Sunday, March 06, 2011

Some of us think she did it

I am now watching Lindy Chamberlain, or whatever her last name is now, on tv. Those of a certain age who were around at the time probably have a fairly strong view of her guilt or innocence.

My own view is that she did it, but should not have been convicted on the evidence. I would be very interested to know how public view now swings, so do cast a vote.

6 comments:

  1. hi andrew, you have changed your blog format again. Fonts are smaller. I have a new blog, I archived the old one and now Im starting a new one. same old crap on it though:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. the forensic officer said she kept no record of her notes on the 'blood spray', which were in pencil on the back of an envelope.(this is on record, unlike her notes) Joyce Kuhl is the name of this incompetent woman.
    The blood spray was later found to be fire retardant sprayed on the car dash at the manufacturing plant.

    The WORST thing about the entire episode is that Lindy's subsequent child, born in prison, was immediately taken from her and she never saw it for years.
    This inhumane punishment could not happen to a man, and I wonder where the UN and the feminists were while it was happening.
    So Lindy is gauche, naive, ordinary, and lacking style.
    If that were truly reason to be imprisoned then the streets would be bare.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm ba-a-ack ... it was Joy not Joyce, but:

    "Bob Breakespeare Dean of Arts at UTS says there are too many cases where forensic science has been incorrect. Chamberlain and Splatt focussed attention in the way work is poorly done at government laboratories. He said there are 2 main rules
    1. Any scientific test carried out in a laboratory must be documented in a definite way
    2. Observations made by any scientific expert should be checked by an independent observer who must indicate by initialling the scientist’s notes that proper comparisons were carried out.
    [Justice and Nightmares p 5]
    Stuart Tipple, solicitor for the Chamberlains, noted that both these rules were broken by the NSW Division of Forensic Medicine.
    [“The New Trial By Ordeal” Law Society of NSW 1985]
    Forensic biologist Joy Kuhl had to recall from memory some of the procedures she used in examining the blood samples. The controls used were simply not written down and recorded. Although there was a rule that fellow biologists observe the results of their colleagues, there was no need for the observer to initial or otherwise confirm this in written form. Chamberlain also exposed inadequate procedures regarding preservation of scientific material. Kuhl said that although there was plenty of blood material, as she was not asked to keep it, none of it was retained for independent testing"


    from book 'Justice and nightmares' by Malcolm Brown

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice to have you back. I didn't change my blog but someone has. It is somewhat wrecked.

    Emstacks, yes the forensic was incompetently carried out. It was disgraceful, but I still think she did it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm taking the fourth non-existent option;

    I don't know.


    And, yes your blog is doing all sorts of snazzy things to the font when I move my cursor over it. Must be the invasion of the blog snatchers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Victor, I suppose only Lindy and maybe Michael really know.

    I might have been fiddling with my blog while you were looking at it, trying to return it to normality, but it won't. I expect it a blogspot problem and hopefully rectify itself.

    ReplyDelete