What Did Keli Lane Do With Her Baby? - The Final Analysis

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.***

In the final installment of this case study, we will be looking at edited clips from interviews of Keli Lane with Journalist, Caro Meldrum-Hanna.  Here we will not be as thorough with the material as previous posts but be putting a larger emphasis on the patterns that may appear in our comparative analysis to consider as we attempt to answer: 

Did Keli Lane murder her baby, Tegan, and if not, what did she do with her? 

The analyzed clips come from Meldrum-Hanna's three-part documentary where her interviews with Keli Lane took place in six-minute incremented jail calls.  What follows are seven of those clips, which come to us edited in the documentary.  Please recall all the previously discussed issues of contamination as we navigate Lane’s words. 

The documentary: 

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4wjZIp1WA&list=PLxV-ATHS0FFjtn4jEh1MjsMbnuzd8XxvA&index=3 

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZbwVGGE-PU&list=PLxV-ATHS0FFjtn4jEh1MjsMbnuzd8XxvA&index=2 

Part 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdNBH5ydcA&list=PLxV-ATHS0FFjtn4jEh1MjsMbnuzd8XxvA&index=1 

 Clip #1: 

The documentary begins with a simple question to Lane: 

Meldrum-Hanna: What do you hope will will come of this? 

Lane: Well, obviously the the biggest hope for me is that someone comes forward with my daughter and she'd be an adult now. She's 20, 21, so she obviously has had a whole life perhaps not knowing that she's my child. I don't want to interrupt her life. I don't even necessarily need to meet her. But for obviously for my own family, for myself, I I want to show that I did not harm her and I certainly did not kill her. 

This appears to be a deviation from the previously noted pattern where Lane made speaking of Tegan’s “father,” a man she names as “Andrew Norris,” her unusual priority and focus over speaking of Tegan when prompted to discuss this matter.  To say that she has hope someone would “come forward” with Tegan is more of what is expected from her, which we can attribute as a positive indicator.  However, we must temper our positivity with the fact that according to Lane’s words, she appears to know that this was what was expected of her when she tells Meldrum-Hanna that her response is the ‘obvious’ one. 

She then qualifies this “hope” she has as “the biggest hope,” suggesting that she has other ‘hopes’ lingering on her mind as well.  Further, we should be on alert to the fact that Lane does not call it ‘my biggest hope’ but says it’s “the biggest hope for me.”  Her language shows distancing from this.  So, now we have sufficient reason to be concerned with the possibility that the contaminating effects of time (i.e. the influence of media and/or others) have taught Lane how to respond to this question in this more expected manner. 

Please consider the phrase, “she’s my child” vs. what Lane didn’t say, which was, ‘I’m her mother.’  We should ask ourselves, why is Lane using a phrase that reflects Tegan’s perspective, not her own?  Lane speaks of this with an element of empathy.  More specifically, it gives credibility to Lane reflecting on the thought of Tegan seeing Lane’s case in the media while being ignorant to her connection to it.  It both elevates the suggestion that Lane is speaking while being contaminated by the media’s influence over time, and it elevates the suggestion that Lane believes Tegan is alive.  

The phrase “come forward” is consistent with the language she used in her letter to Meldrum-Hanna.  Note that it will require “someone” to "come forward” with Tegan. Now please consider that Lane did not specifically mention any “hope” Andrew Norris would be the one to do so.  Why not? Recall the questions raised as to whether Lane has reason to believe “someone” out there could be hiding information about Andrew Norris or Tegan’s whereabouts, thus suggesting she has sufficient reason to believe Andrew Norris is not able or willing to “come forward” on his own.   

Again, what does Lane’s language suggest to us about whether she murdered Tegan?  Note when she said, "I don't want to interrupt her life. I don't even necessarily need to meet her.”  Even though we are tempering our observations with the questions of contamination, here please note that for the second time, Lane referenced Tegan’s “life” while she is in the best possible version of her free editing process under the context of the noted contamination.   

What we should consider in our question of how much weight we give this language has to do with when she said, “I don’t even necessarily need...”  We first note that she changed her language from what she didn’t “want” to what she didn’t “need,” putting the idea of ‘interrupting Tegan’s life’ in a different category than ‘meeting her.’  When she used the phrase, “I don’t even necessarily need...” it shows us that her “need” is contextually perceived as something that comes before what she ‘wants.’  In short, what Lane’s words suggest to us is that she has a “need” to interrupt Tegan’s life, and she may “want” to meet her, despite knowing it would be ‘unnecessary’ to achieve her ultimate goal.  This builds credibility to the idea the Lane believes Tegan is alive. 

Please note when Lane says she wants to show that she, “did not harm” and “certainly did not kill” Tegan.  I’d like you to consider two points; (1) although not reliable, these denials are stronger than they are weak based on their form added with the fact that she came to them without prompting from Meldrum-Hanna, and (2) in her micro-priority, she makes her need to deny ‘killing’ Tegan of lesser importance than her need to deny ‘harming’ her.  

But one must also recognize that in placing the need to deny ‘killing’ Tegan in the back seat came placing an unexpected need to deny ‘harming’ her up front.  Her language suggests that she does not define both as being the same, so when she has only been accused of, convicted of and imprisoned for ‘killing’ why the need to deny ‘harming’ at all, let alone as part of her priority?  Please consider this point in concert with the fact that not ‘killing’ Tegan she says she “certainly” didn’t do, which is to suggest that she may be less than ‘certain’ about her denial of ‘harming’ her.  This also comes off the heels of the repeated pronoun, “I,I” which is to suggest elevated anxiety at this point in her response.  This puts us on alert to the fact that Lane may be thinking of something she did that could have, or even may have, brought “harm” to Tegan, even if she didn’t “kill her.”   

Clip #2: 

This short clip is not presented in the documentary with the full context as to what brought Lane to speak on this issue.  We don’t know if she is directly responding to a question or if it is from her free editing process, but there are a couple points to discuss. 

Lane: Although it may seem very unusual to everybody else, 21 years ago, they're the steps I took and I safely gave her to her father. And I want to show I want to clear my name. I I want to show the public that that's exactly what happened.  

Please note that Lane referenced “the steps” she took and recall from the police interview in the first post that Lane referred to this as an “arrangement” with Tegan’s father.  We noted that “arrangement” suggested that this was more complex than just the simple component of turning Tegan over.  It suggested that there was more complexity to it.  To say she took “steps” is to affirm this in her language by letting us know that there was more than one ‘step’ to this process. 

We should also note that despite her linguistic presence in being “the steps I took,” we also see a level of distancing in; (1) the fact that she does not take any personal possession over “the steps,” and (2) more specifically, her syntax showing an element of passivity to what she did.  Although we are missing context behind these words, we can at least take note that she uses these words in a defensive posture against what “everybody else” finds to be “very unusual.”  Building upon this point, she makes a linguistic addition to this by telling us she also “safely gave her to her father.”   Again, context is necessary, and we don’t have it in full here, but to say “safely” appears to be unnecessary.  This means we should at least consider that it may support another point from the police interview when Lane unnecessarily said Tegan’s father took her “into his care.”  It builds the suggestion of there being defensive posturing in her language, but it also, with a significant degree of caution, appears to support her need to persuade others that she did not put Tegan in any danger.  If accurate, then we must take this in along with the previous suggestions that Lane may have sufficient reason to believe she did something that brought harm to Tegan. 

Clip 3: 

Meldrum -Hanna: What was that like then Keli?  Those final moments with Tegan.  Just mother and daughter alone. 

Lane: It was awful because I’d been there before and I knew how much it hurt. It was just so difficult to just make this decision again and basically to write myself out of it. You know, I was kicking myself too. Why am I here again? Why am I here again? 

In her response to this question, Lane says that she’d “been there before” and talks of making “this decision again...”  Here is where we’d like to ask Lane, ‘when you talked about making this decision again, what did you mean?’  Please note that it would seem if she gave custody of Tegan to her “natural father,” that “this” would be a new “decision” for Lane.  But even if she would have murdered her child or given her away in something like an illegal adoption, these would also appear to be new decisions.  So, what “decision” is she referring to?   

“This” is linguistically close to Lane, suggesting that it is psychologically close to her, and we’d consider the possibility that “this decision” was personal to her.  I’d like you to consider two more concepts as it relates this to the idea that Lane murdered her baby: 

1) Even though Lane had terminated two prior pregnancies with abortions, including reports that one was late term, to bring herself to give birth, look upon her child and then intentionally end its life is very different than to have an abortion. This means that no matter how one tries to spin it, Lane has not made “this decision” before relating it to her abortions.  

2) She doesn’t put any distance between her and “this decision” that was so hard for her to make.  If she were to have murdered her child in cold blood, the likelihood that she could keep “this decision” without a need to psychologically hold it at arm's length by referring to it as ‘that decision’ is low.  

It makes “this decision” appear to be more consistent with the general concept of giving away her child and less with the concept of murder.  

Meldrum-Hanna: Were you thinking rationally? 

Lane: I think I knew the steps I had to take. I just don’t know that I wanted to do it so much. You know, it was really hard.  And all I kept just thinking was it’s the best choice for everybody. It’s, you know, I just knew there was no way that I could take her home and be the parent I wanted to be.    

Meldrum-Hanna: Did you want to take her home? 

Lane:  Of course. Of course. 

Note once again, Lane mentioned “the steps” she took.  We can now say with a high degree of confidence that there is something to unpack about the “arrangement” Lane had with “Andrew Norris.” 

CLIP 4: 

Meldrum-Hanna:  You said before, Keli, you didn’t want to give her away, but you couldn’t take her home… 

Lane: Yeah 

Meldrum-Hanna: …and I’ve got to ask you this. Is there any way that you could’ve done something to Tegan? You could have harmed her without you knowing or intending… 

Lane: (Talking over the question) There’s no way.  There’s no way. There’s no way.  I would have just left her there.  And if Andrew didn’t turn up, he told me he was going to turn up. And if he didn’t turn up, I would have just left her there.  Or I would have just gone down the exact same path as before. I would have asked for some help. I would have asked to see an adoption agency and I would have done the exact same thing I did 18 months earlier.  

Note that this question about the possibility of Lane harming Tegan was a simple ‘yes or no’ question that was not answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’  Instead, she not only needed to repeat the phrase, “there’s no way” three times in her answer, she used a total of 87 words to respond to this question, meaning, she perceived ‘no’ as very weak and needed to add persuasion behind it.  Why?  Consider the question about the possibility that Lane “harmed” Tegan is hypersensitive to her and please recall Lane’s priority around needing to deny harming Tegan over killing her in clip 1. 

Please also note where Lane repeats the concept of Andrew ‘turning up’ three times in a row, which is bookended by the twice repeated phrase of, “I would have just left her there.”  These issues are also elevated as important and sensitive to Lane.  Let’s consider the following: 

1) Meldrum-Hanna did not introduce a question of what would have happened if Andrew “didn’t turn up.” The question of ‘harming’ Tegan implies that Lane’s account is a false account.  Lane may have misunderstood this, but in any case, we must take note that Lane is the one who introduced these added concepts to her response. 

2) The concept of Andrew ‘turning up’ is difficult to assess with a high degree of confidence as I do not know how the use of this phrase may be different in Australia than it is in the U.S., but its use here appears to at least be consistent with holding an element of ‘uncertainty.’  By introducing the hypothetical scenario of him not 'turning up,’ she suggests that the possibility was on her mind. 

3) Adding to the previous point, Lane then unnecessarily introduced a conversation with Andrew over him ‘turning up.’  So now we see that the idea of him not ‘turning up’ caused a need for her to tell us that he affirmed with her that he would.  Please consider that this suggests to us according to Lane’s perception of the events, Andrew had to be ‘taken at his word.’  The element of uncertainty is heavily augmented. 

3) We must also note that she uses language of abandonment when she said, “I would have just left her there,” which came before exploring the idea of getting an adoption agency involved.  Why? 

Meldrum-Hanna:  Do you, do you trust your memories of that day? 

Lane: I remember that day clearer than anything else. I’ve replayed it, thought about it and you know I know a lot of people think I’m (that) cold and callous but those children were very important to me and I loved them. I, I, I, thought I was doing the right thing by them.  

We must note the heightened anxiety suggested by Lane stuttering on the pronoun, “I” when she said, “I, I, I, thought I was doing the right thing by them.”  Where there’s the suggestion of heightened anxiety, there’s a lack of certainty that what Lane did with “those children” was in fact “doing the right thing by them.” 

CLIP 5: 

Meldrum-Hanna: So, let's go back to the beginning. 

Lane: Okay, yep. 

Meldrum-Hanna: Which pub did you meet Andrew Norris?  

Lane: At the Town Hall Hotel.   

(EDIT) 

Lane: We drank, we played some pool.  It's just like a normal sort of first meeting, you know, just chatting away and, you know, flirting.  

Please note that when someone tells us about something being “normal” when speaking in the free editing process, it puts us on alert to the possibility that this was in fact not “normal.”  With the edits, we don’t know if her choice to call it “normal” was due to a question asked by Meldrum-Hanna but consider this point in concert with the rest of her sentence. 

Lane uses the present tense of “it’s” to speak of something that ‘was’, making her sentence unreliable in its form.  Further, she didn’t say it was a ‘normal first meeting’.  Her language heavily qualifies this as only “like” a “sort of” one”, making the assertion very weak.  So, her words truly communicate to us is that this was in fact not a ‘normal first meeting.’  Further reducing its reliable form, she speaks of “meeting”, “chatting away” and “flirting” with passivity.  Who ‘met’, who was “chatting away” and who was “flirting?”  She doesn’t say it, so we also cannot say it. 

And what does she mean by “first meeting?”  To say when there’s a “first” there the suggestion that there were more isn’t unnecessarily unexpected on the surface, but keep in mind that according to her words, not only this but also what followed, were not ‘dates.’  They were merely ‘meetings.’ 

Meldrum-Hanna: Did he have any friends there? Was he in a group? 

Lane: Yeah, he he often had like two or three people around him and I mean I think there were a lot of nicknames. There's one name that was tossing around. Dipper. 

I’d like one to consider what it means for Lane to say, “he often had...people around him.”  “Often”, although not occurring 100% of the time, tells us that this was a re-occurrence of significant frequency.  To then say there were “people around him” is to speak as an ‘outside observer.’  She doesn’t say they were ‘around us’ just “around him” as if she was observing him from across the bar.  Her language is unexpectedly dissociated from Andrew for someone who reports to have been ‘dating’ him. 

Building on this observation even further, we must take note of the fact that “there were a lot of nicknames” but she doesn’t specify who had “nicknames” or who called them those “nicknames.”  Did she not know?  Was she not acquainted with the “people around him” while at these ‘meetings?’ 

Meldrum-Hanna: Dipper. Like d i p p... 

Lane: d i p p e r.  

Meldrum-Hanna: Okay, Dipper. 

Lane: Yeah. Yeah. But it was like obviously a nickname, but, yeah. 

Meldrum-Hanna: Okay, good. So, when you decided to spend more time with Andrew that night, where did Andrew tell you that he was taking you? 

Lane: To his place.   

Meldrum-Hanna: Okay. 

(EDIT) 

Lane: He just put it on me really. He just sort of said, "Do you want to come back to mine?" I remember we went out into the street and there was sort of a few people hanging around. I think there was a bottle shop just outside the door.   

Please take note of the fact that they went “out into the street.”  There’s unnecessary linguistic effort here.  She could’ve simply said, ‘we went outside.’  Why does she need to use the word “out,” use the word “into” or specify that it was in “the street?”  There appears to be something very sensitive about this point.  I’d like you to consider the following: 

1) “Out” unnecessarily juxtaposes being 'in’. 

2) “Into the street” makes the location important but also elevates its sensitivity by not merely being ‘in the street’ but “into” which linguistically implants one deeper into the location. 

3) We see unnecessary detail of the “people hanging around.”  Please consider that “hanging around” may suggest that she was sensitive about them ‘not leaving.’ 

4) The mention of the “bottle shop” appears to be a hina clause explaining why there were “people hanging around” possibly affirming and elevating the level of sensitivity about those “people.” 

5) “The door” is also unnecessarily mentioned.  Please note that unnecessarily mentioning ‘doors’, particularly when opening or closing, is heavily correlated with victims of childhood sexual abuse.   

6) Mentioning the “bottle shop just outside the door” is perspective driven from ‘inside’ the establishment.  It elevates the importance of point #1, juxtaposing “out” with ‘in.’  It comes out of chronological sequence since she linguistically already placed them “out into the street,” and it further elevates the issue surrounding the “door,” elevating the “door” as a barrier or boundary in her account.  

There appears to be something hypersensitive for Lane concerning leaving the bar, which may be sensitive, in part, due to the others being around.  If accurate, this issue will not be about what was occurring ‘inside’ the bar but was “outside the door.” 

(POSSIBLE EDIT) 

Lane: I just remember walking along past the two pubs that are down there and then it was literally less than 2 minutes then into his place. 

To “just remember” is to compare what she is ‘remembering’ against there being more.  Everything she tells us is a ‘memory’ so to say she ‘remembers’ it is unnecessary and suggests that something about her memory is sensitive to her.  Is she concealing something or does she wish she could “remember” more?  We must ask these questions keeping in mind that she has edited time/details from her account when she said, “and then it was...” and said, “...then into his place.”  The temporal lacunas in her language affirm that she is skipping over time and details that need to be explored. 

CLIP 6: 

Meldrum-Hanna: So, you never entertained taking that deal?  

Lane: No. No.  

Meldrum-Hanna: Wow. Even when it would have meant you wouldn't have spent a day in jail. 

Lane: No way. No. Even if I sold her or that I gave her to unknown parties. Why would I say that if it's not correct? I'm not going to admit to something that I didn't do. I'm not going to put my hand up and say I hurt my own child when I didn't. No.  

Lane has introduced something completely new to the conversation when she said, “Even if I sold her or that I gave her to unknown parties.”  She then goes on to ask why she would say that if it’s “not correct.”  When Lane introduced this, it was under the context of taking a “deal” with prosecution, so we don’t know if these were things brought up in the discussion of this “deal,” but the structure of her language appears incongruent.  “Why would I say that if it’s not correct,” suggests that Lane is speaking of this as a hypothetical ‘option’ she was given or pondering that she could’ve admitted to in taking the “deal,” but she introduces the concept as more of a hypothetical ‘possibility’ of things that could have happened in actuality by prefacing it with “Even if I...”  

We now have to ask the question of whether this could be an embedded confession or admission.  Did these words come from Lane, or were they introduced to her somewhere else?  An embedded confession occurs when a subject lets the truth slip out by floating it as something like a hypothetical from their free editing process.   

Please note that Lane did not say it was ‘not true’ just that it was “not correct.”  “Not correct” merely implies a wrong answer.  It is far weaker than speaking of what is ‘true’ or ‘not true.’  So, we now have good reasons to consider the validity of this as an embedded confession or admission. 

Further, we once again have Lane addressing the issue of ‘hurting’ Tegan as opposed to ‘killing’ her.  Again, was this part of the discussion over the “deal” or was this from her free editing process. 

CLIP 7: 

Meldrum-Hanna: Hello, Kelly. So through all of this, you've spoken at length and I've listened very attentively and now I want to take my turn to talk for a while. 

Lane: Sure. 

Meldrum-Hanna: Okay. We raised big questions about the police investigation, about the trial. Really things that I thought we'd never find.  

Lane: Right. 

Meldrum-Hanna: But there's another big question. And this one, it comes down to you. The name Andrew Morris. Andrew Norris. Something isn't quite right there. So I'm saying to you, I'm not convinced on this name and I need you to help me. I need you to give me something here.  

Lane: Um, I don't know why I should have to. Well, I can't give you any more than what I know. And this feels like too the same as when I was before the coroner. And it's that pressure and those threats of you know more. You know more.  

Meldrum-Hanna: So, first name Andrew.  

Lane: Yeah. 

Meldrum-Hanna: Surname Norris with an N. 

(EDIT) 

Lane: I have absolutely no reason to pull this all apart again. Why would I uh pull it all apart again and bring this all to the surface again? My family's life is on the line here. You know, we're doing this for a reason. It's got a purpose.  

Meldrum-Hanna: And that reason? 

Lane: Is to find Tegan or is to find my baby, whatever her name. 

Lane now affirms the possibility that Tegan’s identity has been changed. 

Meldrum-Hanna: But could you give her or people out there a message that Andrew Norris may not be his rightful name? 

Lane: Absolutely. Absolutely. I don't know 100% if his name is Andrew Norris because I don't know at the time if what he was telling me was the truth or maybe I've made a mistake. Of course, that's a possibility. I'm sure his name is Andrew. He responded to Andrew. 

Meldrum-Hanna: Okay, you've got there. Okay. 

Lane: Yeah. I don't want to be forced there though, Carol. I did it off my own bat 

I’d like to just summarize this last clip with the following points: 

When confronted by Meldrum-Hanna's lack of belief in what Lane provided her on “Andrew Norris,” asking her to “give me something here,” Lane responded with a defensive, “I don’t know why I should have to.”  This response is very inconsistent with the effort Lane put into reaching out to Meldrum-Hanna for help and the time she put into all the phone calls, etc.  Lane knew that there were those who did not believe her and that her job was to convince the public that she was telling the truth.  She goes on to say that being questioned about “Andrew Norris” is the same as when she was questioned about murdering her child by the coroner.  We now know that being challenged on her narrative surrounding “Andrew Norris” is hypersensitive to Lane to the point that she would even shut down the conversation with the one person she came to for help. 

OPINION: 

After a long journey in the available material, I think I can hold the following opinions with a high degree of confidence: 

1) Keli Lane is deceptive about her account of what happened to Tegan.  

2) She did not murder Tegan, but the truth of what happened is something, that either at that time or after years of processing it in her mind, has given her sufficient reason to believe that what she did could have brought harm to her.  

3) Although I don’t have an opinion if the man she’s referencing in her account is or is not Tegan’s natural father at this time, Lane is deceptive about who he is and the narrative of his involvement.  

4) Whatever the truth, Lane perceives what happened to Tegan to be a question answered by “Andrew Norris.” 

5) Lane has sufficient reason to believe “Andrew Norris” cannot or will not be able to be convinced to “come forward.” Nor will he even simply convince Tegan to do so. 

6) Lane has sufficient reason to believe Tegan does not know she is Lane’s daughter.  

HYPOTHESIS:  

Hypotheses are often more speculative in that some are less supported through patterns in the language and/or require deeper levels of critical thinking.  They are included to merely continue to fuel the critical thinking process and give the investigation suggestions as to the areas that need further exploration.   

Although not addressed in this analysis, Lane’s history of hiding pregnancies, lying to adoption agencies and the deception indicated here has me considering that Lane is likely within the approximate 10% of the population who can fabricate reality in her free editing process. Think of Casey Anthony and her story to police about “Zanny the Nanny.”  This means using Lane’s words to find credible details is tricky for our hypothesis. It’s possible to give her account more weight than it deserves while finding a starting point to explore a truthful narrative.  

However, given what we see in the analysis, I believe it’s reasonable to hypothesize a narrative that is something ‘trafficking like’ at its core. Given the question on a possible embedded confession, I think one should explore for the possibility that Lane gave up Tegan in an actual illegal adoption, perhaps actually ‘trafficking’ Tegan to someone in an “arrangement” created by “Andrew Norris.”   

Perhaps over the years that followed, Lane became educated to the dangers of trafficking for victims or learned something about “Andrew Norris” and it has caused her to have sufficient reason to become concerned about what happened to Tegan after she left Lane’s custody, thus worrying Lane that her decision may have brought Tegan ‘harm.’