Keli Lane, 35, is accused of murdering her two-day-old daughter Tegan within hours of leaving hospital in 1996 because of her Olympic ambitions.
A Sydney court heard accusations that the athlete had the birth induced after telling hospital staff the child was overdue.
Dr Gregory Jenkins, who was on duty around the time Tegan was born, says the birth was induced after Lane told them the baby was overdue.
He said Lane told hospital staff she had booked a midwife for a home birth, but they were unable to contact the midwife on the number she gave them.
The doctor said hospital records show no family or friends were present for Tegan's birth.
Ms Lane said she was determined to represent Australia in water polo.
But she is also "on trial" for doing what so many us were told was a loving thing...
Just as in many murder cases, people's pasts - their infidelities and such are brought into the case to indicate their character - previous abortions and relinquishments before and after this child dies are being brought up in her court case...
The NSW Supreme Court heard yesterday that Ms Lane, who has pleaded not guilty to murdering her second child, Tegan, was "teary and upset" after giving birth to a baby in 1995 -- the year before Tegan was born.
"She was uncertain if she wanted to parent her baby that she had just delivered," social worker Deborah McCauley told a jury yesterday. "I remember she said . . . she had certain goals that she wanted to achieve.
"She told me that she was a champion water polo player and that her ambition was to compete in the Sydney Olympics and she did not feel in a position to parent a child."
The court heard yesterday that Ms Lane gave birth in 1995 to her first live baby after terminating two pregnancies during the previous three years, one at 20 weeks' gestation.
Prosecutors have alleged Ms Lane hid five pregnancies over seven years from her family, friends and lovers, spinning a complex web of lies surrounding each pregnancy.
Ms Lane has also pleaded not guilty to three perjury charges.
The court heard yesterday that Ms Lane rushed to a Sydney hospital in 1995 when she was 39 weeks' pregnant after her waters broke.
Prosecutors allege that on the night of the birth Ms Lane had earlier been socialising with friends -- who had no idea she was pregnant -- at a Balmain pub.
After the baby's birth, Ms Lane breast-fed and cared for the child for several days before relinquishing the baby for adoption.
Just a day after giving birth, Ms Lane requested a "gate pass" from the hospital, ostensibly to meet the baby's father to discuss adoption plans, the court heard.
Ms Lane left the hospital at 3.10pm the day after giving birth, and did not return until 6.20am the following day, leaving the baby in the care of nurses.
Prosecutors have alleged she did not meet the baby's father, but instead -- intent on keeping up the ruse of living a normal life -- attended a planned celebration for her own birthday.
The crown contends Ms Lane found the adoption process for her first child so traumatic that, when Tegan was born the following year, she did not want to go through it again, and instead chose to kill the baby and dispose of the body.
Judge Anthony Whealy issued a direction to the jury yesterday, urging them to keep an open mind and cautioning that the fact Ms Lane may have told lies about her pregnancies did not necessarily mean she had murdered Tegan.
"People can lie about one thing but be very truthful about other matters," Justice Whealy said.
"You must not fall into the error of thinking that if a person has told a lie, then that lie in itself can prove guilt -- it cannot."
It is also true that placing a child fro adoption and committing murder are totally different things.
The trial continues.
11 comments:
Are you seriously sticking up for this woman? Does any murderer or criminal who is also birthmother get an excuse? You have to be kidding.
I in no way condone murder!! Did you not read my final comment?
My concern is on them bringing up her relinquishment as kinda of a way proving a "pattern" of her lack of maternal interest. She is quite clear that she does not want to be a mother, and as my title suggets, put her ambitions first.
What is really hard to understand is why she didb't find and use some decent birth control.
All in all quite bizarre case. And not one tat is going to win points for ay of us who have lost children to adoption.
Some good reliable birth control, let's hope she gets it now and of course it's possibly a sterilisation.
"All in all quite bizarre case. And not one tat is going to win points for ay of us who have lost children to adoption"
This is true. So why have you put it on your blog?
Why are you "concerned" at all?
Good question. I debated it...and I can always take it down. But, concerned? don't know that i am. It was just quick passing post...i am 3 posts beyond it already...an oddity. A bizarre curiosity of a news story from the other side of the world. And I am interested in all things about adoption - good and bad...
Also, I thought it might spark some conversation about stigmatized adoption is ..and how it has effected our lives...
PS this anon smells familiar...Care your reveal your identity?
"It is also true that placing a child fro adoption and committing murder are totally different things."
Sane people would think so, although the comparison is hardly news. Even some mothers who have relinquished have used it, including a well-known Aussie activist who is on record as saying that "signing the consent is tantamount to signing your own child's death warrant. "
There is also a book called Death by Adoption by J Shawyer (1979 NZ)
If someone is already inclined to think that way, perhaps it is not so difficult for them to be persuaded to go from judge to executioner.
And, don't forget, there was a wedding being held to her head.
You might try reading a book before you refer to it.
Death by Adoption refers to the fact that losing a child to adoption is like death OF THE MOTHER!
Thanks, but I already knew that.
But not everybody does. They just see the title and it does its work.
well, those who chose to judge a book by its cover can think what they want. anyone who bothers to google the title funds out otherwise.
i see no connection to a woman who relinquished two children and is charged with a murder that i hear she has little chance of being convicted of since there is no body.
"well, those who chose to judge a book by its cover can think what they want. anyone who bothers to google the title funds out otherwise."
Subliminal association doesn't work that way. The words seep into the public consciousness.
"i see no connection to a woman who relinquished two children and is charged with a murder that i hear she has little chance of being convicted of since there is no body.
By denying a connection that hasn't been actually articulated, at least in the media reports, there is a danger of making it seem plausible.
It seems to me that it is precisely such suspicions that the judge was attempting to dispel.
Perhaps so..here in the U.S. Keli Lane and this case are non issues. So I have not delved into it to any extent to know what the judge's intents are or aren't. I only read the one news report and it seems to me the media is playing UP the connection, not down.
Post a Comment