Utterly, totally, ridiculously guilty.
Current Keli Lane
- Thread starter CAS79
- Start date
-
- Tags
- crime infanticide murder
- Tagged users None
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
This was my thought on watching the doco - is there gangs/underworld types involved in the illegal adoption trade? If so that could be the only reason she would keep her mouth shut. If not - she probably ditched the baby somewhere and its just never been found.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,465
- 118,143
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
She would be in witness protection if she was concerned about adoption gangs
- May 14, 2012
- 8,176
- 12,893
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Where's the child (now adult)
Yes but the likelyhood is that she did kill her and as the FB group attached to the doco (now taken down) says it is highly likely that the baby never left the hospital grounds alive as the back stairs that she was thought to have gone down came out at the hospital incinerator. The time line of her leaving then hospital and showing up at the wedding was so short that that is the thought of what happened.
The problem for Lane - and the reason she is guilty - is she is the only one in the world who is privy to the baby’s last known whereabouts.
There is not a single shred of evidence that this “Morris” / “Norris” bloke is anything but an invention of her imagination.
Well, except for the fact that they DID locate “Andrew Morris” - he was a totally unrelated bloke who had a one night stand with Lane at another time that made it impossible for him to be the father. Which is obviously where she plucked the name from.
That’s clear, beyond reasonable doubt.
Which means she is lying, beyond reasonable doubt.
That’s what makes it possible to sustain the charges, and why she was found guilty.
Apparently she's eligible for parole in May 2024.
But in the wake of the Teacher's Pet case, the NSW govt introduced "no body, no parole" laws for murderers, which might make it hard for her to get parole.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 4,433
- 5,609
- AFL Club
- Sydney
In any case where there is no body and no witness as to the killing great care needs to be taken to ensure all plausible explanations are exhausted. Absent that it can't be beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't help when we work in an adversarial legal system. We haven't found "Norris" therefore she is guilty. Mmmmmm
hard to find a made up person.. Guilty as sin..
They found Norris. Actually, Morris… which is what she first called him before changing it to Norris.
He was a local bloke who she had a one night stand with, more than two years earlier, and therefore couldn’t be the father.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 4,433
- 5,609
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Probably. But what if he gave her a false name after one night stand? Unlikely.... but beyond reasonable doubt? This all comes about because prosecution isn't proving a positive but rather doing enough to assume a negative is wrong ........that Norris doesn't exist.
Then you have the motive which is an assumption rather than concrete. She was a dedicated sportsperson who wanted to participate in Olympics. They then assumed she would do anything to achieve that including murder. But at days end it is an assumption nothing more. She has already adopted out before why would it be different this time?
Last edited:
Good.
Exactly what the laws were designed for.
Exactly what the laws were designed for.
- Oct 31, 2016
- 2,375
- 1,606
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- qpr
I don't know what to think of this. Why didn't she claim post natal depression made her do it?
Why didn't she just give up the baby for adoption?
Maybe the father did take the baby, like many other crimes, I am glad I don't understand the mentality involved.
Why didn't she just give up the baby for adoption?
Maybe the father did take the baby, like many other crimes, I am glad I don't understand the mentality involved.
Richard7632
Draftee
- Apr 9, 2024
- 1
- 1
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I think you hit the spot there mate as you have to ask a simple question why she adopted and aborted 4 other children and all of a sudden killed the 3rd one as this clearly doesnt make sense and also another big clue as well and that is she was screwing everyone left right and centre and only you could be feeling this way if you were on coke or amphetamines and this is why she was enjoying screwing so much and needed that fix as much as she could and this means that the water polo team were given this by a third party or someone within the olympic team was giving it to them as recreational drugs whilst training before the olympics as up to 3 months prior to there drug test before the olympic games and so either keli was screwing this person at the time who was supplying this to her and the team and this person also probably happened to be married at the time or the team was being watched by some policing authority who suspected drugs been amongst the olympian teams and she befriended this person and either screwed him to stay silent about there drug use and fell pregnant to him and she at one stage said that your going to take care of it whether you like it or not and he said no so she decided to dump the child at his house on river road with the cabbie that night and if thats true then it would blow the whistle big time of australian olympian being drug cheats and the authorities were covering it up and one of them got pregant accidently to there investigators which would be a complete embarrsment for the australian olympics and the australian governemnt as well or this andrew norris was actually a politician and was married at the time and she decided to dump the child at his house after she gave birth and he had no choice but to take her whether he liked it or not and if he reported it then it would blow up in his face in the media big time an thats why keli has made a fictional name up because of the fathers real identity so i wonder what politician or police investigator olypmic advisor or trainer lived in river road at the time in 1996
Listened to a couple of new podcasts this week in the wake of her parole denial.
She certainly does have her supporters and I can respect that despite disagreeing with them.
The thing is though, even her most ardent supporters seem to believe she has not been truthful about the events following Tegan’s birth.
So what is she hiding?
She certainly does have her supporters and I can respect that despite disagreeing with them.
The thing is though, even her most ardent supporters seem to believe she has not been truthful about the events following Tegan’s birth.
So what is she hiding?
Possible scenario/hypothetical:
That there is no body left to direct them to or reveal because she did something so callous, when she went out the back way of the hospital past the hospital waste incinerator.
That is one theory that I have heard.
I think she’s hiding the fact that she trafficked the child, as in sold the child to someone. I don’t necessarily think this was nefarious on her end in the sense that she knowingly sold the child into a child sex trafficking ring. It may have been an apparently legitimate couple or organisation from what she perceived or it may somehow have involved the father.
The child may be living under a totally assumed identity with only a couple of people aware of the situation, none of whom are going to come forward due to the risks to them. The child may also have ended up in a child sex trafficking ring.
I never believed she killed the child and I see no reason for her to maintain her innocence at this point given admitting where the body is would likely result in her freedom.
Similar threads
