|
Post by pennybanger on Oct 14, 2018 1:53:40 GMT
Thanks for that, Duff. Really, really interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if she left Tegan somewhere and just went about her life as per usual rather than deliberately murder her. Its a shame that she won't/can't be honest about what happened. I've always thought that; and it still wouldn't surprise me if one day, someone out walking their dog somewhere, stumbles across a baby capsule and a pathetic little bundle of bones.
|
|
|
Post by duffy on Oct 14, 2018 2:33:06 GMT
lol Penny.
It's not fair, it's never been fair and you would have thought WR guy would have been more aware given his position and especially in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by dawn on Oct 14, 2018 10:39:05 GMT
What is a baby capsule?
I'm picturing a Tylenol capsule sized for an infant.
|
|
|
Post by prim on Oct 14, 2018 12:05:29 GMT
It is a baby carrier used to carry a baby in a car,. I am sure you have them there but probably under another name?
|
|
|
Post by figlet on Oct 15, 2018 11:25:49 GMT
How would she have got one though.. can't see her having it ready to take to the hospital when she was going in to have the baby. You have to provide your own? Purchased or hired?
|
|
|
Post by pennybanger on Oct 15, 2018 13:53:56 GMT
None of it makes sense. If she'd tried to get into a taxi with a baby in her arms I'm sure the driver would have said something. It would be highly illegal.
|
|
kayoneuu1
Posts: 4,110
Interests: golf; grandkids; travel; food; sauvignon blanc; pinot gris ......
|
Post by kayoneuu1 on Oct 15, 2018 21:02:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duffy on Oct 16, 2018 6:29:01 GMT
None of it makes sense. If she'd tried to get into a taxi with a baby in her arms I'm sure the driver would have said something. It would be highly illegal. JMO but I don't think she did try to get into a taxi with the baby- she had already given the baby away before she went home and then onto the wedding. She would have had to have taken a capsule with her- I don't see that as a huge problem- she was already doing everything in secret.
|
|
|
Post by duffy on Oct 16, 2018 6:29:49 GMT
I did link to that article Kay, worth a read.
|
|
|
Post by duffy on Oct 23, 2018 6:29:24 GMT
'The RMIT Innocence Initiative has submitted an official application to NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman pushing for an urgent review of Keli Lane’s 2010 murder conviction.'
From the pdf
MEDIA RELEASE Tuesday, 23 October 2018 Lindy Chamberlain and now Keli Lane: We must avoid the mistakes of the past Today RMIT University’s Innocence Initiative has submitted an official application to NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman pushing for an urgent review of Keli Lane’s 2010 murder conviction. The Initiative, made up a team of leading academics, criminologists and lawyers, has been working on the case for several years and it has become apparent the police’s investigative techniques, possible withholding of evidence and witness bargaining deals meant the 2010 trial – which presented no physical evidence, motive or body – may have led to a wrongful conviction. The Initiative is seeking an urgent referral to senior counsel to examine issues recently revealed in the case and to review the conviction either by way of a full appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal or judicial inquiry. “Like Lindy Chamberlain before her, Keli Lane’s conviction is a miscarriage of justice based on an overwhelmingly inadequate police investigation and what we believe was an unfair trial,” said Dr Michele Ruyters, Director of the Innocence Initiative and RMIT’s Associate Dean of Criminology and Justice Studies. “If Keli Lane can be convicted in these circumstances, then any one of us is potentially able to be accused, tried and gaoled without hard evidence. This case goes to the heart of our legal system and the right to a fair trial, which is a basic human right for every Australian. “Attorney General Mark Speakman must take urgent action now to prevent history from repeating itself. Another woman should not have to spend most of her life wrongly convicted in jail as a result of inadequate investigation and disclosure, a potential failure to reach the required standard of proof, and, most importantly, no evidence,” she said. According to the Innocence Initiative, Lane’s case has hallmarks of other wrongful case convictions, including tunnel vision by police to the exclusion of all other possible scenarios, and the fact that not all evidence may have been disclosed by the prosecution and police force. The Initiative has sought access to potentially thousands of intercepted recordings that may not have been disclosed to the defence. “Non-disclosure by police and prosecution teams is an issue both in Australia and abroad, and is currently under review in the United Kingdom after the collapse of hundreds of cases. Keli Lane’s case shows the overwhelming influence of a carefully constructed police and prosecution theory on her conviction, and the omission of evidence that did not fit with that theory,” said Ruyters. The flaws in Ms Lane’s case were revealed in the ABC’s recent TV documentary Exposed: The Case of Keli Lane. This has led to the Innocence Initiative and many others within Australia’s legal system calling for a review of the process, in particular: • The lead police investigator doubted police had sufficient evidence to charge Ms Lane with murder and an internal memorandum conceded that the police investigation had not reached the standard of proof required; • The police investigation had not been completed prior to trial, and disclosure of the prosecution case continued during trial; • Police assisting at the coronial inquiry conceded that the police had failed to pursue telephone records that could have supported Ms Lane’s version of events;
• A new witness with fresh evidence supporting Ms Lane’s version of events had never been identified by police; • A witness claimed he was led by police to believe that he had had sexual intercourse with Ms Lane and the lead police investigator confirmed the possibility that this witness’ memory had been coached; • The trial judge, Whealy J, expressed reservations about whether the prosecution had made its case to the standard of proof required. “When there is no evidence of death, no evidence of murder, no confession or forensic evidence to be disputed, and significantly, no evidence disproving the accused’s version of events, then a conviction like Lane’s must be urgently reviewed,” said Ruyters. The Initiative is also urging the public to sign and share an online petition which calls for a swift inquiry into the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of Lane. -ENDSFor interviews please contact Dr Michele Ruyters, Director, RMIT’s Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative, 0401 992 235, innocence.initiative@rmit.edu.au About RMIT’s Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative The Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative at RMIT is a collaboration between academics, university students and lawyers who investigate claims of wrongful conviction, work to achieve the exoneration and release of ‘convicted innocents’, conduct research and campaign for the reform of issues that may lead to such miscarriages of justice. The Initiative provides assistance on a pro bono basis to applicants who claim they are factually innocent of a criminal offence for which they were convicted. The Initiative is supported by joint patrons The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG and Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs, and an executive Reference Group of leading Victorian criminal justice professsionals.
|
|