The woman had a long history of lying, abortion, immoral behavior etc., etc. Even her own father did not know of her last pregnancy and she then claimed that she handed over her babe of only a few hours of age to a man (supposedly the father) whose name she could not remember with accuracy.

Admittedly, the case against her was "circumstantial evidence", but there was a MOUNTAIN of it. Her story beggars belief and I dont think that any thinking person ( especially a caring parent) would accept her tale and be comfortable that the missing child was well, happy and in good care. Ordinarily, I too would be sceptical of a verdict like this and the "evidence" it was based on but in this case, Lane's story is simply not credible or believable and we have an obligation to the child and children generally, to ensure that they are not just swept under the carpet if they disappear.

The thought of a new mother callously murdering and disposing of her newborn infant is abhorrent to all of us and I dont believe that the charges against lane were brought lightly or carelessly. Parents have obligations for the care of their children and nobody should be able to excuse a disappearance by making airy fairy statements about handing them off to some stranger only hours after the birth (and then heading off to a wedding) - what mother would even consider such an act?

I repeat I'm not saying she is innocent, but all the circumstantial

evidence does not prove she is guilty, A mountain of past lying,

and feeling uncomfortable about her story are just that "feelings"

not proof. Disbelieving her story without positive evidence still

doesn't make her guilty.it may make one suspicious.



Kfchugo, she may be as guilty as hell, but have I missed something?

where is the factual evidence apart from hearsay.

She lied,who hasn't, she was secretive,who hasn't been secretive?

Was she found to be violent?

Where you say the thought of a new mother callous murdering and

disposing of the body is abhorrent is correct.

The thought is terrible, does that thought prove she is guilty?

I'll probably start a war, but isn't that going on every day ,

In one part of a hospital you have Doctors fighting to save babies,

in another they are disposing them .

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say seth, you should have a brief read of

Evidence Amendment Act 2008, number 135 & read particularly Sect 98

The Coincidence Rule & also the Evidence Act 1995 of which various sections

refer to circumstancial evidence.

Thanks for that Innes, I'll see if I can get onto them.

Innes I had a look at them both,

{ I say again I do not claim she is innocent}

Just why she was found guilty without physical evidence.



The Coincidence Rule,

Evidence that 2 or more events occurred is not applicable

to prove that a person did a particular act or had a particular

state of mind

.

Unless

The part seeking to adduce {prove}the evidence, gave

reasonable notice to each party.



The court thinks that the evidence? either by itself or regard to

other evidence, adduced {Proven} or to be adduced by the party

seeking to adduce{Prove} the evidence.



I may be wrong but doesn't that mean evidence has to be proven

for the Court to accept the evidence?

seth, I agree with you, I was also shocked that she was convicted on circumstantial evidence only, which is what has happened, there is no solid, concrete evidence, no DNA and she gets 18years. I don't know if she is guilty or not and unless we sat in the Court Room each and every day or on the jury we won't know either, The media only prints what it wants to as we all know. Her story is plausible, however, how could someone stand aside knowing they have the child and let her spend 18yrs behind bars for a crime she didn't do, (if she didn't) maybe taking protection a little too far I would say. Anyway I see an appeal coming on.

Surely If she handed over the child to the father, one would think that with the amount of publicity surrounding this case the supposed father would have come forward to support her claims as with her past history and dna testing he would more than likely have been granted custody anyway. I suspect she may have sold the child and lived off the proceedings as there was some talk that she did not access her bank accounts for months after the child was born.I am sure there is more to this story and someone knows what realy happened to this poor baby.Wobbly

That is the line I was thinking along Wobbly, I thought she may have sold the baby or even been a surrogate or something, I would say it certainly isn't all as it seems.

seth, I was not defending the system, I was just referring to it. You state correctly

in part:-

"Unless

The part seeking to adduce {prove}the evidence, gave

reasonable notice to each party."

This means in effect that the circumstantial evidence adduced or "used as"

proof must be supplied by the prosecuter to the defence with reasonable notice,

so that the defence has every opportunity to refute the circunstantial.

This is legality as to admittance not to guilt & as Deanna said, we did not sit

through the case.

Also, an old legal saying, "Once a lie, all a lie". In effect, if you can get the

evidence admitted, the jury will mostly adduce within their own psychology.

innes there must be more to what the jury heard

than what we have read,we have to accept that

the jury are our peers and would have the same

abhorrence to being convicted of curcumstantial

evidence without proof,as most people have.

Hi Seth, How is the concreting business , I see you are argueing points of law as well these days, whats more I think you have a very valid point or two. Remind me to retain your services should I ever do something against the law. Wobbly.

Wobbly in the world of cheap concreting it is

surprising how many time you have to face

wrongful accusations by other crooks,

plus defending yourself in a hostile court,

where the jury is made up of past clients..

She will have plenty of time to decide whether having babies was a good idea.

Going by the aboveYourLifeChoices jury, would it have been better to face a charge of selling her baby or face a charge of murder ?

Fwed remember those guilty of suggesting

leg removal, just be careful