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

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Interesting, I’m sure I read somewhere that half a million dollars had been spent on Keli’s defence. Wonder if it was on her family’s or the taxpayer’s dime? Must look it up. Watch this space.

I believe her parents sold an investment property to help fund her defence. I read the same figure. It could have also included her legal fees for the inquest too.

I believe also that Keli did receive some legal aid funding for her trial as well. This does not mean she gets it for free. It can mean she has to provide some surety over an asset to pay it back when the asset is sold. The usual way this is done is for Legal Aid to lodge a caveat over any real estate she had.

If a defendant does not have the means to pay, then yes, the taxpayer foots the bill. Everything is done to try and recover some of the funding where possible.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

In an application filed with the High Court, Lane, who is represented pro bono by Sydney solicitor Ben Archbold, relies on two grounds of appeal: there was a ''viable case for manslaughter'' and the closing address to the jury by Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC, caused a miscarriage of justice.

Keli Lane's last hope of overturning her murder conviction

I did not know Ben Archbold was pro bono.

I didn't know he was pro bono either. He probably wanted the publicity and the experience.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Thank heavens for the media. How else would Keli have been able to tell her side of the story and correct the details she did not get right. The things she was mistaken about and the things she made up. Albeit in timed phone calls.

Keli has been trying since she was convicted. 8 years in jail to get to this point!!! Thank goodness Caro Meldrum Hanna was able to investigate this.

The question now becomes how is the legally admissible "compelling" evidence going to be obtained?

 

[sosocurious]

I didn't know he was pro bono either. He probably wanted the publicity and the experience.

So was he the solicitor from the get goes? I was wondering if he was only pro bono for the appeal. Because it is the appeal that I thought she would have been more likely to have gotten legal aid for because she was in jail.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

So was he the solicitor from the get goes? I was wondering if he was only pro bono for the appeal. Because it is the appeal that I thought she would have been more likely to have gotten legal aid for because she was in jail.

He was the instructing solicitor during the trial. Not sure if he was doing it pro bono from the start. Interesting question - you would assume a prisoner would be able to access Legal Aid for the Appeal. Maybe legal aid wouldn't cover everything. There would have been separate fees for the solicitor and for Counsel.

 

[sosocurious]

Keli has been trying since she was convicted. 8 years in jail to get to this point!!! Thank goodness Caro Meldrum Hanna was able to investigate this.

The question now becomes how is the legally admissible "compelling" evidence going to be obtained?

Keli is going to have to talk, a lot. She can't be forced or she gets defensive and clams up. It has to be off her own bat. Her way. Others will just have to listen to her and maybe another version of events may be disclosed. Who knows.
imo

Maybe it would be easier to try and find "Dipper" and ask him who the blazers this Andrew is.
Surely he hasn't gone missing as well.

 

[Bohemian]

Keli has been trying since she was convicted. 8 years in jail to get to this point!!! Thank goodness Caro Meldrum Hanna was able to investigate this.

The question now becomes how is the legally admissible "compelling" evidence going to be obtained?

Well it will have to identify the following elements, apparently:

• Police – overzealous or unprofessional behaviour, or even criminal behaviour.
• Evidence – circumstantial, unreliable eyewitness evidence, etc.
• Mass media – prejudice, pressure.
• Trial processes – error in judge’s instructions, etc.
• Misunderstanding of cultural factors

Miscarriages of Justice

Take your pick.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Keli is going to have to talk, a lot. She can't be forced or she gets defensive and clams up. It has to be off her own bat. Her way. Others will just have to listen to her and maybe another version of events may be disclosed. Who knows.
imo

Maybe it would be easier to try and find "Dipper" and ask him who the blazers this Andrew is.
Surely he hasn't gone missing as well.

I don't think Keli needs to talk. She has given enough information. There are some ends to tidy up though. She is still talking to the ABC.

The new "compelling" evidence will come from new players in all this. How do you compel "Andrew" and others to give evidence? First "Andrew" needs to give a legally admissible statement somehow, to the Police, in Court. The Police don't want to be involved. They are not opening an investigation any time soon. As far as they are concerned it's all over and they are not admitting they botched the investigation. There is no case before the Court and I don't think the bar for a retrial or judicial review is there just yet. I hope I am wrong but I think there needs to be more than has been presented to the Attorney-General so far. So tricky at the moment. I really hope the case does go back to Court.

There is a possibility that this could all the cleared up really quickly but then it could get even more murky really quickly. Not sure which way it will go at this stage. Praying for the best outcome for "Tegan".

 

[sosocurious]

I think she could have thought she may have been a good enough storyteller to mollify investigators.

Also, were a couple of those interviews conducted before her family knew about Tegan?

February 14, 2001
Keli Lane is interviewed by police for the first time. She says she gave Tegan to the natural father, and agrees his name is Andrew Morris.

May 9, 2003
Keli Lane is interviewed for the second time by police. She now says that the name of Tegan's father is Andrew Norris, not Andrew Morris.

Police ask her directly whether she has killed the child.
Police: Did you kill the child?
Lane: No, I did not. I did not do anything like that.

January 8, 2004
Keli Lane is interviewed for a third time by police. She is told they don't believe her story, and the case will go to an inquest.

August 31, 2004
This is the first day of the inquest into the disappearance of Tegan Lane, with a non-publication order placed on the entire matter. The case is adjourned until October 27, 2004, when the non-publication order is lifted.

In phone calls from jail, baby killer Keli Lane says her daughter Tegan is alive

I will have to find where I read it but Det Gaut spoke to Keli in late 2002. It did not say interviewed.

The court heard that the first Ms Lane's parents knew of their three grandchildren was in February 2003, when an investigating officer informed them.

"That floored us," Ms Lane's father, Robert, said in evidence. "It was just the shock of knowing there were additional children that had been adopted out."

Twelve years on, they're still digging for baby Tegan

So Keli told her parents about Tegan prior to Feb 2003 but not about the adoptions or terminations? An investigating officer told them that news.
Two interviews after Feb 2003. She must not have told her parents about the interviews, either.
Geez she leaves them out of the loop doesn't she?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Well it will have to identify the following elements, apparently:

• Police – overzealous or unprofessional behaviour, or even criminal behaviour.
• Evidence – circumstantial, unreliable eyewitness evidence, etc.
• Mass media – prejudice, pressure.
• Trial processes – error in judge’s instructions, etc.
• Misunderstanding of cultural factors

Miscarriages of Justice

Take your pick.

Great summary, Bohemian.

I pick circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence in this case at all, no body, no witnesses, no admission, nothing to directly confirm the murder. I really hope the Attorney-General can order a retrial on this basis.

 

[sosocurious]

I don't think Keli needs to talk. She has given enough information. There are some ends to tidy up though. She is still talking to the ABC.

The new "compelling" evidence will come from new players in all this. How do you compel "Andrew" and others to give evidence? First "Andrew" needs to give a legally admissible statement somehow, to the Police, in Court. The Police don't want to be involved. They are not opening an investigation any time soon. As far as they are concerned it's all over and they are not admitting they botched the investigation. There is no case before the Court and I don't think the bar for a retrial or judicial review is there just yet. I hope I am wrong but I think there needs to be more than has been presented to the Attorney-General so far. So tricky at the moment. I really hope the case does go back to Court.

There is a possibility that this could all the cleared up really quickly but then it could get even more murky really quickly. Not sure which way it will go at this stage. Praying for the best outcome for "Tegan".

She said in one of those timed calls she wants to be heard.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

[QUOTE="sosocurious, post: 14506287, member: 82635"...
So Keli told her parents about Tegan prior to Feb 2003 but not about the adoptions or terminations? An investigating officer told them that news.
Two interviews after Feb 2003. She must not have told her parents about the interviews, either.
Geez she leaves them out of the loop doesn't she?[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's what I thought happened too. Can you imagine how shocked they would have been?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

She said in one of those timed calls she wants to be heard.

Yes. I think she would give evidence in a retrial. At this stage, I don't believe any evidence she would give would be compelling enough. Her evidence is simply not enough. She might not be believed again! We need "Andrew".

 

[Bohemian]

I don't think Keli needs to talk. She has given enough information. There are some ends to tidy up though. She is still talking to the ABC.

The new "compelling" evidence will come from new players in all this. How do you compel "Andrew" and others to give evidence? First "Andrew" needs to give a legally admissible statement somehow, to the Police, in Court. The Police don't want to be involved. They are not opening an investigation any time soon. As far as they are concerned it's all over and they are not admitting they botched the investigation. There is no case before the Court and I don't think the bar for a retrial or judicial review is there just yet. I hope I am wrong but I think there needs to be more than has been presented to the Attorney-General so far. So tricky at the moment. I really hope the case does go back to Court.

There is a possibility that this could all the cleared up really quickly but then it could get even more murky really quickly. Not sure which way it will go at this stage. Praying for the best outcome for "Tegan".

If ‘Andrew’ does materialise with Tegan and a DNA test proves she is Keli’s daughter, their appearance and corroboration of Keli’s story is fresh and compelling evidence enough—similar to the forensic evidence now being heard in Kathleen Folbigg’s judicial inquiry:

folbigg, Search the ABC

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

If ‘Andrew’ does materialise with Tegan and a DNA test proves she is Keli’s daughter, their appearance and corroboration of Keli’s story is fresh and compelling evidence enough—similar to the forensic evidence now being heard in Kathleen Folbigg’s judicial inquiry:

folbigg, Search the ABC

Yes, absolutely. We need "Andrew". I hope Tegan is with him.

 

[Bohemian]

Great summary, Bohemian.

I pick circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence in this case at all, no body, no witnesses, no admission, nothing to directly confirm the murder. I really hope the Attorney-General can order a retrial on this basis.

I think this is the relevant legislation:

CRIMES (APPEAL AND REVIEW) ACT 2001

Part 7. Will have to read it though.

 

[Bohemian]

Yes, absolutely. We need "Andrew". I hope Tegan is with him.

Tegan needs to be with him or he needs to know where she is.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

I think this is the relevant legislation:

CRIMES (APPEAL AND REVIEW) ACT 2001

Part 7. Will have to read it though.

Awesome. Thanks for finding that. I might have a read too when I get a chance.

 

[sosocurious]

[QUOTE="sosocurious, post: 14506287, member: 82635"...
So Keli told her parents about Tegan prior to Feb 2003 but not about the adoptions or terminations? An investigating officer told them that news.
Two interviews after Feb 2003. She must not have told her parents about the interviews, either.
Geez she leaves them out of the loop doesn't she?

Yes, that's what I thought happened too. Can you imagine how shocked they would have been?[/QUOTE]

Yes how shocked?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Tegan needs to be with him or he needs to know where she is.

Yes. Fingers crossed that she is or that "Andrew" knows where she is.

I really hope the simplest explanation is true in this case. Andrew hasn't come forward because he simply doesn't know about all this. It is entirely possible!