What Did Keli Lane Do With Her Baby? - Analysis #3
Case Study: Working With Contamination - Comparative Analysis
Please NOTE: The blog is for educational purposes. All parties are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. No analysis can be a substitute for a thorough investigation, but instead must be taken as a tool for investigative purposes.
***I am not associated with any investigation into the case of Keli Lane. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of any investigating entities.***
I’d like to interject one additional analysis before we cover the interview clips between Keli Lane and Caro Meldrum-Hanna in this case. Here we have another clipped and edited interview of Keli Lane with the police. This interview is one that came much later in the lengthy investigation into this matter. Once again, we must go into this analysis keeping in mind that we have a very narrow view of the content since we don’t have access to the full interview. Please recall that interviews create contamination by their very nature and therefore we don’t know what that contamination could be when there’s content missing.
Despite this, Keli Lane will appear to make a couple critical mistakes for her story of what happened to her baby, Tegan, during this interview that need to be scrutinized.
The transcript:
Det.: In a previous interview with Detective Kio, you'd mentioned that you had said the father of the child was an Andrew Morris with an M. Do you remember that?
Lane: That I told Detective Kio it was Morris?
Det.: Morris, that's right.
Lane: Sorry, I'm confused. Sorry.
EDIT
Det.: Well, firstly, do you do you agree that you...
Lane: I made a mistake? Yes. I told Detective Kio one name and I told you a different name.
Det.: All right.
Lane: Yes. Sorry.
EDIT
Det.: Do you know the father of the child's name?
Lane: Yes, I do.
Det.: What is it?
Lane: Andrew Norris.
Det.: Norris.
Lane: Yes.
Det.: Okay. So, all right. So, at this stage, you believe it to be Andrew Norris?
Lane: Yes.
Det.: Okay.
EDIT
Det.: It's your opportunity now. If you've been telling us lies for whatever reason, if you know where the child is or what happened to the child, it's your opportunity to tell us now.
46 seconds of silence pass
Det.: Do you want to tell me anything?
18 more seconds of silence from Lane
Lane: No
Lane: Alright
Det.: Did you kill the child?
Lane: No, I did not. I did not do anything like that.
Det.: Someone else?
Lane: No. No.
Det.: All right, Kelly, like I said, I'm going to have to make a lot of inquiries here. Now I'm going to have to go...
Lane: Please don’t.
Det.: It's going to go through the coroners court. There'll be a coroner court hearing in relation to it. Alright?
Det.: That's why I say to you now, if there's something you're not telling us, now is the time to tell us.
16 Seconds of silence
Lane: I don't understand how can you... Can we stop the tape? Can I speak without the tape on?
Det.: I'd rather you do it on the tape.
Lane: Okay. I don't understand how you're going to go and speak with my parents or people like that who have no idea what you're going to be talking about.
Lane: This is between me and Andrew. He said it would be a great idea.
EDIT
Lane: He told me not to connect him.
EDIT
Det.: Do you understand the information you've given me, all right, I'm I'm very openminded, very reasonable, but the information you've given me, right, makes me highly suspicious that something has happened to the child.
Lane: Nothing has happened to her. Nothing has happened to her. He said he would contact me if there was an emergency. I've not heard cooee from them. Not one word.
The transcript with commentary:
Det.: In a previous interview with Detective Kio, you'd mentioned that you had said the father of the child was an Andrew Morris with an M. Do you remember that?
Lane: That I told Detective Kio it was Morris?
We start by noting something about the question is sensitive to her as she has a need to repeat it back before answering it.
Det.: Morris, that's right.
Lane: Sorry, I'm confused. Sorry.
Her confusion may be the nature of her sensitivity, or it may be furthering a tactic to stall for time while she processes how to respond.
We also note that “sorry” has entered into her language with repetition. It is another sensitivity indicator that exists over a need to be viewed as apologetic. There’s an element of ingratiation and ‘submission’ behind it.
EDIT
Det.: Well, firstly, do you do you agree that you...
Lane: I made a mistake? Yes. I told Detective Kio one name and I told you a different name.
Lane has cut off the question, needing to give her answer before it can even be posed. This is yet another indication that there is something sensitive about the question. Here, what she needs to interject before the detective can finish his sentence is to assert that what she did was “a mistake.” This suggests that Lane may have a need to control the narrative surrounding this issue.
Please take note of what Lane didn’t say her “mistake” was. What she didn’t say was something to the effect of:
‘I told Detective Kio his name was…and I told you it was…’
In her language she strongly dissociates the “father of the child” from the names she’s given by linguistically ‘itemizing’ them apart from him. She gave “one name” and then she gave “a different name.” Linguistically, neither of these were ‘his name.’
Further consider this point under the context that they only differ by one letter in the spelling of his last name. So, is it really “a different name” if you simply ‘mistakenly’ called him “Morris” instead of “Norris” as she asserted? To say she gave “a different name” is to suggest that it is something ‘new’ or ‘apart’ from the first one. Linguistically, they have no relation to each other.
This makes her language appear incongruent to this being “a mistake” and supports the suggestion that Lane has a need to control the narrative on this issue, furthering the suggesting that Lane may be providing false names for “the father of the child.”
Det.: All right.
Lane: Yes. Sorry.
EDIT
Det.: Do you know the father of the child's name?
Lane: Yes, I do.
Det.: What is it?
Lane: Andrew Norris.
Det.: Norris.
Lane: Yes.
Det.: Okay. So, all right. So, at this stage, you believe it to be Andrew Norris?
Lane: Yes.
Det.: Okay.
EDIT
Det.: It's your opportunity now. If you've been telling us lies for whatever reason, if you know where the child is or what happened to the child, it's your opportunity to tell us now.
46 seconds of silence pass following this statement by the detective.
Det.: Do you want to tell me anything?
18 more seconds pass, making Lane’s response to the detective’s statement more than a minute of silence. We don’t expect that Lane should have anything to think about. We simply expect a truthful Lane to have simply and promptly responded with something like, ‘I told you the truth.’ She didn’t.
If we consider that her brain had a need to process what the detective said, we should then ask if she was contemplating revealing something she had been suppressing.
Lane: No
Lane: Alright
Det.: Did you kill the child?
Lane: No, I did not. I did not do anything like that.
Please note that Lane is not only denying killing “the child” but her language suggests to us that the question introduced the need for her to compare it against what she ‘did do’. In other words, we now need to consider that when asked about killing her daughter, Lane’s brain was forced to look upon what she ‘did,’ evaluate it under the broader concept of doing “anything (that is) like” killing Tegan and then needed to communicate that what it was does not fit that category. If she didn’t do “anything like that,” we now ask if she did ‘something like this’, questioning what ‘this’ could be. And if accurate, we then must dig a bit deeper and ask, why has the concept of ‘killing her child’ caused her brain to compare it to what it was that she recognizes she did do as she was denying it.
Although when we dive into deeper psycho-linguistic analysis it means we are moving further away from simply following the utility of the language and into something more speculative, we can look upon the dependent language that exists in comparing what she did to “anything like” killing her daughter and ask the question:
Is Keli Lane fearful of legal or moral judgement for her actions? And if so, why?
Det.: Someone else?
Lane: No. No.
Det.: All right, Kelly, like I said, I'm going to have to make a lot of inquiries here. Now I'm going to have to go...
Lane: Please don’t.
Det.: It's going to go through the coroners court. There'll be a coroner court hearing in relation to it. Alright?
Det.: That's why I say to you now, if there's something you're not telling us, now is the time to tell us.
16 Seconds of more silence occurred in the video at this point. We now have a pattern of Lane needing to process something that has to do with the presented idea that there’s “something (she’s) not telling (them).”
Lane: I don't understand how can you... Can we stop the tape? Can I speak without the tape on?
Det.: I'd rather you do it on the tape.
Lane: Okay. I don't understand how you're going to go and speak with my parents or people like that who have no idea what you're going to be talking about.
Lane: This is between me and Andrew. He said it would be a great idea.
This is one of the critical points in her account. One should begin by asking themselves, what “idea” did he say would be “great?” We must explore this “idea” further. Please consider the following:
1- To have an “idea” under this context is to suggest to us that there was an ‘objective’ or ‘goal’ behind giving Tegan to Andrew. That could be as simple as avoiding the need to create yet another false story with an adoption agency for some reason or it could be something more nefarious, but in the end this “idea” appears to be a means to achieve something greater for Lane and/or Andrew than simply seeing to it that Tegan is given a home.
2- Whatever it was, it was “between (Lane) and Andrew.” This means it was ‘no one else’s business.’ Was this “idea” something that was a ‘secret’ “between (Lane) and Andrew?” Was there a ‘secret goal’ or ‘agenda’ behind giving Tegan to him?
3- Andrew didn’t say ‘it was a great idea’ but instead he said “it would be” one according to Lane. This is future conditional/hypothetical. It’s given from a past perspective of some point in time when they were having the discussion prior to ‘executing’ it and even appears to be given prior to the point in time when the decision whether they should execute this “idea” was agreed upon.
This conversation is important and may even be critical to the truth of what happened.
If such a conversation truly took place and Lane recalls this assertion made by Andrew accurately, we must then ask why Andrew had a need to tell Lane that “it would be a great idea.” What this suggests to us is that Andrew had a need to persuade Lane of just how “great” it was and that Lane may have had to be ‘talked into’ it. And if this is accurate, then it is a critical question to ask why Lane had to be convinced of this “idea.” Why would giving Tegan over to her “natural father” instead of choosing an adoption be something Lane might hesitate upon?
Further, what it also suggests to us is that ‘conditions’ had to be met first before this could manifest into the “great idea” being proposed, which further supports the idea that the “arrangement” they made was more complex than one simple component of giving Tegan to Andrew. It supports the idea that it had multiple components to it and giving Tegan to Andrew was merely one component to achieve their ‘goal.’
EDIT
Lane: He told me not to connect him.
This is given to us in another edit, so objectively, we don’t know the full context of how Lane came to say these words, but it appears very unlikely to be a result of some contaminating factor. She is purporting that this is something Andrew “told” her, which means she is purporting to be working from her experiential memory. Even if time has corrupted her memory, this is her perception of what the conversation was, meaning even if it is not accurately what Andrew said, it is something Lane perceives to be a consistent detail with what she believes to be the truth behind what happened with Tegan.
Here we may have the most significant problem with Lane’s account, in my opinion. To say “he told me not to connect him” is to suggest to us that he can be dissociated from what ‘it’ is she is referring to. If her account that she merely turned Tegan over to Andrew so he could raise her as Tegan’s father is true and accurate according to her perception of reality, then how could it be that Lane’s language allow not only for the possibility that Andrew could be ‘disconnected’ from what occurred, but more specifically that he actually is ‘disconnected’ from it as ‘connecting him’ is something he asserted she was not to do. This is to say that whatever occurred to Tegan, Andrew (and Lane by her words) believed Andrew could be ‘left out of.’
Even more specifically, this doesn’t represent the idea that Andrew had nothing to do with what happened, but instead it represents the idea that conditions existed where he could not be ‘traced to it.’ To not “connect” him suggests he merely meant he didn’t want his name to be ‘associated with it.’ And to whom would she be speaking to so as she should not “connect him?” The concept of an ‘investigation’ now lingers among the use of this word as well.
It appears Lane just let it out that what happened to Tegan would be considered something that was criminal or otherwise something that would receive some form of harsh judgment or criticism from others. Did Andrew need to hide his involvement from someone other than the police?
EDIT
Det.: Do you understand the information you've given me, all right, I'm I'm very openminded, very reasonable, but the information you've given me, right, makes me highly suspicious that something has happened to the child.
Lane: Nothing has happened to her. Nothing has happened to her. He said he would contact me if there was an emergency. I've not heard cooee from them. Not one word.
As we wrap up this analysis, I want to draw attention to one last observation.
Who is “them?”
Reports, according to Kelly Lane’s account, are that Andrew came to the hospital with his wife and his mother when he took custody of Tegan. With the contamination caused through the edits, we can assume that somewhere in the content we don’t have exists the mention of them. However, please consider this under the context that Lane said, “this is between me and Andrew”. How could it be between her and Andrew if there are others involved? This supports the concept that whatever “this” is that Lane was referring to, was something more than Andrew merely having custody of Tegan and makes it more likely to be some type of ‘secret’ they share.