhl herself

suggested that certain positi v e results obtained when

74.

checking the anti-serum in 1982 may have been a consequence of hasty testing without ensuring that the ammonia had gone. Mr Raymond said that from a practical point of view swabbing

with ammonia has an impact on the nature of material

present, unless it is tested quickly after extraction.

Professor Leach expressed the view that, if dissolved in ammonia, denatured blood may exhibit immuno-chemical reactions which are different to those of fresh blood, since the molecules may be opened up.

Limitations of the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum

One of the questions raised in relation to this

anti-serum is whether it was specific only to foetal

haemoglobin when tested with fresh samples or whethe r it had a secondary specificity. This will be dealt with below.

Assuming for the present that the anti-serum was specific in this manner, a number of questions arise as to the way in

which it must be used in order to effecti ve ly distinguish between adult blood and the blood of a young baby.

Residual foetal haemoglobin in adult blood

As mentioned above, to be effective in this

fashion, the anti-serum must be used in such a way that a

25% proportion of foetal haemoglobin is detected, whereas a

proportion of less than 1% is not. Mrs Kuhl's method of

achieving this was to dilute the sample with a view to

achieving a concentration of between one part in 500 and one part in 1000 parts. At these dilutions, it is probable that the normal residual component of foetal haemoglobin in adult blood would not be detected. While Mr Raymond detected

reactions with adult blood in concentrations up to 1:250, he considered that reactions at a concentration of 1:500 were a

75.

possibility. In his experience the concentration of 1:2000 would be reasonably safe. There was evidence from other

experts as to detection of reactions in concentrations up to about 1:250 . On this basis, in order for Mrs Kuhl to be

confident that she was not detecting reactions with the

residual component in adult blood, it was necessary that her dilutions of samples be done with reasonable accuracy. Questions raised in relation to the accuracy of these

dilutions are considered below.

The necessity for detailed testing of the anti-serum before use

The anti-serum produced by Behringwerke was not designed for routine laboratory work. It was produced as a research product and Behringwerke had made it clear that its diagnostic significance was limited and should be

established by interested scientists working in clinical laboratories. It was not commonly used in forensic

science laboratories. In these circumstances,

particularly because the samples of suspected blood being tested were more than a year old, it has been well

established by expert evidence before the Commission that great care was required in devising and conducting a testing programme for the anti-serum, before it was used. This was essential to ensure that the anti-serum was functionally specific for the task to be performed, namely the

distinction between baby's blood and adult blood.

Mr Martin said that the task which Mrs Kuhl was

asked to perform was a most difficult exercise. One would normally try to confirm results by another test and not rely solely on the anti-sera. However, he considered that this would probably have been impossible as other tests generally will not work after a year and, in respect of most of the

76.

samples taken by her, there was insufficient extract to so test. There were some variations between the experts in

the emphasis which they thought should be given to

particular aspects of the testing programme before use of the anti-serum. However, it was accepted by them that, in order to interpret the results of such use reliably, it was necessary to test the anti-serum against a range of adult

and infant bloods and at a range of dilutions, under the

same particular conditions and using the same controls as used later in testing unknown samples.

The testing of the anti-serum before use

Mrs Kuhl did not carry out any testing of the

anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum before she used it. She relied upon the general system of testing of anti-sera as new batches arrived at the laboratory. According to Dr

Baxter, up to the middle of 1981 there was no set practice

for testing anti-sera. About that time he arranged for Mr Legge, the Senior Technical Officer, to carry out routine tests. From then on, according to Dr Baxter, there was

"some sort of which he agreed was not very good,

and of which he could not specify the details, for testing anti-sera for use in the laboratory. Mrs Kuhl and Mr Legge described a system, whereby as a new batch of anti-serum arrived at the laboratory it would be tested by the Senior

Technical Officer against its known reactant, and against some others. If the results of these tests were

appropriate, the anti-serum was placed in a particular rack in a refrigerator for use in case work. It is unclear what

Mr Legge regarded as a "new batch" for the purpose of this

procedure. Mrs Kuhl

The anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum used by was from batch number 2456, but the Health

Commission's laboratory had been receiving anti-serum of this batch number for a substantial period beforehand. It

77.

is apparent that not every bottle received was tested, and bottles with the same batch numbers would tend not to be

tested unless there was a substantial time lapse between deliveries. As Mr Legge said, there was no hard and fast

rule about it. There was no way to check whether a

particular bottle of anti-serum had been tested, since no written record was kept. Further, there do not appear to

have been any requirements as to the particular known

samples with which there were to be tests. As might be

expected, Mr Legge had no recollection of what particular testing had been done in relation to the anti-foetal

haemoglobin anti-serum. I am therefore unable to conclude whether the particular bottles used by Mrs Kuhl were tested in this way or not.

It is apparent that, whatever testing was carried out by Mr Legge, it did not place Mrs Kuhl in the position

that she might have been in if she had carried out detailed and systematic testing with known controls and had continued to use the same controls in her tests of the unknown

samples, as suggested above. It therefore appears that she suffered from a significant handicap in the accurate

interpretation of the results which she obtained with the anti-serum.

The testing of the anti-serum after use

In March, August and September 1982, Mrs Kuhl

conducted a series of tests of blood stains retained in the laboratory against the anti-foetal haemoglobin and other anti-sera. The purpose of this series of tests appears to have been to see whether the anti-serum would pick up

residual foetal haemoglobin in adult bloods. The results were relied upon in Mrs Kuhl' s evidence at the trial in

support of the contention that, as used by her, the

78.

anti-serum specific only to foetal haemoglobin. Even

if the results of these tests had not been controv ersial,

such testing would not have fulfilled the role of thorough and systematic testing of the anti-serum before use . After the anti-serum had been used and the reactions with it

interpreted and recorded, it appears to have been too late, and no attempt was made, to vary such interpretations in

reliance upon the subsequent testing.

In her evidence at the trial, Mrs Kuhl said:

"I have screened over 230 adult bloods in the range of dilutions that the technique is operable in, as well as the number of different adult controls

that were used during the course of the

investigation, and the anti foetal haemoglobin has never reacted against an adult blood."

At another point in her evidence at the trial, she said:

"Not one adult blood that I have screened has shown any foetal component in the dilutions that I am

using, which is between 1 in 500 and 1 in 1,000 "

Examination of the records of the laboratory revealed that, in six of the tests conducted in March and August 1982,

blood stains from persons aged 1-1/ 2 years or more gave

positive reactions with the anti-foetal haemoglobin. The result book shows that these particular samples and other samples were tested again on 10 September 1982 and, on this occasion, gave no reaction to the anti-foetal haemoglobin.

In evidence before the Commission, Mrs Kuhl insisted that the evidence she gave at the trial was still correct since, in her view, the positive reactions obtained with adult

bloods had not been true immuno-chemical reactions. She said that the March 1982 tests were suspect because the

extracts were prepared as a batch and not under strict case conditions. Accordingly, in her view, it was possible that

79.

one or more of the extracts could have retained some ammonia '

which gave a false reaction. As to the results obtained in

August, she said that the entries in the result book for

31 August 1982 enabled her to recall that, on that day, she

called a halt to all testing and supervised a general

overhaul of the testing equipment, because the results had indicated that technical problems were present. The nature of these technical problems was not explained.

Assuming this explanation is correct, the apparent recording of the results in the result book as being genuine irnrnuno-chernical precipitates and the lack of any precise explanation as to how they carne about adds weight to the

concerns about reliability of interpretation to which I have already referred. If the wrong results arose from the

presence of ammonia or technical problems in 1982, it is

very difficult to be confident that, without a comprehensive system of pre-use testing and confirmatory testing of the results from particular samples, the plates were correctly interpreted in 1981.

Mrs Kuhl also said that when she gave evidence at

the trial she was unaware of the fact that, in the testing

in March and August 1982, adult bloods had reacted

positively with the anti-foetal haemoglobin, since she was then not aware of the ages of the blood donors. She said

that she had only relied upon those results which had been confirmed as positive results by the re-testing, under

strict case work conditions, in September 1982. If this

was her approach at the time, it involved the implicit

rejection on her part of the validity of the results

obtained in many of her 1982 tests. She agreed that, on

this basis, approximately one-third of those results would have been worthless. These doubts were not mentioned at the trial.

80.

On the evidence, I am unable t o conclude whether

any of the six positive results with adult bloods was the

result of a genuine immuno-chemical rea c tion or not.

However, it seems that, for inadequate reasons, Mrs Kuhl accepted as correct results which tended to confirm the

specificity of the anti-serum and rejected those r e sults which cast doubt upon it .

The cross-over electrophoresis test

This was the main method relied upon b y Mrs Kuhl as producing results which established, in her v iew, the

presence not merely of blood but of baby's blood. In the

light of the difficulties inv olved in the testing of

material from the Chamberlains' car the question arises whether this test produced results which enabled sufficient identification of the reactions taking place to justify the conclusions drawn by Mrs Kuhl . If Mrs Kuhl saw a band of

precipitation upon a particular cross-over plate and

recorded it, such plate now having been destroyed, can one be assured that the band seen by her was not the result of a

non-specific reaction between the anti-serum and some contaminant in the sample tested rather than blood? May the band have been the result of a reaction wlth a protein

denatured by age and heat, or a reaction between a protein present in the anti-serum and present in the sample, or a

reaction between the anti-serum and some contaminant in the sub-stratum from which the sample was taken? - to name some of the apparent possibilities.

It appears from evidence before the Commission not given at the trial, that this method is less effective than others in enabling the operator to eliminate these other possibilities. While the use of an extensive range of

known controls against the anti-sera and the observation of

81.

their reactions on the same plate will provide further

information, this method does not, it seems, provide the certainty flowing from other tests that the substance in the unknown sample producing a reaction is identical with a known control which also produces a reaction. In contrast,

the Ouchterlony method enables such identification to be made where the unknown sample and the known control are

placed in adjacent wells and the bands of precipitation with the anti-serum coalesce, forming so-called "lines of

identity". As Professor Ouchterlony pointed out, even with a proper set of controls on the same plate as the sample,

with everything right in the cross-over test, the operator can be misled as there is no real verification of the

correlation of precipitates. He said that the cross-over test was developed as a technique for rapid clinical

diagnosis identifying antigen or antibody and for

verification of what is there the operator should use other techniques, such as immuno-diffusion. Mr Martin said that . one would normally try to confirm results from this test by

another test because of the difficulty of the exercise. Dr Baudner referred to the many problems in using the

cross-over technique, emphasizing the consequence of the application of electric current in driving proteins from the anti-serum and the sample together, to give reactions with proteins other than the desired antibodies. For these

reasons he was not content with this technique. He

preferred to use the Ouchterlony test, where the operator has the additional confirmatory evidence on the plate .

Reference has already been made to the large number of tests conducted by Mr Raymond on the car in 1986, where h e

rejected all the reactions seen on cross-over plates after conducting Ouchterlony tests, on which the confirmatory evidence did not appear.

Many of the forensic biologists who gave evidence

frequently use the cross-over electrophoresis method in

82.

routine tests. I do not suggest that results obtained from such use by a competent biologist taking all proper

precautions and in relation to blood stains not denatured would not be acceptable. However, it appears that its use in this case may have prevented Mrs Kuhl from eliminating other possible causes of the reactions seen.

The necessity for proper controls

The necessity for the use of known controls and the observation of the appropriate reactions between such controls and anti-sera has already been referred to.

Generally speaking, to be assured that the anti-sera are working properly under the conditions upon any particular plate, both positive and negative known controls should be included. In other words, there should be controls which

should produce a reaction with a particular anti-serum and there should be controls which should not produce any

reaction with that anti-serum. As Dr Andrew Scott, a very experienced forensic biologist employed by the State

Forensic Science Division of South Australia, observed, if the controls do not react appropriately, the plate should be rejected entirely.

There is some diversity of opinion among the

various experts as to the controls which ought to have been used in testing the samples from the car. It would not

serve any useful purpose to refer to all their views. It

was common ground that a control of known adult blood was necessary, at least on one of a batch of plates tested on

the same day, if not on every plate tested. Some tests were carried out by Mrs Kuhl without any adult control upon the plate or upon any plate in the same batch. Although some

of the forensic scientists disagreed, Professor Ouchterlony expressed the view that such a control must be on the same

83.

plate as every sample, because there are variations in

conditions, even between plates run at the same time. I

accept that the presence of such a control on the particular plate would add to the operator's confidence in the

correctness of his conclusion.

Professor Ouchte rlony and Dr Baudner also

considered that, to establish the presence of baby's blood, it is necessary to have controls of purified foetal

haemoglobin and adult haemoglobin. Mr Martin did not agree that these controls would be necessary. He thought that if the anti-serum worked when tested in blind trials , then a satisfactory system had been established. I consider that while Mr Martin may be able to produce acceptable results without such controls after thoroughly testing the

performance of his anti-sera, the lack of such controls, without prior testing, is a deficiency which might affect the correctness of the conclusions reached.

Mrs Kuhl did not use purified haemoglobins of

either type in her tests. She did use, from time to time,

an adult blood stain control and also fresh cord blood (i.e. the blood of a baby at birth) as a control. Ha v ing regard

to the discussion above as to the denaturing effects of age and heat on blood, the question arises as to whether the use of fresh cord blood as a control was adequate in the

circumstances. The known blood of Azari a found on her

clothing would have been a much more satisfactory control and would have afforded more confidence in the results

obtained, despite the fact that there were probably

significant differences in the conditions to which blood on the jumpsuit and any sample in the car would have been

exposed. Professor Boettcher said that a proper system of verification would require the controls to hav e been

artificially aged so that they matched, so far as possible , the unknown sample. The difficulty is that, where the

84.

operator does. do not know what the conditions have been to wh ich the test sample ha s been subjec te d , he can never be

certain that his controls will be adequate. Having regard to the risks of misleading results referred to above, it

appears that the use of fresh cord blood as the positive

control was inadequate.

Other controls suggested were o f animal bloods. Mr Raymond said that the operator would ne ed to be sa t isfied

that animal anti-sera on the particular p late are viable. He thought there should be, not necessaril y on the same

plate but in the same time framework, known animal bl ood

stains reacting well with anti-animal anti-sera. Otherwise, the operator may be confused by the lack of reactivi t y on

the part of the animal anti-sera. There does not appear to

be any record of Mrs Kuhl's use of a known animal blood

stain for this purpose during the period when she was

testing samples from the car.

A further control to ass ist in avoiding the wrong

conclusions from reactions is a substrate control. When samples are taken from some articles, this is important. Dr Lincoln said that when something li ke a towel is tested

misleading reactions can be th rown up by other s ubstances in the towel, such as dirt and soap. On e should therefore

take as a control an extract from an area of the towel which is not positive

staining on it.

control should be

to a blood screening

Mr Raymond also said

used where possible.

test that As

and has no

a substra te

previously

mentioned, Mr Raymond found in 1986 that there was something in the car which tended to give non-specific reactions,

although he could not suggest what it was . If the same

material was in the car whe n it wa s tested in 1981, the

testing of a substrate control would h ave assisted in

determining whether a reacti on between an anti-serum and a sampled stain was a speci fie immune-chemica l one. Mr

85.

Raymond concluded that someone doing tests on the car

without the proper controls could be misled by the 'false positive' reactions he observed in a number of places to

human anti-sera. Mrs Kuhl did not use substrate controls.

It is apparent, therefore, that the use of proper

controls in the methods adopted in testing the samples from the Chamberlains' car was essential in arriving at correct interpretations of the results. Certain important controls were lacking in Mrs Kuhl's tests. The adequacy of controls

in particular tests will be considered below.

Dilution of samples

The need to dilute samples in order to prevent the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum from detecting the presence of the small percentage of foetal haemoglobin in adult blood has been discussed above. The method adopted by Mrs Kuhl for measuring the dilution of samples was to

correspondingly dilute a fresh blood control and the sample until the dilution of the control was between 1:500 and

1:1000 and the colour of the solution of the sample matched. Mrs Kuhl gave evidence at the trial to the effect that, by

using this method, the concentration of the sample should not vary from that of the control by more than 10 %.

Professor Ouchterlony and Mr Martin said that Mrs Kuhl could not, by eyesight, dilute a sample to an accuracy of 10% or to anywhere near that percentage. It was Mr

Martin's experience that it can be difficult to check the dilution of an old stain against the colour of diluted fresh blood. With a stain a year old, he would be happy to get

any colour at all into the solution. According to Dr

Lincoln, because of the difficulties in measuring the

dilution of samples, particularly with old denatured blood,

86.

it is better and standard practice to dilute the anti-serum to a point where the unwanted reactions cannot be seen,

because the operator can control the dilution of the

anti-serum much more carefully than the dilution of the sample. This procedure was not followed by Mrs Kuhl.

It seems fair to conclude that, if there were

errors in dilution because of the age or contamination of blood stains, it is most likely that the sample solution

tested was more dilute than the desired 1:750, rather than less dilute. The part of blood giving its red-brown colour is the haem molecule, which is the most stable. If it was

less soluble because of age or if it was mixed with a

contaminant that provided colour, then the effective

dilution of the blood may have been greater than the

comparison would indicate by sight. Howe ve r, the bottom end of the range of dilutions used by Mrs Kuhl, namely

1:500, is at a level where Mr Raymond considered that it was possible that foetal haemoglobin in adult blood may be

detected. If her dilution by colour comparison allowed a margin of error of well in excess of 10 %, then dilutions at the bottom end of her range would appear to stray into an

area where foetal in adult blood might possibly

have been detected. Dr Baxter agreed that, both in respect of the tests upon the samples from the car and her tests of

the anti-serum in 1982, an explanation for false positives may have been that the dilutions were wrong.

In Professor Boettcher's opinion, there we re also dangers in dilutions that were too great . I discuss

elsewhere his belief that there was a secondary specificity of the anti-serum which manifested itself when a sample was tested with a low concentration of adult blood. If there

was such a secondary specificity, then the reduction in

solubility of old blood and the possibility of a contaminant providing colour would have made it very difficult for Mrs

87.

Kuhl to ensure that the effective dilution of a sample was not so great as to allow this secondary specificity to

produce misleading reactions.

The procedure in relation to dilution is also

something which should be established, in accordance with good practice, before testing of samples starts. Mr Martin, when asked whether a dilution of 1:1000 would be

satisfactory, replied that he would have to relate it back to the testing that he had done in the first place, using

extracts of dried blood stains as controls. Without such testing of the anti-serum beforehand with known controls, it seems that there must be some doubt whether the variation of dilution of samples produced misleading reactions in Mrs Kuhl's tests.

Whether the anti-serum was specific to foetal haemoglobin

A great deal of evidence at the trial and before

the Commission was directed anti-serum was mono-specific. and Mason, Murphy and Deane Jenkinson J in the Federal

to the question whether In the High Court, Gibbs JJ. agreed with the view

Court that the evidence

the CJ of

of

Professors Boettcher and Nairn was such as to have

necessarily a doubt in the reasonable mind as to the

correctness of the results using this anti-serum (153 CLR 521 at pp. 559, 575 and 627). At the trial, the challenge

to mono-specificity seems to have been treated as of

paramount importance. Before the Commission, it became apparent that the possibility of other specificities is only one of a range of difficulties which Mrs Kuhl faced in

carrying out these tests and in correctly interp re ting her results. The methods used in applying the anti-serum are probably more important for present purposes as Professor Boettcher readily conceded that, even if an anti-serum has

88.

more than one . specificity, it may be used quite successfully so long as it is tested very carefully beforehand and the

cond i tions under which it can successfully be used are

known. For example, Professor Boettcher was happy to

concede that Dr Andrew Scott had successfully used the

anti-serum when testing for baby's blood on Azaria's

clothing and on the articles from the tent. He also

conceded that the anti-serum could be used effectively to distinguish between foetal haemoglobin and adult haemoglobin when used under standardized conditions with fresh blood samples of known concentrations. This concession is

consistent with the evidence in relation to use of the

anti - serum by Mr Martin, Dr Lincoln, Dr Scott, and Mr

Raymond, although Mr Raymond's work was with an anti-serum of a different batch. All of these scientists used the

anti-serum without finding that it reacted with adult blood, provided that such blood was sufficiently diluted. Of

course, this experience does not detract from the likelihood of a secondary specificity with denatured adult blood.

Professor Boettcher's concern relates to a

secondary specificity with the alpha globin chains common to both foeta l and adult haemoglobin which would affect the testing of either fresh or denatured blood. He carried out or participated in a number of tests

showing this secondary specificity. number of plates and photographs of

which he relied upon as He also pointed to a

plates produced by Mrs

Kuhl, Dr Baudner and Dr Ziegler, Senior Lecturer in

Paediatrics at the University of New South Wales, as

indicating the secondary specificity. In relation to these resu l ts conflicting interpretations were proffered to explain the appearance of bands of precipitation as the

product of occurrences other than immuno-chemical reactions .

Professor Boettcher's view was given considerable support by the evidence of Professor Ouchterlony who, after

89.

consideration of a number of plates and photographs of

plates said that certain bands and double bands may well have been the products of a second specificity of the

anti-serum. Professor Ouchterlony rejected the opposing explanations offered by Mr Martin and by Dr Baudner and, although he could not definitely determine whether the bands he saw were the product of true immuno-chemical reactions,

in his view a second specificity remained as a possible

cause. In these circumstances, he would be hesitant to use the anti-serum. Professor Nairn also gave evidence

supporting these views.

Professor Boettcher gave evidence of a number of tests in which, as he saw them, the results supported his

belief that there was a secondary specificity of the

anti-serum particularly when the concentrations of blood tested were low, thus allowing the antigen and the weak

presence of secondary antibody to be in the range of

equivalence necessary to produce a precipitin band. He explained the absence of reactions with adult blood at

higher concentrations by referring to what is known as the "prozone effect", where the presence of too much antigen for a small amount of antibody will prevent the formation of a

precipitin band.

The Crown submitted that Professor Boettcher had become partisan in the matter, that he had lost his

objectivity as a scientist and had therefore misinterpreted results. It particularly relied upon his evidence at the trial in relation to the results upon a particular

Ouchterlony plate (Exhibit D135). Without going into the complex detail surrounding this plate, it is clear at least that his evidence in relation to it was in error and had to

be corrected before the Commission.

90.

Professor Boettcher clearly did become committed to the Chamberlains' cause after the trial, if not befor e. I

do not criticize Professor Boettcher for his part in a

campaign attempting to put right what he saw as an

injustice. However, his commitment to that cause does

require his evidence to be treated with caution and I would hesitate to accept his evidence on such a controversial

issue unless it were well supported by other scientific

opinion. receive a

In relation to a number of tests his views do

large measure of support from Professor

Ouchterlony and, generally, from the evidence o f Professor Nairn. While the scientific opinion to the contrary

expressed both at the trial and before the Commission was impressive, some of the proponents of such opinion had

significant reservations. For example, Dr Baudner, wh ile being confident that there would be no cross-reactivity with adult blood using the Ouchterlony method could not be

certain in relation to use of the cross-over method. Mr

Martin, while disagreeing with Professor Boettcher's theory in relation to cross-reactivity at low concentrations, conceded there had been tests which demonstrated a

cross-reactivity with adult haemoglobin in some

circumstances. While the anti-serum did not cross-react in his tests, using the cross-over method, he said that it

would be a foolish man who would say it ne ve r can, and this

demonstrated the need for the operator to know the

limitations of the anti-serum.

For these reasons, I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this anti-serum, when used in the

cross-over electrophoretic technique or the tube precipitin technique, was specific only to foetal haemoglobin. There remains the possibility that it reacted under some

circumstances with adult haemoglobin.

91.

Conclusion

It will be seen from what I have so far written

that the task which Mrs Kuhl was called upon to perform in

testing the Chamberlains' car and its contents posed most substantial difficulties, even for the most highly skilled and experienced forensic biologist. It was much more

apparent before the Commission than it was at the trial that there were many traps for the um1a ry in carrying out

immuno-chemical tests upon samples which were old and which had been exposed to severe conditions. In the

circumstances great caution was required in setting up the testing procedures and in interpreting the results observed

At that time, the standard practice in the Health Commission of New South Wales, Di v ision of Forensi c

Medicine, was to destroy the plates upon which such tests were conducted and not to retain any photograph of the

plates. This system has now been changed. Under such a

system, not only is the defence deprived of the opportunity to examine the plates to determine whether the

interpretation offered was justified, but the Crown is

obliged to rely upon the evidence of the operator as to wha t was seen on the plates.

That this is a relatively subjective matter was

indicated by a dispute as to the correct interpretation of a plate run by Mr Raymond during the testing of a sample fr om a metal part of the camera bag. While Mr Raymond and Dr

Baxter observed the tests and the resulting r eact ions, they disagreed on the conclusions which could be drawn from them

It is apparent that the Health Commission's system not only had adverse consequences fo r the defence but also put the Crown in the position of having t o depend upon Mrs

92.

Kuhl's skill and experience to support the conclusions drawn from these difficult tests.

93.

CHAPTER 8 BLOOD IN THE CAR SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS

A. FINDINGS OF BABY'S BLOOD

At the trial, Mrs Kuhl gave evidence of tests of

some 22 samples from various parts of the car in respect of which she found the presence of baby's blood. Twenty of

these tests were immuno chemical tests of the three kinds already described. Two of them involved the use of a

haptoglobin plate which will be discussed below. It is

necessary to consider in detail the tests of each of these areas in the light of both the general matters affecting the testing system discussed in Chapter 7 and particular matters regarding each test.

(1) THE SPRAY PATTERN UNDER THE DASHBOARD

(a) The various tests

When Mrs Kuhl and Senior Constable Metcalfe carried

out screening tests on the car on 8 October 1981, a spray

9 4.

pattern was noticed under the dash next to the glove box

compartment. It felt sticky to the touch. An

ortho-tolidine test of the area produced no reaction. Mrs Kuhl suggested to Constable Metcalfe that perhaps the spray was soft drink or something similar. Later, she obtained some positive results in respect of the side of the

passenger seat of the car and telephoned Constable Metcalfe in Darwin and suggested that the area under the dashboard be further investigated. In consequence Metcalfe, Dr Anthony Jones, a pathologist, and Constable Max Scott, a forensic biologist serving with the Northern Terri tory Police in Darwin, inspected the car at Alice Springs on 10 and 11

November 1981.

Dr Jones and Constable Scott carried out further

ortho-tolidine tests which produced some reactions which were slow to appear. Some of the reactions were weak.

There is doubt as to whether the correct method was followed in these tests. Dr Jones then cut out a section of steel

plate from under the glove box. The plate became exhibit 90 at the trial. He lifted a number of small areas of stain or

spots from this plate and from nearby areas. These samples were the subject of later testing by various persons. It is necessary to consider each of these samples in some detail. An understanding of this evidence may be assisted by

reference to the photograph identified as "Underdash plate showing 'arterial spray'" which is repioduced.

The first sample was a spot lifted from the spray

pattern on the front of the flat surface of the plate. Part

of this sample was delivered by Senior Constable Metcalfe to Mrs Kuhl. This was tested by her, as item 33, and she

concluded that baby's blood was present. The remaining part of this sample was tested by Constable Scott using the Ouchterlony method and, although his tests may be said to be

95.

Underdash plate showing "arterial spray".

96.

unsatisfactory in certain respects, he obtained no reaction and could not conclude that there was any blood present.

Another sample was removed by Dr Jones from the

flat surface of the plate and this was given to Constable

Scott for testing. Again, he obtained no reactions and

could not conclude that any blood was present. Constable Scott had little experience in these tests and some of his controls failed. Accordingly, his finding must be treated with reserve.

On 17 November 1981 a sample was removed from the

leading edge of the plate. This was tested by Mrs Kuhl and

she obtained reactions to various anti-sera including

anti-sheep. Accordingly she concluded that the reactions were non-specific and that the sample was not blood. In

March 1982 a further sample was taken from this area of the plate. It was divided into two parts. One part was sent

(at the request of the Crown) to Mr Bryan Culliford, a very experienced forensic biologist who was then the Deputy Director of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Laboratory in London, and the other part was sent (at the request of the

Chamberlains) to Dr Lincoln. In respect of this and some

other items from the car to which reference will be made, Mr Culliford gave evidence at the trial that he identified

blood thereon, but was unable to identify it as human blood. At the trial, he was not asked to explain in detail what

tests he carried out to confirm the existence of blood. He was prevented by illness from giving oral evidence to the Commission, but I had the benefit of a written statement

from him. It appears that he has no recollection of the

particular tests he applied to these samples and there are no records available to be checked. He believes he would

have applied the haemochromogen test, which is a quite

specific test for the presence of blood. Mr Culliford did not refer to this test in his evidence at the trial. He

97.

then only to the ortho-tolidine test as used by Mr s

Kuhl and expressed the opinion that it could be used by an

experienced biologist to detect blood, without such a person being misled. He did not say then whether or not he used

this test on the samples he received. The efficacy of this test will be further considered below.

Upon examination of his part of this sample, Dr

Lincoln obtained no positive reaction to screening tests for blood and no activity in immune chemical tests. Thus, Mr Culliford's finding was inconsistent with the results

obtained both by Mrs Kuhl and Dr Lincoln. That finding is

now incapable of scrutiny. In the circumstances, I could

not be satisfied that there was blood on the leading edge of the steel plate. Dr Lincoln was not called at the trial and the Crown relied upon Mr Culliford's finding to submit that blood was present on this part of the plate.

Two other samples were taken by Dr Jones from spots

under the dashboard alongside the steel plate. These

appeared to be not part of the same spray pattern of small

droplets on the plate, but were from a different "splash " pattern of spots. These were delivered by Senior Constable Metcalfe to Mrs Kuhl for testing, as her items 34 and 35 .

She concluded from her tests that baby's blood was present.

At the request of the Commission, the plate and the areas around it under the dashboard were subjected to

further examination and testing by the Victorian State Forensic Science Laboratory. The substances remaining upon them were examined microscopically and chemically analysed. Mr Raymond and Mr Peter Ross gav e evidence, which was not

challenged, that the spray pattern on the plate was in fact a sound deadening bitumenous compound. It had been sprayed

into the wheel well upon the outside wall of the passenger compartment and had passed through a drain hole in that wall

98.

to spray out upon the steel plate. This had occurred during the manufacture of the car, it being apparent under

microscopic examination that the last two coats of interior paint had been applied over the top of the sound deadener. These findings confirmed the accuracy of conclusions reached in 1983 by Mr Leslie Smith, who had conducted investigations

of this car and other similar Torona cars on behalf of the

Chamberlains.

As to the other spots still appearing upon the area

under the dashboard, not upon the plate, these did not have the appearance of blood under the microscope. On scraping they appeared to become a grey coloured powder, but still adhered together, unlike blood which tends to flake off in a brittle manner. Such spots gave weak ortho-tolidine

responses, but were negative to the Kastle-Meyer screening test and gave strong non-specific reactions on the

cross-over test. Further, they did not go into solution in the manner of old blood and, upon testing, there wa s nothing to indicate that they were blood. Dr Jones agreed with Mr Raymond's findings.

From the position of the "leading edge" of the

plate, situated as it was under the dashboard, it is likely that the samples removed from it also formed part of the

spray pattern of sound deadener. The position of the edge was such that it was exposed to the spray from the drain

hole. It appears to have shielded part of the flat surface

of the plate while allowing the visible spray pattern to

fall upon that part of the plate upon which it was found.

(b) Evidence at the trial

At the trial, Mrs Kuhl gave evidence of her tests

and Mr Culliford gave evidence of his results. Dr Jones

99.

described the reactions obtained when he and Constable Scott used the ortho-tolidine tests at Alice Springs as being

"blood reactions". Constable Scott did not give any

evidence on this issue and as I have already observed Dr

Lincoln was not called to give evidence. Furthermore, Dr Jones said that, assuming the pattern on the plate was

blood, a spurt from a small artery, coming from below the

glove box, would be the mechanism for that kind of spray

pattern. Professor James Cameron, Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of London, London Hospital

Medical College, said that, if the spray on the plate was

blood, it was consistent with a small arterial spurt or a

small spurting blood vessel. He said this could be caused after death by squeezing over the cardiac region, but the pattern suggested to him bleeding rather than squeezing. Under cross-examination, Mrs Chamberlain offered no

suggestion as to how the spray came there, but agreed that it could not have come from Mr Lenehan or from a nose bleed

of one of the Chamberlain family. On the basis of this

evidence senior counsel for the Crown, in his closing

address to the jury, submitted that this was blood which

came from Azaria when she was murdered. I have referred in Chapter 5 to the relevant parts of his address.

(c) Appearance of the "arterial" spray

In 1981, Dr Jones examined the spray pattern in

Darwin under what he described as a poor stereo-microscope. He said that, while the droplets he saw were not absolutely

characteristic of blood, they might have been. A number of forensic pathologists and biologists have since looked at the spray pattern with the naked eye and under microscopes. All now agree that it does not look like blood, in either

the shape of the droplets or the pattern of the spray. Dr

Jones did not see the signs of paint over the droplets of

100.

stain until he used the microscope at the State Forensic

Science Laboratory of Victoria.

(d) Mrs Kuhl's positive tests

Mrs Kuhl concluded that baby's blood was present in three of the samples tested by her from this area. The

first of these was taken from the plate. She described the precipitin bands obtained upon the cross-over

electrophoresis test in respect of foetal haemoglobin as being "excellent sharp bands". There are, however, a

number of reasons for doubting the correctness of this

conclusion, apart from the general difficulties referred to in Chapter 7.

The first is the finding of Messrs Raymond and Ross that the spray pattern on the plate is made up of bitumenous sound deadener. With this may be considered the fact that, when the area was screened initially with the ortho-tolidine

test, there was no indication of the presence of blood.

This test is so sensitive that it will pick up the most

minute invisible particles of blood. Both Dr Baxter and Mr Martin, who were called to support the Crown case, said that their practice was not to continue testing an area or sample

which responded negatively to ortho-tolidine testing, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

In the light of the finding of Messrs Raymond and Ross, any droplet of blood present must have been

superimposed on the bitumenous spray pattern. If it was, why it would not have been detected by the ortho-tolidine test is not apparent. For it to have remained undetected, it must have been covered by another substance. There is no

evidence of the existence of any such substance. A

101.

satisfactory explanation of these results, consistent with the presence of blood, did not emerge in the evidence.

Secondly, in the testing of this sample, Mrs Kuhl obtained results which are inconsistent with the positive reaction with the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum. Her ortho-tolidine test of the particular sample was extremely weak and slow and the reaction with anti-adult haemoglobin was weak. A result which did not appear in her work notes

produced at the trial, but did appear in the laboratory's result book was a negative with anti-haemoglobin anti-serum. Mrs Kuhl's explanation for the anti-adult result was that the foetal haemoglobin molecule is more stable than the

adult haemoglobin. She conceded at the trial, however, that if the foetal haemoglobin molecule is less stable than, or of the same stability as, the adult molecule , then there is no proper explanation for tests where a weaker reaction is

found for the latter than the former.

Since the trial, further work has been done on

testing the comparative rates of denaturation of these

haernoglobins. Dr Baxter and Professor Boettcher both found that they appear to denature at the same rate. Mr Raymond's experience is the same.

appear to be anomalous. Accordingly, Mrs Kuhl's results This supports the view that the

reactions she observed were non-specific.

Thirdly, the recording of results in the result

book in relation to this test and to the other two samples

from the underdash area is unsatisfactory. Neither Mrs Kuhl nor Mr Legge, the technical officer who assisted her, now remembers what happened in relation to these tests. The result book discloses twelve occasions when the recorded

results of the tests of these three samples were crossed out or changed. In contrast, it is quite unusual to find

results crossed out or changed in the rest of the book. In

102.

relation to this particular sample, a question mark is

placed against the positive result recorded to anti-human anti-serum, and it appears that the question mark has later been crossed out. One can only assume that this reaction

was at some stage doubtful. Particular doubts arise as to the use of animal controls. It appears that the anti-sheep anti-serum was originally proposed to be used, but was not. As for anti-pig, the entry in relation to it appears to have

been altered twice, the last entry being a recorded

negative. However, the explanation for these changes is speculative and one can only doubt whether, in relation to this test, any animal control was used.

tests. A fourth problem affects this and the other two

Mrs Kuhl gave evidence that she never looked at

plates immediately after running the electric current across them and that she always allowed them to be washed for

24 hours before reading them. Senior Constable Metcalfe gave evidence that he delivered these samples to Mrs Kuhl at her laboratory at about 9.30 a.m. on 12 November 1981, that he may have been present with Mrs Kuhl when she conducted

preliminary testing, that she told him to expect the results of the tests by 2 p.m. on that day, that at 3.45 p.m. on

that day he telephoned her and was informed by her that she had found the presence of foetal blood, and that at

3.48 p.m. he telephoned Superintendent Plumb of the Northern Territory Police and informed him of this finding. His

evidence is confirmed by written notes he made at the time and by an entry in the police running sheets, recording the communication of a finding of foetal blood in respect of the first sample and human blood in respect of the other two.

Mrs Kuhl's evidence was of finding baby's blood in all three samples. She said that so far as she could recall, she had

not departed from her practice of not reading plates before washing. She and Metcalfe both rejected the suggestion that she had been placed under pressure to do the tests and to

103.

give a quick result. However, he said that he did ask Mrs

Kuhl to test the samples as soon as possible and give him

the results and that he was anxious to get the results

because his superior wanted to know what they were.

Since Senior Constable Metcalfe's evidence is well supported by contemporary written records, I accept it as establishing the probability that Mrs Kuhl did read and report on the results of these tests before washing the

plates. She agreed that if she had done this it would have

been improper since she would have been committing herself to a result before she could have been scientifically

satisfied of that result. Of course it is now impossible

to say whether this had any effect on the conclusions she

reached. However the fact that Mrs Kuhl was prepared to do this in response to requests by the police is a matter of

concern.

A fifth matter relating to each of these three

tests is that Mr Raymond found positive reactions to the

cross-over test from the area under the dashboard, to

various anti-sera, but these reactions were invalidated by non-specific activity. It was his view that a person doing the cross-over test without proper controls could be misled by these false positives.

The other two samples from the under dashboard area produced less satisfactory results. The bands of

precipitation with the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum were recorded as being quite fuzzy and, according to Mr

Martin, these would not meet one of the criteria necessary for detecting immuno-chemical reactions, namely, clear and precise bands. Such results were therefore inconclusive. The laboratory's result book revealed that the first test of an extract from one of the samples was negative for all

anti-sera, and the first test of an extract from the other

104.

sample produced non-specific reactions to most anti-sera. It was unsatisfactory that neither of these tests was

mentioned in the work notes which were produced at the trial and which were represented to be a complete record. It is

also unsatisfactory that they were not mentioned by Mrs Kuhl when she was questioned about these samples in the witness box. She explained that the first tests were of

supernatants after centrifuging a solution of the sample containing solid matter, whereas the second samples of each contained more of the solid material. However this does not appear to dispose of the objection that she relied upon the

second tests and ignored the first. Both of the reported

second tests included negative results to the anti-adult anti-serum, which were inconsistent with the presence of human blood.

Another unsatisfactory matter appearing in Mrs Kuhl's worknotes is an entry on the reverse side of the page immediately before the entries relating to the samples from under the dashboard. The entry reads: "No reactions wi th

animal anti-sera (pig, sheep)". When compared with the

entries in the result book, it became apparent that, in

respect of the first test of one of these samples, no animal anti-serum was used at all and the crossing out of others raised doubts as to whether they were used.

Positive results to anti-human anti-serum were recorded in the second tests of each sample. Mr Martin said that he would accept the presence of human serum proteins in the samples, but not foetal haemoglobin. However, he

agreed that such human serum protein would be likely to be found in breast milk, vomit regurgitated by a baby after

being breast fed or in baby's or adult's saliva.

105.

(e) Conclusion as to the spray pattern

For these reasons, I do not. consider that the

presence of baby's blood, or any blood, has been established upon the area under the dashboard. Further, on the basis of the findings of Messrs Raymond and Ross and the lack of any ortho-tolidine reaction on the initial testing by Mrs Kuhl,

the strong probability is that any sample lifted out of the spray pattern on the metal plate was sound deadening

compound and contained no blood at all. The sample tested as item 33 was dug out of the spray pattern with a scalpel,

but Mrs Kuhl concluded that baby's blood was present in it. The fact that she could come to such a conclusion about

something which was, very probably, sound deadener casts doubt upon the efficacy of her testing generally and upon the accuracy of her other results.

(2) THE CARPET ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE

Mrs Kuhl found baby's blood to be present in a

sample taken from the carpet on the floor of the car in

front of the driver's seat. She gave evidence of obtaining a positive reaction to the anti-foetal haemoglobin

anti-serum in the cross-over electrophoresis test.

Beforehand, she had found that the carpet gave positive

ortho-tolidine reactions in some spots, and marked out the area of these spots to form a rectangular pattern which was seen as being similar to the base of the camera bag,

immediately in front of the driver's seat.

Several matters must be considered in relation to this result. First, it appears that three samples taken

from this piece of carpet were tested. Two of them

produced non-specific reactions and only one produced reactions which were read as positive for foetal and adult

106.

The tests of the first two samples indicated

the presence on the carpet of a substance other than blood which produced unexplained precipitations with the

anti-sera. This would raise concern about the accu r acy of the results with the last sample, unless such results could be repeated. Secondly, this last sample did not produce a positive reaction with anti-human anti-serum. Mrs Kuhl

explained this by saying that, since the anti-human detects proteins in the serum part of the blood, this may denature faster than haemoglobin, thus preventing its detection. This view did not accord with the e x perience of other

scientists who gave evidence. Dr Andrew Scott found that the anti-human was the most sensitive anti-serum and that, even with aged samples, it was more sensitive than

anti-foetal haemoglobin. Professor Boettche r found that anti-human gave reactions to denatured blood well after anti-foetal haemoglobin and anti-adult haemoglobin failed to give reactions, and that anti-human reacts against serum

albumin which is quite stable to heat. Mr Martin's

experience was similar to Dr Scott's. Mr Martin considered that the detection of the presence of human blood is a

criterion for any other testing and accordingly , this test was inconclusive. Professor Ouchterlony also considered that if the anti-human result is not positive, then other results cannot be relied upon.

Mrs Kuhl suggested to the Commission a further

possible explanation for the lack of reactivity of the

anti-human anti-serum. She said that, at about the

relevant time, her laboratory had difficulty with the

particular anti-serum and it was diluted in order to remove a secondary specificity. However, at the trial, Mrs Kuhl

referred to this dilution, of 1 in 4, as being normal and

said that the various anti-sera were of a workable

comparative sensitivity, presumably as they were then used. In any event, one could not make a finding that these

107.

particular negative results were the consequence of any such dilution of the anti-human anti-serum and it does not

overcome the objections of the other experts.

Thirdly, the plate on which the positive reactions were obtained did not have a known adult blood control upon it, nor did any other plate run at the same time. Mrs Kuhl

accepted that the presence of such a control, at least upon a plate run at the same time, was essential.

Fourthly, Mr Findlay Cornell, a consultant clinical biochemist, tested the carpets from the car in September 1982 for the presence of protein, using the method of

iso-electric focussing. He obtained no positive result. Had there been any blood present in quantity of more than a drop, on this testing Mr Cornell would have expected to see evidence of the presence of protein, especially haemoglobin .

In relation to the positive ortho-tolidine

reactions and the comparison with the camera bag, Mrs Kuhl told the Commission that she had obtained no reactions to the bottom of the camera bag and that it would be quite

wrong to draw any correlation between the camera bag and the pattern of reactions obtained on the carpet, as had been

done at the trial.

It is apparent on the weight of the expert evidence that a conclusion cannot be drawn that baby's blood, or any blood, was present on this piece of carpet.

(3) THE OFFSIDE REAR OF THE PASSENGER SEAT AND THE FLOOR BENEATH

Several of Mrs Kuhl's tests from which she

concluded that baby's blood was present related to this

108.

area. The Crown claimed that these results supported a

finding that baby's blood had been shed above the hinge

joining the vertical part of the passenger seat to the

horizontal part on its offside, that this blood had run down into the space between the hinge and the vinyl covering of the seat (such a gap being opened-up by the we i ght of a

person sitting in the seat), that such blood had continued on downwards and fallen from the seat on to the bracket

holding the seat to the floor and a bolt hole in the floor

where the seat was secured. It was further claimed that

the blood had then spread to leave a stain in an elliptical shape in the floor well beneath the seat and beneath the

carpet. It was also said that a ten cent coin which was

found with other debris in the floor well had been stained by the blood. It is necessary to examine in some detail

the various tests and other evidence in relation to the way in which such blood might have flowed. The photographs

identified as "Floor beneath passenger side front seat" and "Front passenger seat showing hinge area" understanding some of the matters dealt

may assist in

with in this

section. These photographs are reproduced. The ten cent coin in the former photograph is slightly to the left of the place where it was initially found.

(a) The ridge of the hinge

When this section of the seat was dismantled, Mrs

Kuhl and others saw flakes of material adhering to the hinge and to the vinyl of the seat beneath the hinge. Some of

these flakes fell away when the hinge was removed. The

flakes had an appearance consistent with that of blood

stains. The material on the vinyl beneath the hinge

initially proved negative to the ortho-tolidine test, but after it was rubbed and dug into with a scalpel, a positive ortho-tolidine response was obtained. Samples from the

109.

Floor beneath passenger side of front seat.

llO.

Front passenger seat showing hinge area.

lll.

ridge of the hinge produced no reactions with anti-sera

using the cross-over technique, but Mrs Kuhl then tested them using the tube precipitin technique. She recorded

positive findings of foetal haemoglobin with samples from the ridge of the hinge, from flakes from the vinyl behind

the hinge, and from the back surface of the hinge.

Mrs Kuhl included these tube precipitin results in the 22 positive tests for foetal haemoglobin to which she referred at the trial. However, she agreed that she would not regard this test as sufficiently accurate to report it as a finding on its own. She said that she was using this

test merely as a "screening test" and that it would have to be confirmed by other tests before she reported it. This

method is an old one with acknowledged drawbacks. It is

particularly dependent upon the extract from the blood stain being crystal clear. There are many things that might

render the extract cloudy and, under those circumstances, Mrs Kuhl agreed that the test would be useless. Further, in order to detect foetal haemoglobin reliably, it is clear that the use of a known adult blood as a control and the

obtaining of appropriate results would have been necessary. At the trial, Mrs Kuhl said that she used adult and foetal

controls for all these tube precipitin tests. However,

they are not recorded in her work notes, there is no

laboratory result book record of the tests at all, and

before the Commission she said that her evidence at the

trial was incorrect and there were no adult controls in

these tests.

In addition, Mrs Kuhl's notes record the reaction of a foetal haemoglobin control to the anti-serum as being plus or minus with a question mark. Mrs Kuhl suggested

that the reason for the failure of this control to work

properly was a "prozone" effect, where the antigen is

present in an excessive concentration compared to that of

112.

the ant i -bod y , thus preventing the lattice comprising the t wo types o f mo lecule from forming so as to produce a

v isible precipitate. However, this explanation may be

unsat i sfacto r y. Professor Boettcher said that in the tube precipitin tes t a higher concentration of haemoglobin is the most des i r a b l e s ituation for production of a clear result. In any e v ent , as discussed below in relation to the testing

of the scissors, the failure of controls should lead to

rejection of t he result.

The tub e pre cipitin tests do not establish to my

satisfac t i o n t hat t here was baby's blood, or any blood, on

the h i nge o r i n the flakes from the vinyl behind the hinge.

( b ) Th e flakes from the vinyl behind the hinge

I n add i t ion to the tube precipitin results Mrs Kuhl

found the p r esence of f o e tal haemoglobin in a sample from

this area using the cro s s-over technique. The records of

this test do not i n c l ude any record of a test of the sample

against anti-adu lt h aemoglobin a nti-serum. It was Mr

Raymond's op i n i on tha t, i n order t o interpret such a result

as showing the presenc e of baby's blood, the operator must further te s t the s a mpl e at vari ous dilutions against both

the anti-foetal haemogl obin and a nti-adult haemoglobin anti-se r a. He s a i d that this was necessary in order to

come to a conc lusion a s t o the ratio of the concentrations

of the two haemoglobins . According to Mr Raymond the test is not properly con tro lled with o u t t his procedure. A

second difficul t y in r elation t o t his result is the fact

that the ini t i a l o r t ho-tolidine tes t of t he area was not

positive . Ho w a deposit o f blood the re could be coated by

some other substanc e so as t o preve n t de t ection by that

method was not satisfactorily exp l a ine d.

113 .

When opportunities occurred for the confirmation of the presence of baby's blood in these samples, such

confirmation was not forthcoming. Mr Culliford tested one half of a section of vinyl cut from this area of the seat.

He gave evidence at the trial that he detected blood on it, but could not identify its origin. On the other hand, when Dr Lincoln tested the other half of the same section of

vinyl, his Kastle Meyer

negative. Mr Culliford' s same limitations to which

screening test for blood was

finding here is subject to the

I have referred above. Taken

together these tests do not afford confirmation of Mrs

Kuhl's result.

Further, Mrs Kuhl's result in the cross-over test on this sample appears to be inconsistent with the negative results upon testing of the material taken from the ridge of the hinge and on the back surface of the hinge, if one

assumes that it was the same material which caused these stains, as she contended. Mrs Kuhl suggested that the

material adhering to the hinge itself may have been "more denatured", but the reason for this was not established.

Taking into account these criticisms and the

general difficulties discussed earlier, I am not satisfied that the presence of baby's blood has been established in this sample. The question of the presence of blood of any kind will be considered below.

(c) The haptoglobin tests- the passenger seat hinge

Mrs Kuhl subjected a number of samples from the

hinge area to a different test involving the use of a

haptoglobin plate. This involves the placing of the sample in a gradient gel under electrophoresis, so that the

114.

components pass through the gel and are deposited in bands at various positions whi ch depend upon the molecular sizes of the various components . The gradient gel acts as a

"molecular sieve" th rough which molecules of varying sizes may either pass or be trapped at different levels. The

primary purpose of the test is to detect the presence of

haptoglobin, a protein occurring in the serum of the blood , of various types. Howe v e r , other components of blood may appear as bands upon the haptoglobin plate , such as

different types of haemoglobin. The assessment of what makes up a particular band principally depends upon its position on the plate .

Mrs Kuhl conducted haptoglobin tests on a number of samples from the hinge area. She obtained no haptoglobin bands upon any of them , but, in respect of two samples, from the back surface of the hinge and from a s wab from the vinyl behind the hinge, she recorded that she saw a foetal

haemoglobin band on the plate. The observation of a band of adult haemoglobin is not recorded, but Mrs Kuhl said that, if it had not been visible , the plate would not have been

read. Dr Baxter said that he remembered one of these tests, and that he saw a very obvious foetal haemoglobin band. He also said that due to a comparison of the colours of the

bands he estimated that foetal haemoglobin was present as 50% of the haemoglobin present .

There are a number of aspects affecting these

conclusions. First, the weight of scientific opinion

expressed before the Commission is that the haptoglobin plate cannot be used to distinguish haemoglobins in aged blood. According to Dr Scott, Mr Raymond and Professo r

Boettcher the bands of adult and foetal haemoglobin are

unlikely to be distinguished after a period of a few months.

115.

Secondly, it appears that healthy adult blood can produce two bands in the haemoglobin position on a

haptoglobin plate. The precise explanation for this

phenomenon is unknown, although possible explanations for the phenomenon were given by some of the experts.

Thirdly, a difficulty in accepting Mrs Kuhl's

interpretation of these plates is the fact that no control of baby's blood or foetal haemoglobin was used, to enable a compari son to be made of positions on the plate. Dr Baxter said that, without this control,the operator cannot know with any degree of certainty that the second band is one of

foetal haemoglobin. Particularly with old and denatured blood, it is possible to obtain other bands forming in

different positions on the gel. Dr Andrew Scott agreed. It is to be noted that Dr Baxter's evidence as to 50% of the

total haemoglobin being of the foetal type is inconsistent with the proportion present in Azaria's blood, which was approximately 25%.

Finally, Dr Baxter expressed the view that on the basis of this test alone, he could not conclude that foetal haemoglobin was present. He said that it could only be a

confirmatory test.

For these reasons I have reached the conclusion

that Mrs Kuhl's recorded results do not establish the

presence of baby's blood in either of these two samples.

The results may support a conclusion that some blood was present in the vicinity of the hinge. The results must be

compared with others in relation to the general area and

will be considered below.

116.

(d) The bracket beneath the hinge

The Crown claimed that blood flowing down between the hinge and the vinyl woul d drop from the hinge to the

bolt bracket beneath. However, a cross-over test of the

samples from this bracket produced a positive reaction only with anti-haemoglobin anti-serum. Since there was no

reaction with the other anti-sera, including anti-human, it cannot be regarded as a reliable ind ication of the presence of human blood.

(e) The bolt hole area of the floor

Beneath the bracket is a bolt hole in the floor of

the vehicle. It served as an anchor point for the offside

rear corner of the seat. When the seat was removed in

October 1981, Mrs Kuhl saw a dark brown stain in an

elliptical shape which appeared to her to be emanating from the position of this bolt hole. A swabbed sample from

around the bolt hole was subjected to the cross-over test and Mrs Kuhl recorded a positive reaction with the

anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum . However, she obtained no reaction to the anti-human anti-serum and, for the

reasons expressed above, one could not rely .upon this test as establishing the presence of blood. Further, the sample was not tested against anti-haemoglobin o r anti-adult haemoglobin anti-sera and, accordingly one could not

conclude from the reaction with the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum that baby's blood was present. The test of this sample upon the haptoglobin plate is recorded as revealing a haemoglobin band. Mr gave evidence that he would

therefore conclude that blood was present. The significance of these results to the question whether blood other than baby's blood was present will be considered later in this report.

117.

(f) The floor well beneath the passenger seat

From the stained area of the floor well beneath the passenger seat, carpet and underfelt, Mrs Kuhl tested two samples, one prepared from scrapings from this area, and the other from a swab of the area. Both were tested using the

cross-over technique. with two different

The scrapings produced no reaction bottles of anti-foetal haemoglobin

anti-serum and no reaction with anti-human, but a reaction with anti-haemoglobin anti-serum. For the reasons

expressed above, since the reaction with anti-human was not positive, the other results could not be relied upon .

However, the testing of both scrapings and swab samples upon a haptoglobin plate produced haemoglobin bands for each, indicating the presence of blood.

Mrs Kuhl gave evidence of a positive reaction

between the swab sample and anti-foetal haemoglobin

anti-serum in a cross-over test. In her work notes,

tendered at the trial, this was indicated by two plus signs, one above the other. At the second inquest, she gave an

explanation that she quite often recorded a double plus, or very good result, in this way. Before the Commission, the laboratory's result book was available, showing a plus sign above a minus sign, indicating a questionable result. Mrs Kuhl agreed in evidence that her notes which were produced at the trial had been changed by her from a plus/ minus to a

double plus, but said that this was because a clear band

became visible after weekend washing. If this were the

case, it might have been expected that the result book would have been altered similarly. the result was. I am left in doubt as to what

There are other problems with this result. First, there is no reaction with the anti-human anti-serum on the same plate. In these circumstances, the anti-foetal result

118.

cannot be accepted as reliable. Se c ondly, there is no

record of the testing of the sample against anti-haemoglobin anti-serum or anti-adult haemoglobin. The requ i rements of Dr Andrew Scott for both positive and negati v e controls and

of Mr Raymond for further testing against anti-foetal and anti-adult haemoglobin anti-sera (as mentioned a b o v e) were not met. Thirdly, the result appears to be inconsistent

with the negative result to the cross- over test of the

scrapings from the same area, which one would expect to be the same material. Fourthly, while there was some underfelt fibre in the floor well which produced ortho-tolidine

positive reactions, the carpet and underfelt abov e the

staining and a number of objects lying in the floor well,

including a safety pin lying in the middle o f the stained

area and some nail clippers, produced no response to the

screening test. A ten cent coin also lying i n the floor

well was an exception.

Opportunities to confirm the finding of baby's

blood did not provide confirmation. Mr Culliford tested a sample of scrapings from the floor well and detected blood, but was not able to identify it as human blood. His finding suffers from the same limitations as apply to his finding in

respect of the steel plate, as discussed above. Dr Lincoln tested scrapings taken from the floor well and, while they gave a very weak positive reaction to screening tests,

immune-chemical testing produced non-specific reactions with all anti-sera. Scrapings from the bolt hole area were

available for testing by Messrs. Raymond and Ross in 1986 . They said that this material, and the material remaining on the ten cent coin contained sucrose as well as protein

material. This material did not have the appearance of

blood and there was no indication that there was more than one kind of liquid included in it. Under the microscope

most of the material tended to have a similar appearance, if the pieces of fibre, dirt and so on embedded in the material

119.

were ignored. The material was consistent with it being a sweetened· milk drink, a fruit drink or the like which had been spilt and dried. Mr Raymond obtained a number of

misleading reactions in immune-chemical testing from the floor under the passenger seat, particularly the bolt hole area. In his opinion, there were ways in which an operator testing this area might be mistaken if the tests were not

properly controlled and the operator was not fully

competent.

A final obstacle to a conclusion that there was

blood in the floor well which had flowed down the side of

the passenger seat is the difficulty in explaining how it might have got there without staining the carpet or the

underfelt covering the floor well. When Senior Constable Metcalfe and Mrs Kuhl removed and inspected the carpets in 1981, there was no staining of the carpet or the underfelt above the staining in the floor well. When tested by Mrs

Kuhl and Mr Cornell, the carpets produced no results

supporting the presence of blood. If even a small trace of blood had been there, one would have expected Mrs Kuhl's ortho-tolidine test to have detected it.

In 1986, Sergeant Henry Huggins, attached to the Victorian State Forensic Science Laboratory, investigated the path taken by the liquid to the stained area which was

still evident in the floor well of the car. He concluded

that the stain as observed by Mrs Kuhl could have arrived there in three ways: first, from the rear mounting bolt

hole of the centre console, but only if the vehicle was

parked facing down a steep slope, to enable it to run in the direction apparent; secondly, from liquid being forced up through the rear offside bolt hole under the passenger seat if the bolt was not a good fit, when the car was driven

through water; or thirdly, from above, through the hole in

120.

the carpet and underfelt cut out so that these would fit

around the offside rear support of the passenger seat.

As to the second of these possibilities, Mr and Mrs Chamberlain gave evidence of driving the car through water which had come up above the floor level on more than one

occasion but Mr Chamberlain said that the water had not

entered the car. While the other two explanations appear to be possibilities, the most likely appears to be the third, namely the spillage of liquid from above. However, as

Sergeant Huggins pointed out, because of the fit of the

carpet so as to cover the mounting bracket and underfelt in their original positions, liquid flowing down off the seat could not go straight on to the floor, nor directly on to

the mounting bracket, but would have to drop on to the

carpet first.

In November 1981, Mrs Kuhl and Senior Constable Metcalfe conducted an experiment with a similar car seat in which 5 mL of blood were poured between the hinge and the

vinyl making up the side of the seat. Photographs were

produced showing the pattern in which the blood flowed down between the hinge and the vinyl and dropped off the lower part of the seat on to the surface below. I accept the

conclusion of Sergeant Huggins that, on the basis of this experiment as revealed in the photographs, blood flowing down in this manner would drop in two separate positions on

to the carpet beneath.

It is apparent that, if blood had soaked through

through the carpet, it would have left staining on the

carpet and on the underfelt. No such stain was found.

Further, even if the carpet and the underfelt was originally stained and subsequently cleaned as to remove the stain, it is probable that traces of blood detectable by the

121.

ortho-tolidine test would have remained, and that signs of the staining or cleaning would have been visible.

(g) The ten cent coin found in the floor well

When Mrs Kuhl removed a ten cent coin from the

floor well, she found a dark sticky substance adhering to one side and a dark brown/ red stain on the other, which she swabbed off. In the cross-over electrophoresis test, she recorded the presence of "excellent bands" of precipitation with the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum. Before the

Commission, Mrs Kuhl strongly relied upon this result as showing the presence of baby's blood. She also relied upon her observation of a haemoglobin band from this sample on a haptoglobin plate, as indicating the presence of blood.

Her conclusions from the cross-over test are open to a number of criticisms, apart from the general

difficulties referred to in Chapter 7. First, she did not run a test with anti-haemoglobin anti-serum, so her testing was deficient in this respect. Secondly, the sample was not tested against anti-adult haemoglobin anti-serum. In Mr Raymond's view, one cannot interpret the result as showing

the presence of baby's blood without further testing the sample at various dilutions against anti-foetal and

anti-adult haemoglobin anti-sera to decide the ratio in concentrations of the two haemoglobins. Without this, the test, in his view, was not properly controlled. Thirdly , there was no apparent check on the viability of the anti-pig and anti-sheep anti-sera used on the plate at or about the

same time, to ensure that she was not being misled by a

non-specific reaction. Fourthly, Mrs Kuhl said that the coin was actually sitting in the most heavily stained area of a pool under the seat. If it were blood upon the coin ,

the question arises as to why baby's blood was not

122.

detectable upon the other items found in this area such as nail clippers and a safety pin, upon the scrapings of the

stain from the floor well, and upon the carpet and

underfelt. When the coin was tested by Messrs Ross and

Raymond in 1986, no blood was detectable upon it, but the sucrose and protein components of the staining on the floor of the car were also found on the coin.

This suggests that the coin was in the floo r well

when some of the staining of it occurred . However, if the

stain tested by Mrs Kuhl was a different substance, then one could not infer that it came upon the coin while it was in

that position. There were slits in the carpet so that it

fitted around the base points of the seat and, presumably, the coin at some time fell into one of these slits and

worked its way into the floor well . One cannot say where

the coin was when this stain occurred.

Mr Raymond expressed the view that hav ing regard to

what he thought were inadequate controls used in testing the coin, and to some of the general difficulties referred to in Chapter 7, he would not have relied upon the results of Mrs Kuhl's tests as dem6nstrating there was baby's blood on the coin. I share Mr Raymond's view.

(h) Conclusions

It is clear that there are fundamental objections to the acceptance of Mrs Kuhl's findings of baby's blood in the area of the offside rear hinge of the passenger seat and the floor beneath. This would be the case even upon a

consideration of only the general difficulties referred to in Chapter 7. These fundamental objections are reinforced by the additional matters to which I have referred.

123.

(4) OBJECTS IN AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAR

In the paragraphs above, the findings of baby's

blood in parts of the car itself have been considered. The remaining findings of baby's blood were in samples taken from articles found in the car on 19 September 1981, or upon Mr Chamberlain's camera bag which had been taken to Ayers

Rock and which was produced to the police in September 1981 .

(a) The scissors

On 19 September 1981, a small pair of nail scissors

was found in the console of the car. The console was then

i n the boot of the car having been removed from its usual

position in the car to enable repair work to be carried out. Mrs Kuhl gave evidence that there were small areas of

v isible staining upon them, reddish brown in colour, in the grooves on the handles and in the joint between the two

blades. She obtained positive ortho-tolidine responses from certain areas shown on a diagram in her work notes and then subjected a sample swabbed from the entire surface of the scissors to an Ouchterlony test. A diagram of the result appears in her work notes. It shows a faint line between

the sample and one of two anti-foetal haemoglobin wel l s . She noted, and gave evidence at the trial, that there were indications of the presence of blood of foetal origin.

There are a number of unsatisfactory features o f this test. First, it is odd that although Mrs Kuhl's wor k

notes include a diagram of the scissors referring to the

ortho-tolidine positive areas, there is no reference to t he v isible staining. This is to be compared with the other

articles and parts of the car tested, where any v isibl e

sta i ning has been carefully described, in accordance with normal laboratory practice. Secondly, there was a l ack of

124.

adequate controls, particularly an adult control on the plate. Thirdly, most of the controls on the plate failed to work. In particular , control samples of cord blood failed to show reactions with either of two wells of anti-foetal

haemoglobin anti-serum or with anti-haemoglobin anti-serum. Altogether, there were five reactions which did not appear on the plate which ought to have appeared if the test ran

satisfactorily and the sample contained baby's blood. Raymond, Scott, Baxter and Martin were in agreement that when controls fail in a test such as this, the result should be rejected as worthless.

Mrs Kuhl sought to explain the failure of the

controls by refer r ing to the "prozone effect", the cord

blood control being too concentrated for the anti-serum. Following this test, she checked the dilutions and found that the controls were too concentrated, but kept no record of her checks. She also carried out recent tests which, in her view, support her opinion that the failure of the

controls was due to the prozone effect.

A good deal of evidence was given about the

original test and its interpretation at the trial and before the Commission . It would no useful purpose to canvass

it in detail . Mrs Kuhl's explanation of the failure of

controls was rejected by othe r experts, including Professor Ouchterlony. He said that it wa s impossible t o accept that no result was orig i nally obtained and that a result was

obtained in subsequent testing of the controls, with a

dilution changed merely by a factor of two .

While it appears that Dr Ba xter discussed the

result with Mrs Kuhl in September 19 81 and made some

suggestion that she could report indications of foetal

blood, Dr Baxter ha s now said that, cons i dering all the

failures in the test, it should have been forgot ten. I

125.

accept this as the appropriate assessment of the result. Mrs Kuhl ultimately told the Commission that, if she had

reported this test as she had wished, she would have said

that the testing did not confirm the presence of blood or

species. There were no instructions within the Health

Commission as to what a biologist should or should not

report in a situation such as this.

In 1986, Mr Raymond obtained weak ortho-tolidine reactions from the scissors and non-specific reactions in immuno-chemical tests. This indicated that, at least by 1986, there was a substance upon the metal surface of the

scissors which produced such non-specific reactions but which was not blood.

Some factual evidence before the Commission not given at the trial was that, on 1 October 1980, Senior

Constable Graham thoroughly examined the interior of the car and found no cutting implement of any kind. Mr and Mrs

Chamberlain said that a pair of scissors of one kind or

another was usually kept in the car, but they did not know whether this particular pair was in the car in August 1980. On the evidence, one could not even find that the scissors

were in the car at Ayers Rock in August 1980.

(b) The towel

On 21 September 1981, a cotton towel was found in

the boot of the car. It was yellow and white with a floral

pattern and had many stains over both surfaces. Mrs Kuhl's notes refer to the presence of rust and dirt. She

concentrated upon a "fairly heavy dark brown stain with sprays or splashes" on one hem of the towel and "two light

smears or wipes" across the centre of the towel .

126.

Samples from the towel were subjected to a large

number of tests over the next two months. The o rtho­

tolidine screening test was positive with these stain s and the responses recorded in Mrs Kuhl' s notes varied from

"somewhat slower than normal but good colour" to " strong positive". However, Takayama tests, which are very specific tests for the presence of haemoglobin, Ou c hterlony plates, haptoglobin plates and iso-electric focusing plates used in an attempt to detect enzymes did not demonstrate the

presence of blood at all. Nor did the absorption/ elution test to obtain ABO blood groupings. This is one of several techniques for grouping bloods, by reference to c e rtain antigens in red blood cells, into four main groups, A, B, AB and 0. It is further discussed below.

A number of cross-over electrophoresis tests

produced no reactions. However two of such tests produced reactions which must be considered in more detail. The

first, on 22 September 1981, is recorded as producing

positive reactions with anti-human anti-serum and to one anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum. There was another well of anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum on the plate and, in relation to it, Mrs Kuhl's work notes tendered at the trial

recorded the reaction with it as being positive. However, in the laboratory's result book, this reaction is recorded as being negative. Mrs Kuhl told the Commission that the

recording in her notes was an error.

There are two factors detracting from the

reliability of this recorded positive result with

anti-foetal haemoglobin. First, there is recorded in Mrs Kuhl's notes a note - not very strong or distinct".

Such bands would therefore appear not to comply with Mr Martin's criteria for interpretation as specific

immuno-chemical reactions. Secondly, her notes do not

record a second matter which appears in the result book,

127.

namely that one of the wells of anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum' failed to react with a known cord blood control. I have already referred to the general principle that, if

the controls do not work appropriately, the results should be rejected.

On 12 October 1981, another sample produced a

positive reaction with anti-foetal haemoglobin in the cross-over electrophoresis test. However, the same sample failed to react with anti-human or anti-haemoglobin

anti-sera and, for the reasons referred to above, one could not treat this result as reliable. In addition, there was

no known adult blood control on this plate or on any plate run at the same time. Mr Raymond said that the appropriate r eaction with such a control is essential to interpret the r eaction with the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum.

Mrs Kuhl conducted tube precipitin tests which also produced positive reactions with anti-foetal haemoglobin. However, in the first batch of these tests, no negativ e

control was included, such as an anti-animal anti-serum, and for all any observer could tell, the reactions may have been non-specific. Upon testing a second batch of three samples with the tube precipitin test, including anti-pig and

anti-sheep negative controls, two of the three samples

produced cloudy extracts and could not be read. A third

sample was recorded as producing positive reactions with anti-foetal, anti-human and anti-haemoglobin, with

appropriate negatives for the anti-animal anti-sera .

However this result was inconsistent with a negative

cross-over electrophoresis result with a sample from the same area and Mr Martin said the cross-over test is normally more sensitive than the tube precipitin test. Further, no adult control was tested at the same time as this sample and

I therefore could not rely upon the positive reaction with

128.

the anti-foetal haemoglobin as indicating the presence of baby's blood.

Dr Lincoln tested a square of material cut from the towel including the larger smear. He obtained no

confirmation of the presence of blood. Had blood been

present, Mr Martin would have expected to obtain responses to screening tests and immune-chemical reactions, in the light of Mrs Kuhl's results. Mr Raymond said that he would have expected to obtain some confirmation in 1986 of the presence of blood on the towel if Mrs Kuhl's results had

been correct, but he obtained no such confirmation.

Mr Martin and Dr Lincoln said that a used towel is

a very difficult article to test for the presence of blood

because of the danger of misleading reactions with residual soap and dirt on the towel. Mr Martin said he would not

test anything on a towel for blood unless he was compelled to do so and that he would not expect any clear result.

According to Dr Lincoln, if he were going to test something like a towel, a substrate control would be important. A

part of the towel without any stain and without a positive reaction to the test should be selected and tested

as a control, to give a basis for concluding that a positive reaction with the sample is not soap or something in the

towel itself.

The fact that Mrs Kuhl obtained no reaction in the absorption/elution test for ABO blood grouping would support the view that there was no blood on the towel. This test

is extremely sensitive. The ABO blood group antigens are very stable and will still be detectable after blood has

been exposed to extreme heat. They are notoriously long lasting. Professor Boettcher and Dr Baxter were in

substantial agreement that the failure to obtain reactions

129.

to this test, if the test were conducted properly, would

indicate that no blood was present.

It can be seen that the positive results in

relation to this towel are unsatisfactorily supported and are contradicted by many other results. It was clearly a very difficult item to test with any degree of reliability. I do not consider that the presence of baby's blood or of

any blood on the towel has been established.

If the towel was used to wipe a murder weapon or to

clean up blood from the car it is difficult to accept that

the Chamberlains would have left the towel in the boot of

the car for over 13 months, particularly if it had been

their intention to clean up the traces of blood in the car. The lack of a sensible explanation for such strange conduct would raise doubts about the evidence of baby's blood on the towel, even if the results of the tests were much more

acceptable than they are.

(c) The chamois and its container

A synthetic chamois in a plastic container was also found in the boot of the car. The chamois is recorded as

producing quite strong positive responses and the inside surface of the container strong responses to Mrs Kuhl' s

ortho-tolidine test. A swab taken from the entire inside surface of the container, when subjected to the cross-over electrophoresis technique, produced positive reactions with anti-foetal haemoglobin and anti-human anti-sera. This was

relied upon by Mrs Kuhl as proving the presence of baby's blood. She was concerned that the reaction produced was one with the synthetic material of the chamois itself so she went over the chamois inch by inch with ortho-tolidine, and

concluded that it was not such a reaction.

130.

The chamois was damp when Mrs Kuhl removed it from its container . It was common ground among the e xperts who gave evidence to the Commission that the conditions i n which the chamois was kept, namely in humidity and heat , were the most conducive to denaturation of blood stains . Mr Martin

said that, under these circumstances , he would not have

tested the chamois or its container. P r ofessor Nairn said that he would be astonished to get a result on something

like these articles. Mrs Kuhl agreed that she was surprised by her result. Her surprise was not e x pressed at the trial.

A second reason for doubting this result is the

absence of a control of known adult blood, either upon the same plate or a plate run at the same time. It was common

ground among the experts that such a control is necessary. The absence of such a control was not appare n t at the trial

since Mrs Kuhl's work notes included a note at the bottom of the relevant item referring to controls being good and

specifying those controls as "human adult" and "human (cord blood)". It is apparent from the laboratory's result book that the former was not used. The making of this incorrect entry in the notes was not satisfactorily explained.

A further matter in relation to this positive

result is the fact that the reaction with anti-haemoglobin anti-serum was recorded as plus/ minus and was therefore weaker than the reaction recorded with anti-foetal

haemoglobin. For the reasons expressed above, this is

anomalous and supports the view that the reactions were non-specific.

For these reasons, I do not consider that the

presence of baby's blood or of blood has been established upon the chamois or its container.

131.

f-'

w N

(d) The camera bag

This i tem was a black vinyl camera bag wh i ch was

not in the car when it was taken by the po l ice on

19 September 1981 , but was handed over by the Chamberlains on that day. It was in the car on the night of 17 August

1980. A photograph of the camera bag is reproduced.

Mrs Kuhl exami ned the bag during the course of the second inquest, in January 1982. She observed that the

vinyl was in poor condition and that rust was apparent on

the metal attachments. She examined the bag in the most

exhaustive way. She took some four days to screen it with

ortho-tolidine and to carry out tests. She obtained various ortho-tolidine reaction s which she described as "quite strong", "strong", and "definite positive". She saw some visible staining on a zip clasp of one compartment which she

subjected to the cross-over electrophoresis test and

obtained a positive reaction with anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum . She obtaine d a similar result with an extract from a buckle on the outside of the bag.

tested proved negati v e and three of those

Other samples tested gave

non-specific reactions to all anti-sera or to the animal anti-sera.

These results were relied upon by the Crown as

establishing the presence of baby's blood on the camera bag. As I have observed in Chapter 5 it was submitted by counsel

for the prosecution in his closing address that such results and the ortho-tolidine responses throughout the rest of the bag indicated that the murdered baby or her clothing had

been placed in the bag. He also relied upon Mrs Kuhl' s

evidence that she thought that the camera bag had been

washed. In the High Court, Gibb s C. J. and Mason J. said

that the condition of the camera bag suggested that it had

133.

been cleaned but not with complete effectiveness (153 CLR at p.567-8) ;

Before the Commission, the significance of tests of the camera bag made by other scientists before and after Mrs Kuhl tested it became apparent. Dr Andrew Scott examined i t before the second inquest. He saw nothing that would

indicate blood upon it. He tested some areas very

carefully with ortho-tolidine. He obtained very weak

reactions of the sort that would normally be ignored. He then sprayed it with luminal, a screening substance which flouresces on contact with blood and other substances. The entire zip of the camera bag fluoresced, but this was not

unusual with metal objects of that type. Accordingly, there was nothing to indicate to him the presence of blood in

significant amounts. He thought there was nothing that required further testing. Nothing appeared to him to

indicate that the camera bag had been washed.

Dr Lincoln examined and tested the camera bag in May 1982. His screening tests did not demonstrate the

presence of blood.

So far as Mrs Kuhl's ortho-tolidine reactions are concerned, it is significant that she obtained them with small amounts of grit found in the bag. In contrast, she

did not obtain positive reactions with the stitching in the seams of the bag. Dr Scott and Mr Martin expressed the view that if blood stained clothing had been placed in the bag

and it had later been carefully washed and wiped, as was

suggested by the Crown, one would be most likely to find

remnants of blood in the stitching of the seams of the bag. They said that it would be very difficult to remove all

blood from the stitching. Obtaining positive reactions with grit suggests that the grit contained some substance other than blood which produced the appropriate chemical

134.

reaction. This possibility will be considered in more

detail below. In her evidence before the Commission, Mrs Kuhl accepted that there appeared to be inconsistency

between the results she obtained and the notion that the

camera bag had been washed to remove blood.

Mr Raymond also tested the bag in 1986. It is

significant that he, Dr Scott and Dr Lincoln all obtained reactions from the metal parts on the outside of the bag.

Using the cross-over electrophores is method, Mr Raymond obtained non-specific reactions from the clasp which, to him, looked real before the plates were stained. Had he

done the ortho-tolidine test and cross-over without staining and without any other confirmatory test such as the

Ouchterlony, he would have interpreted the cross-over result against anti-human anti-se rum as positive. He said this clearly indicated to him the possibility of a person falling into error if he tested the metal parts of the bag without

undertaking full testing. The fact that Mrs Kuhl recorded the presence of rust on both the zip clasp and the buckle

from which the positive results were obtained further

supports the need for caution. Mrs Kuhl did not use any

substrate control in her tests and the findings of the other experts indicate that such a control was necessary before one could interpret the reactions as having been produced by a stain rather than the metal surface. The non-specific

activity detected by Mrs Kuhl in r espect of three of her

samples would support the necessity for such a c ont r ol .

Mrs Kuhl concluded that baby's blood was present on both the zip clasp and the buckle of the camera bag,

notwithstanding that, in relation to the second of these, the reaction to anti-human anti-serum was a doubtful

plus/ minus as recorded in the result book. Without

satisfaction that this was an immuno-chemical band showing a

135.

reaction with the more sensitive anti-human anti-serum, the other results could not be relied upon.

For these reasons, I consider that it has not been

established that baby's blood was present on the camera bag. The question of the presence of any blood on it will be

further considered below.

B. SUPPORT FOR MRS KUHL BY OTHERS

The accuracy of Mrs Kuhl's conclusions was given considerable support at the trial by Dr Baxter and Mr

Culliford. Dr Baxter said that he saw the plates and gels

used by Mrs Kuhl in her experiments and agreed with her

conclusions. Mr Culliford said that he had read Mrs Kuhl's laboratory work notes and her evidence and approved of her methods and conclusions.

Before the Commission, Mrs Kuhl said she was

certain that Dr Baxter had seen all her results, whether

they were positive or negative. Dr Baxter disagreed. It

was his recollection that before the testing began he

instructed Mrs Kuhl before the testing began that he should check any results positive for foetal haemoglobin and any blood groupings subsequent to this. He remembered only one result with clarity, that being a haptoglobin plate upon which a second band appeared in the position of a foeta l

haemoglobin band. He did not know whether or not he looked at every positive result Mrs Kuhl obtained. He looked at

what she showed him. He may have looked at some negative

results, but he could not say. He agreed with he r

conclusions in respect of what he was shown. He did not

think he had seen any of the stains which were thought to be blood. Dr Baxter was on leave from the laboratory between 13 and 21 October 1981. The result book shows two

136.

cross-over plates were run on 12 October and, in the

ordinary course, these would not have finished the washing process and would not have been read until 13 October. It

therefore seems unlikely that Dr Baxter checked the results of these plates, or the results of the plate recorded as

having been run on 15 October. Mrs Kuhl thought otherwise. Dr Baxter doubted whether he had seen these, and various other plates, as they were unusual in their lack of controls or in other respects, and he would have remembered them had

he seen them .

There was no system in the laboratory whereby a

second biologist who checked a result signed or initialled the result book or the work notes. Hence, there is no

written record of whatever check s Dr Baxter may have done. In relation to her work in the Chamberlain case, Mrs Kuhl

prepared six written reports. It was the practice for

handwritten drafts of such reports to be approved and

initialled by Dr Baxter before they were typed, unless he was not present. It is surprising that, in a case where Dr

Baxter had given special instructions, at least to the

effect that he be shown positive results, three out of the five handwritten draft reports tendered to the Commission were not initialled by him. This suggests that the checking of Mrs Kuhl's work was not as extensive as it might have

been. Overall, Dr Baxter's lack of recollection of the

results he saw and the failure to record his checking of any results significantly diminish the weight of his support for Mrs Kuhl's conclusions.

So far as Mr Culliford is concerned, the approval he expressed at the trial of her methods and conclusions

could not be further e xplored since he was too ill to give

evidence to the Commission. Ho wever, Mr Martin, Mr

Culliford's successor at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Laboratory in London said that, al t hough he had not read all

137.

of Mrs Kuhl's evidence, he found her work notes extremely confusing. On the information before him, it was impossible for him to pass judgment on the reliability or accuracy of her testing procedures. He said it would have been

necessary for him to have been there, to know precisely what she did and what she found.

Accordingly, the Crown was obliged to rely to a

large extent upon skill and experience of Mrs Kuhl in the

conduct of the tests and the interpretation of what she saw on particular plates.

C. MRS KUHL'S EXPERIENCE

Mrs Kuhl obtained the degree of Master of Science

from Sydney University. Before examining the Chamberlains' car, she had had, with interruptions, approximately four years' experience in forensic biology. She had used the

cross-over electrophoresis technique frequently but had had very little experience with the Ouchterlony test. The tube precipitin test was not a technique that was used very often in the Health Commission's laboratory. She had obtained much experience in using the ortho-tolidine test, but had only applied it to old blood stains, being more than a year old, on a very few occasions and had not experienced the

second stage reactions with copper compounds discussed below.

While she had used the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum in one case prior to the Chamberlain case, she had not used it and, so far as she was aware, no one else

had used it previously in the cross-over electrophoresis method in connection with old blood stains. It appears from the matters considered in Chapter 7 that she depended upon bases for distinguishing between specific and non-specific

138.

reactions in the cross- ove r test which, in the particular circumstances of this case, may have been unreliable. From her failure to use any controls taken from Az aria's jumpsuit or any other controls of aged samples, it would appear that

she was unaware of the dangers posed by the likely

denaturation of any blood in the samples tested.

These matters and the conclusions I h ave drawn in Chapter 7 that Mrs Kuhl failed to ca rry out essential

pre-use testing of anti-sera and that she failed to use

necessary controls indicate that she lacked the considerable experience required to enable her to plan and to carry out these complex and difficult testing procedu r es, at least without careful guidance from a more experienced biologist.

Indeed, there appears to be doubt whether any practising forensic biologist would have been sufficiently qualified to perform these tasks without e xtensive consultation with leaders in immunological research.

D. PGM GROUPING TESTS

In relation to mate ri al found in the area of the

hinge on the passenger seat, Mrs Kuhl sought to group the

material using a test for phosphoglucomutase ( PGM) . This is an enzyme found in the red blood cells, but also found in

many other living things and in many other cells apart from blood. Until recent years, the method used for detection of the different types of PGM was starch gel electrophoresis,

which permitted PGM to be divided into three types, i.e. PG M 1, PGM 2-1 and PGM 2. These showed up as bands at three

different places on a starch gel plate . Dr Andrew Scott

tested blood samples taken from Mr and Mrs Chamberlain using this method and, from the results, concluded that Azaria's blood must have been PGM 1.

139.

It is now possible to ascertain PGM groupings for blood using the method of iso-electric focusing. This is a method whereby various proteins in a sample are separated according to their iso-electric points, i.e. the pH at which each protein has no net charge and therefore will not

migrate in an electric field. A stable pH gradient is

established in a gel on a plate and, under the influence of an electric field, the proteins in the sample will move s o

as to line up in bands at their iso-electric points. Such

bands are made visible by fixing and dyeing chemicals. This method has enabled ten types of PGM to be identified,

showing as bands at ten different positions on an

iso-electric plate. In the PGM 1 region there are the

sub-types 1+, 1+1- and 1-; within the 2-1 region there are the sub-types 2+ 1+, 2+ 1-, 2- 1+ and 2- 1-; and in th e

2 region there are the sub-types 2+, 2+ 2- and 2-.

While it is difficult to reconcile the number of

PGM tests recorded in Mrs Kuhl' s notes with the number

recorded in the laboratory's result book, it would appear that she conducted tests in respect of ten samples from the hinge area, eight of which were inconclusive and two of

which were recorded as showing a PGM 1+ result. Six of the

inconclusive results were described as having a "shadow band in the one region" or the like.

The Crown relied upon these results as indicating the presence of blood which was Azaria's and was not that o f Mr Lenehan, whose blood was grouped as PGM 2+ 1+.

There are a number of reasons for doubting thi s

conclusion. First, Mrs Kuhl did not try to ascertai n

Azaria's PGM grouping by testing the blood on the jumpsuit , but merely relied upon Dr Scott's conclusion using the mo re limited starch gel electrophoresis method. While PGM 1 + might have been appropriate for Azaria's blood, her blood

140.

could have been either of the other two sub-types of PGM 1. Secondly, these tests were conducted almost 14 months after Azaria's disappearance. While Mrs Kuhl contended that her laboratory was in the forefront of the accurate use of the

iso-electric focusing method of PGM grouping, the weight of the expert evidence before the Commission is to the effect that it would be most unusual to obtain a PGM result after a period of between 13 and 14 months. In the experience of

Mr Raymond, Mr Martin and Dr Scott, it is generally only

possible to classify PGM in stains up to eight months old.

One of the samples for which a result was obtained carne from the back surface of the hinge, although Mrs Kuhl

had been able to obtain only a very limited irnmuno-chernical result from this area. With age and denaturation, enzymes such as PGM lose their activity and according to Martin and Raymond it is unusual to find PGM activity if irnrnuno­

chernical results cannot be obtained.

A third matter affecting the interpretation of PGM

results is the necessity for controls. Mr Martin said that for accurate typing, it is necessary to have very good

controls. Mr Cornell, who has had very extensive experience in the use of the iso-electric focusing method in respect of proteins and enzymes, said that it is always necessary to have a number of controls, even with ideal samples, to

ensure that the test is working properly. He said this

becomes more important when the sample is or may be

denatured. In his view, proper controls would include

"positive" controls being blood from a number of known

individuals, showing the positions of the normal bands on the plate and a control, using a substance which

should not give any PGM bands, such as blood that had been so heated as to destroy all of its PGM activity. A third

control would be a sample which, so far as possible, has

been stored under the same conditions as that of the unknown

141.

sample being tested. For this last control, Mr Cornell

suggesteQ that the blood from Azaria's jumpsuit would have made a very good control against which to compare the

samples. On the PGM plate from which Mrs Kuhl obtained her PGM 1+ results, the only controls were blood of PGM 2+ 1-.

Such controls would not even have permitted a direct

comparison between the position of the bands produced by the unknown samples and a known PGM 1+ band. Mr Cornell's

second and third types of control were lacking. Whilst Mrs Kuhl's evidence was that this plate had been shown to and approved by Dr Baxter, he had no clear recollection of his reading of it.

A fourth matter is the absence of any result to

absorption/ elution tests conducted upon samples from the same areas as those from which these PGM results were

obtained. These tests are further discussed elsewhere in this report. The absence of any result to them supports the view that there was no blood present in these areas.

For these reasons, there appears to be considerable doubt as to whether what appeared on these PGM plates was correctly interpreted as giving PGM 1+ results.

There are other reasons for concern as to whethe r bands in the PGM 1+ region of the plate were produced by

blood of that PGM type. As Mr Cornell explained, the

observation of bands on the plate depended on two types o f activity, which may be affected by denaturation. The first is the movement of the molecules under the influence of the electric field to the appropriate position on the plate. The second is the enzymic activity which produces a reaction with an added chemical so as to make the band visible .

Denaturation of blood may cause changes to either type o f activity - it may cause a particular band to appear at a

different position on the plate, or, if the enzymic activity

142.

is lost, that band may not become visible. From Mr

Cornell's work with proteins, he considered it was possible that blood of the type PGM 2+ 1+ may, as a result of

denaturation, show up as PGM 1+ on the plate. Mr Cornell's experience was with liquid blood rather than blood stains. The view of the forensic biologists with experience of the test with blood stains was that the position of PGM bands on

the plate was less likely to be affected by aging than in

liquid blood. It was Dr Baxter's view that, with time, the protein merely becomes inactive. However, this opinion was not based on his own experience and he was not aware of any work having been done on the comparison of changes in PGM

results from liquid and dried blood. Mr Martin's experience was that the PGM bands tended to degrade at the same rate

and that in most cases the intensity of the band in the

2+ region was greater than that in the 1+ region .

Accordingly, in his opinion, blood of PGM 2+ 1+ type was not likely to show up as PGM 1+, but there was a small chance

that it could, upon fading of the 2+ band.

A consideration of some of these factors led

Professor Nairn to the view that the PGM results were highly suspect. I accept this as a fair assessment. The

possibility that any blood in the hinge area was of a PGM

group consistent with Lenehan's blood has not been

eliminated. If the PGM 1+ grouping was correct, and there was blood of this grouping, then these tests do not identify the blood as being Azaria's. Such blood would be

consistent with the blood of a very large number of persons, including the other members of the Chamberlain family. The fact that results were obtained, having regard to the

customary difficulty in obtaining any results with blood over the age of eight months, itself suggests that any blood producing such results was shed after 17 August 1980.

Accordingly, I do not think that any conclusion adverse to the Chamberlains can be drawn from these results.

143.

E. WHETHER ANY BLOOD WAS FOUND

(1) RELIANCE UPON THE ORTHO-TOLIDINE TEST

Mrs Kuhl's results with this test were relied upon by the Crown as establishing the presence of blood in a

large number of places in the car. In his opening address

at the trial, senior counsel for the Crown said that much of this blood, because of contamination and denaturation, could not be identified as "foetal blood". The evidence of the

Crown's experts at the trial was to the effect that, while other substances will react with ortho-tolidine, many will react at the first stage (before addition of the hydrogen peroxide solution) and the reactions produced by other substances which occur at the second stage are

distinguishable from the colour and pattern produced by blood. The view was expressed by Mrs Kuhl, Dr Baxter and Mr Culliford that an experienced biologist would not confuse the reaction produced by blood with that produced by other substances. In her evidence at the trial, Mrs Kuhl

described the reactions given to this test in many areas of the car as being "strongly positive for blood" and she

referred to substances obtained which "reacted strongly as blood". At the trial, except in relation to the marks

observed under the glove box, the defence did not dispute that blood was found in the car but merely attempted to

explain its presence.

Before the Commission there was a good deal of

further evidence about the use of the ortho-tolidine test. Mr James Fowler, a forensic scientist employed at the South

Australian Forensic Science Centre, carried out tests on surface scrapings and dust containing copper compounds obtained in Mount Isa and found that the reactions were

similar in blue colouration to those normally given by blood stains, although in general the rate of reaction was

144.

somewhat slower. In his opinion, the results were such that an experienced forensic analyst would be u nlikely , on the basis of this test alone, to distinguish readily between blood and such copper compounds. Dr Andrew Scott agreed with these views and said that he was quite satisfied that

the reactions to copper dust could be mistaken for blood. Professor Boettcher tested washings from the floors of three v ehicles from Mount I sa and obtained weak positive

ortho-tolidine reactions from many locations on those floors. He said that reactions to some of the particles

found in those vehicles were immediate, were "peacock blue" in colour, and that he would not have been able to say that

they could not have been given by blood. Mr Freney, who had extensive experience at Mount Isa and was called at the

request of the Crown, said that he did not think that he

would be confused by these results, but was not prepared to say that other competent people would not be. On the basis of Mr Fowler's report, Dr Baxter accepted that an

experienced observe r might be mistaken by a copper salt

reaction, especially if the comparison is with the slower reaction often obtained f rom denatured blood.

The Chamber lains' car had spent almost a year based in Mount Isa before Mrs Kuhl tested it, although there was a period when it was at Cooranbong . It seems not unreasonable to assume that there were traces of dust from Mount Isa

still in the car in September 1981. When Mrs Kuhl's tests

were carried out, nei ther she nor Dr Baxte r was awar e that

copper compounds gave something in the nature of a se cond stage reaction to the ortho-tolidine test.

It was accepted by the experts who gave evidence to the Commission that a positive response to the ortho­

tolidine test was not e v idence of the presence of blood, but was merely a "screening" result whi ch should l ead t o further testing. They agreed that the presence of blood could not

145.

be confirmed without appropriate results to other tests . Freney, Martin and Baxter were in agreement that it would be quite misleading to suggest that blood had been indicated because of a positive ortho-tolidine result.

It was also generally agreed that the ortho­

tolidine test is more likely to give "false" reactions to substances not blood than is the Kastle Meyer screening test. Both are very sensitive and will detect and react

with minute particles of blood, the ortho-tolidine test be i ng the more sensitive. Both of these reagents ma y

detect blood when it is not visible, for example, when the re has been a small spillage of blood and it has been cleaned

up, leaving only minute particles.

It appears that the possible sources of blood whic h may be detected by the o r tho-tolidine test in a car are man y and varied. As Mr Martin pointed out, a nose bleed,

coughing or sneezing may well scatter minute particles of blood . A cut f i nger, leaving a tiny lesion on the finge r

which might hardly be noticed, could leave minute particles of blood on, say, the door handle of a car. If blood fo rm s

a dry stain, particularly on metal, it will tend to fla k e

off and spread around a car. Dr Baxter agreed that dri ed

blood can form a powder and can easily be scattered, fo r

example by brushing. He agreed that such small quantities could produce positiv e ortho-tolidine r eactions. Fo r this r eason, in his view it would be difficult and dangerous to estimate the volume of blood that might be present unless it can be physically seen.

In respect of a number of places in the car , the

Crown relied at the trial upon the ortho-tolidine result alone as showing that blood was present. These areas

included a fabric panel on the driver's seat, stains on t he cross bar under the passenger seat, the cl i ps along t he base

146.

of that seat, . the carpet inside the console, an area down the left hand side of the console, a groove at the front of

the console, around the openings where the radio fitted into the console, the surface of the chamois and the inside of

the camera bag. In the light of the evidence before the

Commission, it is apparent that the ortho-tolidine results obtained from those areas did not establish the presence of blood. Even if the reactions observed were the product of blood, it could have been of such a small amount that its

presence there would not justify the drawing of any

inference adverse to the Chamberlains.

(2) FINDINGS OF HUMAN BLOOD NOT ALREADY CONSIDERED

In respect of several areas of the car, Mrs Kuhl

conducted tests in addition to ortho-tolidine screening. On the basis of these tests she concluded that she had

detected human blood in those areas, although she was unable to conclude that it was baby's blood. These tests will be

shortly considered below.

(a) The window handles

After obtaining positive results from ortho­

tolidine tests on the window handles on both the driver's and passenger's sides of the car, Mrs Kuhl took swabs and

subjected them to the cross-over electrophoresis test. Both gave a positive reaction with anti-human anti-serum, but no reactions with anti-foetal haemoglobin and anti-human haemoglobin. Mrs Kuhl . concluded that human blood was

detected and that the pattern of the ortho-tolidine results was consistent with a wipe over the surface. No staining

was visible on the handles.

147.

If the anti-human anti-serum was not as sensitive as t h e 0ther anti-sera, as Mrs Kuhl contended by wa y of

explanation of other results, then this result wou ld not support the finding of blood. Mr Martin considered that t he p resence of blood was not confirmed by these results. Th e ant i -human anti-serum recognizes the serum proteins which may be present in body fluids apart from blood, such as

sa l iva, nose secretion, breast milk, etc. Mr Martin sa id

that one of his criteria, if he is to report the presence of

b l ood, is that he would have to see somethi ng that looks

li ke blood.

I am unable to conclude from these results that t he presence of blood was established .

(b) The nearside hinge of the driver's seat

On 10 November 1981, when t he car was at Al i c e

Springs, Constable Metcalfe removed a fla ke of material fro m the nearside hinge of the driver's seat and forwarded it to Mrs Kuhl for testing. Prior to its removal, there was a

plastic cover over this part of the hinge. Mrs Kuhl observ e d a very strong positive ortho-tolidine reaction with it. When subjected to the cross-over electrophoresis test against various anti-sera, after weekend washing she noti ced very weak reactions with anti-human and anti-human

haemoglobin anti-sera, but no other reactions. Mrs Kuhl concluded that human blood had been detected.

Mr Martin found these results to be inconclusive a s

to the presence of blood. Very weak reactions wi th

anti-sera did not fulfil his criteria for accepting the

bands as immuno-chemical. Fur t her, he thought the positive to anti-human was explicable by the presence of body fluid s other than blood.

148.

A sample was taken from the seat bracket and spring

forming part of this hinge, and halves of it were sent to

each of Mr Culliford and Dr Lincoln in Ma y 1982 . Mr

Culliford reported, as in the case of most of the other

samples sent to him, that he identified blood, but could not identify its origin. For the reasons discussed abov e, there are limitations on the weight that can be gi v en to this

finding. Dr Lincoln obtained no reaction with the Kastle Meyer screening test and no activity with various anti-sera.

When Mr Raymond carried out tests on the car in

1986, there was still staining present in this area which gave reactions to anti-human and anti-haemoglobin anti-sera, but the bands were fuzzy and he interpreted them as being

non-specific. He obtained no reaction with the Kastle

Meyer screening test, but a weak ortho-tolidine response . Under the microscope, the particles did not have the

appearance of blood. In his view, there was certainly

contaminant material there which was not blood.

Finally, the manner in which blood could have got on to this hinge when it was covered by a plastic cap has

not been explained.

It should also be noted that samples tested by Mrs Kuhl from the bracket and the floor, inside the bolt hole

beneath this hinge, although recorded as gi v ing strong

ortho-tolidine reactions, gave reactions on the cross-over test to all anti-sera used, including anti-pig. This

indicated that a contaminant giving non-specific reactions and, presumably, the positive ortho-tolidine reactions, was present in the area. These results support Mr Raymond's

conclusions as to the likely presence in the car of

something which threw up misleading non-specific reactions.

149.

For all these reasons I am unable to conclude that there was blood on this hinge.

(c) Camera bag - zip clasp of middle compartment

In relation to one sample tested from the camera

bag, that from the zip clasp of the middle compartment, Mrs Kuhl recorded a positive reaction with anti-haemoglobin anti-serum, but no reaction with the other anti-sera. For the reasons referred to above, the failure to obtain a

reaction with the anti-human anti-serum indicates that one cannot rely upon the other result obtained. I have already referred to the likelihood of the metal surfaces in the

camera bag producing non-specific reactions.

As to the other results obtained from the camera

bag, it is apparent that, from the inside of the bag, the

only positive results obtained were with the ortho-tolidine test. For the reasons I have already given, these reactions did not establish the presence of blood. So far as the

positive immuno-chemical results obtained from the zip clasp and buckle on the outside of the bag are concerned, for the reasons discussed earlier, there is such uncertainty in relation to these results that I cannot conclude that the

presence of blood upon these parts was established.

Even if it were shown that a small amount of blood

(not shown to be baby's blood) was present, this could be

readily explicable by the use of the a bag by someone with a minor cut to a finger. It would not justify the drawing of

any inference adverse to the Chamberlains.

150.

(3) WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BLOOD IN THE AREA OF THE OF FSIDE HINGE ON THE PASSENGER SEAT OR ON THE

FLOOR BE NEATH

In my consideration earlier in this report of the results obtained by Mrs Kuhl when testing samples from these areas, the question whethe r the presence of blood of any

kind had been establ ished was left open. Since the Crown

claims that all t he staining in these areas came from the

same source, i.e. bl ood dropping from above the hinge and flowing downwards o n to the floor and thence to the ten cent coin, it is appropr i ate to consider the evidence in relation to all of these sampl es together.

First, the re is the appearance of stains on the

hinge. These we re seen by a number of people experienced in identifying blood stains. They said that the appearance of the staining was consistent with that of dried blood. Mr Raymond, on inspection of a photograph of the staining,

agreed that it had the appearance of blood.

Secondly, the presence of blood is strongly

supported by the observations of haemoglobin bands on the haptoglobin plates . The labo ra t o ry' s result book records that, upon a haptoglobin plate run on 29 September 1981,

haemoglobin bands were vi sible in r espect of samples taken from three different areas of the hinge, a swab from around the bolt h l le, scrapings from the floor well, a swab from

the floor well and a swab from the ten cent coin.

Thirdly, the presence of blood is supported by the finding of PGM activity in t wo samples. Ho wever, this is

subject to the qualifications already discussed.

Fourthly, there are the immuno-chemical tests

against various ant i -sera. As the discussion above has

151.

shown, the results of this testing are not without

difficulty. Nevertheless, the samples taken from the hinge area of the passenger seat, the floor well beneath and the ten cent coin showed a large number of reactions, not merely with the anti-foetal haemoglobin anti-serum, but with anti-haemoglobin and anti-human anti-sera. Even if some mistakes were made in the interpretation of these plates, o n e would not expect such a multitude of positive results to be thrown up if human blood was not present.

There are a number of matters which, it has been

suggested, indicate that human blood may not have been

present in the car.

First, there is the fact that Mr Raymond was unable to detect blood in the car in 1986, after the most exhaust­ ive screening of the car with both the ortho-tolidine and Kastle Meyer tests and immuno-chemical testing of swabs taken from the areas of the car and the articles from which Mrs Kuhl had obtained results and other areas. In Mr

Raymond's opinion, if Mrs Kuhl's conclusions about the presence of blood were correct , his testing ought to have detected remnants of such blood upon the hinge, in the floor well beneath and upon the towel. Dr Lincoln thought Mr

Raymond's findings were very significant in confirming his (Lincoln's) findings in 1982. Mr Raymond found that quite a number of areas gave weak positive ortho-tolidine

reactions, but no Kastle Meyer reactions, and blood was not confirmed in these places by immuno-chemical testing. This suggested to him that there was something in the car giving a false positive reaction to ortho-tolidine, but which would not react to the more reliable Kastle Meyer test. Professor Boettcher agreed that, if blood was present in 1981, its

presence ought to have been demonstrable by Mr Raymond in 1986.

152.

Mr Martin agreed that Mr Raymond's results with the

screening tests mirrored the positive results to ortho­ tolidine that Mrs Kuhl obtained and the lack of any Kastle Meyer response in the hands of Dr Lincoln, and that this

supported the view that the ortho-tolidine response was not one to blood.

While Mr Raymond's results raised doubts about Mrs Kuhl' s findings, he was careful t o emphasize that other

possible explanations for such results were that all of the blood present in 1981 had been removed or that the blood had been altered in such a way as to be not detectable in 1986.

Overall, Mr Raymond considered that , although he might not have agreed with Mrs Kuhl's interpretation of results, the fact that she detected activity in the PGM and immuno­

chemical tests and on the haptoglobin plate in relation to samples from the hinge area was important and he found it

extremely difficult to conceive that she could be so wrong as to obtain these results from something that was not

blood.

The second matter is the absence of any result of

the absorption/ elution tests conducted by Mrs Kuh l . Such tests were conducted upon all of the areas sampled by her from the vicinity of the hinge of the passenger seat and the bolt bracket beneath and the main area of staining upon the

towel. She recorded that no reactions were obtained and

that her controls were excellent. This test is one for

determining the ABO grouping of blood. According to the scientific opinion expressed before the Commission, it is an extremely sensitive test, the antigens detected by it are very stable ones and, accordingly, it can be used reliably

on blood stains of considerable age and which have been

exposed to extremes of heat. Professor Boettcher and Dr Baxter were in agreement that, if Mrs Kuhl had carried out

15 3.

the tests properly, the absence of any reaction indicated that there was no blood present.

The third matter affecting any conclusion in favour of the presence of blood is the apparent failure on the part of the Crown to ensure that material tested by Mrs Kuhl was k ept for confirmatory testing by the defence. Mrs Kuhl

said that when she finished her testing there was still a

considerable amount of fibrous material "still heavily s o aked in blood", on the back of the hinge. However, when

she was handed the hinge in court at the trial, she was very surprised to see that the hinge had virtually been scraped clean . In March 1982, the Chamberlains' solicitors

requested that they be given any remaining samples from the car. Some were provided and were further tested by Dr

Lincoln for the Chamberlains and by Mr Culliford for the

Crown. One of such samples was a piece of vinyl from the

area under the hinge but no material from the hinge itself was included. The hinge was tendered at the second inquest and no doubt was handled by a number of persons. However, no explanation has been given for the disappearance of the material which had been on the hinge. I do not attribute

blame or fault to any person for this. However, by its

disappearance the Chamberlains were deprived of the

opportunity to have the material tested. In these

circumstances, I would hesitate to draw any inference as to the content of that material.

A fourth consideration, particularly relating to

the floor beneath the passenger seat, is the absence of an explanation as to how blood might have flowed there without staining the carpet or the underfel t. The evidence, to

which I have already referred, indicates the unlikelihood of blood having found its way from the hinge area beneath the seat without there being detectable staining of the carpet and underfelt.

154.

Having regard to all these considerations I would not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that blood was

present in the car, even upon the hinge area of the

passenger seat. However, having regard to the number of

positive results from the various tests obtained by Mrs Kuhl in relation to the area of the hinge of the passenger seat

and the floor beneath , I think it is more probable than not

that, at the time of her testing, some blood was present in

these areas.

F. THE VOLUME OF ANY BLOOD

At the trial, there was very little evidence as to

the volume of blood said to have been detected. In an

experiment conducted on a similar car seat, Mrs Kuhl and

Senior Constable Metcalfe found that 5 mL of blood, when poured on the side of such a seat with a person sitting in

it, would flow between the hinge and the vinyl side of the

seat and drip on to to the surface below in a way similar to

the apparent flow pattern of the substance on the side of

the seat in the Chamberlains' car. In addition, the large

amount of material said to be adhering to the hinge, the

quantity of flakes which fell off when the hinge was

removed, the large area of staining under the seat, the

spray pattern under the glove box, the immuno-chemical results from other places and the wide-spread parts of the car from which positiv e ortho-tolidine results were obtained were relied upon by the Crown as justifying a conclusion

that blood had been spilt over a wide area. A diagram was

tendered at the trial showing the areas where positi ve

ortho-tolidine tests indfcated trace amounts of blood. The presence of blood in places other than under the glove box was not contested by the defence. A fair impression to be

gained from all of this evidence was that formed at the

155.

trial by Professor Nairn, that "the car floor was awash with blood".

Most of the areas in which it was said that there

were traces of blood did not exhibit any visible staining . From the consideration of the evidence in relation to the ortho-tolidine screening test referred to above, it is now apparent that the reactions obtained on this test may not hav e been with blood and that, if they were with blood, it

may have been present in most minute quanti ties . As Dr

Baxter pointed out, it would be very hard and very dangerous t o estimate volumes of blood present unless it can be see n.

Putting aside the stains seen under the glove bo x and upon the hinge of the dri v er's seat (which have not bee n shown to be blood) the only areas on which there wer e

vi sible stains were the hinge of the passenger seat, beneath the hinge and upon the vinyl, the bolt hole below the hinge , the floor well and the ten cent coin. When Mrs Kuhl wa s

asked to estimate the quantity of blood required to produce the staining under the seat and upon the ten cent coin, s h e

said it would be at least 1 mL, if not 2 mL, of blood. She

was doubtful because of the difficulty in estimating how

mu c h was soaked up by the fibrous material and the metal .

Even if it be accepted that Mrs Kuhl's testing

established the presence of blood in the areas where stains were visible, one could not estimate with any accu r acy wh at amount of blood was present because there was clearly othe r material present, forming at least part of the staining . On the vinyl of the seat, Mrs Kuhl detected a greas y

substance in addition to the flakes which she thought wer e dried blood. In the floor well of the car, she found a l o t

of underfelt fibre and dirt in the stained area. As I h ave

already observed when the remaining scrapings from the bo l t hole area and the remaining staining o n the t e n cent co i n

156.

were tested by Raymond and Ross in 1986 they found that some food substance had flowed down into the floor well under the seat, from which sucrose and other substances were

detectable.

Other experts found it very difficult to arrive at any estimate of the volume of blood from Mrs Kuhl's work

notes and evidence. However, having regard to the number of samples taken by her and the fact that Mr Raymond was

unable to detect the presence of any further blood in 1986, there was general agreement between the various experts who gave evidence to the Commission that if there were blood

present in the car when it was first tested, there could

have been only a very small amount of it. Dr Lincoln

referred to Mrs Kuhl's difficulty in getting reactions and her using up of all of the material that was present in all

areas, except on the hinge. He expressed the v iew that the amount of blood found by Mrs Kuhl must have been very small. Mr Martin considered that, if there was blood present and it

had all been removed, there must have been only very small quantities present. It had always seemed to him that the

quantities of blood in the car were very small, since they had been used up doing what he regarded as a very minimal

amount of testing. Similar views were expressed by

Professor Nairn, who said that, if there was any blood at

all, it was "an extremely small amount".

It was open to the jury, on the evidence before it

to conclude that when the car was first tested there was a

wide distribution of significant quantities of blood in it. In contrast, I conclude on the evidence before the

Commission that, if blood was present in the car, it was

there in very small quantities.

157.

G. EXPLANATIONS OF BLOOD IN THE CAR

If there was a small quantity of blood, not shown

t o be baby's blood, in the area of the hinge of the

passenger seat and beneath this seat, the question remains whether the presence of such blood would justify the drawing of some inference favourable to the Crown case. When Mr a nd Mrs Chamberlain were questioned at the second inquest abou t any bleeding in the car, they referred to a number of

occasions on which blood had been shed in i t.

( 1) MR LENEHAN

Mr and Mrs Chamberlain both referred to the

shedding of blood by Mr Lenehan when he was picked up b y

them after he had been involved in a ca r accident on 1 7 June 1979 and taken to Cairns Base Hospital. Mr Lenehan's scalp was lacerated on the right-hand side of his head and he bled profusely. He climbed into the Chamberlains' car throu g h

the rear hatch and lay in_ the area of the rea r seat , with it

folded down. His head was on Mrs Chamberlain's knee. She used a gauze bandage and had a towel upon her knees in a n

attempt to staunch the flow of blood. The trip to t he

hospital took approximately 45 minutes and his h e ad

continued to bleed.

At the trial, Mr Lenehan's evidence as to t he

position of his head while he was lying in the back of the

car was not particularly clear. He said that his head wa s up near the passenger seat of the car, that he recalled that the Chamberlains could not stop his bleeding, a nd that he could feel the blood flowing down his face. From Mr s

Chamberlain's e v idence that Mr Lenehan had his hea d on her knee very close to the edge of the back seat Gibbs C. J. a nd

Mason J. concluded that there would have been an app r e c iable

158.

distance between his head and the front seat and that,

therefore, it was unlikely that Mr Lenehan's bleeding caused blood to flow down the side of the front passenger's seat in the way found by Mrs Kuhl (153 CLR at p.553).

Before the Commission, Mr Lenehan was questioned in more detail about his position in the car. He said he was

lying on his back on the folded down near side of the rear

seat, with his feet a t the rear of the vehicle and his head

in the space between the fr on t of the folded down rear seat

and the back of the front passenger seat , supported by Mrs Chamberlain's knee as she sat on the rear seat. He said

that Mr Chamberlain , in his haste to get to the hospital,

took the car around corners quickly, causing him to roll

around somewhat. As the ca r was braked from time to time he slid forward to a point where his head was at the rear of

t he centre console between the two front seats and virtually level with the back of the front seats. While he could not

say whether his head came into contact with the front

passenger seat, he thought that it was possible. When he

arrived at the hospital, he was conscious of the fact that

his head was still wet with blood, despite the attempt to

bandage it. I have no re ason to doubt the correctness of

his evidence.

Mr and Mrs Chamberlain gave evidence which was

consistent with Lenehan's account. Mrs Chamberlain said, in addition, that Reagan sat in the front passenger seat during the journey. While Mr Lenehan did not remember this, it is clear that Reagan must have sat somewhere in the car and

this appears to be the logi cal place for him to have sat.

Mrs Kuhl and Senior Co nstable Metcalfe found in

their experiment that in order f o r blood to flow down

between the hinge and the vinyl side of the seat , it was

necessary that someone be sitting in the passenger seat. It

159 .

is likely that Mr Lenehan's head was in an appropriate

positiori at the time when he was bleeding for his blood t o

have fallen in the area of the back of the passenger seat

and the hinge on its off side.

(2) OTHER EXPLANATIONS

When Mr and Mrs Chamberlain were examined at the second inquest, they were asked to exhaust their recollect­ ions of persons who had bled in the car. They recalled tha t their sons, Aidan and Reagan, had bled in the car. Reaga n

had bled from the forehead on one occasion and from a cut

lip on another. Aidan had bled from the nose. Mrs

Chamberlain recalled Aidan having a nose bleed afte r

17 August 1980 . They both recalled other children bleeding in the car from time to time, when they were in the car for

outdoor activities connected with their Church .

I consider that for present purposes, it is

unnecessary to decide whether these accounts of bleeding, other than that of Mr Lenehan, should be accepted. It is

sufficient to say that the other incidents of bleeding would be consistent with ordinary family usage of a car over a

period of some four years.

H. CONCLUSIONS

If there was any blood present in the car, it was

present in only small quantities in the area of the hinge on the passenger seat and beneath. I conclude that none of Mrs Kuhl's tests established that any such blood was Azaria's. The blood shed by Mr Lenehan could hav e been the source of stains in the area of the hinge of the passenger seat and

beneath.

160.

So far as the PGM grouping tests are concerned, I

conclude not only that the PGM results were highly suspect but also that they did not eliminate Mr Lenehan as a

possible source. If the PGM results were accurate, they

would have been consistent with the blood being that of a large number of people including any other member of the Chamberlain family. However, the detection of PGM activity and the detection of a clear band of haemoglobin on the

haptoglobin plate would not be expected from a de-natured blood stain after 13 months. Thus, if the results are

relied upon, they suggest that any blood in the hinge area was shed after 17 August 1980. Whether this be correct or

not, the presence of a small quantity of blood in this area would not justify the drawing of any inference adverse to the Chamberlains.

161.

CHAPTER 9 BLOOD IN THE TENT

There was no dispute at the trial or before the

Commission that Azari a's blood was found on a number of

i terns which were in the tent when she disappeared. The

subject of dispute was whether the distribution, quantity and appearance of the blood stains indicated, as the Crown contended, that the blood had been transferred to these

items from Mrs Chamberlain's person and/ or clothing or that, as the Chamberlains contended, the blood had dropped from Azaria while she was being taken from the tent by a dingo .

A considerable amount of opinion evidence was given both at

the trial and before the Commission on this question. I n

order to assess this opinion evidence, it is necessary t o summarize the evidence as to the blood identified upon these items and as to further blood which may have been presen t upon such items.

The items stained

Several of the items in the tent were delivered t o Dr Andrew Scott for examination before the end of August

162.

1980. Other persons saw them, but it was he who first

carefully examined and recorded what was detected upon them. He also carried out the necessary tests to establish that

the blood on them was Azaria's.

The blankets in the bassinet

There were two purple blankets which were said by Mrs Chamberlain to have been around Azaria in her bassinet. The larger of the two was found by Dr Scott to have three

blood stains in a row upon it, 3 or 4 em apart, the largest

stain having a diameter of approximately 1 em and the other two having diameters of approximately 2 mm. He described the volume of blood on them as being very small and no more than a few drops. The blood had sunk quite deeply into the

material of the blanket and, in his view, it could have come from blood dropped directly on the surface and smeared just a little, or from contact with another object very well

soaked in blood.

As to the smaller of the blankets, Dr Scott saw a

thin stain on the surface of it which, in his view, was made by a very small amount of blood, no more than half a dozen

drops. It looked like a smear due to contact with a blood

stained item.

Mr Chamberlain's sleeping bag

Dr Scott received three pieces taken from this

sleeping bag in August 1980. On the first of these, there

were three stains, one about 1 em across, and another about 4 mm across. The third was a mere pin prick spot. It would

have taken only a couple of drops of blood to make these

stains. On the second piece, there appeared numerous small

163.

blood stains the largest being about 8 mm across and the

sma l lest being just numerous pin prick spots of less than 1 mm. On the third piece there were three discrete areas o f b l ood stain about 8 mm across. It would have taken up to

three or four drops of blood to make these stains. They

were consistent with being transferred from another blood soa ked item.

In September 1981, Dr Scott received the complet e sleeping bag for the first time and found a couple of

further very small spots of blood. In his view, these

resu lted from a direct application of a couple of smal l

drops of blood.

When asked whether the stains on the sleeping ba g got there by being directly placed on the bag or by being

transferred, by whatever means from a source outside the tent, Dr Scott replied:

"The only thing I think you can say positively is

that there were a considerable number of very

small spots, symmetrical spots of blood, on at

least one of these pieces. Now that sort of

pattern is generally characteristi c of blood which has been a spray of blood, a splash of blood on to

it. For example, if you drop blood on to a

surface from a height it will impact and small

spots will in fact spray off and form these tiny

spots around it. Now those obviously had been

directly transferred. Others, it's more difficult to say. They're not symmetrical stains . They' r e spread around and they're quite thin. Gi v en the nature of the material it's difficult to e xpress an opinion on those particular stains."

This evidence, coming as it does from one of the

Crown's experts , presents a difficulty in the way of

accepting a vital part of the Crown case. If the blood

found in the tent was initially shed in the car (or

elsewhere) and transferred to the tent on Mrs Chamberlain's

164.

hands or clothing, then he r hands must have been dripping with blood or her clothing soaked in blood to such an e x tent that it dropped on to one or more articles in the tent. The

improbability of this having occurred is discussed i n the penultimate paragraph of this chapter.

Reagan Chamberlain's parka

On a green parka usually worn by Reagan Chamberlain

Dr Scott found quite a number of areas of blood. There were thick smears on the right sleeve, the end of the left

sleeve, the right side of the hood and on the right front.

These were not large smears in themselves, but together they covered significant areas of the garment.

The floral mattress

Another item wh ich was apparently in the tent was a foam rubber mattress with a floral patterned cover. When it was inspected by Dr Scott in September 1981 he saw an

area of blood stain about 50 em from one end of the mattress and about 5 em in from one edge which wa s approximately 4 em in diameter but asymmetrical in shape, with a st reak coming out from one side of it. The stain had a very cl e an

outline. Underneath the stain on the cover there was an

amount of blood soaked into the foam mattress. He

considered that the volume of blood required to make such a stain was between less than a millilitre and a couple of

millilitres. In his view, the blood may have dripped on to the mattress directly from a wo und or it may have been

deposited as the result of contact with another object which was so soaked as to be quite dripping with blood .

165 .

All of the blood staining on the items to whi c h I

hav e refe t red was found by Dr Scott to be consistent with

blood from Azaria.

The tent itself

Dr Scott carefully inspected the whole of the tent

a nd tested anything visible. A number of very small spot s

on the fly screen at the front of the tent and on the rea r

wi ndow and one on the edge of the roof of the tent gave

positive reactions to the ortho-tolidine test, bu t t h e

amount was very small and Dr Scott could not c onfirm tha t

t hey were blood. There were two small areas of a v ery fi ne

spray pattern on the outside of the wall of the tent which

was its southern wall as the tent was pitched at Ayers Ro ck.

They were less than 10 em above the ground. Dr Scott found

that these fine sprays were blood, but they did not respond to the usual tests for the identification of human blood.

Dr Scott attempted to ascertain whether there wa s something in the fabric of the tent which interfered with the reactions to his tests by placing a similar smal l amount of blood on to a piece of mater i al from the tent, leav ing i t

for five weeks and then attempting to group it a s h u man

blood. He found that there was no difficulty in doi n g this. He considered that it was possible that it was h u man blood,

since sometimes such tests do not work for no appa r e nt

reason. However, since he would hav e expected to obtai n

reactions identifying the blood as human if it h a d been

such, he concluded that it was highly unlikely t hat it was human blood.

He also found that there were two small spots o n

the rear of the tent wh i ch he thought were on the o u t s i d e,

although he could not be certain. He detected t h e p r esence

166.

of haemoglobin in these spots, indicating that they were blood, but they did not react to tests for human blood.

Subsequently Dr Scott identified a stain o n the tent pole as being blood, but he could not identify its s pecies .

Mrs Chamberlain's sleeping bag

This item was not seen by Dr Scot t until after it

had been cleaned in Mount Isa. He did n o t dete ct any blood

upon it, but this does not seem surpri s ing. El izabeth

Prell gave evidence to the Commission that was n o t gi v en at the trial. She was employed at the Uluru Motel and took

breakfast to the Chamberlains' room at about 7 .30 a.m. on the morning of 18 August 1980. She noticed what appeared to be a blood stain of approximately thre e inches in

diameter towards the foot of a sleeping bag whi c h she saw at the bottom of the bed. She described what she saw as a

"solid blob of blood". She had described this in a

statement made to the police dated 12 September 1980.

At the trial, Mrs Joan Hansell, who had worked at a dry cleaning shop in Mount I sa, gave e v idence that Mr

Chamberlain brought a sleeping bag to her shop for cleaning in August 1980 and told her that it had Azaria's blood on

it. The bag was put through a hot wash and afterwards there was still some sign of the staining. Before the Commission, there was further evidence from Mrs Hansell and another employee at the dry cleaning shop. Jennifer Bell recalled

that, about a week after the Chamberlains arrived back from Ayers Rock, Mr Chamberlain brought an adult's sleeping bag to be cleaned and told her there were some blood stains on

it. She saw spots of blood on the top of the bag. She

recalled that there were about 7 or 8 of them, some a bit

smaller and some possibly a bit larger than a one cent

piece. The edges of the blood spots appeared to be blurred

167.

ra ther than sharp. They appeared to be splashed on to the

bag. Th±s witness had made statements to the police which we re consistent with this evidence in September 1980 and

September 1981.

At the second inquest, Merva Beaman gave evidence o f seeing small spots of blood on this sleeping bag at the

dry cleaning shop. She could not remember the number or

size of the spots but merely recalled them as being

speckled.

There are discrepancies between the descriptions of the blood staining given by Ms Prell and by the dry

cleaners. It is not certain that Ms Prell saw the same

sleeping bag, although the stain seen by her was a good deal larger than any of those identified on Mr Chamberlain's sleeping bag by Dr scott. A possible explanation is that

some staining may have disappeared from Mrs Chamberlain' sleeping bag before it was presented for cleaning. Dr Scott said that the sleeping bags and parkas had non-absorbent sur faces and could well have lost much of the blood staining on them due to physical handling, causing blood to powder off. It seems probable that there were a number of spots

of Azaria's blood on Mrs Chamberlain's sleeping bag and that one of them was a substantial stain approximately three

inches in diameter.

Mrs Chamberlain's running shoes

On the night of 17 August 1980, Mrs Chamberlain was

wearing running shoes. In her record of interv iew on

1 October 1980 and at the trial she said that a few days

after the family had returned to Mount Isa she found what

she thought were blood stains on these shoes. She said

that, the day after Azaria disappeared, she thought the

168.

staining was of blackcurrant juice. However, when looking at them in Mount Isa, she realized there were two different coloured stains, wi th half of the staining looking like

blood and the other half looking like blackcurrant juice. Before the Commission, this evidence was corroborated by Mrs Chamberlain's mother , Mrs Avis Murchison, who said that she washed the running shoes in Mount Isa at Mrs Chamberlain's

request. Mrs Murchison saw what she thought were "smudgy marks of blood " , which came off immediately with water, and other spots on the shoes which she could not remove.When the shoes were examined by Dr Scott in September 1981, he

did not detect any blood on them.

Mrs Chamberlain informed the police about the shoes at a time when no witness, other than her mother, had noted the staining on them. Her statement that there was blood on them might be said to be against her own interest and was in

fact relied upon by the Crown at the trial to support the

allegation that Azar ia's blood had dropped on to the shoes when Azaria was murdered.

In the absence of scientific evidence I cannot be certain that Azari·a's blood was on the running shoes.

However, I see no reason to reject her account of what she

saw and accordingly I conclude that the shoes were probably blood stained. Mrs Chamberlain's explanation of the

staining is that there must have been a pool of blood on

things inside the door of the t ent and that when she crawled into the tent the blood rubbed o f f on to the top side of the

shoes, where she saw it. This explanation receives support from the evidence of Mrs Lowe as to a pool of blood

(discussed below) and new evidence of Ms Prell referred

to earlier in this chapter. It appears that Mrs

Chamberlain could not have been aware of the observations of these two witnesses when she made he r statement on 1 October 1980. In these circumstances, her explanation of the blood

169 .

o n her shoes seems reasonable, and is supported to some

extent by ·other witnesses and I would not reject it in the

abse n ce of other evidence.

Aida n Chamberlain's parka

Mr s Chamberlain gave evidence that she noticed a bl ood stain on the cuff of Aidan's parka at Ayers Rock on

1 8 August 1980 and that after the family returned to Mount I sa, she noticed what she thought were spots of blood on the insi de of this parka. She thought the staining on Aidan's park a was brought to the attention of Constable Morris on

t he morning o f 18 August 1980. Constable Morris recalled a t the first inquest that a child's parka was shown to him

on that morning, that it had what appeared to be blood

s tains on it, and that he agreed with the Chamberlains that they might r etain it so that it could be worn. However, it

i s not clear whether he was shown Aidan's parka or Reagan's. Wh en Aidan's parka was eventually e x amined by Dr Scott, he

di d not dete ct any blood on it.

Although a possible explanation for Dr Scott's

f ai l u r e to detect blood on this parka is that it had been

a bra ded off the garment, some reaction at least to

p r esumpt i ve testing by Dr Scott would hav e been expected.

I am not sati s fied there was blood on Aidan ' s

pa rka .

The v olume of blood

Dr Scott said tha t the v olume of blood required t o

caus e the staining which he saw on the various items was

very dif f icult to estima t e . He could reprodu c e al l of t he

170.

staining with between 2 and 3 mL of blood, but in his view

this was a minimum as inevitably some of the blood on the

items would have rubbed off and been lost in handling. He thought it was quite likely that the volume of blood had

been considerably more than 2 or 3 mL.

Professor Ferris relied upon his experience of stains caused by particular volumes of blood and suggested that the total volume apparent upon items in the tent may have been less than that indicated by Dr Scott. He

demonstrated that, on some materials, a small amount of

blood may produce a reasonably large stain. However,

Professor Ferris did not see most of the stains.

With the qualifications which Dr Scott expressed in relation to his opinion, I accept his evidence as to the

minimum volume being between 2 and 3 mL. To this there

should be added the volume of blood needed to stain Mrs

Chamberlain's sleeping bag and running shoes.

Was the blood dropped directly or transferred from another blood soaked item?

At the trial, it was contended by the Crown that

the blood on the items in the tent was transferred there

from the person or clothing of Mrs Chamberlain, when she returned to the tent after killing the child. A distinction was drawn between the appearance of blood stains produced by transfer of blood from another object and of those produced

by blood dropping directly upon the item. Dr Scott gave

evidence that all of the blood on the i terns in the tent

could have been produced by transfer from blood stained hands or clothing. However, in cross-examination he

qualified this by saying that the blood on the floral

mattress was more likely to have come there directly.

171.

Before the Commission Dr Scott explained in greater de tail what he meant by "transferred" and "direct" blood . He said that "direct flow" blood could have come on t o a n

ob j ec t either directly from a wound or as drips from another blood soaked object. Smeared blood stains could be d i rect flow blood that had been rubbed or smeared while on the item or t hey could be blood transferred by another blood smeared or s oaked object coming in contact with the item. He said

that when looking at stains, basically all one can say is

that a stai n l ooks like something that has dripped directly o n t o the item, or that it is smeared.

It is clear that on the night Azaria disappeared a numbe r of people entered the tent sho r tly after her blood came upon the relevant items. Things were mo v ed around in the tent in the search to ensure that Azaria was not hidden u nder something in the tent. If there were blood drops with defined edges on any of the items it is quite possible that

such activity may h ave caused the drops to have become

smea r ed across the items on which they we r e found. I t

t herefore appears that little of significance can be d r awn f rom the fact, if it be the fact, that some of the stai ns

wer e smeared or may hav e been transferred by contact.

Some of the e v idence of what was seen in the tent

on the night of 17 August is r elevant in this context .

Before the Commission, Constable Morris said that he saw v e r y small spots of blood on a purple blanket and on a

sleeping bag which did not appea r to have been smeared. Mr s Judith West described a "fine spray" of blood which she s aw on the blankets from the bassinet. Mrs Sally Lowe said t hat s he saw drops of blood and an area of blood which appea r e d

wet. She had des c ribed this at the trial as a "pool " o f

a pproximately 6 inches by 4 inc hes. The blood did not

a ppear to her to be smeared.

blood was on.

172 .

She could not say what t he

At the trial, the prosecutor submitted that Mrs

Lowe had imagined the pool of blood, since no one else had

seen it that night and the "pool" she described was larger than the stain subsequently found on the floral mattress. Before the Commission, she said that the size and shape of the pool she saw was consistent with photographs of the

stain on the floral mattress. She could not recall seeing the mattress. Allowing for some variation in dimensions, her description of the pool is not inconsistent with the

description given by Ms Prell of the stain she saw on a

sleeping bag the following morning. Given the lighting

conditions inside the tent, I would not attach much

significance to the fact that other persons did not notice this area of blood staining during that night.

In the light of all the evidence I conclude that it

is more probable than not that many of the stains were

caused by blood dropping directly, either from a wound to Azaria or from another object very heavily soaked in blood. I am unable to conclude from the appearance of the stains

which of these two causes was in fact responsible for the

stains.

The distribution of the blood stains in the tent

No blood was found on the baby's bassinet or on the

mattress, wet sheet, sheet, pillow, pillow case or bunny rug which were in the bassinet. The Crown submits that this was inconsistent with Mrs Chamberlain's account of a dingo taking Azaria out of the bassinet. This submission is

entitled to considerable weight. However, blood stains were found on the two purple blankets which, according to Mrs

Chamberlain, were around Azaria in the bassinet.

The bassinet was in the south eastern corner of the tent. Mrs Chamberlain described the position of the other 173.

i terns in the tent as she had placed them earlier in the

evening O'f 17 August 1980. The adults' sleeping bags

appear to have been in the northern half of the tent, with

the foot of Mrs Chamberlain's bag at the eastern end and the foot of Mr Chamberlain's bag at the western end, near the

entrance to the tent. The precise position of the floral

mattress and the part of it found to be stained is unclea r. The boys' parkas were said to be at the western end near the entrance.

Mrs Lowe said that, when she entered the tent, she saw the blankets from the bassinet in a position "yanked

out" of the bassinet, lying a little to the side, but ou t

towards the entrance to the tent. The drops of blood which she saw gave her the impression that they were heading in

the direction of the entrance. The "pool" of blood she saw was about a third of the way into the tent and more on the

right than on the left. However, it appears that she could only have seen some of the blood stains later detected.

After the contents of the tent were moved on the

night of 17 August, it became impossible to determine the precise positions in which the various i terns lay before

Azaria disappeared, or to determine precisely where, in the t ent, blood was deposited. Since those i terns v irtually

covered the floor of the tent, it does not seem surpris ing

that no blood was found on that floor. However, from t he

evidence to which I have referred, it appears that the re

were numerous blood stains, some being spots of a reasonabl e size but most of them being quite small, upon various items which lay in the tent, generally speaking , between the

baby's bassinet and the entrance to the tent. Whether or

not those stains formed any sort of trail from the bassinet to the entrance has not been shown.

1 74.

Comparison with the blood on the clothi ng

At the trial Dr Jones and Profe s so r Cameron gav e

evidence that the absence of blood in the baby's bassinet and the absence of a clear trail of blood through the tent

was inconsistent with a dingo inflicting the wound which caused the blood on the jumpsuit or gripping the baby ' s neck or head. They said that such dingo activ ity would have

caused copious bleeding, such as to g i ve r ise to much more

blood in the tent. This would have been particularly the

case if a dingo had shaken its head wi t h the baby in its

mouth. It was submitted by the Crown that this indicated

not merely that Azaria was not killed in the tent but also that a dingo was not involved.

That submission may well have had a good deal of

force when supported by expert evidence to the effect t h at the bleeding which caused the blood staining o n the jumpsuit occurred before Azaria's death. It would hav e derived more support from an assumption that, for a dingo to have removed Azaria from the tent silently (at least after the cry that

was allegedly heard by Mrs Lowe) it would have been

necessary that she be killed in the tent.

Before the Commission, it was acc:;epted by the

various expert witnesses that more blood would have been expected in the tent if all of the bleeding giving rise to

the staining on the clothing had occurred there. However, as concluded in Chapter 10, staining of the clothes

it has not been shown that the

occurred before Azaria died.

Further, since Azaria's failure to cry out (at least after the cry that Mrs Lowe said she heard) would be explicable by either death or unconsciousness, it is necessary to consider other possibilities before corning to any conclusion about the alleged inconsistency between the quantity of blood in

the tent and dingo involvement.

175.

Whether the small quantity of blood in the tent was inconsistent with dingo involvement

Evidence was given to the Commission by a number of persons experienced in the behaviour of dingoes. Dr

Laurence Corbett, senior research sc i entist with the CSIRO, said that making the assumption that a dingo killed the baby in the tent, he would expect there to be blood there .

Depending upon the mode of attack, there could be a lot of

blood spilt. However, it could be a small amount of blood. In his experience, dingoes may kill small prey by breaking the neck or by crushing the chest or head. Grasping around the back of the neck may have the effect of asphyxiation as well as, perhaps, breaking the neck. Each of these methods of killing prey may shed little blood. Dr Corbett also

spoke of the ability of dingoes to carry things, such as

their pups, in their jaws without causing injury.

Dr Alan Newsome, senior principal research

scientist with the CSIRO referred to a study done of a large number of kangaroos killed in the Sturt National Park by

dingoes where it was observed that, unless the dingo had eaten the kangaroo, there was usually no visible sign of

injury, but occasionally the fur at the throat was slightly blood tinged. It was also Dr Newsome's own experience that dingoes frequently killed wallabies by crushing the upper part of the rib cage or by a single bite puncturing the

cranium with very little bleeding apparent externally. Mr P.C. Thomson of the Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia described similar results of work analysing the killing by dingoes of kangaroos, sheep and rabbits. Mr

Derek Roff, who had extensive experience in relation to dingoes and other predators, considered that a normal method of killing by dingoes was suffocation, by pressure applied to the throat or, in small prey, to the diaphragm. He had

no difficulty in accepting that the taking of a small baby

176.

by a dingo could be associated with the spillage of only a

very small amount of blood.

Views were expressed on t his question by

pathologists. At the t r ial , Professo r Camer o n said that , if a dingo closed its teeth on a baby's head ( assumi ng it could

open its jaws so wide) he would expect seve re crushing with marked bleeding from arteries and veins. Howev er, he

conceded that, if the gripping with the teeth was of a

carrying nature, the bleeding need not necessarily be

excessive. Before the Commission, Pro f essor Fe r ris said that there may well be circumstances in which a dingo could take a child as prey and leav e very little evidence in the

form of blood. He thought it would be difficul t for a canid

to cause rapid death by shaking a baby in its mouth but he

agreed that there were a number of possible ways of killing an infant without loss of blood. In Dr Plueckha hn's view, a dingo grabbing the head or neck of an infant and shaking it could cause death by compression of the spinal cord without

necessarily breaking the neck. He also referred to

traumatic asphyxia as a consequence of a crushing of the

thorax or neck which, as he understood it, would be a method similar to that used by dingoes in killing small kangaroos. He could not see that there would necessarily be any blood

in the tent if a dingo had taken Azaria and .he would have

been surprised, assuming it had been done suddenly, if there were large quantities of blood in the tent.

Professor Bradley considered that, if the teeth of a dingo were placed around the neck of a baby, the teeth

could penetrate and compress the vertebral arteries. If this happened, the child would lose consciousness within a very brief time. If the pressure were maintained, there

would be very little bleeding because the wounds would be plugged by the teeth. He said that if the grip were

maintained while the child was carried away, there might not

177.

be much blood at all. Professor Ferris considered it was

unlikely ihat the teeth of a dingo could occlude wounds to the scalp so that no significant bleeding would occur. In his view, the gripping and dragging components of such an injury would be likely to result in significant

haemorrhaging. On this question, Professor Plueckhahn considered that the teeth of a dingo could occlude wounds and the gums and lips of the dingo could further prevent the dispersion of blood in the tent, so that one would not

necessarily expect large volumes of blood to be found there .

Dr William Rose, an experienced physician and

pathologist, said that the application of pointed objects such as an animal's teeth to the skull of a baby of Azaria's age could cause a significant depression of the skull

without there being any bleeding on the surface of the skin. He said such a depression of the skull could cause

unconsciousness without killing the baby.

Opinions on this matter were also expressed by

odontologists. Professor Gosta Gustafson, Emeritus

Professor in Oral Pathology at the University of Lund,

Sweden, said that when a dog picks up an object with a

grasping motion, the object is not necessarily damaged, as dogs are very ecoriomical in their grasping and do not expend any more energy than is necessary. Further, in h1s opinion extensive bleeding would not necessarily result from canine teeth penetrating the skin of a baby. The canine teeth can compress the flesh and, if there is no movement, occlude the wound something like a cork in a bottle. Professor Ronald

Fearnhead, presently Professor of Dental Anatomy at Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine in Japan, gave similar evidence and referred to the capacity of any dog to be

gentle with its teeth when gripping objects. On flesh, only a bruise may be caused and the flesh not penetrated.

178.

It is plain that an attack by a dingo upon the

exposed head and neck of a baby might well cause the

shedding of copious amounts of blood. However, from the

evidence referred to above I would conclude that a dingo

would be capable of killing a baby or rendering it

unconscious and carrying it away without the spillage of large amounts of blood. I therefore conclude that the

quantity of blood found in the tent is not inconsistent with dingo involvement.

The Crown relied upon Mrs Chamberlain's e vi dence of seeing a dingo shaking its head while it was inside the tent with its head at the entrance. It submitted that, if a

dingo had shaken its head while Azaria's head or neck was in its jaws, then a substantial spray of blood would have been thrown upon the articles lying close to the entrance of the tent. This submission was supported by e vi dence from

pathologists who considered that there would have been such a spray of blood from lacerations to the head or neck.

However, the evidence before me establishes that it would have been quite possible for Azaria to have been removed from the tent by a dingo without her head or neck being in

its jaws. The evidence supports the view that a dingo would have been capable of causing death or unconsciousness in one of the ways referred to above and then grasping her around the body, where she would have been protected by her

clothing. A second possibility which is well open on the e vidence is that, if a dingo took the child, some blood

could have been shed in the tent and could have fallen on

several articles in it as a consequence of the dingo's

shaking its head. Counsel for the Chamberlains raised a

third possibility that two dingoes may have entered the tent and that the one seen by Mrs Chamberlain was not the one who carried away Azaria . report.

This is discussed elsewhere in this

179.

Comparison with the quantity of blood in the car

At the trial, the prosecution invited a comparison between the quantity of blood found in the tent and that

found in the car. The jury were asked to consider which

was more likely, a dingo crushing Azaria's skull in the

bassinet, where, so it was contended, there was no blood, or Mrs Chamberlain cutting her throat in the car, where plenty of blood was found. Having regard to the conclusions drawn in Chapter 8, such a submission could hardly have been put

to the jury. Although the estimates of the volumes of blood in each location have been expressed only tentatively, and I cannot come to any firm conclusion about them, it may very well be the case that the quantity of Azaria's blood found

on items in the tent exceeded any quantity of blood in the

car.

General

It was the Crown case that Azaria was killed in the car. It seems

carried Azaria's absurd to suggest that

bleeding body from the Mrs Chamberlain car back to the

tent, where she would have been under Aidan's observation. The presence of Azaria's blood in the tent, unless it be

shown to have been transferred there upon Mrs Chamberlain's person or clothing, is inconsistent with the Crown case.

I have concluded earlier in this chapter that many of the stains found on articles in the tent were probably

caused by blood dropping directly either from a wound or from a blood soaked object. As I have said in that

paragraph I am unable to conclude from the appearance of the stains which of these two sources of the blood stains is the more likely. However, the proposition that all the blood stains found in the tent came from the blood stained hands

180.

or blood soaked clothing of Mrs Chamberlain has inherent improbabilities. According to Dr Jones and Dr Scott for

this to have happened it would have been necessary that her hands or clothing be literally dripping or soaked with

blood. There is n o evidence supporting the existence of

any clothing or article blood-soaked in this way. Had such a quantity of blood b een on Mrs Chamberlain's hands, there

are difficulties in explaining how it would not also have been upon her clothing in large and visible quanti ties,

given the short time she had to clean-up before her return to the tent and barbecue area. Further, it seems inherently improbable that she would have run the risk of Aidan seeing her hands dripping with blood. The allegation that she

returned to the tent in blood-soaked clothing or with

blood stained hands does not s it easily with the Crown's

allegation that she cleaned up the blood in the car after

the murder.

It has not been shown by the Crown that the blood

in the tent was transfe rred there from the clothing or

person of Mrs Chamberlain. On the contrary, the evidence points to this being an unl ikely occurrence. Having regard to the evidence concerning the capabilities of dingoes

referred to elsewhere in this report, I conclude that the

blood found in the tent was as consistent with dingo

involvement as it was with the murder of the child in the

car.

181.

CHAPTER 10 STAINING ON AZARIA'S CLOTHING

Description of staining

When the clothing was found on 24 August 1980, the

jumpsuit was stained with blood around the collar and neck. At the front the blood staining extended down to just below the first press-stud on both the right and left hand sides. There was what appeared to be a run of blood down the front

of the left shoulder. There was staining across the back of the neck extending down the back of the right shoulder. The heaviest staining was on the collar at the back of the neck. There were spotted blood stains on the front of the left

mitt, and on both the front and back of the right mitt.

There were other spots of apparent blood staining sparsely distributed. Most of the garment was quite dirty, being

soiled with minute particulate sandy material. This

material had a brownish red colour very similar to blood. An appreciation of the staining on the jumpsuit can be

gained from the photographs which are reproduced and

identified as "Jumpsuit- front view (Taken 1986)" and

182.

Jumpsuit front view (taken 1986).

183.

Jumpsuit - rear view (taken 1986)

184.

.......

'0 Ul g. I

::r 0

::s

- < ro· :!i - CD ::s ...... c.o CXJ N '::--' I-' 00 lJ1

"Jumpsuit . - rear view (Taken 1986)" and "Jumpsuit - front view (Taken 1982)". The lastmentioned photograph may give a clearer impression of the staining on the front of the

jumpsuit at the time of the trial.

Azaria's clothing was first forensically examined by Dr Andrew Scott who found that the blood staining upon it was of a group and contained a proportion of foetal

haemoglobin consistent with Azaria's blood. have never been questioned. His findings

When the matinee jacket was found on 2 February

1986, it was extremely weathered and soil stained. The

heaviest staining was around the neck and shoulders on the exterior of the jacket. When tested this area produced weak positive ortho-tolidine results. Weak positive Kast1e-Meye r screening results were also obtained on the exterior of the upper right shoulder and the neck region. However,

immune-chemical and haemochromagen tests did not produce any result and, accordingly, the presence of blood on the jacket could not be confirmed. The disposition of the heaviest

staining on the jacket is generally consistent with the area of blood staining on the jumpsuit. The presence of blood

spots on the mitts of the jumpsuit coupled with the very

limited staining on the arms indicates that the sleeves but not the mitts were covered at the time of the bleeding.

This is consistent with the matinee jacket being worn,

leaving the mitts exposed, when the blood was shed.

Since the first inquest, it has been accepted that the quantity of blood on the jumpsuit and singlet indicated that Azaria had died. At the trial, experts expressed

opinions as to the cause and manner of Azaria's death based on the distribution and apparent flow pattern of the blood staining upon the clothing. Before the Commission, a good

186.

deal of opinion evidence was given in relation to

this and other questions. I now consider these questions.

Where were the injuries on Azaria's body?

It was common ground between the forensic

pathologists and biologists who expressed views on this matter that most of the blood staining on the jump suit

originated from the outside of the fabric, that the majority of the blood staining to the back of the collar was

consistent with the baby's body having been supine for a period while her blood was shed and that the blood staining on the left shoulder was consistent with the torso of the

baby being in an upright position while the blood flowed. It was therefore accepted that most of the blood staining originated from injury to the neck or head of the baby, with the blood flowing down the outside of the collar and neck

area and soaking through to the singlet beneath.

At the trial, Professor James Cameron expressed the firm view that the pattern of blood staining on the jumpsuit was consistent only with a cut throat, although an

additional head or scalp injury was possible. Dr Jones also considered that an injury to the neck region was indicated. This view was supported by the results of experiments with dolls and jumpsuits carried out in 1982 by Dr Graeme

Snodgrass, consultant pediatrician at London Hospital, in which he found that the best replication of Azaria's blood stained jumpsuit was produced by simulated venous bleeding from the neck in a supine position. However, he also

concluded that to produce an evenly blood stained collar the cutting of the neck need not necessarily have been

circumferential, because blood would have been absorbed through the fabric. Dr Snodgrass was not called at the

187.

trial or, before me, but his report was tendered to the

Commission.

Both at the trial and before me, opinions were

expressed that the head and/or back of the neck was the site of the injury. According to Dr Andrew Scott all he could

say was that the blood carne from the head and neck area.

Professor Keith Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Anatomy at the University of Melbourne and a practising neuro-surgeon for nearly 40 years, said that a circumferential pattern of bleeding around the neck could be caused if the back of the neck of a person lying face down is punctured. Professor

Plueckhahn said that the pattern was not such as to enable a conclusion to be drawn that the injury was to the neck or

throat but that, if he was forced to engage in speculation, he would conclude that an injury to the head area or higher up the neck than around the throat was more likely.

Professor James Ferris of the University of British Columbia considered that the exact nature and location of the wounds which were the source of the blood staining could not be precisely determined but that the pattern of staining was consistent with a major incised wound to the neck and would not be typically associated with scalp or facial

injuries. He favoured the suggestion of an injury to the

throat, but this was not his firm conclusion.

These opinions were expressed by men with a great deal of experience in investigating causes of death and in examining the bodies of persons who have died violently. Nevertheless, their task was a most unusual one - namely,

the interpretation of the cause of blood staining on

clothing, in the absence of the body from which the blood

flowed. Professor Cameron, a pathologist of great

experience in London, could only suggest one other occasion on which he had been asked to express an opinion about the

188.

cause of staining on clothing in the absence of a body, and this was in r espect of the Shroud of Turin. I do not

understand that any of the other pathologists had been

called upon to express views in a similar context. The

question is one which lies on the boundary of the field of

expertise of the forensic pathologist. While e x perience in that field may provide some assistance in the interpretation of such blood staining, I do not consider that , in relation to this question and others referred to below, it provides the basis for firm conclusions . For this reason, and in

view of the diversity of opinion, I a m unable to conclude

whether the blood staining on Azaria's clothing originated from injury to her head, neck or both.

Did bleeding which caused the blood staining occur before or after Azaria's death?

At the trial, Professor Cameron expressed the firm view that the distribution of blood on the jumpsuit

necessarily involved the baby being alive at the time of bleeding. He considered that it was primarily venous

bleeding, although there was an element of arterial

bleeding. Since the amount of blood on the clothing was

suff i cient to indicate that Azaria had died, his evidence was a sufficient foundation for a c onclusion that it was the injury producing the blood staining that kil l ed Azaria.

At the trial, Professor Plueckhahn disagreed with this opinion. He e xpressed the view that, since

considerable oozing of blood can occur after death, it could not be said whether the bleeding took place before or after death.

There was a great deal of further evidence before the Commission upon this question. Professo r Plueckhahn

189 .

maintained his view that the bleeding could have occurred initially while Azaria was still alive and immediately afterwards, or within a period of some hours after she died. Professor Nairn, Dr Jones and Mr Raymond considered that the pattern was consistent with either ante-mortem or

post-mortem bleeding. Professor Cameron was less dogmatic in his opinion saying that the bleeding took place at or

about the time of death, and that he saw nothing to indicate arterial bleeding.

Professor Ferris favoured the view that the

bleeding was post-mortem. According to him the signs

characteristic of venous and arterial bleeding could not be seen and there were other characteristics of the bleeding which were more typical of blood dropping from an

accumulated area of blood. The blood spots on the mitts of the jumpsuit indicted passive bleeding from an accumulated area of blood and were the type of droplets that one would

see when arterial or venous bleeding had not taken place, or had stopped taking place. He took the position that there was no evidence to indicate that the bleeding occurred prior to death and that, on balance, there were certain

characteristics which suggested post-mortem bleeding. This view was given some support by the report of Dr Snodgrass following his experiments in 1982. He suggested as a

possibility a wound to the neck shortly after death, which would explain the absence of arterial bleeding, and the

presence of what he saw as venous oozing.

While Professor Ferris' opinion would tend to

support a conclusion that some of the blood on the clothing was shed after death, I do not consider the evidence would justify a conclusion that all of it had been. On the

evidence, it is impossible to conclude with certainty

whether or not the bleeding took place before or after the time of death. In this situation, as Professor Ferris

190.

pointed the e vi denc e d o es not indicate what the cause

of death was o r how t he b aby died. Professor Ferris gave

evidence to the Commission at the request of the Crown.

It should be noted that if Professor Ferris'

preferred view we r e a dopted the most serious d i fficulties would arise fo r t he Crown case. His view would make

impossible of acceptance the pivotal point in the Crown case put to the jury based on Professor Cameron's evidence,

namely that Azaria died when her throat was cut with a sharp instrument.

At the trial and before the Commission a great deal of evidence was gi v e n by the pathologists as to the way in

which part i cular i n j uri e s to the head or neck of the baby

may have r esulted in d e ath, the time taken for death to

occur and the type of b leeding which would be caused. Some of this evidence has been referred to in relation to

questions concerni ng the blood found in the tent, and it

would not serve any us e ful purpose to further canvass this evidence here . It doe s not appear to assist in drawing any

firm conclusion from the patte rn of blood staining.

What caused the i nj ury wh ich produced the bleeding - blade or canine teeth?

(a) Professor Came ron's evidenc e

At the tr i a l, Professor Came ron said t hat what he

saw on the clothi n g indicat e d t h a t the baby's throat had

been cut by a cutti n g i nst r u ment wie l ded by a h um an hand .

Without any obje c t i on to h is qual i fi cati o n to expres s such

an opinion , P r ofesso r Came r on to l d t h e jury tha t h e could

see no ev i de n ce on the baby 's c l othing to sugges t that any

member of t he canine family h a d bee n invo l ved wi t h it.

191.

Professor Cameron's statement of 11 September 1981, which apparently precipitated the re-opening of the

investigation and the quashing of the finding at the first inquest, reveals his reasons for these conclusions. He

relied upon Dr Andrew Scott's failure to detect the presence of dingo saliva as establishing that there was no saliva on the clothing. That this was not a proper inference to draw is pointed out elsewhere in this report. He also relied

upon an absence of tearing damage to the clothing associated with bleeding and an absence of grip or drag marks which he would have expected if a member of the canine family was

involved. In this statement, Professor Cameron said:

"From past experience of assaults by members of the canine family on human victims (both victims that were assaulted by one or more dogs or assaults or alleged assaults on humans by police dogs of the alsation variety) I did not require experimental evidence."

It appeared that his experience was of a number of dog or

suspected dog attacks on humans, the number being in double figures. He had no experience of the way in which a dingo

or other wild animal would treat a clothed baby as prey and, except for his efforts with the Shroud of Turin, he had no

experience in ascertaining the cause of death where only blood stained clothing of the deceased is available.

It is doubtful whether Professor Cameron would have been permitted to give this evidence at the trial, had

objection been taken. In the light of the consideration of the damage to the clothing in Chapter 11, particularly the results of experimental work with dingoes, it is clear that Professor Cameron was not justified in holding the opinion that he did not require experimental evidence.

192.

Professor Cameron's statement shows that he

proceeded upon as s umptions that the clothes were found in a neat bundle , that only the top two press studs of the

j umpsuit we re undone and that the nappy had been pulled off

intact. The s e assumptions were incorrect and, no doubt, influenced Professor Cameron in arriving at his opinion.

In the opinions of other witnesses, there were

indication s from the staining on the jumpsuit that there had not been a deliberate cut to the baby's throat with a blade, with t he intent i o n of causing death. They said that had

such a wound been inflicted, there would have been arterial spurting o f blood from the throat or, at least , a heavy flow

of v enous b l eedi ng which would have manifested itself by heavy staining d own the front of the jumpsuit . This was not apparent, t h e r e b e ing far less evidence of bleeding at the

front than at the b ack of the suit. Professor Plueckhahn

emphasized t hese c onsiderations. Dr Andrew Scott expressed a similar vi e w . Professor Ferris favoured the view that the

bleeding was post-mortem. He said that if the wound which caused the death was a knife wound intended to kill the

child, he wo u l d expect evidence on the clothing of active bleed i ng, a n d t his was not appar e nt. These views conform

with what can be se e n on the jumpsuit and the photographs of it.

I conclude that the pattern of blood staining does

not support the c ontent i on that the re a cutting of the

throat with a bl a d e done with a n i n tent to kill the c hild.

This is not to s ay that t h e pattern of blood staining is

inconsistent with a mor e t e ntative c ut t o the t hroat or

neck, whether done by b lade or o ther means.

(b) The abse n c e of tissue o the r t han bl ood

An a p proach suggested by Professo r Fe rris in

determining whe ther the wounds to the baby were c aused b y a

193 .

blade or by canine teeth was examination of the clothing for the presence of human tissue, hair, bone, mucus and other pieces of the body apart from blood. In his experience of

animals, including canines biting humans, the injuries tend to be messy and tissue, particularly small globules of fat, tends to spread around the wound and on the fabric or

clothing nearby. In the absence of evidence of such other tissue he thought there was no indication that a dingo

killed Azaria . He accepted that the force of this view was limited, since he had no experience of a member of the

canine family treating a baby as prey and he had no

precedent to guide him.

Professor Ferris assumed that tissue other than blood was absent. There appear to be a number of reasons

for doubting the validity of this assumption. First, if a dingo killed Azaria it is possible that any remaining tissue was removed by licking . Professor Ferris did not know

whether that would have left some secondary evidence of the dingo's licking. Secondly, if there were small pieces of tissue, such as globules of fat, remaining on the jumpsuit when it was left by a dingo, they may not have remained upon

it. It is likely that the clothing was exposed to the

weather for nearly a week before it was discovered and there is evidence that it may have rained in the area over that

period. It is impossible to say whether native animals in the area, birds, or insects might have removed tissue of

that sort. After the clothing was discovered, it was

handled by police officers. After handling, packaging and re-packaging, it was forwarded to Dr Andrew Scott in

Adelaide. The initial packaging of the jumpsuit was not

preserved and any tissue which had not adhered to the

clothing might have been lost.

When the clothing was examined by Dr Scott, he

found no tissue, blood or bones inside the jumpsuit. His

194.

visual examination of the clothing included an examination through a low powered stereo-microscope at a magnification which would have enabled him to recognize any item of tissue or bone down to a size of approximately 2 mm. The clothing was covered with particulate sandy material. Dr Scott said

that pieces of tissue or bone smaller than 2 mm could not

have been distinguished from other matter.

Further, if the assumption is made that the matinee jacket was on the baby when the blood was shed, as appears

to have been the case, there is the possibility that tissue from the baby might have been deposited on the jacket while the blood flowed through it and on to the jumpsuit. Of

course, by the time the jacket was discovered in February 1986, it is most unlikely that any tissue would have been

present or detectable. Professor Ferris agreed that the bulk of the jumpsuit would have been so protected by the

jacket, but thought that the collar would have been exposed. However, the matinee jacket was fastened with two buttons, including one at the throat. Although it may have been

fastened with the collar of the jumpsuit left unfolded above it or folded down over the top of the jacket, the jacket may have been fastened over the folded down collar of the

jumpsuit. In that case, little of the jumpsuit may have

been exposed to the spread of other tissue from the baby's body while the jacket was over it.

The absence of the finding of other tissue on the

clothing did not indicate to Professor Plueckhahn that a dingo was not involved. He regarded the question of how

much other tissue would be spread around as being highly speculative. He thought that if a dingo had done very

serious injury to the child's face and head with the

clothing still on the body, one might expect to find

fragments of tissue and bone there. However, he said that the volume of blood on the clothing could have been shed

195.

with less serious injury, where there would be very little other tissue, perhaps just a few fat globules. He said that such tissue if left in the sun will dry out and could easily have been knocked off the clothing.

It appears from this evidence that there may have been small pieces of tissue upon the clothing at some stage and that they were lost or unable to be detected by the

methods of inspection adopted in 1980. Further, if it be

assumed that a dingo inflicted only such wounds above the shoulders as would immobilize the baby, carried her off and removed her from the clothing before further attacking the body, then the failure to find other pieces of tissue upon the clothing would not seem surprising. Accordingly, while that failure gives no support for dingo involvement, I

conclude that it is not necessarily inconsistent with such involvement.

A related matter relied upon by the Crown at the

trial was that no blood or tissue was found near the damaged area of the left sleeve of the jumpsuit. It was suggested

that these would have been expected to be present if the

damage had been caused by the bite of a dingo while the baby was wearing the jumpsuit. Dr Pelton and Messrs Chapman and Smith gave evidence to the Commission of close microscopic examination of the surrounds of the damage to this sleeve. They discerned a distinct stain mark on both the exterior and the interior surfaces of the fabric, apparently from a biological fluid. The nature and origin of this stain

remain unknown, and its significance may be slight. However it would seem to be more consistent with canine damage than a human attempt to simulate canine damage after removal of the baby's body.

196.

Did the damage to the clothing occur before or after the blood was shed upon it?

The evidence in relation to this question

concentrated upon the V-cut on the right side of the

jumpsuit collar. The damage to the left arm of the jumpsuit and the other holes were not thought by the expert witnesses to afford any assistance in answering the question.

The heaviest staining on the collar was at the back of the neck. It stopped short of the V-cut. With the

collar folded down, on its underside there was a small area of quite clean material lying between a part of the heaviest staining and the cut . The general surrounds of the cut were otherwise more lightly stained.

At the trial, Dr Andrew Scott was asked whether the blood was still wet when that damage occurred. He said that it was difficult to say with certainty but, considering the way the edge of the cut had been affected, he thought it

more likely that the cut was made when the blood was dry.

This evidence was seen as having significance in supporting the Crown contention that the damage had been inflicted by human hand after Azaria was killed in an attempt to simulate dingo damage.

At the trial, Professor Plueckhahn expressed a contrary opinion. He said that, upon examination of the

collar damage under a microscope he found two ends of fibres upon which there was congealed blood. He therefore

concluded that, for the congealing of the blood to have

occurred there, it arrived on the fibres during the life or within a few hours of the death of the baby.

Dr Scott amplified his reasons for the view he

expressed at the trial. He said that if a stain dries

197.

around a torn edge it tends to have a slightly darker and

fairly pronounced edge to the stain, since the edge areas dry more quickly and a little more of the blood from the wet areas diffuses into the area on the edge. That was one

indicator which, although it is not always seen, was not

apparent on the jumpsuit. Further, if blood has flowed over material and dried before cutting, one finds fibres which are coated on the outside but still clean in the middle. If

the blood is wet when the material is cut, the blood can run over the end of the fibres and this may be apparent. In the

collar damage, Dr Scott noticed some fibres which had a

clean centre. This was consistent with it being torn when dry. While he could not be absolutely certain, he saw

nothing to indicate that it was wet when torn.

Mr Raymond expressed a different view. He thought

that, while the first consideration relied on by Dr Scott is a satisfactory indicator for other material, it was not

applicable to the jumpsuit because of the nature of the

towelling material of which it was made, with little loops of cotton on both sides of the cut. He agreed that the

fibres themselves in the cut appeared to be very clean .

However, he saw a point on the collar at which the heavy

staining of blood appeared to have ceased, just before the cut, and he believed it was probable that the cut had

interfered with the flow of blood through the fabric. He

therefore thought it more likely that the cut occurred

before or during the period while the blood was wet.

Sergeant Cocks shared Dr Scott's view. He

considered that the small unstained area on the underside of the collar near the cut would have been stained if the

clothing had been cut while the blood was still wet. He

inferred that the blood had dried and that the baby had been removed from the clothing before the cut was made to the

collar.

198.

I have some difficulty in accepting that the

presence of the small unstained area on the underside of the collar is consistent only with the blood drying before

cutting. Without the cut, one would expect the blood to be absorbed through the fabric in a regular fashion, subject to the effects of folding and the change in direction of the

fabric around the neck. The small unstained area appears to interrupt that regular pattern and its proximity to the cut seems to me to suggest, if only very tentatively, some

connection between the two.

If Professor Plueckhahn's evidence is accepted, it would establish that the blood was wet after the collar

damage. However, it is odd that the congealed blood on the fibre ends was not seen by Dr Andrew Scott or by Mr Raymond although, in the case of Mr Raymond, the blood might have

been dislodged from the fibres in the intervening years.

Having regard to the diversity of opinion, I

consider that the indications observed on the jumpsuit are inconclusive. I am unable to conclude whether the damage occurred before, during or after the bleeding.

Were there human hand prints in blood on the jumpsuit?

In addition to the blood staining on the jumpsuit there was some diffuse staining lower down on the chest and on the back. In September 1981, Professor Cameron arranged for Mr Raymond Ruddick, a medical photographer at London Hospital Medical College, to take photographs of the

jumpsuit using ultra-violet photography. Such photographs are used in medical photography to distinguish one type of stain from another and to delineate the edges of stains, by means of the differing levels of fluorescence of stained and unstained material under ultra-violet light. Professor

199.

Cameron told the jury that, upon examination of the jumpsuit and Mr Ruddick's photographs, he saw patterns in these areas of diffuse staining which he described as impressions of the blood stained hands of a small adult. On the left side of

the chest of the jumpsuit, he saw marks which suggested

thumb prints, and on the left back, over the shoulder blade area, he saw marks which gave the impression to him of the

heel of a hand with four extended fingers. He described a

mark which suggested the thumb print of the left hand in

front of the right shoulder of the jumpsuit, with marks

going down vertically on the back of the right shoulder

which, he suggested, were the impression of the fingers of the left hand. Professor Cameron made it clear that he was speaking of staining in blood, and that the prints would be consistent with the imprints of hands when blood was wet on them. At the trial, Dr Plueckhahn strongly disagreed that any impression of a human hand could be seen on the

jumpsuit. No other witness saw the hand imprints and they were not visible to the members of the High Court when the

appeal was heard. However, Professor Cameron had said in evidence at the trial that the blood on the jumpsuit had

faded since he first examined it a year before.

Mr Raymond's work has demonstrated that although a

little of the material making up the stains to which

Professor Cameron referred is blood, most of it is sand.

Professor Cameron's evidence was therefore given on the basis of an erroneous assumption. He apparently depended upon Mr Ruddick's photographs and the results of Dr Andrew Scott's testing, as he understood them. It was unsatis­

factory that his opinion was placed before the jury with the weight of his great experience behind it, without adequate verification of the assumption on which it was based.

The only other expert who was prepared to give even the faintest support for Professor Cameron's opinion was

200.

Professor Fer ri s. He s ai d that the stains might convey an

impression of f i n ge rs t o s ome observers but he thought it

was not r easonable to conclude that they were, in fact,

i mpression ma rks o f fi ngers. He said it was possible for

folding or wrinkl ing and s ubsequent contact with a stained surface to p r oduce similar linear marks. None of the other experts was able to d e tect any impression of hand or finger prints in t he sta i ni n g on the jumpsuit. These experts

included Dr s Scott and Jones , Professors Bradley and Nairn and Mr Raymond. Profes s or Nairn examined the jumpsuit and the photographs ta k en by Mr Ruddick using special goggles so that they mi ght b e inte r p reted more accurately. He could

not define any pattern o n the clothing that indicated that any particular ob j e c t h ad ever come against it. Upon my

examination of t h e p hotog raphs and the jumpsuit itself, I could not d iscern any s uch pat t ern.

I there f o r e conclude t hat there were no detectable

prints of hands o r f ingers, whether in blood or any other

material, upon the clothing .

Conclusion

The sta i ning o n the clothing is also relevant to

the question wh e t h er i t was bu ri ed. This is considered in

Chapter 12.

The answe r s to t h e questions posed above are to a

large extent inconclusi v e . Th e sta i n ing on the clo t hing,

when considered on i ts own , d o es not provide any positive

support for dingo inv olvemen t . Ho wever , i n contrast with

the position at t h e trial the staining, considered on its

own, provides no positi v e s u ppo rt for the allegation of

murder .

2 01.

CHAPTER 11 THE DAMAGE TO AZARIA'S CLOTHING

Introduction

The Crown sought to establish at the trial that Mr or Mrs Chamberlain cut Azaria's clothing so as to imi t ate dingo damage and thereby give credence to the i r story that a dingo had taken her. Two quite separate questions arose

for consideration on this part of the Crown case. Th e

f i rst was whether the damage to the clothing was caused by human activity or by dingo teeth. The second was, assuming the damage was caused by human activity, were t he

Chamberlains responsible for it?

There was no direct evidence at the trial that the Chamberlains were responsible for the damage to the cloth i n g or for it being placed where it was found. However, the

Crown contended that having regard to all the evidence and to the circumstance that no one other than the Chamberlains had any motive to damage the clothing, it could be safely

inferred that i t was they who damaged it and placed it whe re it was found.

202.

As. stated in Chapter 4, the clothing was found

seven days after Azaria's disappearance about 4 or 5 kms from the camping area at a location about 200 metres off the road on the south-west side of the Rock. There was a dingo

den about 30 metres to the west. There were dingo tracks in the vicinity of the den. The place where the clothing was

found was about 40 metres from a walking track around the

base of the Rock. This track was frequented by tourists.

The dingo den was concealed under a large rock and the

entrance was far too narrow for human penetration.

The disposition and appearance of the clothing when it was discovered is also described in Chapter 4.

The main damage to the jumpsuit consisted of a

roughly circular severance in the left sleeve measuring a few centimetres across with the circular piece missing, and a V cut on the right collar. There was a similar cut in

approximately the same position on the right collar of the matinee jacket.

The v cut on the right collar of the jumpsuit was

described by Dr in the following terms:

"The damage essentially consists of a cut, approx­ imately 20 mm long, through the hem and both

layers of the material constituting the collar. At an angle of approximately 105° to the long cut just described, there is a shorter cut of about

15 mm in the top layer of material only, which

terminates at the hem . There is a slit through

both layers of material in line with the shorter cut. The slit is about 6 mm long in the lower,

otherwise uncut layer leaving about 9 mm uncut. At the junction of the short cut and the long cut

there are several unbroken threads which connect the edges of the material. There is a very good

fit if the collar pieces are held together and

there does not appear to be any material missing. The short single cut is remarkably straight and clean."

203.

Some appreciation of the damage to the jumpsuit and

matinee jacket may be gained by reference to the photographs which are reproduced and identified as "Damage to collar of jumpsuit", "Damage to left sleeve of jumpsuit" and "Damage to collar of matinee jacket".

The finding of the matinee jacket

1986.

Azaria' s matinee jacket was found on 2 February

It was found 150 metres west of where the other

clothing was found on 24 August 1980. It is not in dispute

that the jacket, which Mrs Chamberlain had always maintained was on the child when she disappeared, is genuine. The

matinee jacket corresponds with a detailed description of it given by Mrs Chamberlain when the baby disappeared. She identified it in evidence given to the Commission.

The jacket was examined by Mr Raymond who obtained, even 5-1/2 years after Azaria last wore it, weak positive reactions to Kastle Meyer and ortho-tolidine screening tests for blood. However, he could not confirm the presence of

blood. The jacket exhibited signs of very long exposure to weather. Mr Raymond also found staining on the jacket not inconsistent with the staining on the jumpsuit. There was a small cut in the collar, in the same vertical line as the

V cut in the collar of the jumpsuit. There were holes in

the jacket which were not consistent with natural

deterioration or handling, comprising two small holes approximately 1 mm in diameter. In each case, a number of fibres had been severed. None of the holes appeared to have any relationship with any of the others and they did not

coincide with any damage to the jumpsuit or singlet. Mr

Raymond also found that the top button was done up. The

jacket could have been removed from the baby after the cut was made in the collar because it sufficiently enlarged it

204.

Damage to collar of jumpsuit.

2 05 .

N 0

"'

C/l

.

Jl rllllll fJIIIIIII I I f111lll n IJ1TI IIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIlllln HI n II rlllllllll1JI11ll11

50 360 370 380 390 460 410 420 430 440 450 4.60 '

0

s Ill \0

luo."f)

00C 061: 091.: OSI: 0 '11: OCI: Oti!: Otl 002: 061 0 91 Ol.. L 091 0$1 0 '>1 OCL 01: 1 0 <1 OOL 06 09 oe.· OQ 0;0 0'7 OC OZ. 0 1"'"'0