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

[The Observer]

Only mention of foyer I have been able to find prior to Exposed is the foyer in the block of units at Wisbeach.
Can only find mention of the car park prior to that. Andrew was going to organise the car seat and drive her home. Very well planned.

Yeah same. Hmmm.

 

[Spooky7]

Mr Tedeschi said Lane gave her “first version” about Tegan to a social worker at Auburn hospital the day after her birth, saying she and her boyfriend would be taking the infant to London in three months “for a couple of years”.

The second version was contained in Ryde hospital medical notes at the time of her third child's birth, which records that Tegan “remained with (Lane) ... was breastfed by her for six months”.

Lane then told adoption and DoCS workers that “there was no other baby”, Mr Tedeschi said, noting the third version.

But Mr Tedeschi said it was the fourth, fifth, and sixth versions that were “what lawyers call consciousness of guilt lies” - allegedly made at a time when Lane knew a police investigation was either about to commence, or was already in progress.

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

Tegan Lan'es father 'the invisible man', court hears

Oh wow! I never knew there was a version she told where she kept Tegan. That just makes me all the more suspicious.

 

[Spooky7]

We

Yeah same. Hmmm.

weirdly Wikipedia mentions the hospital car park Keli Lane - Wikipedia

 

[Via Marple]

Only mention of foyer I have been able to find prior to Exposed is the foyer in the block of units at Wisbeach.
Can only find mention of the car park prior to that. Andrew was going to organise the car seat and drive her home. Very well planned.

Yeah that baby car seat must be the best planning Andrew had done for Tegan! Doesn't look like he did much else since.

 

[Bohemian]

Does anyone have a link or a copy of the text of the letter to the NSWA-G regarding a judicial review of KL’s conviction? (A link to a .pdf was posted on the Exposed ABC FB page but I can’t access it). TIA.

 

[Bohemian]

About the foyer/hospital car park, I wonder if that’s where the handover of Baby #1 took place?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

About the foyer/hospital car park, I wonder if that’s where the handover of Baby #1 took place?

I have had that thought too, but where else was it?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Does anyone have a link or a copy of the text of the letter to the NSWA-G regarding a judicial review of KL’s conviction? (A link to a .pdf was posted on the Exposed ABC FB page but I can’t access it). TIA.

Link to the application to the NSW AG here!

Blog

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Just back to the consciousness of guilt lies. Keli Lane sure looks guilty and it is circumstantial evidence that she did murder Tegan and can be put forward by the Prosecution. The jury is legally able to find that she is guilty from the evidence of these lies too.

But consciousness of guilt lies can be rebutted. There could be an innocent explanation. Keli is definitely very dysfunctional in this period of her life.

How should the Defence have approached this?

The onus and burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove the elements of murder. The lies look like Keli has the mens rea to commit murder but surely, the Prosecution is not under any duty to rebut the lies. As far as they are concerned their view on why she lied is the correct one.

When consciousness of guilt lies are in evidence, is the onus then on the Defence to present evidence to rebut those?

The Defence never lead any evidence. They have no burden of proof in relation to the offence at all but should they have had or did they have an onus of proof here? Is any one in the know able to answer? I am thinking they do, but I certainly don't have a good knowledge of these technical aspects.

What evidence would have rebutted those lies?

The Court and the jury need some evidence before they can make a finding.

In my view, something very dysfunctional in Keli's personality lead her to lie at this time. The only evidence I can think of that Keli could have possibly lead in her defence would have been a psychiatric assessment. She downright refuses to be assessed. A person like Professor Buist may have actually been able to help her at this stage. Who knows? All a moot point now.

 

[Spooky7]

I have had that thought too, but where else was it?

I think she left that baby in the hospital because I don’t think the adoption was finalised and ready to go by the time she was ready for discharge.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

When consciousness of guilt lies are in evidence, is the onus then on the Defence to present evidence to rebut those?

The Defence never lead any evidence. They have no burden of proof in relation to the offence at all but should they have had or did they have an onus of proof here? Is any one in the know able to answer? I am thinking they do, but I certainly don't have a good knowledge of these technical aspects.

What evidence would have rebutted those lies?

.

Looks like this case might provide an answer to my question. Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373 at 391-392. Yes, it is the Defence that needs to present evidence to rebut the lies. I definitely need to read more on this. I don't know why a civil case is quoted as a precedent on this. Need to find out.

Keli fails to rebut the consciousness of guilt lies. It is obvious how that looks for her.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

I think she left that baby in the hospital because I don’t think the adoption was finalised and ready to go by the time she was ready for discharge.

Babies 1 and 3 yes, but not Tegan.

Was the handover for Tegan really in the hospital car park, the hospital foyer or somewhere else? I think it was accepted at the inquest that her evidence it was the hospital carpark. Why has the story changed?

 

[The Observer]

I think it came down to the fact the defence had no defence. Nothing. They had no rebuttal. Unless they could produce 'Andrew' and/or Tegan, or at the very least witness(es) that saw her and Andrew together, they had no defence.

I think Keli was naively under the assumption that because everyone in her life up to that point had believed all her lies and stories that the jury would believe her 'Andrew' version of events without any real evidence.

 

[The Observer]

Babies 1 and 3 yes, but not Tegan.

Was the handover for Tegan really in the hospital car park, the hospital foyer or somewhere else? I think it was accepted at the inquest that her evidence it was the hospital carpark. Why has the story changed?

It does not look good that all these years later after an inquest and trial she's now telling Caro a different story about the handover and not just that but she's now willing to accept/admit/whatever that M/Norris might not be his real name. Doesn't look good that it was Morris then Norris to now okay yeah maybe he lied and it's not his real name.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

It does not look good that all these years later after an inquest and trial she's now telling Caro a different story about the handover and not just that but she's now willing to accept/admit/whatever that M/Norris might not be his real name. Doesn't look good that it was Morris then Norris to now okay yeah maybe he lied and it's not his real name.

Agreed.

 

[Bohemian]

Link to the application to the NSW AG here!

Blog

Thanks CKTC. I thought it was the letter they sent Mark Speakman but it’s just the press release.

These are the grounds cited for a judicial review apparently:




Source: Blog

 

[Bohemian]

Looks like this case might provide an answer to my question. Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373 at 391-392. Yes, it is the Defence that needs to present evidence to rebut the lies. I definitely need to read more on this. I don't know why a civil case is quoted as a precedent on this. Need to find out.

Keli fails to rebut the consciousness of guilt lies. It is obvious how that looks for her.

Could you post a link to that citation please?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

I think it came down to the fact the defence had no defence. Nothing. They had no rebuttal. Unless they could produce 'Andrew' and/or Tegan, or at the very least witness(es) that saw her and Andrew together, they had no defence.

I think Keli was naively under the assumption that because everyone in her life up to that point had believed all her lies and stories that the jury would believe her 'Andrew' version of events without any real evidence.

Agreed, except that Keli didn't need to present a defence at all. She is not under an onus to produce anything, not "Andrew" or "Tegan" but because this case is entirely circumstantial, and because the evidence of consciousness of guilt lies are so strong here, if she had any evidence at all, this is where she needed to present a rebuttal if she couldn't produce "Andrew" or "Tegan". She has a reverse onus here, where she shouldn't have any IMO!! It is not fair. It only works like that because there is only circumstantial evidence in this case and she is a liar.

Being a liar doesn't make you a murderer but it sure makes you look like one.

I agree that Keli is naïve. I think the way she instructed her Counsel in her trial confirms that too. The ABC made it look like her Counsel and solicitors were negligent. I don't think that at all. I think the problem is with Keli and her instructions.

The other problem I have, despite all the things raised by ABC Exposed and BOHII, is that the Prosecution case involved proving negatives, that "Andrew" never existed and that "Tegan" was not alive.

It is easy for the police to prove that. They did extensive searches but they cannot guarantee that their searches are not flawed. There is a chance they just could not find "Andrew" and "Tegan". They might have just missed a little clue and taken the wrong track. Who knows? Part of the blame for that lies with Keli too though.

EDITED to say: Actually a lot of the blame for the problems with the Police investigation does lie with Keli. She can't get her facts straight.

 

[Via Marple]

Thanks CKTC. I thought it was the letter they sent Mark Speakman but it’s just the press release.

These are the grounds cited for a judicial review apparently:
View attachment 153177
View attachment 153178
View attachment 153179

Ahh I didn't understand what you were asking for. No, I tried to look for the full letter but couldn't find it either. Guess it will come out "in due course".

When the press release came out, I had mentioned that the reasons were basically everything raised in Exposed, that's why I wondered if they were working together.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Could you post a link to that citation please?

Sure.

Here is the link:
Evidence suggesting a consciousness of guilt GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners

I thought it was bizarre to quote a civil case. Read para 86. It comes from the criminal case Cooper v R [2012] HCA 50 Heydon J. I think I need to go and read that one too.