The legal trauma of injustice committed by law was the result of societies narratives surrounding science and therefore evidence were taken more seriously than narratives of justice. The ability for the Crown to present their expert opinion and subsequent evidence as superior knowledge to that of other experts and evidence exhibits the limits of the legal system to consistently provide justice. The Crown attested that the circumstantial 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”. The Crown constructed a scientific narrative that provided itself as the “diviner of truth” as the blood evidence was “inconsistent with Azaria having been attacked by a dingo” as “there were no dingo hairs,
…show more content…
Moreover, the Crown successfully dismissed Defense expert witness Dr. Boettcher and his conclusions through a manoeuvre which created a significant binary opposition between forensic and academic science. These elements, ensured the Crown’s expert witnesses and the evidence they provided to be founded superior by the jury. In the Ancient World, there are few myths that encounter formal legal trials, and while the concept of a trial is present within these myths, it is interpreted as “adventure of the hero”. A trial in this sense is the narrative that “includes a confrontation or battle” where “the hero has to overcome the monster”. Furthermore, hero’s trial consists of themes surrounding the crossing of boundary in which the monster guards. The trial of Chamberlain v R demonstrated a clearly set boundary within the law which limited the legal and social protection of Lindy, yet this same boundary was simultaneously guarded and crossed by the monster of the Northern Territory state. For Lindy, the legal processes of Chamberlain v R, holds similarities to that of a hero’s trial, although to the audience of the Australian media and the public, she is anything but the
Moreover, the Crown successfully dismissed Defense expert witness Dr. Boettcher and his conclusions through a manoeuvre which created a significant binary opposition between forensic and academic science. These elements, ensured the Crown’s expert witnesses and the evidence they provided to be founded superior by the jury. In the Ancient World, there are few myths that encounter formal legal trials, and while the concept of a trial is present within these myths, it is interpreted as “adventure of the hero”. A trial in this sense is the narrative that “includes a confrontation or battle” where “the hero has to overcome the monster”. Furthermore, hero’s trial consists of themes surrounding the crossing of boundary in which the monster guards. The trial of Chamberlain v R demonstrated a clearly set boundary within the law which limited the legal and social protection of Lindy, yet this same boundary was simultaneously guarded and crossed by the monster of the Northern Territory state. For Lindy, the legal processes of Chamberlain v R, holds similarities to that of a hero’s trial, although to the audience of the Australian media and the public, she is anything but the