Australia Australia - Tegan Lane, 2 days old, Sydney, 14 Sept 1996 *K. Lane guilty*

[The Observer]

It wasn't on the show but I thought I'd nip the Tom Lane thing in the bud because I know the ABC have dealt with it and they don't need hundreds of other people writing in and pointing it out.

I haven't seen any evidence that Keli had any rendezvous with "Andrew" after December 1995 apart from bumping into him at the pub and some phone calls. Definitely could not have been at Unit 10 Wisbeach St!

I believe the brothers were living in Unit 11 in 1995. The Court of Appeal decision only refers to the relevant time frame of December 1995 to December 1996 and they were there that whole time. The evidence discussed in the Court of Appeal does not specifically mention when the brothers moved in, probably because it is not relevant.

Relevant paragraphs from the Court of Appeal:

"146. At the relevant time Unit 10 was occupied by Sean Greaves who did not know anyone by the name of Andrew Norris or Morris and had never used that name himself. He did not recall receiving mail for such a person. He denied having a woman called Mel stay in his unit, having anyone mind his unit while he was away or knowing the appellant. The appellant did not suggest that she knew him. There was accordingly evidence which, if accepted by the jury, could exclude Unit 10 as a location where Andrew Norris/ Morris lived.

147. Peter Clark lived with his brother Steven but with no one else in Unit 11 between December 1995 and December 1996. Having regard to Tegan's birth date, and the estimates that she was about full-term, she must have been conceived in about December 1995. "

According to the information on ABC Exposed, the Court of Appeal got it wrong about Sean Greaves and the jury being able to exclude Unit 10 as they have indicated that Sean Greaves has told them that he moved in sometime later in December 1995. Exposed said that the tenant of Unit 10 at the relevant time is actually unknown.

Peter Clark is the witness that later gave police the statement about seeing mail addressed to an "Andrew Morris" or "Norris" at Unit 10.

The brothers lived in Unit 11 from August 1995 to March 2003.

 

[The Observer]

Keli told Caro on Exposed that it was always her calling and chasing Andrew M/Norris:

In the conversations she had with the Exposed team from jail, she describes the relationship as one that was “just week-to-week”. Interactions between trysts were usually conducted on the phone.

“I would call him or … not so much him calling me. It was usually me chasing him,” Lane told Exposed.
Two decades on, Keli Lane hopes this man could prove her innocence

Yet in interviews with Det Gaut she said she hadn't been allowed to ring his number in case someone else answered and that she could only recall calling him twice and one of those times was to tell him she had checked herself into Auburn Hospital to have the baby. So presumably the second was to say come get the baby. So which is it? How are you hooking up with someone for months if you can't call them. Carrier pigeon?

 

[The Observer]

Keli told Det. Gaut she would go to Venus Street to go through old boxes in the garage to look for Andrew's number however she told Gaut the tenants said no. Did we know those tenants were police officers? They're named in the Allison Langdon book but in Nice Girl they're just referred to as tenants.

 

[Via Marple]

It wasn't on the show but I thought I'd nip the Tom Lane thing in the bud because I know the ABC have dealt with it and they don't need hundreds of other people writing in and pointing it out.

I haven't seen any evidence that Keli had any rendezvous with "Andrew" after December 1995 apart from bumping into him at the pub and some phone calls. Definitely could not have been at Unit 10 Wisbeach St!

I believe the brothers were living in Unit 11 in 1995. The Court of Appeal decision only refers to the relevant time frame of December 1995 to December 1996 and they were there that whole time. The evidence discussed in the Court of Appeal does not specifically mention when the brothers moved in, probably because it is not relevant.

Relevant paragraphs from the Court of Appeal:

"146. At the relevant time Unit 10 was occupied by Sean Greaves who did not know anyone by the name of Andrew Norris or Morris and had never used that name himself. He did not recall receiving mail for such a person. He denied having a woman called Mel stay in his unit, having anyone mind his unit while he was away or knowing the appellant. The appellant did not suggest that she knew him. There was accordingly evidence which, if accepted by the jury, could exclude Unit 10 as a location where Andrew Norris/ Morris lived.

147. Peter Clark lived with his brother Steven but with no one else in Unit 11 between December 1995 and December 1996. Having regard to Tegan's birth date, and the estimates that she was about full-term, she must have been conceived in about December 1995. "

According to the information on ABC Exposed, the Court of Appeal got it wrong about Sean Greaves and the jury being able to exclude Unit 10 as they have indicated that Sean Greaves has told them that he moved in sometime later in December 1995. Exposed said that the tenant of Unit 10 at the relevant time is actually unknown.

Peter Clark is the witness that later gave police the statement about seeing mail addressed to an "Andrew Morris" or "Norris" at Unit 10.

BBM

How do you know then that the ABC have dealt with the Tom Lane 'thing'? Where did they mention that?

I still don't know when Tom Lane was living at 24 Wisbeach, as discovered by Detective Gaut.

Assuming there might be confusion with the year/unit:

1. 1996/unit 10 (original details from book) - not correct, since Sean Greaves was there and he said he didn't sublet.
2. 1996/unit 11 - not correct, since the brothers were there, from rental records
3. 1995/unit 10 - not correct, because you know ABC have verified that
4. 1995/unit 11 - possible only if before August when the brothers moved in, according to Observer

Everybody happy with 4? I am not so sure..

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

BBM

How do you know then that the ABC have dealt with the Tom Lane 'thing'? Where did they mention that?

I still don't know when Tom Lane was living at 24 Wisbeach, as discovered by Detective Gaut.

Assuming there might be confusion with the year/unit:

1. 1996/unit 10 (original details from book) - not correct, since Sean Greaves was there and he said he didn't sublet.
2. 1996/unit 11 - not correct, since the brothers were there, from rental records
3. 1995/unit 10 - not correct, because you know ABC have verified that
4. 1995/unit 11 - possible only if before August when the brothers moved in, according to Observer

Everybody happy with 4? I am not so sure..

They told me and I thought I would do them a community service as Tom Lane and his association with the address is already publicly known and they don't need everyone writing in about it. They have read the books and have done their research.

"The child that never was", does not say that Tom Lane lived at Unit 10 Wisbeach St in 1996, only that he had given Police that address when he was arrested on a minor matter in early 1996.

If you accept what Tom Lane now says is correct, then Number 4 is the only possibility that could be correct.

If what Tom Lane now says is not correct, and he did in fact live in Unit 10, then it is possible that Number 3 may be correct scenario.

If I were the ABC I would be trying to objectively verify what Tom Lane is saying is correct by checking the phone books and electoral records of the time, and any old central bond authority records in his name. They may be doing this, I do not know that.

I wonder whether Tom Lane showed his licence as ID when he was arrested on the minor offence in early 1996. It is not uncommon for people not to change their licence addresses soon after moving even though there is a legal requirement to do so, and either way if he moved out of Unit 11 in August 1995 or Unit 10 in December 1995, the Wisbeach St address may have still been on his licence. That is not made clear in the book.

 

[Bohemian]

Interesting read (especially the section on Scandalising the court):

Contempt, etc

Can anyone think of a way this section may apply in this case?

 

[Bohemian]

They told me and I thought I would do them a community service as Tom Lane and his association with the address is already publicly known and they don't need everyone writing in about it. They have read the books and have done their research.

"The child that never was", does not say that Tom Lane lived at Unit 10 Wisbeach St in 1996, only that he had given Police that address when he was arrested on a minor matter in early 1996.

If you accept what Tom Lane now says is correct, then Number 4 is the only possibility that could be correct.

If what Tom Lane now says is not correct, and he did in fact live in Unit 10, then it is possible that Number 3 may be correct scenario.

If I were the ABC I would be trying to objectively verify what Tom Lane is saying is correct by checking the phone books and electoral records of the time, and any old central bond authority records in his name. They may be doing this, I do not know that.

I wonder whether Tom Lane showed his licence as ID when he was arrested on the minor offence in early 1996. It is not uncommon for people not to change their licence addresses soon after moving even though there is a legal requirement to do so, and either way if he moved out of Unit 11 in August 1995 or Unit 10 in December 1995, the Wisbeach St addess may have still been on his licence. That is not made clear in the book.

I’m sorry, CKTC, but you can’t intimate that you have insider information on a case without becoming verified on WS. I have flagged this post with a Mod to contact you and give you more information.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

I’m sorry, CKTC, but you can’t intimate that you have insider information on a case without becoming verified on WS. I have flagged this post with a Mod to contact you and give you more information.

Bo, I am not an insider. Please feel free to raise the Tom Lane issue with the ABC. They will probably tell you the same thing. The information is not protected and Tom Lane's association with the address is publicly known.

I suggest you go back and remove the links to information you have posted in your posts #829 and #831. You should not be linking such information here. And yes, I have also raised that with the Mods at the time.

 

[Bohemian]

Bo, I am not an insider. Please feel free to raise the Tom Lane issue with the ABC. They will probably tell you the same thing. The information is not protected and Tom Lane's association with the address is publicly known.

I suggest you go back and remove the links to information you have posted in your posts #829 and #831. That information that is linked there is published in full in direct contravention of Court Orders. You should not be linking such information here. And yes, I have also raised that with the Mods at the time.

I didn’t say you were an insider, just that it is contrary to WS’ rules to intimate that you have direct information from journalists investigating this case, which other members are not privy to, if you are not a WS’ verified insider. All that needs to be done when something is stated as fact is for a link to be provided.

As for the link I provided in my posts #829 and 31, I am not to know that it is in direct contravention of a Court Order as the information is available publicly via the Internet. I suggest you contact the site’s Webmaster and advise them of their error.

 

[The Observer]

BBM

How do you know then that the ABC have dealt with the Tom Lane 'thing'? Where did they mention that?

I still don't know when Tom Lane was living at 24 Wisbeach, as discovered by Detective Gaut.

Assuming there might be confusion with the year/unit:

1. 1996/unit 10 (original details from book) - not correct, since Sean Greaves was there and he said he didn't sublet.
2. 1996/unit 11 - not correct, since the brothers were there, from rental records
3. 1995/unit 10 - not correct, because you know ABC have verified that
4. 1995/unit 11 - possible only if before August when the brothers moved in, according to Observer

Everybody happy with 4? I am not so sure..

BBM

Just to clarify, Peter Clarke gave that information to investigators and at the inquest according to the book.

Everything clear as mud lol.

 

[The Observer]

Bo, I am not an insider. Please feel free to raise the Tom Lane issue with the ABC. They will probably tell you the same thing. The information is not protected and Tom Lane's association with the address is publicly known.

I suggest you go back and remove the links to information you have posted in your posts #829 and #831. You should not be linking such information here. And yes, I have also raised that with the Mods at the time.

Re: Posts #829 and #831
There are early newspaper articles featuring the ex-husband's name at the time of the inquest. The spelling is incorrect anyway. They've clearly used a variation.

 

[Via Marple]

They told me and I thought I would do them a community service as Tom Lane and his association with the address is already publicly known and they don't need everyone writing in about it. They have read the books and have done their research.

"The child that never was", does not say that Tom Lane lived at Unit 10 Wisbeach St in 1996, only that he had given Police that address when he was arrested on a minor matter in early 1996.

If you accept what Tom Lane now says is correct, then Number 4 is the only possibility that could be correct.

If what Tom Lane now says is not correct, and he did in fact live in Unit 10, then it is possible that Number 3 may be correct scenario.

If I were the ABC I would be trying to objectively verify what Tom Lane is saying is correct by checking the phone books and electoral records of the time, and any old central bond authority records in his name. They may be doing this, I do not know that.

I wonder whether Tom Lane showed his licence as ID when he was arrested on the minor offence in early 1996. It is not uncommon for people not to change their licence addresses soon after moving even though there is a legal requirement to do so, and either way if he moved out of Unit 11 in August 1995 or Unit 10 in December 1995, the Wisbeach St address may have still been on his licence. That is not made clear in the book.

I am happy with that. Thanks.

BBM

Just to clarify, Peter Clarke gave that information to investigators and at the inquest according to the book.

Everything clear as mud lol.

Thanks, I should have said for my point 4,

1995/unit 11 - possible only if before August when the brothers moved in, according to them in the book

 

[sosocurious]

Sorry if this is a dumb question.
If Andrew had told Keli not to call him and she ignored that requested and still chased.
Who's phone was she calling from? I thought it was said the first phone registered in Keli's name was in early December 1995.

 

[The Observer]

Sorry if this is a dumb question.
If Andrew had told Keli not to call him and she ignored that requested and still chased.
Who's phone was she calling from? I thought it was said the first phone registered in Keli's name was in early December 1995.

Landline? Maybe why she claimed she wasn't allowed to contact him in case somebody else answered? Yet she it was her 'chasing' and 'calling' him to meet up. The first records of Keli having a mobile phone in her name is Dec '96 (as per police investigation). The phone she allegedly had contact with 'Andrew' with for a few months after Tegan was born. Though on Exposed when Caro asked how she contacted Andrew from hospital to come get Tegan I'm fairly sure she said something like 'I would've had my phone with me and the hospital phone' (will have to check where it's said) so I wonder if she did in fact have a mobile phone but perhaps in her parents name.

Maybe ask Keli? I'm sure it's legit and she'll happily provide answers.

 

[Morrisa]

Landline? Maybe why she claimed she wasn't allowed to contact him in case somebody else answered? Yet she it was her 'chasing' and 'calling' him to meet up. The first records of Keli having a mobile phone in her name is Dec '96 (as per police investigation). The phone she allegedly had contact with 'Andrew' with for a few months after Tegan was born. Though on Exposed when Caro asked how she contacted Andrew from hospital to come get Tegan I'm fairly sure she said something like 'I would've had my phone with me and the hospital phone' (will have to check where it's said) so I wonder if she did in fact have a mobile phone but perhaps in her parents name.

Maybe ask Keli? I'm sure it's legit and she'll happily provide answers.

Is this "new member" on the Exposed FB page or is there another?

 

[sosocurious]

Landline? Maybe why she claimed she wasn't allowed to contact him in case somebody else answered? Yet she it was her 'chasing' and 'calling' him to meet up. The first records of Keli having a mobile phone in her name is Dec '96 (as per police investigation). The phone she allegedly had contact with 'Andrew' with for a few months after Tegan was born. Though on Exposed when Caro asked how she contacted Andrew from hospital to come get Tegan I'm fairly sure she said something like 'I would've had my phone with me and the hospital phone' (will have to check where it's said) so I wonder if she did in fact have a mobile phone but perhaps in her parents name.

Maybe ask Keli? I'm sure it's legit and she'll happily provide answers.

Oh shute, that's right it was 1996.
Now why would you give someone your landline, but say don't you call me on it?

Oh really all messages will be printed out and forwarded to Keli. 'Righto'

 

[The Observer]

Is this "new member" on the Exposed FB page or is there another?

Yes and on the (unofficial) Exposed discussion group.

 

[sosocurious]

Yes and on the (unofficial) Exposed discussion group.

Has the postie come forward yet?

 

[Morrisa]

Has the postie come forward yet?

 

[The Observer]

Postie has possibly fallen through one of the "gaping holes" in the police investigation.