Latest / Real Crime with Adam Shand / Unsafe Convictions? Peter Breen on Two Infamous Australian Cases

Transcript

Unsafe Convictions? Peter Breen on Two Infamous Australian Cases · Real Crime with Adam Shand

0:05
Speaker 1: Apote production.
0:15
Speaker 2: Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shann. I'm your host,
0:17
Speaker 2: Adam Shann. It's a truism that jails are full of
0:20
Speaker 2: innocent people. My experience mostly that guilty is charged. A
0:25
Speaker 2: small number are actually innocent and deserve the benefit of
0:28
Speaker 2: the doubt. And even the guilty ones have a right
0:31
Speaker 2: to know whether the prosecution was clean, Corners were not
0:34
Speaker 2: cut and evidence was not fabricated for expedient reasons.
0:40
Speaker 1: I'm going to deal with two.
0:41
Speaker 2: Cases in today's episode where there are doubts about the
0:44
Speaker 2: integrity of the process. The first was Australia's first political assassination.
0:49
Speaker 2: Fairfield businessman fong No was convicted of order in the
0:53
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four murder of New South Wales Member of
0:56
Speaker 2: Parliament John Newman and is.
0:58
Speaker 1: Set to die in prison.
1:00
Speaker 2: The prosecution relied heavily upon indemnified witnesses and the elect
1:05
Speaker 2: dge shooter and the getaway driver were acquitted, while fong
1:08
Speaker 2: No was the only one convicted of the crime. As
1:12
Speaker 2: I say, he's destined to die in jail having exhausted
1:15
Speaker 2: all avenues of appeal. The second case is a crime
1:19
Speaker 2: that shocked Australia in September nineteen eighty eight, twenty year
1:23
Speaker 2: old Jeanine Balding was abducted from a Sydney railway station
1:27
Speaker 2: by five young homeless people. They drove Jeanne in her
1:30
Speaker 2: own car to Minsbury in the Sydney's West, where she
1:33
Speaker 2: was raped.
1:35
Speaker 3: She was then.
1:35
Speaker 2: Carried into a paddock where she was drowned in a dam.
1:39
Speaker 2: Four of the killers were arrested and told police that
1:42
Speaker 2: an older man named Shorty had also been involved. Stephen
1:46
Speaker 2: Wayne Jamison, known as Shorty, was arrested in Queensland and
1:51
Speaker 2: extradded to Sydney, but his co accused told police they had.
1:54
Speaker 1: The wrong Shorty.
1:56
Speaker 2: He'd been confused with another man, Mark Shorty Wells. Despite
2:00
Speaker 2: making a confession, Jamison has been trying to prove his
2:03
Speaker 2: innocence ever since, claiming the police fabricated that confession.
2:08
Speaker 1: Forming your. South Wales politician and lawyer Peter Breen worked.
2:12
Speaker 2: On both of these cases for many years and has
2:14
Speaker 2: graciously agreed to discuss why they still matter to this day.
2:18
Speaker 3: Hi Peter, Hi Adam, how are you.
2:21
Speaker 1: I'm very well? Thank you, thanks for your time.
2:24
Speaker 2: You clearly are a man who doesn't mind the challenge
2:27
Speaker 2: it could be said that you want to get involved
2:30
Speaker 2: in lost causes and is that a fair thing?
2:33
Speaker 3: Well, that doesn't apply to the rest of my life.
2:35
Speaker 3: I really don't like lost causes. I think they are
2:38
Speaker 3: a waste of time and energy. But it so happens
2:41
Speaker 3: that when I was in Parliament, both of these cases
2:44
Speaker 3: came across by parliamentary desk, and in the capacity as
2:49
Speaker 3: a representative for the people of New South Wales, they
2:52
Speaker 3: both cases disturbed me enough to want to make more
2:55
Speaker 3: inquiries about which I did, and I went and saw
2:58
Speaker 3: Fungn in prison, and I also went and saw Shorty
3:02
Speaker 3: Jamison in prison, and I have to say that I
3:06
Speaker 3: was very impressed with both of them for different reasons,
3:09
Speaker 3: and they seem to have a genuine case which required
3:12
Speaker 3: further investigation. In my opinion, I didn't have that much
3:16
Speaker 3: experience as a criminal lawyer. I've always worked in the
3:19
Speaker 3: area of civil litigation, so criminal law wasn't really my bag.
3:23
Speaker 3: But I was concerned enough to make further inquiries, and
3:27
Speaker 3: what I discovered was that there was a whole bunch
3:29
Speaker 3: of people in the community who were really concerned about
3:34
Speaker 3: both of these convictions, and they had every reason to be.
3:37
Speaker 3: After I looked at all the evidence. I just I
3:40
Speaker 3: couldn't really turn away from it. And I've been involved
3:43
Speaker 3: in both of them ever since, and you know, we're
3:46
Speaker 3: talking thirty years now. I'm actually getting over it.
3:51
Speaker 2: I sayd the outset that I've looked at both cases
3:56
Speaker 2: and I don't see where Bong No can get out
4:00
Speaker 2: of prison.
4:01
Speaker 1: You know, I've got to tell you that.
4:03
Speaker 2: Yes, and Shorty Jamison I think is a very live
4:07
Speaker 2: case where there's a DNA avenue, there is another possible suspect,
4:14
Speaker 2: and that one I think does have some mileage to
4:19
Speaker 2: get back into the courts. What would be your aim
4:22
Speaker 2: with both of those cases at this late stage.
4:26
Speaker 3: Well, I'm still working on both cases in the sense
4:29
Speaker 3: that I talk almost every day to someone involved in
4:33
Speaker 3: either of those cases, and I'm fully up to speed
4:37
Speaker 3: with them. They tell me what's happening. In fact, in
4:40
Speaker 3: the Jamison case, I spoke to him only this morning
4:43
Speaker 3: and I've arranged to see him next week, and his
4:46
Speaker 3: case is in a queue at the Public Defender's office.
4:51
Speaker 3: The other two co accused and in their case co offenders,
4:55
Speaker 3: they're both also in the courts. Their sentences are being reviewed,
5:00
Speaker 3: and Jamison's sentence and conviction is also reviewed, but the
5:06
Speaker 3: other two are going to be dealt with before Jamison
5:08
Speaker 3: for some reason which I don't understand. I would have
5:11
Speaker 3: thought Jameson's case being a case of wrongful imprisonment in
5:15
Speaker 3: my opinion, I would have thought that they should deal
5:17
Speaker 3: with that one first, but they've decided to deal with
5:20
Speaker 3: the other one. So there it is.
5:21
Speaker 2: Let's deal with Jameson first. We'll get to Fongeo later,
5:24
Speaker 2: as you kicked off with Shorty. Yes, the allegation there
5:29
Speaker 2: is that when he was picked up in Queensland after
5:32
Speaker 2: the murder of Janine Balding, he was interviewed by detectives
5:35
Speaker 2: and gave a long and very detailed confession and when he,
5:42
Speaker 2: as I understand it, he recanted that confession almost immediately.
5:47
Speaker 1: You've had a chance to talk to him. Why did
5:49
Speaker 1: he give the confession in the first place.
5:52
Speaker 3: Look, what happens is when people are accused of crimes,
5:55
Speaker 3: they often don't know how to react when they're not
5:58
Speaker 3: the person, when they know themselves they're not the person,
6:01
Speaker 3: and so they often take it very casually and they say, well,
6:05
Speaker 3: look I'm innocent, I'll be fine, you know, and they
6:08
Speaker 3: go off and talk to the police, and then they
6:10
Speaker 3: suddenly find that there's evidence that they know nothing about,
6:15
Speaker 3: but which is being used against them. And that's the difficulty.
6:18
Speaker 3: He never had the benefit of a lawyer for reasons
6:21
Speaker 3: which I still don't understand. From the very moment a
6:25
Speaker 3: lawyer did see him, which was the next morning, a
6:28
Speaker 3: legal aid lawyer came to the cells at Southport where
6:31
Speaker 3: he was, and the first thing he said to was,
6:34
Speaker 3: it's not me. I didn't do it. I didn't say
6:36
Speaker 3: any of that. And he showed the legal aid lawyer
6:38
Speaker 3: the record of interview and said, no, no, I signed it,
6:41
Speaker 3: but it's not my record. I didn't say any of that.
6:44
Speaker 3: I don't know anything about that crime. And to quote him,
6:47
Speaker 3: I weren't there.
6:49
Speaker 1: Where was he?
6:50
Speaker 3: He was at Koujie Beach with two other witnesses, one
6:54
Speaker 3: name Bill Roland and one name Lizzie Lopez, who both
6:58
Speaker 3: gave evidence a trial that he was with them at
7:01
Speaker 3: the time of the murder. And the jury said no, no,
7:05
Speaker 3: we believe the prosecution, we believe the police. We don't
7:07
Speaker 3: believe these witnesses. They're just streat kids like him. So
7:12
Speaker 3: the reality is that although he had witnesses to say
7:15
Speaker 3: where he was. The jury didn't believe them, so he's
7:17
Speaker 3: been convicted on the police record of interview. And in
7:22
Speaker 3: the Court of Appeal and the High Court they both said,
7:26
Speaker 3: you know that without the record of interview there was
7:28
Speaker 3: no real evidence against him. The only other evidence was
7:31
Speaker 3: a jail witness who alleged that Jamison told him in
7:35
Speaker 3: jail that he did it. But you know, the guy
7:39
Speaker 3: was a notoriously unreliable witness, and often people in jail
7:43
Speaker 3: say things like that in order to help themselves and
7:46
Speaker 3: get some benefit out of it.
7:48
Speaker 2: Right, And as you say, the record of interview was
7:50
Speaker 2: absolutely key and it was done in the way of
7:54
Speaker 2: things back then, by two detectives, one with an old
7:58
Speaker 2: manual typewriter who was taking down everything shorty Jamison allegedly said.
8:05
Speaker 2: And when it came to court, the detectives both attested
8:09
Speaker 2: to the fact this was an exact recording of what
8:13
Speaker 2: Jamerson said.
8:14
Speaker 1: That seems to me kind of impossible in the first place.
8:18
Speaker 3: Well, it is impossible, you know, just based on the
8:21
Speaker 3: timeline on the record of interview, it's impossible they couldn't
8:24
Speaker 3: have typed that quickly.
8:25
Speaker 1: Correct and got it down in exact detail.
8:28
Speaker 2: The other point that jumps out is that when I
8:30
Speaker 2: have looked at the record myself, but I spoke to
8:33
Speaker 2: Professor Helen Fraser from the University of Melbourne, the linguistics
8:37
Speaker 2: expert who's done a lot of forensic work and is
8:39
Speaker 2: really an established expert in this field, and her point
8:44
Speaker 2: was that there's nothing in the statement that the police
8:48
Speaker 2: didn't already know, and that they more or less presented
8:51
Speaker 2: him with a set of facts that he was supposed
8:53
Speaker 2: to adopt, which he did to his disadvantage.
8:57
Speaker 3: Well, look, you know his story is, I know nothing
9:01
Speaker 3: about the crime. I weren't there, he kept saying. They
9:04
Speaker 3: showed him some photographs of the deceased Jine building. He said,
9:09
Speaker 3: I was freaked out by the photographs and I didn't
9:13
Speaker 3: know what to say. And he says that when they
9:16
Speaker 3: asked him questions about the crime, because he wasn't there,
9:20
Speaker 3: he didn't notice. So he said, I just sat there,
9:22
Speaker 3: and he said the guy typing typed up the question,
9:27
Speaker 3: and then the other guy was walking around the table,
9:30
Speaker 3: looking over Shorty Jamerson's shoulder and answering the questions himself,
9:37
Speaker 3: and the typists would then carry on typing answering in
9:41
Speaker 3: the words of the detective as if they were Jamison's words.
9:44
Speaker 3: That's how they did it. And the same detective, a
9:48
Speaker 3: guy called Kevin Row, did exactly the same thing in
9:52
Speaker 3: at least one other case that I'm aware of. And
9:55
Speaker 3: that was just the modus operandi of the day. You know,
9:59
Speaker 3: you prepared a record of interview, you got the person
10:03
Speaker 3: that you thought was the right person, You got them
10:05
Speaker 3: to sign it, you know, one way or another by
10:08
Speaker 3: threatening them, by promising something, but getting them to sign
10:12
Speaker 3: it was the key. And then they go to court
10:14
Speaker 3: and hand up the record of interview and game over
10:18
Speaker 3: for the accused, because the judge would always say why
10:22
Speaker 3: would the police force you to sign it? Or the
10:25
Speaker 3: jury would then say, well, look he signed a record
10:28
Speaker 3: of interview, he must be guilty. And so once you've
10:32
Speaker 3: got a record of interview, this is before the Wood
10:34
Speaker 3: Royal Commission, of course, once you've got a record of interview,
10:39
Speaker 3: then from the prosecution's point of view, game over. You know,
10:42
Speaker 3: it's very difficult to get out. And that's what's happened
10:45
Speaker 3: to Jamison. And because the case is so old and
10:48
Speaker 3: we now have records of interview that are done in
10:51
Speaker 3: video and also in tape recordings. But in those days
10:56
Speaker 3: it was entirely the word of the police versus the accused,
11:00
Speaker 3: and if the police was stitching them up, then the
11:03
Speaker 3: accused absolutely had nothing to say about it because as
11:07
Speaker 3: you would expect, they knew nothing about the crime anyway,
11:09
Speaker 3: they had no information.
11:11
Speaker 2: Right now, we weren't there. We make no specific allegation
11:15
Speaker 2: against those police. We rely on what Jameson has said.
11:19
Speaker 2: But this was the era of the police verbal and
11:23
Speaker 2: it was, as you say, common practice for detectives and others,
11:28
Speaker 2: uniform guys as well to fabricate confessions, and equally judges
11:35
Speaker 2: and juries tended to take the word of a police
11:38
Speaker 2: officer over and accused, particularly a street kid. So Jamison,
11:44
Speaker 2: if what he's saying is correct, was it a tremendous disadvantage.
11:47
Speaker 2: And you wonder why back in the day he didn't
11:50
Speaker 2: have better legal representation. I mean, why would you go
11:52
Speaker 2: into a police interview for the first place without a
11:55
Speaker 2: lawyer and you'd have to say he wasn't well represented.
12:00
Speaker 3: No, look that there are a whole lot of issues
12:02
Speaker 3: around him being in custody at the time he was,
12:05
Speaker 3: he'd been on the Gold Coast at Southport rather he'd
12:08
Speaker 3: been at Southport for a couple of days. The night
12:11
Speaker 3: before he was so drunk that the Salvation Army hostel
12:15
Speaker 3: where he was staying found him on the street in
12:17
Speaker 3: a gutter, absolutely and totally legless, and they carried him
12:21
Speaker 3: up into the hostel and put him in a bed,
12:23
Speaker 3: and the guys that put him in the bed said,
12:26
Speaker 3: he was so drunk, you know, we couldn't even wake
12:29
Speaker 3: him up. And at seven o'clock the next morning when
12:32
Speaker 3: they went to his bed, he was gone. He'd walked
12:34
Speaker 3: down the street to a park at the end of
12:36
Speaker 3: the street and it was shortly after that that he
12:39
Speaker 3: was arrested. So he was still suffering from having a
12:43
Speaker 3: day on the booze the previous day, and in any circumstance,
12:47
Speaker 3: the police should never have interviewed him until he was sober,
12:50
Speaker 3: you know. And even though he vomited in the police station,
12:54
Speaker 3: they still pressed on with the interview as if he
12:57
Speaker 3: was sober, and a number of questions were asked in
12:59
Speaker 3: the trial of the police and the police law said, no, no,
13:03
Speaker 3: he was fine, you know, he was he knew what
13:06
Speaker 3: the questions were and he understood what to say, and
13:09
Speaker 3: no problem, No, he wasn't drunk. He didn't look drunk,
13:13
Speaker 3: but others who knew of him at the time said
13:16
Speaker 3: that he wreaked of alcohol. So you know, there you
13:18
Speaker 3: are a difference of opinion about how drunk he was.
13:22
Speaker 2: Right, And obviously we saw the Uniform Evidence Act come
13:25
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety five, which basically put an end to
13:27
Speaker 2: the verbal where all police interviews in New South Wales
13:31
Speaker 2: were conducted electronically from that date. Clearly there was a
13:34
Speaker 2: recognition that there were problems with the system. I think
13:38
Speaker 2: it would have been reasonable to assume that the courts
13:42
Speaker 2: would go back and look at issues like Jameson's prosecution,
13:46
Speaker 2: but that was never done at the time.
13:48
Speaker 3: Look, the difficulty is that once the police sign you
13:51
Speaker 3: up for murder, whether they do it maliciously or whether
13:54
Speaker 3: they genuinely believe that's the person, whatever their motives might be,
13:59
Speaker 3: once you signed up for murder and then say oh,
14:02
Speaker 3: look it's a fabricated record of interview, the police can't
14:05
Speaker 3: deny it. The police can't say oh, look, that's just
14:08
Speaker 3: not right. You know, this is what you said and
14:10
Speaker 3: blah blah, because if the police admitted to fabricating the
14:14
Speaker 3: record of interview, they'd go to jail. So that's the reality.
14:18
Speaker 3: Once they signed a record of interview, the case against
14:21
Speaker 3: the person on trial was set in concrete and without
14:24
Speaker 3: jack hammer, you can't change the record of interview.
14:27
Speaker 2: And as you say, the witnesses in favor of Shorty's
14:31
Speaker 2: innocence were street kids, yes, but you had no credibility.
14:36
Speaker 1: I get no.
14:36
Speaker 3: Credibility they had. You know, they had criminal records for
14:40
Speaker 3: minor offenses. You know, they don't look good in court
14:44
Speaker 3: because they're unruly and they look as though they shower.
14:48
Speaker 3: You know, it's just unfair on the witnesses all round.
14:52
Speaker 3: When the jury you have a certain expectation of what
14:54
Speaker 3: a witness should say and what they should look like.
14:57
Speaker 3: And when they come in looking disheveled and as if
15:00
Speaker 3: they're homeless, and they are, then you know they absolutely
15:03
Speaker 3: have no credibility.
15:05
Speaker 1: And that's right.
15:05
Speaker 2: And the murder of Janine Balding was such a shocking
15:08
Speaker 2: crime the public was outraged. And to have a confession.
15:13
Speaker 2: We knew that the other four had been involved in it.
15:16
Speaker 2: There was no doubt about that. Yes, maybe there's some
15:19
Speaker 2: might argue that the toss, but no, they all.
15:22
Speaker 3: Got convicted and there's no question from any of them.
15:25
Speaker 3: They all admitted to it.
15:28
Speaker 2: So Shorty, being a disadvantaged person, didn't present well. He
15:34
Speaker 2: was fighting an uphill battle in a case where normally
15:37
Speaker 2: the owners approve is the crown has to prove its case,
15:41
Speaker 2: but someone like Shorty would have to prove that he
15:44
Speaker 2: was innocent.
15:45
Speaker 1: Really at the end of the day.
15:47
Speaker 3: Yes, look, I mean two weeks after the arrest of
15:50
Speaker 3: the other four, they arrested Shorty in Queensland and they
15:53
Speaker 3: brought him down to Sydney and they put him into
15:56
Speaker 3: the cells at the Coroner's Court in Gleed and the
16:01
Speaker 3: other four were already in the cells. And when the
16:05
Speaker 3: police brought Shorty in, they knew him, of course as
16:08
Speaker 3: another street kid, and they said what are you doing here?
16:11
Speaker 3: They said, oh, I'm in for the murder of that woman.
16:14
Speaker 3: And they all laughed and they said to the police, ha, ha,
16:17
Speaker 3: you got the wrong Shorty. There was actually another boy
16:21
Speaker 3: named Shorty who was at the crime, and the police
16:24
Speaker 3: mistook the other boy for Shorty Jamison. And that's why
16:28
Speaker 3: they were so sure he was the right guy, because
16:31
Speaker 3: they knew conclusively that there was another boy called Shorty
16:35
Speaker 3: at the crime, and Shorty Jamison was the only boy
16:39
Speaker 3: that they even considered because Shorty Jamison was a known
16:43
Speaker 3: friend of one of the other street kids that was
16:45
Speaker 3: in the crime. Right, So yeah, they had him in
16:49
Speaker 3: custody only two days earlier for another crime with this
16:52
Speaker 3: other kid, and so when the other kid was involved
16:55
Speaker 3: in the Janine Balding crime, the police just put one
16:58
Speaker 3: and one together and got two because.
17:01
Speaker 1: The other Shorty has never been charged with this crime.
17:04
Speaker 2: No, there is no evidence other than what the perpetrators
17:09
Speaker 2: said about him.
17:12
Speaker 3: He told police he was there, like when he was
17:15
Speaker 3: originally when he was arrested, he told police he was there.
17:19
Speaker 3: But the problem was that he then said, I look
17:22
Speaker 3: when they questioned him further, he said, oh no, look,
17:25
Speaker 3: I only saw it in a dream. But you know,
17:27
Speaker 3: he knew things about the crime that he could not
17:30
Speaker 3: No one could possibly know unless they were there.
17:33
Speaker 1: So do you think he should have been charged at
17:37
Speaker 1: the time.
17:38
Speaker 3: Well, they should have got the right Shorty. I don't
17:40
Speaker 3: think that he was involved in the crime. He was
17:42
Speaker 3: actually there, but he wasn't involved in the crime. But
17:46
Speaker 3: you know two of the others, will Martin Arrow, Carol
17:50
Speaker 3: Arrow and Wayne Wilmot. Carol Arrow was there but she
17:53
Speaker 3: wasn't involved in the crime, and the court found that
17:56
Speaker 3: she wasn't a willing participant in the crime. And I
17:59
Speaker 3: think that the same goes for Shorty Wells, because Shorty Wells,
18:03
Speaker 3: who's the other Shorty and from mental conditions of paranoia
18:08
Speaker 3: and schizophrenia and various other things, and he really wasn't
18:11
Speaker 3: fit to plead, And all the other witnesses, all the
18:15
Speaker 3: others who were at the crime said, look, although he
18:18
Speaker 3: was there, he didn't do anything like he just stood there.
18:21
Speaker 3: And so I don't think that he should be arrested
18:23
Speaker 3: or charged with anything, but I do think that in
18:27
Speaker 3: an ideal world, he would be able to come forward
18:30
Speaker 3: and say, yes, I was the one that was there,
18:32
Speaker 3: not Shorty Jamison.
18:34
Speaker 2: Right now, Shorty has been cast as something of a
18:36
Speaker 2: ring leader. He was the oldest at twenty two, of
18:39
Speaker 2: the group. What was his background, did he have a
18:41
Speaker 2: criminal history? Where did he come from?
18:44
Speaker 3: So Shorty was born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and
18:49
Speaker 3: when he was born, Welfare took him away from his
18:52
Speaker 3: mother on the basis that he wasn't safe, so only
18:56
Speaker 3: spent a couple of days with his mother, and he's
18:59
Speaker 3: been in and out of homes his whole life ever
19:02
Speaker 3: since he was a baby, and he's had no real
19:06
Speaker 3: family up until age about seven, and then he came
19:09
Speaker 3: into the care of a group of people who lived
19:12
Speaker 3: at Katimber who were professional careers, and they had a
19:15
Speaker 3: house which a number of other children who had been
19:18
Speaker 3: abandoned or had run away, you know, young children, where
19:22
Speaker 3: they all lived and he grew up in that family.
19:25
Speaker 3: And all the people in that family who are now deceased, unfortunately,
19:30
Speaker 3: but they all gave evidence that you know, he had
19:33
Speaker 3: a good life, like he was a good person. He
19:35
Speaker 3: was never a problem at the orphanage. He never caused trouble.
19:39
Speaker 3: He was known for protecting the women when some of
19:42
Speaker 3: the boys got out of hand. So, you know, he
19:45
Speaker 3: just didn't have the sort of character and background that
19:48
Speaker 3: would suggest that he was a dangerous criminal. And although
19:51
Speaker 3: he had a criminal record, he is able to explain
19:55
Speaker 3: all the previous crimes that he committed, which are you know,
19:59
Speaker 3: things like car stealing or rather being a passenger in
20:03
Speaker 3: a car that somebody else ditt He was charged with
20:07
Speaker 3: other offenses like assault, But when you look at the
20:10
Speaker 3: penalties that he was given and the circumstances and the chargers.
20:14
Speaker 3: They're obviously petty matters that he was charged with. There
20:18
Speaker 3: was one charge of sexual I think it was sexual assault,
20:22
Speaker 3: But again, when I got down to the nitty gritty
20:25
Speaker 3: of what happened and looked at the evidence, it was
20:28
Speaker 3: a minor offense, you know, and the penalty reflected that
20:31
Speaker 3: that it was a minor offense. I think he pulled
20:33
Speaker 3: some woman's dress up. I just can't remember now, but
20:36
Speaker 3: or maybe the other kids pushed him into it in
20:39
Speaker 3: front of a pregnant woman. There was something happened with
20:41
Speaker 3: a group of them and he got pushed in the
20:43
Speaker 3: front of this woman, and somehow he was charged with
20:47
Speaker 3: raising her dress. But that sort of crime is a
20:49
Speaker 3: sort of crime that street kids commit and they're charged
20:53
Speaker 3: with it, and it looks bad on their rap sheet
20:56
Speaker 3: sexual assault, but you know, when you analyze it, it's
20:58
Speaker 3: not that bad at all in the overall scheme of things.
21:02
Speaker 2: So I think that would have picked the attention of
21:04
Speaker 2: a techie to say, well, listen, there is a charge
21:07
Speaker 2: of sexual assault in the past. Yes, this makes him
21:10
Speaker 2: more right for this one.
21:11
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I have no doubt about that. And the other
21:13
Speaker 3: thing is that they had him in custody two days
21:16
Speaker 3: before the crime on another crime, and that crime also
21:20
Speaker 3: involved a serious physical assault on another boy, another street kid,
21:24
Speaker 3: but he wasn't at that crime either, And when he
21:26
Speaker 3: was taken into custody for that crime, he was taken
21:29
Speaker 3: in with one of the other street kids named Lizzie,
21:32
Speaker 3: and police put him in a lineup, and the person
21:36
Speaker 3: involved in that other crime two days earlier excluded him
21:40
Speaker 3: straight away. With his Semian facial features, you can't make
21:44
Speaker 3: a mistake about his identity, and he was excluded straight away.
21:48
Speaker 3: Whereas the other person, the other street kid that was
21:52
Speaker 3: involved in that crime, was also one of the kids
21:55
Speaker 3: involved in the Janine bolding crime. And because police had
21:59
Speaker 3: him in custody just two days earlier and she was
22:02
Speaker 3: in custody for the Janine bolding crime, you know, they
22:05
Speaker 3: reasonably thought, well, he's the shorty like you know, let's
22:09
Speaker 3: not waste our time with other shorties. This is the one.
22:12
Speaker 3: And so he was arrested and charged.
22:15
Speaker 1: Okay, now it was a heenus crime.
22:17
Speaker 2: It shocked Australia and I get shocked a lot of
22:19
Speaker 2: inmates as well.
22:20
Speaker 1: They don't take kindly this sort of crime.
22:23
Speaker 2: How has shorty gone in his time in prison, it's
22:26
Speaker 2: now what thirty eight years.
22:28
Speaker 3: Look, he had a lot of trouble earlier because he
22:31
Speaker 3: kept saying in prison that he was innocent. You know,
22:34
Speaker 3: nobody cares about the prisoner who says he's innocent. As
22:37
Speaker 3: you said in your introduction, you know, they all say
22:40
Speaker 3: they're innocent, but that's actually not true. My experience is
22:44
Speaker 3: that only people who have some question around their convictions
22:47
Speaker 3: say they're innocent, because you actually get persecuted in prison.
22:51
Speaker 3: If you say you're is they won't let you into programs,
22:55
Speaker 3: they won't let you be involved in group therapy and
22:58
Speaker 3: stuff like that, because you know you're alive. You're saying
23:00
Speaker 3: you're innocent, and yet you've got this conviction. So he
23:03
Speaker 3: didn't get on that well initially, but he had, like
23:05
Speaker 3: all situations, he's adjusted to it.
23:08
Speaker 1: So what avenue is does he have left in his
23:11
Speaker 1: own defense?
23:12
Speaker 3: So there's fresh and compelling evidence in the Bandanna evidence.
23:17
Speaker 3: The other Shorty hasn't been excluded from the Bandana test,
23:21
Speaker 3: whereas Shorty Jamison has been excluded and that you know,
23:25
Speaker 3: he's been excluded from the fingerprints that went to trial.
23:28
Speaker 3: He's been excluded from every other piece of evidence, whereas
23:32
Speaker 3: Shorty Wells hasn't been excluded. I started a proceeding back
23:37
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty three touce to asking the government to
23:41
Speaker 3: produce Shorty Wells DNA so his DNA could be compared
23:45
Speaker 3: to the DNA that was found on the bandanna. That application,
23:50
Speaker 3: after spending eighteen months in the courts, was then subsumed
23:55
Speaker 3: into another application to question the whole conviction. And that's
24:02
Speaker 3: the reason that case never proceeded. But I was always
24:05
Speaker 3: very disappointed about that, because you know, the DNA testing
24:08
Speaker 3: technology is now so good that they could have identified
24:12
Speaker 3: any other they've got unknown DNA, and to my knowledge,
24:16
Speaker 3: they have never compared it to Shorty Wells DNA, and
24:19
Speaker 3: they ought to because he was actually there. Like and
24:22
Speaker 3: the fingerprints, you know, the fingerprints from the crime have
24:25
Speaker 3: never been compared to Shorty Wells. They ought to compare them.
24:29
Speaker 3: It's not rocket science. The fingerprints, his fingerprints are on file,
24:33
Speaker 3: fingerprints are in the records from the trial and from
24:36
Speaker 3: the crime. So you know, it's just the government seems
24:39
Speaker 3: to be avoiding every possible way of making things easier
24:43
Speaker 3: for it. Obviously they don't want to pay them compensation
24:46
Speaker 3: but you know that aside, it's just outrageous that they
24:49
Speaker 3: won't let him at least follow the normal processes that
24:52
Speaker 3: should be available to him to overturn his conviction. So
24:56
Speaker 3: what does he do now, Well, he just has to
24:58
Speaker 3: wait because the public defender represents him and they represent
25:02
Speaker 3: Blessington and Elliot as well. You know, he really has
25:06
Speaker 3: to wait for Blessington and perhaps even Elliott for their
25:10
Speaker 3: convictions and sentences to be reviewed as well, given the
25:13
Speaker 3: fact that they were so young. You know, in the
25:16
Speaker 3: history of crime in Australia, nobody's so young has ever
25:19
Speaker 3: got this sort of sentence thirty eight years, Like it's
25:22
Speaker 3: beyond belief. Back in the day when Janine Balding was killed,
25:26
Speaker 3: the average life sentence for adults for murder was fifteen years.
25:31
Speaker 3: Fifteen years the average life sentence for adults. These kids
25:35
Speaker 3: were children ranged from fourteen to sixteen years of age,
25:39
Speaker 3: and they've been in jail ever since, like every fifteen
25:43
Speaker 3: years they try and get a review and it doesn't work,
25:48
Speaker 3: you know, So it doesn't work because of special legislation
25:51
Speaker 3: keeping them in jaile. But you know, that's another story
25:54
Speaker 3: you probably don't even want to know about that Yeah.
25:56
Speaker 2: That's another whole leg of this, But I think it's right.
25:59
Speaker 2: I mean, I think there needs to be I think
26:01
Speaker 2: to close off these avenues. If the re is fresh
26:03
Speaker 2: and compelling evidence, Shorty Jamison, let's run it, because the
26:08
Speaker 2: integrity of the system is what is really at stake here.
26:11
Speaker 2: I've got no particular sympathy for Jamison, but I think
26:16
Speaker 2: he deserves to have.
26:17
Speaker 1: Any reasonable doubt eliminated.
26:21
Speaker 2: Speaking of long term sentences, fong No never to be released,
26:26
Speaker 2: no parole, I think that is manifestly excessive, and I
26:30
Speaker 2: personally think he was guilty.
26:34
Speaker 1: That's my personal view.
26:35
Speaker 2: You have another view, one, Why do you think fong
26:39
Speaker 2: No was innocent of the murder of ordering the murder
26:42
Speaker 2: of John Newman.
26:43
Speaker 3: Look, look, I don't know whether he's guilty or not.
26:46
Speaker 3: I remember when he was arrested. His lawyer was John Marsden.
26:50
Speaker 3: I was in Parliament at the time, and I remember
26:53
Speaker 3: John Marsin turned up in Parliament for some reason. And
26:56
Speaker 3: it was only a couple of days after fung Now
26:58
Speaker 3: had been arrested, and I said to Marsden, you know
27:02
Speaker 3: what's the story. And Marsin thought he was guilty, and
27:06
Speaker 3: Martham was his lawyer, So I thought, well, you know,
27:09
Speaker 3: his lawyer ought to know whether he's innocent or guilty.
27:12
Speaker 3: And about a month or so after that, I was
27:15
Speaker 3: approached by another journalist and by a couple of other
27:18
Speaker 3: people who knew ful know and were working on his case,
27:22
Speaker 3: and they said, look, you know, we're having a meeting.
27:24
Speaker 3: We're trying to canvass the idea that he's the wrong guy,
27:28
Speaker 3: and would you come along and talk to the meeting
27:30
Speaker 3: because we know you're interested in unsafe and doubtful convictions.
27:35
Speaker 3: I said, well, look, it's difficult for me because his
27:38
Speaker 3: lawyer tells me he's guilty. You know, I don't. You know,
27:41
Speaker 3: you're going to have to convince me why he's not guilty.
27:43
Speaker 3: So they worked on me for years, and then eventually,
27:46
Speaker 3: after seeing him a lot of a lot of times
27:49
Speaker 3: and after reading all the evidence and speaking to the witnesses,
27:54
Speaker 3: I changed my mind about him. And the reason I
27:56
Speaker 3: changed my mind is that the two guys that he
27:59
Speaker 3: went to trial with, one was Quang Dou and the
28:03
Speaker 3: other was David Dinn. One was the shooter allegedly and
28:07
Speaker 3: one was the driver of the getaway car allegedly. Both
28:11
Speaker 3: of them were acquitted, and that left full no on
28:14
Speaker 3: his pat malone as the mastermind of a crime for
28:17
Speaker 3: which there was no perpetrator. And I thought that was ridiculous.
28:21
Speaker 3: And even Judge Wood, who conducted the first two trials
28:25
Speaker 3: against Fung though, said the same thing. You know, you
28:28
Speaker 3: can't have a person convicted as the mastermind of a
28:31
Speaker 3: crime in a joint criminal enterprise of one, because that's
28:35
Speaker 3: what it was, you know, one person. It wasn't even
28:38
Speaker 3: alleged to have been at the crime, just that he
28:40
Speaker 3: was the organizer or the mastermind. And so if there's
28:43
Speaker 3: no perpetrator and no driver of the getaway car, you know,
28:47
Speaker 3: how is it that film was convicted And to this
28:49
Speaker 3: day it's a mystery to.
28:51
Speaker 2: Well, you know, and the police were equally sure that
28:54
Speaker 2: they had the goods on him, that he had a motive.
28:56
Speaker 2: Well I'm not that motive is important in a murder
28:59
Speaker 2: trial per se. But there was a conspiracy, there was.
29:03
Speaker 2: He told lies that seemed to indicate that he was
29:06
Speaker 2: covering things up. What would you point to as the
29:09
Speaker 2: exculpatory material. It's never been taken seriously.
29:13
Speaker 3: Look, the crime commission in that case had Look, there's
29:17
Speaker 3: two issues about that one's about his sentence, his life sentence,
29:20
Speaker 3: but I'll deal with that in a minute. But the
29:23
Speaker 3: real question about the evidence against him was that twelve
29:26
Speaker 3: Crime Commission witnesses who had records and form in other
29:31
Speaker 3: areas of malfeasance and assaults and various other things that
29:35
Speaker 3: they'd been involved in, they were given benefits of some
29:38
Speaker 3: kind or another as a result of evidence they gave
29:41
Speaker 3: it against fung N And they all said, initially, you know,
29:45
Speaker 3: we don't know anything about this crime, or if we do,
29:49
Speaker 3: we read about it in the paper. They actually didn't
29:52
Speaker 3: know what the Crime Commission was talking about. But over
29:55
Speaker 3: a period of one and a half years, the Crime
29:59
Speaker 3: Commission convinced these witnesses that they did know something, or
30:03
Speaker 3: the witnesses everdence that the witnesses changed their evidence in
30:08
Speaker 3: such a way as to suit the prosecution case and
30:12
Speaker 3: gave that evidence in court, and people that knew them
30:17
Speaker 3: and other people who were involved in supporting Fumnah were
30:22
Speaker 3: all able to demonstrate in one way or another that
30:25
Speaker 3: these witnesses had completely changed their stories from what they
30:29
Speaker 3: said initially, and whether it was pressure from the Crime
30:32
Speaker 3: Commission or some other benefit or advantage that they received.
30:37
Speaker 3: The fact is that they've given evidence against Fumnoh as
30:41
Speaker 3: part of the overall story that convicted him, and that
30:44
Speaker 3: evidence that they gave is highly questionable, and I believe
30:49
Speaker 3: that their evidence should be tested. You know, where the
30:51
Speaker 3: evidence involves secret recordings, whether their video recordings or audio recordings,
30:58
Speaker 3: that material can be tested. You know you mentioned Helen Fraser.
31:03
Speaker 3: She's an expert in forensic linguistic analysis. You know, she
31:06
Speaker 3: should have the benefit of listening to those tapes and
31:10
Speaker 3: reading transcripts of what they said, because some of them
31:12
Speaker 3: are in Vietnamese, for example, and the translations in English
31:17
Speaker 3: aren't the same as what they said in Vietnamese, and
31:20
Speaker 3: all that stuff needs proper analysis. I spent hundreds and
31:24
Speaker 3: hundreds of dollars trying to get that material under freedom
31:27
Speaker 3: of information and the Crime Commission, and the police said sorry,
31:31
Speaker 3: you know, it's not available. It's covered by such and
31:34
Speaker 3: such a section of the Act, and so that material.
31:38
Speaker 3: If we had a Criminal Cases Review Commission that had
31:41
Speaker 3: access to that sort of stuff, that would be the
31:43
Speaker 3: first point of call in Fung knows case. The other
31:47
Speaker 3: thing I wanted to say was about his sentence. He
31:49
Speaker 3: got a life sentence because he killed a politician. Some
31:53
Speaker 3: people say, you know, you kill a politician, one less politician,
31:55
Speaker 3: you shouldn't get a life sentence. But the reality is
32:00
Speaker 3: that that was what the judge said at the sentencing
32:03
Speaker 3: of Fung No because you've killed politician and Sahena's crime
32:07
Speaker 3: and we can't have people, as Bob Carr used to say,
32:09
Speaker 3: we can't have people wandering the streets who are going
32:11
Speaker 3: to kill politicians. So therefore, because of that fact that
32:16
Speaker 3: you killed a politician, that was your motive, naked political ambition,
32:20
Speaker 3: he called it. The judge called it life sentence, never
32:23
Speaker 3: to be released. But the reality is that that so
32:27
Speaker 3: called naked political ambition, that so called motive to get
32:32
Speaker 3: John Newman's seat is absolute total boulderdash. John Delabosco will
32:38
Speaker 3: tell you Graham.
32:39
Speaker 2: Richards is not only with us anymore. But but a
32:45
Speaker 2: background here. John Newman was the Lower House member for
32:49
Speaker 2: Fairfield and Fong. As I understand it, didn't want his seat,
32:53
Speaker 2: He wanted an Upper House seat.
32:55
Speaker 3: Yes, it'd been off in an Upper House seat for
32:59
Speaker 3: the next election. But you know there was a difference
33:02
Speaker 3: in the evidence. That was the next election. That next
33:05
Speaker 3: election in nineteen ninety five, that's the one that Newman
33:09
Speaker 3: was going to lose his seat for, or was the
33:12
Speaker 3: next election nineteen ninety nine, four years later, And that
33:16
Speaker 3: was just a misunderstanding amongst some of the witnesses and
33:20
Speaker 3: certainly confusing for the jury. And Fullna never wanted Newman's
33:26
Speaker 3: seat for lots of very sane, sensible reasons. And when
33:30
Speaker 3: he talked about the next election, he was talking about
33:34
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety nine, where he hoped to be endorsed by
33:36
Speaker 3: the Labor Party in the Legislative Council, and the Crown
33:39
Speaker 3: and the prosecution in the full Know Newman case, they
33:43
Speaker 3: all took the next election to be the nineteen ninety
33:46
Speaker 3: five election, which is the election that Bob car won
33:50
Speaker 3: for the first time. And Newman was never going to
33:54
Speaker 3: be a candidate for the Labor Party in nineteen ninety five,
33:57
Speaker 3: and fullnow knew that. So how could he have killed
34:00
Speaker 3: Newman for his seat when he knew that he wasn't
34:03
Speaker 3: even running for the election. But it just doesn't make sense.
34:06
Speaker 1: And of course motive doesn't really matter in a murder time.
34:10
Speaker 1: I know that sounds ridiculous.
34:11
Speaker 3: Now it matters in sentencing because he got a life
34:14
Speaker 3: sentence because he killed the politician, that was his motive
34:18
Speaker 3: and if he hadn't, if that wasn't his motive, his
34:22
Speaker 3: sentence should have been reviewed, which is what happens. You know,
34:25
Speaker 3: life didn't mean life. You know, life meant that you
34:28
Speaker 3: got a review. But because it was life under the
34:31
Speaker 3: new legislation passed in nineteen ninety, it means that he
34:36
Speaker 3: got a life sentence because it was a political crime.
34:39
Speaker 3: The judge said that it is summing up, which.
34:42
Speaker 1: To me is staffed.
34:43
Speaker 2: I mean, I've seen people who killed multiple people and
34:46
Speaker 2: got minimum sentences and got parole eventually, so it does
34:49
Speaker 2: send to be fairly on. The other motive that gets
34:52
Speaker 2: tossed around was that John Newman was trying to go
34:56
Speaker 2: after Vietnamese based organized crime in the Fairfield area, that
34:59
Speaker 2: there was drug trafficking going on, money laundering, and it's
35:02
Speaker 2: centered around the Mekong Club, to which for though was
35:06
Speaker 2: heavily linked, and that he was somehow operating on behalf
35:10
Speaker 2: of these.
35:11
Speaker 1: Vietnamese based criminals. Do you think that holds any water.
35:14
Speaker 3: I don't think it holds any water at all. I mean,
35:16
Speaker 3: the Mecon Club was a very successful enterprise and the
35:21
Speaker 3: Vietnamese people loved going there. It was a social thing
35:25
Speaker 3: for them. They like to have a flutter on the pokies.
35:28
Speaker 3: And nobody really expected that he could get it to work.
35:32
Speaker 3: I mean, the main problem was he couldn't get the
35:34
Speaker 3: money for it. But he didn't get the money from
35:36
Speaker 3: organized crime. He got it from I forgot the guy's name,
35:40
Speaker 3: but he was involved in that insurance company. But anyway,
35:44
Speaker 3: the money was business money. It wasn't organized crime money.
35:48
Speaker 2: That was Rodney Adler fides, thank you, my schoolmate.
35:55
Speaker 3: I did a couple of defamation cases for Rodney Adler.
35:59
Speaker 1: Okay enough. I think he never sued me.
36:01
Speaker 2: I think he wanted to a couple of times. And
36:05
Speaker 2: the other critics of Fulna also point to his influence
36:09
Speaker 2: within jail, and the former head of correction in New
36:12
Speaker 2: South Wales, Ron Woodham, said he's the most dangerous prison
36:15
Speaker 2: in the system. That he could motivate others to get
36:18
Speaker 2: involved in gang activity and even reach outside the prison walls.
36:22
Speaker 2: And it really isn't start contrast to people like yourself
36:25
Speaker 2: and others who've spoken to Fumna, and I know him
36:28
Speaker 2: pretty well, how did those sort of allegations sit with
36:31
Speaker 2: the man that you've spoken to and no reason to.
36:33
Speaker 3: Well, well, look they're laughable. I told Rod Wodhem in
36:38
Speaker 3: a committee inquiry in the Parliament where he was giving
36:41
Speaker 3: evidence about it was up do with corrective services and
36:47
Speaker 3: you know I asked him about that allegation that Fungnau
36:50
Speaker 3: was involved in manipulating prisoners and I think I called
36:54
Speaker 3: it the elephant in the room. And Rod would have
36:57
Speaker 3: went ballistic. He said, you know, how dare you challenge
37:02
Speaker 3: the the corrective services system? I said, it's absolutely joke,
37:06
Speaker 3: you know, to suggest that he would manipulate all these
37:10
Speaker 3: people that's in the supermax with he was in the
37:12
Speaker 3: supermax at the time. You know, one prisoner can't even
37:15
Speaker 3: talk to another prisoner at the supermax. They have one
37:18
Speaker 3: person basketball, you know, they throw the hoop, they go
37:22
Speaker 3: and catch the ball and throw it back in again.
37:24
Speaker 3: You know, they don't mix with other prisoners in the supermax.
37:27
Speaker 3: How's he going to influence anybody? Like? It was just ridiculous.
37:30
Speaker 1: M So what sort of guy is he?
37:32
Speaker 3: Fum No, Well, I really like him. I think he's
37:35
Speaker 3: a I think he's a charming man. He always calls
37:39
Speaker 3: me mister Breen and always say for God's sake, I've
37:41
Speaker 3: got another name. Peter call me no Nois, and he
37:45
Speaker 3: calls me miss and he calls everybody mister or missus
37:48
Speaker 3: or missed by their second name. Like he's he's just
37:51
Speaker 3: a you know, he's either very obsequious or he's very
37:55
Speaker 3: generous and very kind. But that's the kind of person
37:58
Speaker 3: he is, Like he just appears to be a nice man.
38:01
Speaker 3: Richardson said that, you know, I can't imagine someone as
38:04
Speaker 3: you know, warm and friendly and kind as form No
38:07
Speaker 3: committing murder. It doesn't make any sense.
38:10
Speaker 1: Well, I've seen some pretty nice murderers over the years, but.
38:15
Speaker 3: Al Capone comes to mind. Al Capone was a very
38:18
Speaker 3: religious man and wasn't a bad criminal. And that's the
38:21
Speaker 3: other thing about form No. Fungna is very religious. When
38:25
Speaker 3: he was in Vietnam, he was he trained as a brother,
38:28
Speaker 3: I think the Christian Brothers. I'm not sure now, but
38:31
Speaker 3: he trained as the brother and he was in this
38:33
Speaker 3: seminary when the North Vietnamese overtook South Vietnam and they
38:37
Speaker 3: took him out of the seminary and put him in
38:39
Speaker 3: a re education camp. So he's always been very rigious,
38:43
Speaker 3: and he's had died in the war Catholic and so
38:46
Speaker 3: you know, he's always done everything consistent with Church law,
38:50
Speaker 3: he says. And apart from the murder of Pung No,
38:54
Speaker 3: the murder of John Newman, which is pretty serious deficit
38:59
Speaker 3: on your record, apart from that, he's got no other
39:03
Speaker 3: crimes against him, no other form, you know, not even
39:07
Speaker 3: the so called bad friends that Ron Woodham used to
39:10
Speaker 3: talk about. They just don't exist.
39:12
Speaker 2: What avenues still exist for full know now for appeal
39:17
Speaker 2: or some sort of address on his sentence.
39:19
Speaker 3: So he's had this thing going with the with the
39:22
Speaker 3: federal government in Vietnam, which is a sensible country with
39:26
Speaker 3: sensible laws. Thirty years is the maximum time you can
39:29
Speaker 3: serve for life life in Vietnam and most other sensible countries,
39:33
Speaker 3: it's thirty years. And he's been in jail twenty seven years,
39:37
Speaker 3: and he's got permission from the government in Vietnam to
39:40
Speaker 3: go back and serve his remaining three years in Vietnam.
39:43
Speaker 3: And so I would like to see that happen, but
39:47
Speaker 3: the government won't do it, I don't think, because the
39:49
Speaker 3: government doesn't want to be seen to conceding to the
39:53
Speaker 3: whims of a prisoner, you know. And you know, Bob
39:56
Speaker 3: Carr again. Bob cast says, Oh, you know, he's a
39:58
Speaker 3: terrible man. We shouldn't let him out on the street.
40:01
Speaker 3: But you know, really, apart from the murder of John Newman,
40:05
Speaker 3: which is highly questionable conviction, he doesn't have any other
40:10
Speaker 3: form or convictions or any enemies that anyone anybody knows about.
40:14
Speaker 3: So why not let him go home and spend the
40:16
Speaker 3: remaining time of his life with his family. To keep
40:19
Speaker 3: him in jail here makes no sense. You know, wait
40:22
Speaker 3: for the day until the coffin's ready to cut him
40:25
Speaker 3: out of the prison. It's just insane. He costs tax
40:27
Speaker 3: bas prisoners cost taxpas about four hundred and sixty dollars
40:31
Speaker 3: a day. Why waste tax base money on someone who's
40:34
Speaker 3: completely harmless, Well.
40:36
Speaker 2: Particularly when you can deport them back to Vietnam and
40:38
Speaker 2: someone else's problem.
40:39
Speaker 1: I think that's a very popular political option these days.
40:42
Speaker 3: Yes, well they shouldn't. They should do that, but they
40:44
Speaker 3: should also review his sentence. You know, he shouldn't have
40:47
Speaker 3: a life sentence because of Della Boscar's new and fresh
40:50
Speaker 3: evidence that the nineteen ninety five election was the next election,
40:55
Speaker 3: and Dela Boscar said he could never understand why they
40:58
Speaker 3: couldn't understand that in the court, and Debbie Whitmont's book,
41:02
Speaker 3: which has just been published, clearly lays out John to
41:05
Speaker 3: Delabossa's evidence and it's fresh and compelling evidence that he
41:08
Speaker 3: didn't kill John Newman for any naked political ambition, As
41:12
Speaker 3: the judge said, whatever his motive was, if he is
41:15
Speaker 3: the killer, whatever it was, it wasn't naked political ambition.
41:19
Speaker 3: Maybe didn't like the color of his eyes, maybe didn't
41:22
Speaker 3: like his ancestry, who knows, But the naked political ambition
41:26
Speaker 3: political motive doesn't apply. Ergo, there shouldn't be a life sentence.
41:31
Speaker 2: So what you're really saying is this was not Australia's
41:34
Speaker 2: first political assassination and his sentence should be reviewed on
41:37
Speaker 2: that basis.
41:38
Speaker 3: No, it was the first case of a politician being assassinated,
41:41
Speaker 3: but whether it was full No, it was only him
41:45
Speaker 3: to the extent that he was convicted as the organizer
41:48
Speaker 3: of the crime. You know, he didn't pull the trigger,
41:50
Speaker 3: he didn't drive the getaway car. And nobody knows who
41:53
Speaker 3: that is. Because the two that got off, Quang Dou
41:56
Speaker 3: and David Din. You know, if I've got to know
42:00
Speaker 3: them as a result of my involvement in the case,
42:03
Speaker 3: and you know they're the most unlikely killed as well.
42:06
Speaker 3: You know one of them is a social worker. Quendale
42:08
Speaker 3: is a social worker and trains children to behave themselves
42:12
Speaker 3: and teaches life skills to makes no sense that he's
42:16
Speaker 3: a murder.
42:17
Speaker 1: Well, desperate times desperate measures.
42:19
Speaker 2: In conclusion, Peter Breen, you've looked deeply into the Jamison
42:24
Speaker 2: case and full no if you're a betting man, which
42:28
Speaker 2: inmate has.
42:29
Speaker 1: A better chance of gaining freedom?
42:32
Speaker 3: Look, Adam, what I'd really like to say is there
42:34
Speaker 3: should be a Criminal Cases Review Commission that looks at
42:37
Speaker 3: both of these cases and other cases. By the way,
42:40
Speaker 3: commentators agree that between one and two percent of the
42:42
Speaker 3: prison population is wrongly convicted, between one and two percent,
42:47
Speaker 3: and so there should be a Criminal Cases Review Commission
42:49
Speaker 3: to review these cases and give these people the opportunity
42:52
Speaker 3: of presenting new evidence, of arguing the case, arguing things
42:56
Speaker 3: that weren't brought up in the trial or were somehow
42:59
Speaker 3: misconceived in the trial. And that's the real problem with
43:02
Speaker 3: the present system. They won't go back and look at
43:05
Speaker 3: the original trial and the mistakes that were made. Even
43:08
Speaker 3: in these cases of Blessington and Jamison that are going
43:13
Speaker 3: back before the Supreme Court. Nobody wants to know about
43:16
Speaker 3: the trial, but you know the trial was where it
43:18
Speaker 3: all happened and where it went wrong, and so that evidence.
43:21
Speaker 3: A Criminal Cases Review Commission could go to the Crime
43:23
Speaker 3: Commission infum those case and get that evidence. And you know,
43:27
Speaker 3: similarly with Jamison's case, a Criminal Cases Review Commission could
43:32
Speaker 3: go to the latent print section of the police and
43:35
Speaker 3: get the fingerprints and get the DNA and do the
43:37
Speaker 3: comparison testing. Criminal Cases Review Commission would be independent. The
43:41
Speaker 3: President mob are not independent. You know, the Health Commission
43:45
Speaker 3: does the DNA testing. The forensic laboratories are all run
43:49
Speaker 3: by the government and the police. The police are the
43:51
Speaker 3: guardians at the gate of all this stuff. Nothing happens
43:53
Speaker 3: without the police approval. And you know that when innocent
43:57
Speaker 3: people are in jail, you know they should at least
43:59
Speaker 3: have the right to a proper process and the only
44:02
Speaker 3: way to do that is with a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yeah,
44:05
Speaker 3: there's one in the UK, there's one in New Zealand.
44:08
Speaker 3: Just two years ago they introduced one in Canada. We
44:11
Speaker 3: should have one in Australia. It's just fundamental to the
44:15
Speaker 3: ongoing development of the justice system.
44:18
Speaker 2: Okay, I think it's a good suggestion, and I do
44:20
Speaker 2: admire your persistence and your stoic support of this because,
44:24
Speaker 2: as we say, we don't know the guilty or innocence
44:27
Speaker 2: of these individuals ultimately, but they do have a right
44:31
Speaker 2: to a fair trial and a review when there was
44:34
Speaker 2: fresh and compelling evidence. And I don't want to say
44:37
Speaker 2: you're a voice in the wilderness, but you certainly have
44:39
Speaker 2: back these guys and their unpopular causes, let's face it,
44:43
Speaker 2: over many many years, and I thank you for it.
44:45
Speaker 3: It's a pleasure. I wouldn't do it if it was easy, Adam, Okay,
44:49
Speaker 3: thanks for your time. Soah, thanks for listening to this
44:58
Speaker 3: episode and supporting this story. Independent storytelling that shapes the
45:02
Speaker 3: world is what pod shape really cares about.
45:05
Speaker 2: Right now, there's thousands of people listening to this show
45:07
Speaker 2: and our other true Crimes, and they're completely engaged.
45:11
Speaker 3: More than ten million Australians listen to podcasts each week.
45:14
Speaker 2: If you've ever thought about advertising your business in a podcast,
45:17
Speaker 2: there's a link to reach out in the show notes,
45:20
Speaker 2: or
45:20
Speaker 1: Head to podshape dot com to book a free call.