Taxi driver says he remembers Kellie Lane,

leaving baby near a tree,he states he gave

baby to a women, may or not be true.

If true puts a different light on the murder charge.

The news over here stated that the Police spoke to him for a little while and will speak to him later, seems to me they are not putting too much credence into the statement.

Yahoo news this morning had a small item about the taxi driver - it seems he has a history of mental illness.

There seems to be too much speculation - I prefer to let the courts decide.

That is a sensible attitude, fwed. I saw a woman journo interviewed on TV the other day. She had sat through the entire trial and was writing a book (as they do). She said that she went into the trial with the mindset "how can they hope to get a conviction here?" like so many others in that courtroom, the thought of a mother killing her newborn baby was unthinkable to her. She said that after hearing all the evidence, she, the judge, the jury and most everyone else in the court were left with the view that Lane's testimony was not credible, plausible or believable and the only possible events that fit the evidence was that Lane murdered her baby.

We all know that our justice system has flaws, but its all we've got and especially in heinous and complex crimes like this one, we just have to trust in those who have heard ALL the evidence and made their judgement.

I agree with you kfchugo, and as far as the taxi driver is concerned, reading between the lines, there does'nt seem to be the interest by the Police that you would expect from a statement such as the one from the taxi driver. just my opinion.

She said that after hearing all the evidence, she, the judge, the jury and most everyone else in the court were left with the view that Lane's testimony was not credible, plausible or believable and the only possible events that fit the evidence was that Lane murdered her baby.



Once again I will state, I was NOT in the court room so this is just another way to look at it, the one thing we all know is that she disposed of the baby somehow, that is not in dispute, but how?



In my life experiences, dealing with people that you have to try and work out if they are telling the truth or not, once a lie is started it is hard to continue without slipping up, (unless you have the worlds best memory) what if.........and it is only just another slant on it.....she did give the baby away, whether sold, given, surrogated, or what ever, she could be protecting the identity of the people involved, in which case she would be lying her head off and getting tied up in knots trying to keep up with lawyers questions. Like I said, I wasn't there, don't know the girl in question. Just putting in another possible scenario.



I hate to think that mothers would kill their own babies, but I do know it happens and more often than the general public is aware of.



We really do have to have faith in our Court System, but it is hard sometimes especially with the jury system that we have.

Have just finished reading the trial and conviction of Kerri Lne,

there is much more than in the papers,



A conviction was almost unavoidable going by evidence produced

.

She was also found not guilty of 3 charges of perjury.

But alternatively found guilty of false swearing.



It also says, unusually the Crown called the evidence of s

psychiatrist,Dr.Diamond, although producing 2 lengthy documents,

He had never met or interviewed her but based on what he had read.

At first refuted by the defense,but later accepted when parts assisted

the defense.



re taxi driver why if true he has waited so long seeing it has been

a news item a long time.

seth, I'm interested to know where you got your reading material from, would love to read it myself.



You say a conviction was.....almost.......unavoidable which means there must be an element of doubt, albeit a very small one or am I misunderstanding it, maybe the court system differs from State to State.



Re the cabbie, maybe he, like most everyone else didn't think she would be proved guilty so decided his evidence wouldn't be required, but having said that, in my mind the Police didn't spend enough time with him to feel that his story stacked up. Once again just another slant.

Just got back from my afternoon swim

,Had to walk, my bike was stolen. :coolsmirk:



Deanna, this is how I was able to get it.



w w w. caselaw..nsw.gov.au



click NSW Caselaw home page - caselaw corporate



then Supreme Court. bottom of page, click all decisions.



Then click Decisions by Number {2010}



{2010}

Thanks for that seth, I will read up on it this evening.

How can a psych, produce a lenthy document on someone they had never met or interviewed and have that accepted by the judicial system surely his opinion would be based on heresay ,which to the best of my knowledge is not accepted by the courts. I believe the taxi driver was driving while on a suspended license, which explains perhaps his reluctance to come forward before. I think Kellie sold the baby and left the baby there for that woman to pick up and the taxi driver arrived back and unknowingly handed the baby to the woman who arrived at that time to pick her up. Why else would the woman be at that spot in the bush at that time, its is quite possible that the arrangement was made without Kellie even knowing the name of whoever the baby was going to. I knew a girl back in the 60s who was unmarried and pregnant who was approached by a lawyer after going to a Dr for a checkup. She was offered a large amount of money to hand her baby over to a childless anon couple, Fortunatly her mother found out and threatened to go to the police so nothing happened in that instance but I bet it still goes on as Ivf is hellishly expensive and does not always work .and there are people out there who would do anything to have a child even buy one if they can get away with it Kellie had already adopted out before and you dont get paid for that.Wobbly.

My son showed me on page 4 of Saturdays' Age

the following:

The words of Justice Wheatly.



Handing down his sentence, Justice Wheatly said

he was bound to accept the majority guilty verdict

of a jury of 12 in December last year despite his

remaining "None the wiser as to the actual

circumstances of the child's death

Wasn't that in the judges submission???? I read the submission last night and I still can't see where they could convict her 'without doubt', having said that it was only the Judges submission, it seems that the bulk of the verdict was based on the psych's evidence. That's just how I read it anyway, (and it was late at night.) The other thing I thought strange was the little attention that was taken to her GP who had been treating her on occasions although they did say the Docs evidence did seem to back up the psych's evidence to a certain extent, and the defense took the psych's evidence on board as well.



The big thing to me is that she refused to give evidence herself, why????????? There's too many holes in it for me to say yay or nay. Just have to rely on the jury I guess, surely out of 12 the majority should get it right, one would hope so anyway. We will see what the appeal brings up.