Keli Lane to apply for bail
, Feb 28 2013 06:13 AM
100 replies to this topic
Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:13 AM
CONVICTED baby killer Keli Lane will today apply for bail ahead of her appeal against her jailing for the murder of her daughter Tegan.
The former champion water polo paper was found guilty in December 2010 of murdering the two-day old girl shortly after they left Auburn Hospital on September 14, 1996.
The Supreme Court jury were told Lane had five secret pregnancies- Tegan, another two children who were adopted out and two terminations.
Lane, 37, has always maintained she gave Tegan to her father, man called Andrew Norris or Morris with whom she had a brief affair, but neither he or the child have ever been found.
- See more at: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/conv...h.Po6ACvqL.dpuf
Personally, if she has been found guilty then I think she needs to serve the time.
I cannot understand why if the man was given the baby, he didn't approach police via a lawyer and say so.
Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:13 AM
I've always felt uneasy about this verdict. I'm glad it's being appealed. If an appeal has been granted, she's legally able to apply for bail.
Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:16 AM
This case has always made me feel uneasy as well.
Many woman have done similar, hidden pregnacies, given birth and then in an act of desperation murdered them.
They have been given more compassion and understanding of their mental distress and feelings of desperation that Kelli has been given.
Her adopting out later children and aborting pregnacies certainly implies she certainly did not want to be or was mentally incapable of motherhood.
I suppose that her never confessing to the murder means that her defense team could not claim mental impairment. Meaning a more harsher sentence was given.
So why didint she confess?
Perhaps she is innocent?
Perhaps she was so mentally unwell she genuinely thought she gave this baby to its father?
was she in a episode of post natel psychosis?
Yeah this case makes me feel uneasy.
Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:23 PM
This has long struck me as a very unusual case where nowhere near enough information is known to give a verdict either way - and the gaoling of a woman who at worst murdered her baby amidst the depths of mental illness and who at best simply gave her child to her other parent - seems very wrong.
Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:38 PM
and the gaoling of a woman who at worst murdered her baby amidst the depths of mental illness and who at best simply gave her child to her other parent - seems very wrong.
I think murdering your own child, whether mentally ill or not is pretty disturbing. I agree with the PP that there is a lack of substantial evidence/ information surrounding the case and that nobody can 'prove' that baby Tegan died, but if she gave the baby to his father, why on earth wouldn't he just come forward. The fact she had 5 secret pregnancies is highly unusual to me. Of course that doesn't 'prove' anything, but it certainly makes me doubt that she is telling the truth.
Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:46 PM
I agree it is disturbing, but not in a "lock her up and teach her a lesson" way. More a "desperate woman needs support and treatment". I don't think gaoling her was the right approach, whether she killed Tegan or not.
The father would not be under any obligation to come forward - he may have moved overseas and never even heard about the case. Or not wanted to be known, or desired to protect Tegan's privacy, or didn't care what happened to Keli, or they may have previously agreed she'd never hear from them again no matter what. So many possibilities.
Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:57 PM
I agree, that theoretically there are many possibilities, but I just don't have a good feeling about this case. I think that if she is/was genuinely mentally ill then gaoling her may not have been the right approach, but how do you know she is/ was mentally ill? I honestly don't think a child just vanishes like that.
Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:39 PM
Well, she lost her appeal. I am don't know how to feel about this case. Very wary of the fact that there is no body or evidence too suggest she murdered Tegan, also then why hasn't Andrew N/Morris come forward?
Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:49 PM
I find it strange that she was even charged with murder in the absence of any physical evidence of the child's death. All so strange.
Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:00 PM
Yep. I don't know what to think but there's no proof she killed the baby.
Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:56 PM
I don't know what to think about this at all. If a parent is responsible for a child and can't explain where the child is, then what? Are authorities just supposed to wait until evidence becomes available either way? I've followed it on and off (and only loosely) over the years, but the idea that a case was constructed based solely on her history seems off as there was no history of harm was there? Reminds me of another disputed case of infanticide I've read about elsewhere with an adopted sibling pursuing the mother via the police and insistent that she knew her sister had killed her child.
Lane's trial is certainly an odd story from a legal point of view.
Posted 14 December 2013 - 08:12 AM
There are other reported cases of missing children and babies and their mothers are walking free. I think of Lindy Chamberlain and how she was convicted without a body too (from memory). It just seems inconsistent.
If by some chance she is telling the truth, I cannot fathom what she is going though. She wasn't even convicted with all 12 jurors agreeing. An element of doubt in the jurors also. The judge overruled the jurors.
If she is guilty for the same reasons above, she is banking on the fact that there is doubt and that it isn't a watertight case.
Its a hard one.
Posted 14 December 2013 - 08:44 AM
In this day and age, people can be found fairly easily.
For example, this man had only a first name and a photo, yet managed, through social media, to find this woman who he had spent only hours with.
I don't buy the "can't find him" excuse.
Posted 14 December 2013 - 09:30 AM
Had she chosen to abort the child I would have supported her 100%. But she hid the pregnancy and gave birth to her and whatever happened next, clearly the outcome for this baby has not been good.
As PP said, it's easy to find people these days, I feel if Tegan was out there shed have been found.
Posted 14 December 2013 - 08:58 PM
^but then what do you charge them with? It can't be "being the last person to see a child alive under suspicious circumstances". That's not actually a crime.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 08:54 PM
I agree Mummy_Em. Just because the baby is missing doesn't mean she killed it. From a legal perspective it is very grey! Like I said in a previous post there are many missing children,whom parents are suspects but just because the child is missing, there isn't an assumption of guilt therefore declare them guilty and lock them up.
My argument is not if she is guilty of not, but rather the fact that she is in jail on next to no evidence of murder.]
Edited for spelling
Edited by slinky, 15 December 2013 - 09:02 PM.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 09:18 PM
There's no evidence of a death, let alone a murder. It's a very strange case.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 10:54 PM
I think it has more to do with the lack of substantial evidence and more like speculation used to convict her, somewhat based upon sexist attitudes about how women act or behave about having children. I think she was convicted more because of the attitude that women should behave or be a certain way.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 11:02 PM
There were a couple of old legal principles which would have scuppered this case. The first was that you couldn't be charged with murder if the Police couldn't find a body. The second was a special plea of temporary insanity, available only to women in the first year post-partem.
These have both long gone by the wayside, but either would have seen Kelli go free.
There is something not right about this case, and you simply cannot lock someone up on the basis of a suspicion. There is no just causal chain going from saying " You had a baby", to "We can't find that baby" to "Therefore you murdered that baby". Waaaaay too tenuous for me....
Edited by mollybot, 15 December 2013 - 11:04 PM.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 11:22 PM
SoytotheWorld, on 14 December 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:
She had a responsibility to that child when she walked out the hospital with her. She failed. There is no reason in this world 'Andrew Morris' wouldn't have come forward, or there was some clue to his whereabouts, unless perhaps he had sinister motives himself. You don't just hand a baby over to someone without there being some proof. I don't know how they found her guilty but I'm glad they did. Too often caregivers/parents get away with abuse or murder of children because it's easy to hide the disappearance of a child, and if there are two parents involved, it's hard to prove which one did it when they often back each other up.
Yes I agree with this.
If Andrew Morris was the father she could have handed the child over legally with paper work filled out. They could have then decided there would be no further contact made between them.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 11:34 PM
Just out of interest , those who think it's "another Lindy Chamberlain " case what do you make of the 5 (!) hidden pregnancies?
That is 2 abortions, 2 adoptions and 1 "missing presumed killed by the mother".
Nobody knew about these pregnancies.
For a start how deceptive would you have to be to get away with that 5 times
Secondly, in this day and age , being a modern woman in Sydney there is no way she didn't have access or knowledge about contraception. The continual pregnancies seem perverse.
If there was a father , named Andrew or anything else you do not hand a newborn over in a carpark.
It is an awful case but nothing like the Chamberlain's
Posted 15 December 2013 - 11:42 PM
Yeah, they changed the law so that you can convict without a body quite a long time ago. But it can, and does, lead to injustices- just like the Chamberlain case.
I guess they weighed up the injustice of a murderer getting away with it because they could completely dispose of the body; versus an innocent person being jailed because they couldn't explain someone's disappearance adequately, or there was enough forensic evidence to convict them in the absence of a body.
This is not what happened to Kelli though. She had a baby. She no longer has the baby. They do not believe her explanation as to what happened to the baby. They have no evidence whatsoever, forensic or otherwise, that she killed the baby. It makes me deeply uneasy.
Overseas news no more covers Australian cases than Australian news outlets cover overseas cases. This bloke could be living in the US, or Canada, or Europe, or South America and simply hasn't seen that there is a case happening in Australia regarding his daughter.... Its mentioned briefly in the Guardian, but none of the other Uk papers are running it....
I think she has been convicted because of disapproval over her lifestyle and sexual behaviour, rather than because of any real evidnce that she actually killed her baby.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 11:47 PM
I think that very learned judicial type people have reviewed ALL the evidence, twice now after the appeal, and still think she's guilty.
I doubt they were concerned about her lifestyle beside the fact she was apparently a pathological liar.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 11:55 PM
Seriously, mollybot , you seriously believe a random man had a one night stand with her, stayed around in Australia for the next 8-9 months, met her in a carpark, took the baby and then nipped overseas never to be heard from again.
How did he get a passport for the baby?
This Andrew M/Norris was Australian. He would have relatives here . It is not possible they would be unaware of the case.
Posted 16 December 2013 - 12:38 AM
I agree that 5 unplanned pregnancies is a heck of a lot in this day and age, with a number of reliable, long term or permanent birth control options
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Issues around children learning to read are rarely out of the news. Which is hardly surprising – becoming a successful reader is of paramount importance in improving a child's life chances. Nor is it surprising that reading creates a virtuous circle: the more you read the better you become. But what may come as a surprise is that reading to dogs is gaining popularity as a way of addressing concerns about children's reading.
Just when you thought it was totally safe to let your kids on social media (just kidding, nobody really thinks that), here comes another warning of ways creeps will try to contact our kids.
Find out how to help your child in the light of the new findings.
Three out of four Australians believe they are overspending on their kids by hundreds of dollars each month. And then there's the gifts.
Top 5 Viewed Articles