DNA evidence breathes life back into an infamous 1980s abduction and murder case. This unexpected turn of events has sent shockwaves throughout the legal community and beyond.
In September 1988, Australia was rocked by the horrifying news of the abduction, sexual assault, and subsequent murder of a young woman, Janine Balding. Her untimely and brutal demise at the hands of three homeless males was a case that captured national attention and struck fear into the hearts of many.
Stephen ‘Shorty’ Jamieson, then 22, along with two other homeless youths, aged 14 and 16, was convicted for the heinous crimes against Janine. The case was tried twice, examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal and went as far as the High Court. The guilty verdict seemed to bring a sense of closure, albeit bitter, to the public and particularly to Janine’s family.
However, doubts about Jamieson’s conviction have recently surfaced, sparked by the emergence of fresh DNA evidence and the dogged determination of a lawyer and former politician, Peter Breen.
Breen posits that another man, also nicknamed ‘Shorty’, was known in the area at the time of the crime. This alternative ‘Shorty’ frequently wore a bandana, and Breen believes that DNA testing from a bandana could cast significant doubt over Jamieson’s convictions.
Janine’s brother, David Balding, was just a 10-year-old boy when he lost his sister. He insists that the right people were convicted and that it’s high time the case was put to rest. He disapproves of any attempts to re-open the case and stir up painful memories.
Retired Detective Chief Inspector, Russell Oxford, who was deeply involved in the case, maintains that the issue of mistaken identity has been thoroughly examined and discounted by multiple courts and inquiries. He vehemently believes that the guilty parties have been rightfully convicted and should remain behind bars.
The state Attorney-General has been given time until May 8 to file written submissions in response to Breen and Jamieson’s application for an inquiry. The case is slated to return to the NSW Supreme Court on May 13. This development has the potential to set a precedent, not just in Australia, but globally, as the power of DNA evidence is increasingly recognized and utilized to challenge past convictions.
As the battle for truth continues, all eyes are now on the NSW Supreme Court. Will the new DNA evidence result in a fresh inquiry? Or will the court uphold the original verdict? The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have significant implications for future criminal investigations and the power of DNA evidence.
