my wife and i just finished watching A Cry in the Dark .  this was the movie starring Meryl Streep and Sam Neill.  it is regarding the episode in Australia where a woman claimed that a dingo (a type of wild dog in Australia) carried off her baby from their tent at a camping ground and killed it.  this lady was put on trial for the murder of her child.   we are interested to know how well the movie sticks to the facts and i have a few questions in particular that spring to mind. 1.  in the movie, the woman is tried for the murder of her child and is     aquited.  later, she is tried again (for the same crime) and is     sentenced to life in prison.  can you really be tried for the same     crime more than once in Australia?   2.  in the movie, the prosecution never proved that the mother killed the     child but that the dingo didn't.  the way that it was portrayed in the     movie, there should have been numerous witnesses who could have     attested to her whereabouts at the time of the death of the child.     there was never even an attempt to prove a motive for killing the child.     under Australian law, mustn't one prove that there was a motive for     murder and then prove that the murder occured? i understand that the movie may have been *way* off _base_ and that these questions could also be pretty silly.  we are interested in knowing therefore how closely the movie adheres to the facts and the answers to the points of Australian law. thanks, From: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Mark Hess) Path: convex.com!hess Newsgroups: rec.arts.moviews Subject: Questions re: A Cry in the Dark Expires: References: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX Keywords: my wife and i just finished watching A Cry in the Dark .  this was the movie starring Meryl Streep and Sam Neill.  it is regarding the episode in Australia where a woman claimed that a dingo (a type of wild dog in Australia) carried off her baby from their tent at a camping ground and killed it.  this lady was put on trial for the murder of her child.   we are interested to know how well the movie sticks to the facts and i have a few questions in particular that spring to mind. 1.  in the movie, the woman is tried for the murder of her child and is     acquitted.  later, she is tried again (for the same crime) and is     sentenced to life in prison.  can you really be tried for the same     crime more than once in Australia?   2.  in the movie, the prosecution never proved that the mother killed the     child but that the dingo didn't.  the way that it was portrayed in the     movie, there should have been numerous witnesses who could have     attested to her whereabouts at the time of the death of the child.     there was never even an attempt to prove a motive for killing the child.     under Australian law, mustn't one prove that there was a motive for     murder and then prove that the murder occured? i understand that the movie may have been *way* off _base_ and that these questions could also be pretty silly.  we are interested in knowing therefore how closely the movie adheres to the facts and the answers to the points of Australian law. thanks,