Loading summary
Transcript202 lines
- [00:00]
Peter Breen
Jamison was arrested two weeks after the others, and when they brought him into the cells, the other four all laughed at the police and said, ha ha, you got the wrong shorty. And they kept laughing and saying, no, no, he's the wrong one. Ha ha. You know, you're so stupid, arresting the wrong shorty. And for them, it was a joke.
- [00:17]
Podcast Host
In February 1986, Sydney nurse Anita Cobby was abducted at random, raped and murdered by a group of young men led by a teenager. Two years later, in 1988, a group of street kids in their mid teens abducted, raped and murdered Janine Balding from the car park of Sydney's Sutherland train station. In response to the horrific crimes, the New South Wales state government passed special legislation condemning the young offenders to spend the rest of their lives in prison with no possibility of parole. They called it cementing them in. Criminal lawyer and former independent member of the New South Wales Parliament, Peter Breen, believes there are problems with this legislation and approach. Not least, he believes that at least two of the men imprisoned all those years ago are innocent and weren't even present at the crimes. He's written a book called Mistaken Identity or Stitch up, and he joins us on Australian True Crime to talk about it. This is Australian True Crime. We acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this podcast is created, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung People of the Kulin Nation and a warning. This episode of the podcast contains graphic descriptions of violence.
- [01:33]
Peter Breen
Look, it's one of those things, you know, it lands on your desk and you look at it and think, oh, that's too hard. And you push to one side. And then because I was in Parliament, it kept coming up in debate. And then there was special laws directed at this guy Jamison as well as a number of other guys. And because it was. Because I was a politician, I was worried about the borderline between judicial power under the constitution and legislative power. And I didn't think it was within the power of lawmakers to trespass into the jurisdiction of judges by passing special laws, especially retrospective laws, affecting these guys. No matter how terrible they were, they should be punished according to the punishments at the time of their crimes, not retrospectively, which is what the state Parliament was trying to do when I was a member.
- [02:25]
Podcast Host
So it seems like there's two issues in this book, Shorty. Mistaken identity or stitch up. And they are the cementing in laws that were passed by New South Wales Parliament. Those laws were passed in response to two terrible, terrible murders of young women by strangers, by Groups of strangers. Firstly was Anita Cobby, and then not long after that was Janine Balding.
- [02:51]
Peter Breen
Yes. And also Virginia Morse. Three, actually.
- [02:53]
Podcast Host
Right. Virginia Morse.
- [02:54]
Peter Breen
Virginia Morse.
- [02:55]
Podcast Host
You're talking about that. You're talking about the. Is that what you mean by the crossover from legislature to.
- [03:00]
Peter Breen
Yeah, like, you know, in the normal world, if the courts have made a decision that someone should stay in jail forever, you know, then you respect that as a decision of the court. And, you know, you can appeal it if there's grounds available, but otherwise, you just have to accept it. But this was unusual because it was the politicians intervening in the court, you know, and exercising judicial power.
- [03:26]
Podcast Host
Well, they were under a lot of pressure, and it's not dissimilar to the situation we're in in Victoria now, where there's an uproar about youth crime and a lot of pressure on the government saying, what are you going to do about it? And so in this situation, when you had three gangs of young people murdering brutally, that the government capitulated under the pressure and said, okay, we will pass a law where people are put away for the rest of their lives, even if they're 14 years old.
- [03:53]
Peter Breen
Yes. And that was the problem. You know, that two of the offenders, one was 14 and one was 16, were juveniles. And, you know, you don't really. I know it's a problem, but you don't really treat juveniles the same as you do adults. You know, adults plan their crimes, whereas juveniles tend to act instinctively. You know, they're growing up, their brains are still developing, they don't know what the boundaries are. And so they do stupid things. And like, I did it, did it myself, as you did.
- [04:24]
Podcast Host
We all do.
- [04:25]
Peter Breen
You know, you look back and you think, my God, how did I survive that? You know, what was I thinking? And the reality is you're not thinking properly or thinking straight. And so to treat children the same as you treat adults is just anathema to everything that a, you know, a lawyer and a social worker who deals with children, it's sort of anathema to anything that they know or do. And so I just think that children, you know, I know that adult crime, adult time is a good slogan for politicians, and it gets them votes, but I just don't think it's fair at the end of the day. I just don't think it's just. And so when an opportunity like this came up, you know, two juveniles jailed by politicians until they die, basically, it was just, you know, I just couldn't walk away from it.
- [05:16]
Podcast Host
I read a Book years and years ago called Never to be Released. And I thought the book was amazing and was about these crimes and some similar ones. But the COVID art featured an absolutely terrifying. It was a manipulated photograph, manipulated image. But this person on the COVID became the stuff of nightmares for me. His name was Shorty Jamison. Yes, that's his nickname, obviously. Stephen Shorty Jamison. And they described him as street kid, or, mind you, he was in his early 20s when the crime against Janine Balding occurred. One of a number of boys. There was one girl who abducted, raped, murdered a lady as she got off the train, virtually. And this is the person about whom you have written a book? Well, him and some others have featured into it. But I became sort of obsessed with Shorty Jamison, especially as I realised not long after reading that book that there was some conjecture as to whether he was the actual Shorty who was present at the crime. When did you become aware of Shorty Jamison?
- [06:19]
Peter Breen
So the cement law was passed in 2001.
- [06:25]
Podcast Host
That's this law saying away for good. Cement it in.
- [06:27]
Peter Breen
Yeah, cemented in. See you later. It was a car government initiative and arguably got them elected. But when I was debating it in the Parliament, I got a letter from one of These kids, a 14 year old, Bronson Blessington, saying, thank you for standing up for us. And I said to him at the time, you know, I wasn't deliberately standing up for you. I was interested in the fact that you were saying this guy was innocent, this Shorty Jamison was innocent. I said, I know it's terrible jailing kids for life, but it's actually more terrible to jail an innocent person for life. And, you know, everything I've read about your case is you're saying, Shorty Jamison's innocent, I want to see him. So I organised to go and see him. He was at Goulburn. Jamieson, you know, just struck me as a person with mental deficiencies. In other words, he was a simple person.
- [07:24]
Podcast Host
Well, in his appearance also. This is when the whole story really stuck me. Stuck with me was when I realized that manipulated image on the COVID of the book was based on his facial deformities, I guess you'd call it, which come from fetal alcohol syndrome. So this is a person who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, whose life has been incredibly difficult childhood, incredibly difficult. And I felt like his face was weaponised against him on the COVID of this book. Even at that point, I thought he was guilty of the crime, but I still thought it was a bit crook to Use his appearance that way, you know. But in reading your book, and certainly I've heard other murmurs that he's co accused Matthew Elliot, Bronson Blessington, Wayne Wilmot and I think Carol Ann Aro as well. All of them said then, and they say now that he wasn't there.
- [08:15]
Peter Breen
Jamieson was arrested two weeks after the others. And when they brought him into the cells, the other four all laughed at the police and said, ha ha, you got the wrong shorty. And the police said, no, we've got the right shorty. He's signed a record of interview. He's been identified as the person at the crime scene named Shorty. And they kept laughing and saying, no, no, he's the wrong one. Ha ha, you know, you're so stupid, arresting the wrong Shorty. And for them it was a joke.
- [08:42]
Podcast Host
Well, I'm sure they thought it would be rectified at some point.
- [08:44]
Peter Breen
Well, the next day, two detectives came into the cells with photographs, 12 photographs. And they separated the four children that were there and asked them to identify who the shorty was from these 12 photographs. And they all pointed separately to the police. They all pointed to photograph number seven, which was a photograph of a guy named Shorty Wells. And they all told detectives, the four of them, no, no, you've got the wrong Shorty. And they still thought it was a joke. But this other shorty was clearly identified the day after he was taken into custody.
- [09:27]
Podcast Host
So what went wrong?
- [09:28]
Peter Breen
Well, what went wrong was that there was a police record of interview which had been fabricated. And as a result, the police couldn't walk away from it. You know, they were stuck with it. They had to defend the. The police record of interview.
- [09:41]
Podcast Host
The record of interview comes up a lot in the book because you've had it analysed by various people and they're basically saying, shorty Jamison struggles to express himself verbally. And yet this record has paragraphs and paragraphs of someone waxing lyrical about what happened that night. And you have experts who say, he can't have said all that.
- [10:03]
Peter Breen
Well, it's a narrative that you just can't imagine coming out of his mouth because he talks in two or three sentences, then stops. You know, you have to prompt him to keep talking. And the law about records of interview is that it has to be a verbatim record of what the prisoner said.
- [10:22]
Podcast Host
Well, we forget that there was a time before video and audio recording of interviews where this was people typing what someone else was saying.
- [10:30]
Peter Breen
Yes, but the judges forget as well. I mean, Jamison had an inquiry back in 2001. And the judge running the inquiry said that he couldn't accept that there were any deficiencies in the police record of interview, and it wasn't the police's fault if they weren't very good typists. You know, that is just an outrageous thing to say because the law is so clear about it. You know, it has to be a verbatim record of what the prisoner is saying. And for the judge to excuse the police on the basis of their typing abilities, just an outrage. But that's what happened, you know.
- [11:05]
Podcast Host
So on top of that, there's no evidence of Shorty at the scene, at the abduction site, at the murder site, in the car.
- [11:14]
Peter Breen
Look what happened after. There were two trials, and in the first trial, it became apparent to the judge, who was Justice Wood, that the police had the wrong Shorty. And so he dismissed the jury and told the police to go away and carry out a proper investigation. Unfortunately, Wood didn't sit as the judge in the second trial, it was a different judge. And the judge in that trial said that the other Shorty allegation was a tissue of lies, he called it, and the children were simply trying to help themselves by creating or muddying the water. And so he decided that the record of interview was valid and convicted the two juveniles that went to trial with Jameson and Jameson. So the three of them have been in jail for 37 years, and the other two, Blessington and Elliot, still say to this day, he's the wrong guy.
- [12:10]
Podcast Host
Which doesn't fit with the idea, the stereotype that we would have of offenders, murderers, youth offenders, you know, we don't tend to think of them as altruistic and yet very quick in this circumstance, say, oh, they're lying, they're just trying to do something, protect their friend or muddy the waters or.
- [12:31]
Peter Breen
Yeah, yeah, well, that's what the court found in the inquiry. But, you know, that's what happens with inquiries. You know, it's very difficult to overturn what the jury's already found.
- [12:42]
Podcast Host
Now, there is a piece of evidence in this case that is still in police custody. I guess it's still around. And you're hoping that technology will improve to the point that it's useful, Is that fair to say?
- [12:55]
Peter Breen
Well, the Forensic and Analytical Science Service, which is run by the Health Department, have the bandana from this crime scene that was used to gag the victim, Janine Balding. And the bandana has been subjected to testing for 25 years now. And of course, the technology has changed and developed since it was Originally tested. And so we started a case on behalf of Jemison to get the new testing done using the new technology, because.
- [13:24]
Podcast Host
There were many witnesses who attested to the fact that the other shorty, Mark, Shorty Wells, was known to wear a black bandanna, was seen that day with the black bandana. So there's reason to believe that it's his.
- [13:36]
Peter Breen
Yes. And. And the other shorty allegation had persisted from the very day that they were all arrested because they tried to kidnap another woman, Christine Mobley. Before they got Janine balding, they were trying to steal a car. And their idea of stealing a car was to force the driver into the car and take the car. And so Christine Mobley managed to escape them by locking the door from the inside and driving off. She identified the next day in a police statement, she identified the shorty that was there as having a pockmark face, long face, dark hair, black clothes, black boots, and a black headband. And he was walking around and looking like a ninja fighter. And it was a very clear description of the other shorty. And so eventually, Christine Mobley gave her evidence. And I think as a result of her evidence, the first trial was dismissed. The jury was dismissed. What happened in the second trial, I'm not sure, but that important evidence, I don't think ever got the priority it should have had. Certainly something so immediate and so obvious should have been. Well, it should have been the subject of better scrutiny. But in those days, you had to just accept what the police said. I mean, juries and judges were all told in those days, look, you know, why would the police lie? And fair enough, because in those days, police records of interview were often the whole basis of a case. And, you know, they were often enough to convict a jury even without any other supporting evidence.
- [15:20]
Podcast Host
And people still find it hard to believe that someone will admit to a crime they haven't committed.
- [15:25]
Peter Breen
Yes.
- [15:25]
Podcast Host
But we also know, on the other hand, that there are lots of cases where those confessions are found to be false.
- [15:33]
Peter Breen
Yes. And there are lots of cases where people sign their records of interview or did in those days when there was no other video evidence, because they're terrified or because they're under some kind of pressure or, you know, there's some reason for them.
- [15:48]
Podcast Host
Because you also spoke to the Murphy brothers, who were convicted of Anita Cobby's murder. I mean, these are such hot potatoes, these guys. This is why the car government felt confident in just saying, cement them in, lock them up forever.
- [16:00]
Peter Breen
But you know what struck me about the Anita Cobby case was it was only two years before the Janine Balding case. One was 86 and the other was 88. And immediately I saw the name of the detective, Kevin Rao, who was one of the detectives or the detective that signed the false record of interview in the Jamison case. When I saw that Detective Rao was one of the detectives in the Anita Cobby case and that he'd signed the record of interview of Les Murphy, I actually couldn't wait to get to see Les and get some information about his record of interview. And I was astounded how similar it was to Jamison's. You know, the modus operandi, the threats, encouragements to sign up or will bash you. I mean, it was just so obvious that they'd operated in exactly the same way as they'd operated previously. So I kind of got stuck with both cases.
- [16:56]
Podcast Host
So similarly, the co offenders in that case, John Travers, Michael Murdoch, Michael Murphy and Les Murphy, have all said that Gary Murphy was not there.
- [17:05]
Peter Breen
Yes, exactly the same situation, they've all said. And they all said from day one, the solicitor acting for them in those days was Lee Johnson and a guy, a barrister called Sandy Whitmore. And they went to see the Murphy boys in prison and again, they were separated into different cells and they all said emphatically that Gary wasn't there. And Gary said that he was at the Doonside Hotel and there was another person named Patterson who he was alleged to be at the hotel with. And Patterson originally said, yes, he was with me at the hotel. And I don't know that much about the Murphy case, but I do know that Patterson changed his mind later on and said, no, no, I wasn't at the hotel with him. So Gary Murphy got lumped in with the rest of them.
- [17:55]
Podcast Host
Is Gary Murphy still living? One of the brothers died, didn't they?
- [17:57]
Peter Breen
Yes, Michael Murphy died a couple of years ago, but Gary's still alive and Les is still alive.
- [18:12]
Podcast Host
If you'd like to talk to someone about abuse that's taken place in your life, no matter how long ago it happened, your GP is always a good place to start. If that's not going to work for you, you can contact 1-800-Respect on 1-800-737-732 or via their website, 1-800respect.org au or you can call Lifeline's 24 hour phone counselling service on 13, 1114. How do you justify this to your, you know, to your staff, to your constituents, to, you know, how was it working out for you at work? Basically?
- [18:54]
Peter Breen
Oh, look, the Voters hated it. And I don't know about this, the staff were okay because they didn't like the idea of innocent prisoners in jail.
- [19:03]
Podcast Host
No, no one does. But there must have been some concern for you. Are you sure you want to do this? Are you sure, Peter, that you want to stick your neck out for these guys? Everyone thinks they're the lowest of the low, evil.
- [19:14]
Peter Breen
Yeah, yeah. Look, I understand all that and I'm sympathetic to it, but the reality is, whether you're a lawyer or a politician, if a case comes across your desk and it just appears to be so obviously an injustice that needs to be fixed, it's pretty hard not to do it. That was always my experience and I did try several times not to do it. And I actually got sick on one occasion and was able to pass it on to another lawyer. I thought, oh, that's good. I'm glad to be over that. But then he couldn't afford to keep running it.
- [19:49]
Podcast Host
Well, how expensive is it to pursue something like this on, let's just say Shorty Jamieson's. Does he like to be called Shorty?
- [19:56]
Peter Breen
Yeah, yeah, that's all right. He's OK being called Shorty, let's say.
- [20:00]
Podcast Host
Talk about his case. How expensive is it to keep. To keep it going? Basically, you have overseen DNA testing, hearings, all sorts of things. How expensive is all that?
- [20:13]
Peter Breen
Look, it's not that expensive, but it's time consuming. And, you know, people say, oh, you should be doing other things. You know, people used to say, oh, you know, what about voters? Prisoners don't even vote and you're a politician. But I used to point out that because I was an independent politician, I was able to do whatever came across my desk. And I didn't feel that the time I spent working for Jamison, I didn't feel as though I was taking that time away from anybody else because I was able to do my other work as well. Legal Aid have acted for Jamison most of the time over the years, and it was only when they bowed out in about 2015 that it got complicated. And so I actually couldn't do it because of other commitments. And a lawyer called Peter O' Brien then had it for about 10 years. But when I discovered this new DNA testing back in 2023, I thought that he should get the benefit of that. But the law didn't allow us to get access to the Scarf to do the testing. So I went to the court, I filed an application in the civil court, what's called pre litigation discovery, in order to get access to the bandana for further DNA testing based on new technology. And that's the extent of my involvement over the last couple of years.
- [21:35]
Podcast Host
How'd it go, the testing?
- [21:36]
Peter Breen
Well. Well, the case was going really well until the judge retired. The judge was Ian Harrison and he retired less than two weeks ago and he was appointed as an acting judge in the Court of Appeal, so the case had to be cancelled.
- [21:53]
Podcast Host
Is that what happens if your judge gets. Your judge retires? Someone just doesn't pick up where he left off?
- [21:59]
Peter Breen
Well, in some cases, another judge takes over, but in this case, because Legal Aid's involved and very helpfully involved, Legal Aid agreed to file a new application for another judicial inquiry. And on the basis of that, the Crown Solicitor and the judge agreed that the case should be withdrawn. The case that I started should be withdrawn. So a new judicial inquiry can take place in 2026. So that's where it's at. It's about the new judicial inquiry will be appointed, a judge will be appointed, dates will be set aside, counsel assisting will be appointed, and that will all happen, hopefully, earlier in the new year rather than later in the year. But that's the basis on which the other case that I started was withdrawn. And of course, in the meantime, the Crown is doing further DNA testing at the Forensic and Analytical Science Service. So. And there's new evidence? Well, there's. Sorry, it's not actually new evidence, but it's evidence that was around at the time that's never come to light. For example, the Police Integrity Commission inquiry into the investigation has never come to light, so that can go into a new inquiry. The fingerprint case file from the original case is still available, I understand. So there must be fingerprints in the car, in Janine Balling's car, that match Shorty either Shorty Wells or Shorty Jamieson, depending upon which side you're looking for.
- [23:29]
Podcast Host
Cause you discovered very late in the date, really, that none of the sort of forensic investigation had been matched up with Shorty Wells. Mark Shorty Wells. They'd never matched his DNA, they'd never compared his fingerprints, never done anything.
- [23:43]
Peter Breen
You know, they just dismissed the whole idea of this other Shorty allegation. Yeah, but if that's looked at properly and properly analyzed and tested using the latest technology, then there's a good chance, a fair chance. It's hard to say, really, after all this time, but there is a chance that technology will identify some other aspect of the case and hopefully, well, Jameson's already excluded as a contributor to the DNA and the fingerprints. If Somebody else, some other Shorty. And there is another Shorty in the crosshairs who they say was at the crime scene and not Shorty Jamison. He's aware of the case that's been going on, and his DNA will be available for scrutiny, as will his fingerprints. So you just never know.
- [24:30]
Podcast Host
Your fascinating trip to Brisbane looking for the other Shorty, that really got me, because I. I grew up in Queensland and I spent some of my teenage years at that Hungry Jacks.
- [24:41]
Peter Breen
The Queen Street Mall.
- [24:41]
Podcast Host
In the Queen Street Mall. Anyone who grew up knows where we're from.
- [24:45]
Peter Breen
And if you're looking for accommodation in Brisbane, you go to the Queen Street Mall. You hang out outside Hungry Jackson, like there's plenty of places to sleep.
- [24:52]
Podcast Host
You can find pretty much anything out that, you know in that environment and that community out there. Anything you're looking for.
- [24:57]
Peter Breen
Including Shorty Wells.
- [24:59]
Podcast Host
I could not believe it. I was gasping as I was reading. I'm thinking, bullshit. You did not run into Shorty Wells.
- [25:05]
Peter Breen
People don't believe it.
- [25:06]
Podcast Host
Unbelievable.
- [25:07]
Peter Breen
Even a lot of the experts that I've used in this case, you know when they read that and when they talked to me about it afterwards, and they say, they always qualify it. They always say, you know when you said you met Shorty Wells in the street, if it's true, they say, well.
- [25:22]
Podcast Host
They don't know Hungry Jack's in the Mall. Because I knew it was true. Because, yeah. As soon as I was reading, I thought, that's.
- [25:28]
Peter Breen
That's just true.
- [25:28]
Podcast Host
100% true.
- [25:29]
Peter Breen
It was a fluke that he was there that day.
- [25:31]
Podcast Host
Yeah. But he was always gonna be around.
- [25:33]
Peter Breen
He was always gonna be around. Yeah.
- [25:34]
Podcast Host
And sitting on that little sort of half wall.
- [25:37]
Peter Breen
Yes. Between the Visitors Information Centre and the Hungry Jacks.
- [25:41]
Podcast Host
I know it will.
- [25:41]
Peter Breen
Perfect.
- [25:42]
Podcast Host
Yep. And I loved how you were, you know, some other kids came up and you were listening to them, overhearing them saying, oh, let's Shorty. You know, Shorty will come and tell. And then they walk over to this guy and you're like, oh, my God, that must be Shorty. Were you scared?
- [25:55]
Peter Breen
Well, look, I was shocked more than anything because he sat on the brick fence next to me, like, right next to me. And I'm. And I'm looking up and there's this pockmark face and cauliflower ears and long black hair, and he's got the bloody bandana on. I'm thinking, holy shit. Yeah, this is Shorty Wells.
- [26:17]
Podcast Host
And I love how you did a bit of CSI on him as well. And you to get his DNA.
- [26:21]
Peter Breen
So tried to get his DNA. That was half successful.
- [26:24]
Podcast Host
Yeah. Was it ever tested, that swab. I'm gonna say swab. You got. Cause he spat on the street.
- [26:29]
Peter Breen
He spat on the street, and I managed to pick it up. But there's a bit of a problem getting other people's DNA. Like there's privacy issues.
- [26:37]
Podcast Host
Yeah. It's not like America. Right. And the state, they can do that, but we can't.
- [26:41]
Peter Breen
It's not like the Wild West. And the police rightly control DNA testing. Yeah. The general public shouldn't have any role in DNA testing. And so the best we could do, if the opportunity ever arose or any question was ever raised about his DNA, we could always check it, because I had the DNA. But we've never done that. The opportunity's never arisen, and I hope it never does.
- [27:06]
Podcast Host
I don't think I've ever actually met, been face to face with anyone accused of, let alone admitted to a violent attack, like these guys that you're talking about. I mean, let's talk about Bronson Blessington as an example of a man who admitted to taking part in this terrible rape and murder of Janine Balding when he was 14. How do you approach that, that first meeting? Are you worried about sort of being too empathetic? Are you worried about being sucked in by somebody? Yeah. How do you approach it?
- [27:41]
Peter Breen
As a criminal lawyer, you kind of don't make any judgments about people.
- [27:45]
Podcast Host
So you were a lawyer first before you were a politician?
- [27:47]
Peter Breen
Yeah, yeah, I was a lawyer first.
- [27:48]
Podcast Host
Okay. So that would help.
- [27:50]
Peter Breen
And I've been. I've spent more time as a lawyer. I've been a lawyer for 50 years, so most of my time I've spent as a lawyer. And so you don't make judgments about people who come to you as criminal clients. You know, some of them are dodgy. They look dodgy, they act dodgy. Others look as though they've been the victims of some injustice. And if they say. In my experience, if they say they're innocent, you've got to listen to them and check their story. A lot of them say they're innocent and they're as guilty as hell. I mean, Ivan Milat's a classic example. Ivan Milat, to the day he died, said he was innocent. But the evidence against him was absolutely overwhelming. So you just have to be careful. And in the case of Bronson Blessington, he didn't have any problem admitting his crime. He appealed for sympathy on the basis of his age because he said, you know, and the psychiatric evidence was that he had the mental capacity of a 9 or 10 year old.
- [28:44]
Podcast Host
Yes, he was 14. But they said he had the mentality of an even younger child.
- [28:48]
Peter Breen
Yes, yes. And he had a difficult background. His parents separated and he didn't know whether to go with his mother or father and he finished up on the.
- [28:56]
Podcast Host
Street, I seem to recall. Wasn't he also being molested by a guy at the caravan park that he lived in with his dad?
- [29:03]
Peter Breen
Look, that is in his story somewhere, I must say. I've never explored that.
- [29:08]
Podcast Host
No, you didn't include it in your book, but I remember researching him for some reason and that was part of the mix.
- [29:14]
Peter Breen
Yeah, he certainly had a tough time. And because he was so young and because he came from a religious family, which is interesting. His family was all Salvation army people. And underneath all the 14 year old Bravadia, bravado, he did have and still has a very interesting religious affiliation. He's been studying religion ever since he was in prison and he actually teaches Christianity in prison to a number of other prisoners. And he's done it ever since he's been in prison. He studied at the Moore Theological College by correspondence.
- [29:48]
Podcast Host
He's got an excellent record.
- [29:49]
Peter Breen
So he's got an excellent record in prison. And you know, he trains guide dogs in prison for the Guide Dog Association. So he does good, this guy, but is in jail forever under this cement law.
- [30:01]
Podcast Host
Well, not only the good things that you've already mentioned, but also his advocacy for Shorty Jamison I found touching.
- [30:08]
Peter Breen
Yeah, yeah.
- [30:08]
Podcast Host
He still, it seems to me, sort of cared for him when they were in jail together in Goulburn, they watched out for each other. And certainly in meeting you and providing you with.
- [30:18]
Peter Breen
I wouldn't have believed the case sufficiently to even go and talk to shortage Emerson if it wasn't for Blessington's convincing explanation about what happened. And other people that have dealt with Blessington and who also believe that Shorty Jamison is innocent, they say the same thing, that Blessington is so convincing that it's hard to believe he's lying because he doesn't lie about anything else. He's never lied about being involved in the murder. And interestingly, about Elliot, Elliot's the same. Like he doesn't try and excuse himself every day of his life. Elliot is horrified by the fact that he would have killed somebody. I mean, it's hard to imagine that, but he's not that sort of person. It's an aberration of childhood and growing up and you know, I just feel Sorry for both of them that they're in jail forever, locked up, never to be released. And the reality is that they would both be able to contribute to society if they were released. But look, that's the law.
- [31:33]
Podcast Host
Two very serious scenarios that you present us with in this book. One that, you know, should children be, should we be able to lock up children forever for the rest of their lives for an offence? Is any offence deserving of that? Is that the kind of society we want to be? Is it a fundamental misunderstanding?
- [31:50]
Peter Breen
It actually wouldn't happen if they committed the same crime today as juveniles, they wouldn't get life sentences.
- [31:56]
Podcast Host
Well, it wouldn't happen now. But again, with the pressure that's being applied at the moment about youth crime, it makes you wonder if it could happen again.
- [32:01]
Peter Breen
Well, it could happen in Victoria again because the Premier wants to up the ante on juvenile crime and create life sentences never to be released for juveniles. Which is just bizarre that the Premier would want to do that, in my opinion. But anyway, that's the Premier's prerogative.
- [32:18]
Podcast Host
Well, it gets votes, it wins votes. That kind of hard on crime perspective. But also at the time when these murders are fresh, I think we're all banging for blood, aren't we?
- [32:28]
Peter Breen
Yeah, people are raw. Yeah. People need their justice, you know, and.
- [32:34]
Podcast Host
We'Re scared of them. We're scared of. The idea of children being this brutal is frightening. We don't want them anywhere near us. We don't want to run into them anyway.
- [32:41]
Peter Breen
Yeah. And you know, you can't have, you can't have children wandering around that are likely to kill people. I mean, that's just outrageous. They've got to be locked up.
- [32:50]
Podcast Host
Well, we shouldn't have kids wandering around. I guess that's the sort of. The underlying issue behind all of this is these are all children in both Janine Balding and Anita Cobby's cases, from very difficult, disadvantaged backgrounds. Children, young people who weren't parented very well, if at all, left to their own devices, wandering around drop in centres and things like that, run by people with good intentions most of the time, but still environments where you pick up bad tricks.
- [33:21]
Peter Breen
Right, yeah.
- [33:22]
Podcast Host
So what do we do?
- [33:24]
Peter Breen
Look, it's difficult, but they're still children at the end of the day and their brains haven't properly developed. They don't plan crimes, they act spontaneously. If they get involved in car stealing and carjacking and breaking and entering into people's houses, that's a huge problem and we can't put up with that as a Community, we have to do something about it. But I don't think we should be considering giving them life sentences for carjacking for the sake.
- [33:50]
Podcast Host
No, but what about these extreme crimes?
- [33:52]
Peter Breen
What about women for murder and multiple rapes and cruelty on a completely unacceptable level.
- [34:01]
Podcast Host
It's terrifying.
- [34:02]
Peter Breen
But even for adults, you know, if adults commit those crimes and adults plan their crimes, whereas children mostly act spontaneously. And if you look at any serious crime that a child commits, you're almost always going to find a spontaneous reaction, you know, either to something that's been said or some situation or circumstance they're in, you know, but they're not hiding behind the tree with a knife ready to attack. You know, children don't, don't act like that. So I think some of you.
- [34:29]
Podcast Host
Sorry to interrupt, but I mean, these kids were hiding at the train station with the full plan of at least abducting a woman in her own car. I don't know when they decided.
- [34:38]
Peter Breen
Stealing the car.
- [34:39]
Podcast Host
Yeah, I don't know when they decided to.
- [34:41]
Peter Breen
That's what happens. It escalates, you know.
- [34:43]
Podcast Host
What about. I would imagine prison is a pretty traumatising place and changes people. Do you think being put into corrections at 14 and spending the next 37 years, I mean, how could you ever leave? How could you ever move back into society after that, do you think?
- [35:00]
Peter Breen
Look, it's hard to know, but I do know that in the case of Blessington and Elliot, who were the offenders in this particular case and who were the juveniles? I've never found anything threatening about them and they have excellent records in the prison and they've been subjected, you know, as recently as 12 months ago to psychiatric analysis. And the psychiatrists don't think that they're a risk in the community. And you know, their behavior over 37 years has been exemplary. But who knows? I mean, we're all capable of committing terrible crimes, you know, unless if you don't think you are, then you haven't met the right person or been in the right circumstance.
- [35:41]
Podcast Host
Absolutely.
- [35:42]
Peter Breen
That's the reality of it.
- [35:43]
Podcast Host
For the purposes of our conversation. So often when I talk about these things, I'm trying to be the reasonable kind of open minded person. But you are. So that, that I'm trying to think up, I'm trying to let my fear take, you know, lead me, my fears, my apprehensions lead me in this conversation to try and get it out there basically and say, and if I really think about it, I think, would I be scared if Shorty Jamison moved in next to me? It's one thing for me to say, yes, of course, he wasn't there in this poor thing and terrible childhood and all that, but if he moved in next to me, would I be scared? Would I?
- [36:19]
Peter Breen
Well, if he was found to be innocent, you'd be okay, presumably.
- [36:22]
Podcast Host
Well, this is what I'm asking you. Would I or would I still think.
- [36:26]
Peter Breen
Because he's been in jail for so.
- [36:27]
Podcast Host
Long, in jail for 37 years, you.
- [36:29]
Peter Breen
Know, so even if he was half reasonable, he's not anymore.
- [36:31]
Podcast Host
I'm trying to be as unreasonable as I can in this conversation right now just to kind of get it out there and think, yeah, I could. And same with Blessington, Bronson Blessington. I've read about him for years. I've felt like this poor guy for so many reasons. Do I want him living next to me? I mean, even the fact that you have visited, you actually went to jail a lot. You drove for hours. You'd fly around the country on behalf of these citizens. Yes.
- [36:57]
Peter Breen
I don't like doing it. It's a pain in the neck, let me tell you.
- [36:59]
Podcast Host
But you do do it.
- [37:00]
Peter Breen
But I have to do it, because, you know, what happens is you form a kind of lifeline for them. They think, oh, well, one day he's gonna get me out of jail. And you can't disappoint them by saying, look, you've got no hope, or, you know, you're never gonna get out of jail. You know, they all live on the basis that they're gonna get out one day. That's what I don't like about never to be released sentences. Because if you've got a never to be released sentence, you're only ever gonna get out of jail in a coffin. That's the reality. And so for all those years that you're in there, you've got no hope except of, you know, waiting for your coffin day. And so I think, in my opinion, that a life sentence never to be released is as bad as the death penalty.
- [37:46]
Podcast Host
And also, it's no motivation to behave yourself in prison.
- [37:49]
Peter Breen
These people are dangerous. That's why we've got supermax prisons. You know, these people are dangerous if.
- [37:55]
Podcast Host
You'Ve got no hope of getting out. I remember when Carl Williams was murdered by Matthew Johnson in prison, and they said, oh, well, he did it because he's never getting out, so he doesn't care.
- [38:04]
Peter Breen
That's right. And you know, that they. They wait, like they wait for 30 years in the hope that they're gonna get out. But if they know that they're never gonna get out. And that there are really no consequences of their actions. They're very bloody dangerous.
- [38:19]
Podcast Host
Which is what, again, makes these men remarkable. These men, for as much as they know, are never getting out of prison. And yet I'm talking about Blessington and Elliot and Jamison all behave themselves impeccably.
- [38:30]
Peter Breen
Yeah, they do. And they've all been the subject of. Of parole board inquiries. And the parole board says that they're okay to be released. The psychiatrists say they're okay to be released, but the state government still has in place the cement law. So they're not gonna be released until they've been in jail for at least 30 years and until they're physically incapable of hurting anyone. That's what the law says.
- [38:56]
Podcast Host
So that means dying, basically.
- [38:58]
Peter Breen
Yeah. They can't get out of jail unless they get cancer, for example, or unless they. And even then, they've still got to jump through the normal hoops of psychiatric assessment and the parole board. And they're all good things in place because they protect the community and they make sure that we don't put lunatics back in the community. But having got through those hoops, then, in my opinion, they shouldn't be in jail forever until they die. It's just, on some level, fundamentally unjust.
- [39:26]
Podcast Host
And unfair and inhumane.
- [39:27]
Peter Breen
Inhumane, absolutely.
- [39:28]
Podcast Host
You make the point that Blessington, who was 14 when he was arrested, has the longest sentence anyone in Australia has been given since convict times.
- [39:37]
Peter Breen
Yes. As a child. Yeah, absolutely.
- [39:40]
Podcast Host
Which is a pretty sobering statement.
- [39:42]
Peter Breen
I know. I think transportation to New South Wales ended in the 1840s, and, you know, it's the longest sentence a child has had since the 1840s. Like, it's insane.
- [39:53]
Podcast Host
I guess the main issue is that we have potentially two of these men who are innocent, you know, irrespective of their behaviour or their.
- [40:02]
Peter Breen
So you're talking about Jameson and you're talking about.
- [40:04]
Podcast Host
I'm talking about Jameson and Gary Murphy.
- [40:05]
Peter Breen
Gary Murphy, yeah. Same, yeah. Same coppers involved, same modus operandi. But, you know, I don't. I actually don't. I don't feel the same way about the Anita Cobby case because they won't tell me who did what. I don't sort of have the empathy that I do in this case because the people in this case, the balding case, none of them have ever had any hesitation about saying exactly what happened. And furthermore, and very importantly, in my opinion, the day after they committed the murder, they went to the police and they said to the police, we Know some people who have drowned a woman. And the police said, what are you talking about? Well, we know someone. We met these people who drowned a woman. We don't know who she is, but we know where her body is. So the police. This is a police. At Penrith Station police station. So the police put them in the police cars. They put Blessington in one and Elliot in the other. And they drove to this place in western Sydney that the children were talking about. And it was the middle of the night, and they took their search lights out and they walked through the bush and they found Janine Balding's body floating on the dam. And of course, this is what children do, you know, they exceed their boundaries. They don't know what to do. So they have to tell someone in authority. And they lie about it in some way, but they want to get it off their chest or off their conscience. And so this is what happened. They told the police about this woman, that they knew who'd been killed. They didn't know who she was, but they knew where her body was. And of course, the police took them two seconds to put one and one together and get two. And after short interrogations, they admitted to it.
- [42:03]
Podcast Host
But do you feel as though the Anita Cobby killers are different specimens?
- [42:08]
Peter Breen
Well, you know, they just don't admit to anything. You know, they. And they're just difficult, you know, I don't know what their record is in prison. I can't say. But, you know, I've got enough on my plate with the Gene Balding case. I don't really want to get involved. Anita Cobby case was just terrible. What those boys did to Anita Cobby just is inhumane on the worst level you can ever imagine. And the two guys that I was talking with, Les and his brother Gary, they just wouldn't tell me. Gary, because he said he wasn't there. And I actually believe him. And Les is just devious, you know, you never know whether he's telling you the truth or whether he's trying to enhance his own position or whether he's a pathological lie. I just don't know. When he wouldn't tell me what his involvement was, I said, well, I can't help you.
- [42:59]
Podcast Host
But again, to think that one of them wasn't actually there. And as you've said, that the same police, the same investigators were involved, That's a problem.
- [43:06]
Peter Breen
It's a problem for the justice system. Like, you know, these injustices can't be just left as if there's nothing wrong. I mean, no People need to do something about it. And that's why we should have a Criminal Cases Review Commission.
- [43:17]
Podcast Host
What is that?
- [43:18]
Peter Breen
Well, it's a fully funded government body that has access to all the evidence, and if someone has a reasonable story that they should investigate, the Criminal Cases Review Commission will examine it. And so there's no. You don't have people like me that have got to fund inquiries or fund court fees or, you know, fund DNA testing fees and that sort of stuff. The Criminal Cases Review Commission does it. And they're in every Commonwealth country except Australia. They're in Canada, they're in the UK and it's operated really well. Like, they've found over 500 people wrongly convicted in the UK as a result of the criminal cases, actually.
- [43:56]
Podcast Host
Yeah. Your stats in the book are incredible.
- [43:58]
Peter Breen
Yeah, yeah. Like, it's huge. People generally, Commentators generally say that between 1 and 2% of the prison population in all Commonwealth countries, including Australia, is wrongly convicted. What that means is that this idea of what's called utilitarian punishment, people say, oh, well, you know, they're probably, you know, they might be innocent of what they're in jail for, but they're obviously guilty. Look at their records. So, you know, we'll have this utilitarian punishment thing and just leave them in jail. But, you know, in a case like Jamison's where he's just so obviously the wrong person, seems to me that only a Criminal Cases Review Commission could get to the bottom of it without going through all the dramas that he's had to go through. Like, been 25 years since he's been. Well, since I've been involved in his case, 25 years. And, you know, he's been in jail for 37 years, so it's just too long.
- [44:49]
Podcast Host
It's too long. And he's fortunate in that you've taken an interest in him.
- [44:53]
Peter Breen
Well, a lot of people have. Legal Aid has. Legal Aid has been funding him over the years. Plenty of lawyers and judges that think he's the wrong guy. You can't be nice to be able to quote them. But because he's convicted, you know, they say, oh, look, you know, good luck with that. You know, pat you on the back. And then you say to them, but can I quote you? They go, no, no, don't quote me.
- [45:12]
Podcast Host
And also, as I say, because the crimes are so bad.
- [45:15]
Peter Breen
Yes, they're horrendous crimes.
- [45:17]
Podcast Host
Who would want to go anywhere near it? Even if it seems pretty clear that this guy wasn't involved, you know, who would want to go so are you still in touch with these guys? Are you still working with Shorty? Are you?
- [45:29]
Peter Breen
Well, his case is very much a live issue. I don't physically act for him anymore, but the Legal Aid Commission does and the Legal Aid lawyers have. The last time it was in court was on the 17th of December, which is only a few weeks ago.
- [45:44]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [45:45]
Peter Breen
And, like, there were 10 lawyers in court.
- [45:47]
Podcast Host
Wow.
- [45:47]
Peter Breen
There were five. Five for legal aid and there were five for the Crown. Legal Aid are fighting to get more evidence about the DNA testing and the Crown's fighting for them not to get more evidence. Like, it's just bizarre.
- [46:01]
Podcast Host
What about politically? Are people interested in it politically, given that it was a car. Government, labor, government initiative, very strong tactic. Cause it would need to be walked back legislatively, wouldn't it? I mean, not necessarily his case, but the idea of cementing in these other prisoners.
- [46:18]
Peter Breen
Well, there's always the. Always the ability for the government to grant mercy in particular cases. And I've always thought that that's the best avenue for these three guys, you know, because they were children. Because two of them were children, and because Shorty Jamison suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome and wasn't there. That's a good reason to exercise the power of mercy.
- [46:38]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [46:38]
Peter Breen
But, you know, they're just very reluctant to do it. It's only been exercised in New South Wales on one occasion in the case of murder, and that was a case of a domestic violence thing where a woman had murdered her husband. So, you know, it's a very rare.
- [46:51]
Podcast Host
That's a very different set of circumstances. I can't imagine any politician. I'm sorry I keep saying that. So politician. But, I mean, I just can't.
- [47:00]
Peter Breen
Yes, I've. You're speaking about politicians derogatively.
- [47:03]
Podcast Host
Yes, I am.
- [47:04]
Peter Breen
So you should.
- [47:05]
Podcast Host
And I can't imagine any politicians saying, ok, everyone, I'm gonna grant mercy to these guys.
- [47:10]
Peter Breen
No, I tried it with the current Attorney General, his name's Michael Daley in New South Wales, and he couldn't run far enough away fast enough. But, yeah, some brave politician one day will exercise the power of mercy and half the population will be horrified and the other half will think he's a hero.
- [47:27]
Podcast Host
Well, thank you so much. The book is brilliant. Shorty. Mistaken Identity or Stitch up by Peter Breen. I think everyone should read it. I think a lot about Shorty I have done over the years, actually. But, yeah, more so now.
- [47:40]
Peter Breen
This is a shock, horror story shortage. Amerson was posted to Sydney recently to go to court for this court case that I'd been running for him. He wasn't supposed to come. He was supposed to appear on a video link. But they put him in a car and sent him up to Sydney. And he went to a jail, which isn't very good at separating one lot of prisoners from another. And a whole bunch of prisoners surrounded him and threatened him with a knife or a blade, as they call it in jail. And fortunately for him, one of them, an Aboriginal guy, said, no, no, he's not the guy. He was being accused of being one of the Anita Colby killers.
- [48:18]
Podcast Host
Oh, wow.
- [48:19]
Peter Breen
Not gonna get even, like, in the Sydney jail.
- [48:22]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [48:23]
Peter Breen
And anyway, this Aboriginal guy said, no, no, no. I saw him on 60 Minutes. He's innocent. He's the wrong guy. He's got nothing to do with. Needed copy killing. And so they're all going, oh, mate, sorry. They put the blade away, patted him on the back.
- [48:38]
Podcast Host
Poor old Shorty. Forever the mistaken identity.
- [48:40]
Peter Breen
Yeah, forever. And he thought, oh, it's all over. You know, these guys are gonna kill me.
- [48:44]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [48:45]
Peter Breen
So that's the sort of environment he lives in.
- [48:47]
Podcast Host
Well, and also, you talk about Bronson Blessington, who was moved to another prison so that he could go to a hearing. And there's a bloke in there who's wanted to kill him for 27 years.
- [48:55]
Peter Breen
Yeah, I know. People in prison get fixations about certain prisoners and, you know, they want to end it for them. It's a dangerous place, prison.
- [49:05]
Podcast Host
And you're right. And that's the environment they're living in.
- [49:07]
Peter Breen
Yep, that's the environment they're living in. They've probably served a sufficient sentence, in my opinion.
- [49:13]
Podcast Host
Thank you to our guest, Peter Breen. You'll find a link in the show notes to this episode to help you get your copy of Shorty Mistaken Identity or stitch up. If you need support after listening to this podcast, you can call Lifeline on 131114 or contact 1-800-Respect on 1-800-737-732 or 1-800-Respect. Org au Indigenous Australians can contact 13 Yarn on 139276 or 13 yarn.org au.
- [49:53]
Peter Breen
The producers of this podcast recognize the traditional owners of the land on which it's recorded. They pay respect to the Aboriginal elders.
- [50:05]
Podcast Host
Past, present, and those emerging.