The 1120th General Monthly Meeting
Azaria's Blood - Evaluating Forensic Evidence and the Azaria Chamberlain Case
Emeritus Professor Barry Boettcher , Founding Professor of Biological Sciences at Newcastle University (now retired)
Date: Wednesday, 1st October, 2003
Time: 7:00 for 7:15 pm
Venue: Search & Discover Room, Australian Museum,
Collins St., Sydney (William St. entrance)
"The discovery of foetal blood is the critical part of the Crown case", said Ian Barker QC, Crown Prosecutor, in his opening address at the trial of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain in 1982.
The forensic biologist who tested stains in the Chamberlains' vehicle and other items had reached this conclusion. However, the results of the tests were not consistent with this claim. The tests were designed to detect the presence of foetal haemoglobin in bloodstains. Foetal haemoglobin is present in blood of foetuses and infants under six months. Azaria was 9 1/2 weeks when she disappeared. The results of the tests were not consistent with the conclusion being presented. Something was wrong!
Laboratory tests disclosed that the solution to test for foetal haemoglobin would also react with adult blood. Demonstration tests performed for the trial by the forensic biologist showed similar results, though Prosecution witnesses would not concede this.
The argument that developed during the trial was whether or not the results of the tests conducted on the Chamberlains' items could be taken as demonstrating the presence of foetal haemoglobin and, therefore, bloodstains from an infant. Clearly, they could not. However, the lay jury was not in a position to choose, on an objective basis, between opposing interpretations by experts of the test results. The Chamberlains were found guilty.
This talk presents the scientific evidence used against the Chamberlains; the opposing interpretations of this evidence; the task of obtaining support from world scientific authorities against the trial verdict; and the further evidence adduced during the Royal Commission in 1986. It brings out the difficulty of a lay jury evaluating opposing expert opinions of a set of scientific results. Also, it identifies people who were in a position to clear the Chamberlains at their trial, but failed to do so.
Enquiries: Prof. P.A. Williams
email: P.Williams@uws.edu.au
or phone the Society - details on Introduction page.
Barry Boettcher is a retired Professor of biological sciences with relevant experience in genetics, biochemistry, DNA and their forensic application. After graduating in 1962, he obtained his PhD from Adelaide University in 1966.
Because of his expertise in blood and body secretions he has been involved in more than 50 legal cases, many of which involved murder or sexual assault. He gave expert opinion in the Chamberlain case and in the Rendell case.
Report on the General Monthly Meeting
by Alan Buttenshaw
The 1120th October Ordinary General Meeting was held at the Search and Discover Room at the Australian Museum. 20 members and visitors attended. The lecture to the meeting was given by Emeritus Professor Barry Boettcher who was Founding Professor of Biological Sciences at Newcastle University - now retired.
Prof. Boettcher addressed the meeting with his talk "Azaria's Blood: Evaluating Forensic Evidence and the Azaria Chamberlain Case".
Professor Boettcher presented the scientific evidence used against the Chamberlains; the opposing interpretations of this evidence; the task of obtaining support from world scientific authorities against the trial verdict; and the further evidence adduced during the Royal Commission in 1986.
The argument that developed during the trial was whether or not the results of the tests conducted on the Chamberlains? items could be taken as demonstrating the presence of foetal haemoglobin and therefore, bloodstains from an infant. It was of special interest that dust from the Mount Isa region also produced the same results as foetal blood.
The talk explained that the lay jury was not in a position to choose, on an objective basis, between opposing interpretations by experts of the test results. The Chamberlains were found guilty. The talk highlighted the difficulty of a lay jury evaluating opposing expert opinions of a set of scientific results. The talk also identified people who were in a position to clear the Chamberlains at their trial, but failed to do so.
A vote of thanks was moved by David Craddock and carried by acclamation by the capacity audience