Don't know if to put current or not on this prefix.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lane-appeals-murder-conviction-20121221-2bqzp.html
It appears however there playing multiple lotto on finding grounds on which to appeal, Which includes the judge allowed the prosecution to switch the burden of proof to the defense and the options of manslaughter or infanticide were instructed to be left off the table. Now some NSW law experts can correct me if need be in defense of murder the defense must raise the defense of infanticide and I don't believe the Lane team did, they stuck for the most part to the story that Tegan was handed out to someone else to care for. The prosecution is understood to have a very strong case this did not happen.
It is worth noticing that the judge does not think the prosecution proved their case but than again , he doesn't need to and of course not grounds for an appeal.
Is there anyone here who thinks the wrong verdict was reached?
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lane-appeals-murder-conviction-20121221-2bqzp.html
It appears however there playing multiple lotto on finding grounds on which to appeal, Which includes the judge allowed the prosecution to switch the burden of proof to the defense and the options of manslaughter or infanticide were instructed to be left off the table. Now some NSW law experts can correct me if need be in defense of murder the defense must raise the defense of infanticide and I don't believe the Lane team did, they stuck for the most part to the story that Tegan was handed out to someone else to care for. The prosecution is understood to have a very strong case this did not happen.
It is worth noticing that the judge does not think the prosecution proved their case but than again , he doesn't need to and of course not grounds for an appeal.
Is there anyone here who thinks the wrong verdict was reached?