All four men convicted over the rape and murder of Sydney woman Janine Balding have been “excluded” as matching a partial DNA profile from a bandana found at the crime scene, a NSW court has heard.
The explosive evidence came to light in the Supreme Court on Friday as one of the men pushes for an inquiry into his conviction.
Janine Balding, 20, was murdered in 1988. Stephen Wayne “Shorty” Jamieson at the time of the murder.Credit:
Stephen “Shorty” Jamieson was convicted in 1990 over the abduction, rape and murder of Balding on September 8, 1988, along with Bronson Blessington and Matthew Elliott. Jamieson was 22 at the time, while Blessington and Elliott were 14 and 16.
But “whether police got the right Shorty” has been in dispute “for many years now”, Jamieson’s barrister, acting senior public defender Richard Wilson, SC, told the court on Friday.
The court has previously heard that Jamieson contends it was a bandana-wearing man with the same nickname, Mark “Shorty” Wells, who was at the scene.
Jamieson is seeking a court order that a partial profile from a part of the bandana found at the scene be compared with Wells’ DNA profile, which is held by Queensland authorities. The profile was taken from a section of the bandana dubbed “area eight”.
“The evidence before this court is that … all four convicted offenders are excluded,” Wilson said.
This included Wayne Wilmot, who was 15 at the time. Wilmot was not convicted of murder, but was convicted and jailed for kidnapping, robbery and rape for being part of the “joint criminal enterprise” by driving Balding’s car, which was used to abduct her.
Wilmot was released on parole for those crimes in 1996, while Jamieson, Blessington and Elliott were jailed for life.
Wilson said that if Wells was excluded as a contributor to “area eight” after a comparison against his DNA profile, it would not advance Jamieson’s application for an inquiry into his conviction.
But if Wells “can’t be excluded, that becomes very powerful evidence in support of Mr Jamieson’s contention that he was not the person, and that Mr Wells was the person”, Wilson said.
NSW Forensic and Analytical Science Service (FASS) expert Clinton Cochrane, who has operational oversight of the department responsible for DNA testing, gave evidence on Friday.
The court heard a “weak partial male profile” had been obtained from “area eight” of the bandana, according to a FASS report from November last year.
Janine Balding.Credit: Credit: 60 Minutes
Cochrane said Jamieson was excluded as a possible contributor “if … that profile originated from a single individual”.
Asked to compare that profile against the DNA samples of Blessington, Elliott and Wilmot, Cochrane said all three were also excluded if it was assumed it was a single source profile.
But he said that “given the partial and low-level nature of this profile, we are unable to categorically define whether this profile originated from one or more than one individual”.
Cochrane was taken to a statement by FASS scientist Michele Franco from January 2014, which said Elliott was a possible contributor to two other areas of the bandana.
“In area 12, he could have been one of the two contributors. In area 13 … he is labelled as major contributor in that profile,” Cochrane said. He agreed Jamieson was not listed as a contributor.
The other men convicted along with Jamieson are not seeking an inquiry into their convictions.
As a prelude to an application for a judicial inquiry into his conviction, Jamieson is seeking an order that the partial profile be compared with Wells’ DNA profile.
But Georgina Wright, SC, acting for the NSW Attorney-General, said there was an “issue is as to whether using Mr Wells’ profile … is lawful”.
She submitted that it was not because there was no investigation under way, but Wilson said it was “clearly within the power of the police commissioner” to launch one.
Justice Ian Harrison will deliver his decision at a later date.
Harrison said it was “notorious that these proceedings either arise out of, or are related to, significantly public and tragic events that occurred many years ago” and he was “alive to ... the sensitivities”.
Harrison noted there could be a tendency for those with a close interest in a case to feel proceedings of this kind were inappropriate and “should not be given a moment’s thought, either by this court or otherwise” because “they re-agitate painful experiences and memories”.
“I do not, and this court does not, have any predisposed views about the outcome. Whatever one’s view might be about Mr Jamieson, his rights to pursue an inquiry of this sort, subject to the technical matters with which I’ll be required to deal, is one that exists for any citizen in this state,” he said.
Balding’s abduction from Sutherland station and murder in Minchinbury shocked Sydneysiders and devastated her family. She was 20.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.