13 years jail for a murder no one can prove actually happened. No body, no evidence, no nothing - this is Lindy Chamberlain all over: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/keli-lane-sentenced-to-18-years-and-five-months-jail-over-murder-of-baby-tegan/story-e6frf7jo-1226039637481 How can we sentence someone to prison for a crime no one can prove even happened?
It was proven, in a court of law. Remember that quaint system of justice we used to have before trial by media and public opinion?
I am very surprised a jury found her guilty when as you say, there is no proof that the crime even happened. Obviously a very persuasive prosecutor. I reckon if she appeals she will get off.
She is only appealing the sentence, though. She could get a reduction or an increase, but not a new trial - there has be a reason for a new trial. I think she's innocent.
Do I detect a totally sexist attitude from you regarding cases like this? This woman had a history that lens anyone to believe she did what she was charged with. She can't even name the father she supposedly gave the child to. She cannot explain what happened other than to say "I gave it to so and so", but even then she gives two names, of the actual father. If she had the child and kept in touch with the father how on earth did she contact him to give him the child if she didn't know his name? Divine intervention? I don't know if she did it or not but she does not give and credibility for a jury and judge to find her not guily. That's why she is where shge is. They decided she did it. If she didn't then guess who knows the truth? She does, no one else, she does. So that fact always adds to her probable guilt. The only thing I can think of that makes you support her is that she is female. Thus innocent. Whereas, with the cretin who dropped his little girl into the water and killed her, you are not in the slightest interested in how he got to a state to do that? Do you seriously think a father of a 4 year old girl would do that if he was in his right mind? I don't support him either as he is clearly guilty but I abhor the ignoring of what is obvious to Blind Freddie. He was mentally disturbed at the time. Doesn't escuse him b ut it's how he got into that state you don't care about. I can tell you, again, his wife played games with cusyody and that's a game as dangerous as any. She is not free of guilt in this instance in my opinion. But she's a woman, so complete innocence. He's a man, total guilt with no explanation needed. You biases are so obvious MAk it's probably best you stop espousing them as it just makes you bitter cos you probably even believe what you write. I don't believe for a second you are capable of informed decision making. Yet it seems you have written the most posts on this forum. What sort of pap have you been peddling for all that time? And this woman's case is nothing to do with Lindy Chamberlain. It's decided, over, finished. Do you understand that? There was no dingo in that hospital and if there was this woman hasn't mentioned it. What's with the "We" about sentencing people. "We" don't do any such thing. The DPP, a judge and jurors do that. Not "We". Unless I have an enormous pile of mail outside.
Now the police have released video of part of her interview I have even less doubt of her guilt, body language doesnt lie. She did it.
Mak, To rfespond in the same manner as you uually write here's a quote about this lady " "IN CONVICTING Keli Lane, the jury accepted a "tissue of lies" had been covering up her dark secret. The first was in 1999 to an adoption worker. "The middle child [Tegan] lives with a family in Perth, although I have not had contact with them for a long time," Lane wrote. "They befriended me just before I had her and they supported us. I'm not able to give you all the answers." The second and third, Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi said, were the "Andrew Morris/Norris" lies. To Manly detective Matt Kehoe she said she handed Tegan to Andrew Morris, who was the child's natural father. Lane said he had collected her from Auburn Hospital, drove her to the Gladesville home where her then-boyfriend Duncan Gillies lived, and took custody of the infant. Then, finally, Lane amended that version to say his surname was Norris, and he had come to the hospital with his partner Mel and taken Tegan. She had then caught a taxi by herself to Mr Gillies' house, and driven herself to her parents' home in Fairlight to attend a wedding. There were plenty of other lies, too, the jury heard. She had told a social worker at Auburn Hospital that she would be taking the child to London in about three months, where she and her partner would live. She also lied by telling two friends, Melinda and Brandon Ward, that the questions from police were about something that happened between Mr Gillies, his brother Simon Gillies and his wife Narelle." Daily Telegraph December 2010. WHich version of events would you accept as a juror with no evidence for any of thse? There is also an account from ataxi driver who states he drove her to a secluded spot where she got out and returned without the baby/ He claims he returned there, recovered the baby and gave it to a woman. Un named. Don't talk about Azaria, they stiuck to the story right through. This woman is an erratic oliar and it showed to the jury.
She left the hospital with the baby, then arrived for a wedding (alone) 4 hours later. Thats what you do when youve just had a baby, huh? She kept it secret from everyone the 3 pregnancies that shed brought to term. Why give eight versions of what happened to Tegan? I mean, what a profound liar. She sent the police on wild goose chases for many long years? I think the reason she broke down in court was because she was shocked she didn't get away with it. A self-centred cow. Keli Lane was responsible for her baby, and a nationwide search has not found this baby. Keli Lane knows what happened to her baby, but she preferred to lie and make up 8 different lies of what happened to Tegan. I agree with pegasuss and ian. The mountain of lies... plus I watched the video of her being interviewed by police which spoke volumes about her.
It doesn't matter if you think she is guilty - there is no evidence that Tegan is even dead. There is no evidence to suggest Keli killed her daughter, only circumstantial evidence which means nothing. IMO, you cannot convict someone based on what you think - you should convict based on the evidence, and whether Keli did it or not, her trial was ridiculous.
That is my opinion, yes. No evidence Tegan is dead, and no evidence to suggest or prove that Keli killed her. Nothing at all.
There is indeed plenty of evidence. Her own ever varying stories being the key problem. Either she knows what she did with the child or she keeps reinventing stories out of desperation to try and confuse. Sadly it is only her that is confused. If she was not guilty, why would she deny the cab driver's story? That would give her plenty of reason to claim the child is still alive. But she didn't, she said it was wrong. How about you tell us what excuse is accurate? As a jury they would have no choice in the absence of a live child or a body, after some time, but to find her guilty in light of the plethora of lies. And don't say they are not as , at the most, only one of them can be true. It's very sad indeed that this woman had unprotected sex when her ambition was the Olympics. Why did she do that? I understand she had a number of either miscarriages or abortions so this child was no accident.
WTF? Weren't you defending the scum that though his little girl from the bridge? Because how were we to know his mind set at the time? Strange. I would tie one end of his rope to this pathetic tarts and let em both swing.
One doesn't have to - there is no evidence that Tegan is dead, and no evidence Keli killed her. There was never any evidence at all.
Courts dont convict on "no evidence" You can dispute the evidence but if there is "no evidence" there is no trial. Thats an important legal principle to remember. And there is plenty of precedent for conviction of murder without a body, in fact if there wasnt, for a murderer to avoid prosecution it would only be necassary to bury the victims body somewhere where it was unlikely to be found. Heres a synopsis of the evidence, I would be interested to see your arguement against this evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keli_Lane
Lane wasn't very maternal, we know that much. She had abortions and gave her other children up for adoption. She didn't want kids at all. That isn't in dispute - but why give a couple of kids up for adoption and kill the youngest child? Nothing in your article suggests that Tegan is even dead, or that Keli killed her. As for the Kerry Whelan case - I remember her murder, and I don't believe anyone should be prosecuted or convicted of that crime as there is no body. I am not sure about Dorothy Davis.
Mak, Still on about this? Isn't it interesting that you have quoted 3 cases and they are all females missing. This proves my earlier assertion of your female bias. You see there are actually men missing for whom people have been found guilty of murder. Many, not just 3. And there are plenty more young ladies who have just disappeared for whom there is no explanation. Remember Truro? That happens everwhere. How about giving this a rest and wait for her appeal? It would be the wise think to do.
I will wait for her appeal, she should decide to appeal which I believe she should. What a travesty of justice.
I would be happy to bet a years wages on this... If you wait till she has been in there for a year and then tell her that she can walk free but only if we can properly bury the body, she will admit it. The monster killed a child.. Cases like this make me sick to the stomach, anyone that harms a child should be put to death. Un P/C, yes most defiantly, but in a world where so many kids get killed and harmed by their own parents something drastic needs to be done.
I'm all for circumstancial evidence being able to convict in murder trials. Hell, in any trial for that matter. But what's really important is that the jury is given the correct bias to get their teeth into. 'Near enough is good enough' is a significant facet of the Aussie legal procurement. It reflects the importance of honouring a witch hunt, that long standing Aussie sporting tradition. It relieves the police and legal counsel from the dreary task of having to do their job properly, and more importantly, creates the opportunity to give us a result we can all salivate over. I feel proud to live in a country whose legal system acknowledges the public's appetite for blood, and not just the murderer's. Now, if we can just get rid of appeals and retrials, and bring back hanging, think of the money we'd save. Look at the money spent on two enquiries, a conviction and unbelievably, the pardoning of Lindy Chamberlain. Now that flibbertygibbert wants a court to find a dingo guilty. What a ridiculous idea. There's about as much evidence to convict the dingo as there was to convict her. What is she thinking? Does this woman never learn? Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi.
I'm all for circumstancial evidence being able to convict in murder trials. Hell, in any trial for that matter. But what's really important is that the jury is given the correct bias to get their teeth into. 'Near enough is good enough' is a significant facet of the Aussie legal procurement. It reflects the importance of honouring a witch hunt, that long standing Aussie sporting tradition. It relieves the police and legal counsel from the dreary task of having to do their job properly, and more importantly, creates the opportunity to give us a result we can all salivate over. I feel proud to live in a country whose legal system acknowledges the public's appetite for blood, and not just the murderer's. Now, if we can just get rid of appeals and retrials, and bring back hanging, think of the money we'd save. Look at the money spent on two enquiries, a conviction and unbelievably, the pardoning of Lindy Chamberlain. Now that flibbertygibbert wants a court to find a dingo guilty. What a ridiculous idea. There's about as much evidence to convict the dingo as there was to convict her. What is she thinking? Does this woman never learn? Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi.
