Stephen ‘Shorty’ Jamieson was a homeless 22-year-old when – on the basis of his nickname – he was charged with the brutal 1988 abduction, rape, and murder of Janine Balding. Two years later, he was sentenced to life in prison, where he remains to this day. Yet the major evidence against him was an apparent confession transcribed by detectives as a ‘record of interview’ – under conditions that have now been acknowledged at the highest levels to pose a significant risk of ‘verballing’ (presenting a confession that was never really made).
A brief account of the story: https://theconversation.com/new-linguistics-research-casts-doubt-on-decades-old-murder-conviction-267425
Preview a 60 Minutes episode about the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz9dU9XLdLQ
The Panel:
Peter Breen
Solicitor, former politician, long-time supporter of Stephen Jamieson.
Author of Shorty: Mistaken Identity or Stitch-Up (Wilkinson Publishing) https://www.wilkinsonpublishing.com.au/product/shorty/
Recent guest on podcast Australian True Crime episode ‘Never to be released?’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iomc4Yl1ydY
Professor Michele Ruyters
Director of Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative (BOHII) https://bohii.net/
Currently investigating Stephen Jamieson’s case https://bohii.net/stephen-jamieson
Associate Professor Rod Gardner
Linguistics expert, University of Queensland https://languages-cultures.uq.edu.au/profile/1079/rod-gardner
Provided compelling evidence in Stephen Jamieson’s 2001 application to have his conviction reviewed – rejected by the reviewing judge for very unsatisfactory reasons.
Professor Helen Fraser
Director of the Research Hub for Language in Forensic Evidence https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/school-of-languages-and-linguistics/our-research/research-centres-hubs-and-units/research-hub-for-language-in-forensic-evidence
Author of ‘You’ve got the wrong Shorty!’: Further insights into the legal misconceptions that cause transcript injustice in forensic contexts. Australian Journal of Linguistics https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07268602.2025.2548998
Also see Did he say I shot the prick or I can’t breathe
The symposium: Stephen ‘Shorty’ Jamieson: 37 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit?
Presented by the Research Hub for Language in Forensic Evidence, The University of Melbourne.
Expert panel to hear the facts of Stephen’s case and consider its ongoing relevance in 2026. Followed by Q and A.
Room 407, Babel Building, Parkville Campus, The University of Melbourne
OR ON ZOOM
Mar 4 from 4:30pm to 6:30pm GMT+11
Register here:
From 1989 to 2020 in USA, 375 wrongfully convicted people in USA were freed due to DNA findings. Ref https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/
In NSW I think the number of DNA exonerations from 1989 to 2025, after a wrongfully convicted person has lost their trial, lost their appeal and been imprisoned for murder, rape, sexual assault or the like, is ZERO. Dues anyone know of a DNA freeing in NSW?
To an outsider like me who’s not involved at all in this case, it’s 100.0% clear the Shorty Jamieson was not involved in Janine Balding’s appalling murder. Even his co-accused, who are guilty and in jail, have said that they got the wrong Shorty.
After decades of trying to get the DNA on the incriminating bandana tested to see if it matches the other Shorty, in February 2025 the NSW authorities at long last allowed it to be tested. In 2025 it was tested. Then at a recent hearing, Judge Ian Harrison, who is normally one of NSW’s more fair-minded Judges but he’s getting older which can cast doubt, refused to reveal if the DNA matched the other Shorty, or whether it was so degraded that they couldn’t tell.
If NSW authorities had any interest in justice, then if it was degraded, they’d surely send it to ESR in Auckland and Cybergenics in USA, as was done in the Robert Xie case when the prosecution couldn’t get the desired DNA results locally. No such luck this time.
This is a very significant case because in my opinion Shorty Jamieson should be the first person in NSW to be exonerated due to DNA evidence. There’s also plenty of other evidence to clear him, such as the wonderful Dr Helen Fraser’s excellent work on forensic transcriptions and the like.
So here we are, one year and one day after the NSW authorities were ordered to test the DNA on the bandana, wondering what sinister motives might or might not be behind the decision not to let the public know what the results of that DNA test were.
This case has not captured the public imagination because Shorty is not good looking and has a low IQ, so it lacks the public appeal that (for example) Kathleen Folbigg began to obtain just before she was correctly freed. If Shorty is freed as he should be, then I think other wrongfully convicted Aussies such as Sue Neill Fraser, Robert Xie and Rob Farquharson would have a better chance of having their wrongful convictions overturned. A gate would have been opened. Perhaps the NSW authorities want that gate to stay closed?
We’ll soon hear more from “the wonderful Dr Helen Fraser” on this case … a case that again damns the NSW justice system.
Wasn’t this chap present and or involved with the other culprits ? One of whom slit Janines’ throat. Slaughter yard workers whom a neighbour observed burning clothing
in what would appear to be a destruction of evidence.
Thanks Damian
I think you might be mixing up Janine Balding and Anita Cobby. Two horrendous murders within two years. We can all deplore the murder but I agree with Bob: we should be careful not to let the horror rush us to judgement too quickly.
And further:
Thanks to the wonderful Peter Gill for these great comments. I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment. I’d just like to clarify a couple of things re the ‘Shorty’ Jamieson case.
This is not a DNA case. It is a verballing case.
Jamieson was already excluded via DNA from the scene in 1989 (did you know this was the first time DNA was used in a trial in Australia?).
DNA on the bandana has been tested many times since 2003. It has always shown the presence of an unknown male and has always excluded Jamieson. https://www.wilkinsonpublishing.com.au/product/shorty/
The only reason to test it again is in case it might implicate the other ‘Shorty’, whose DNA profile was finally made available by the Crown a little over a year ago. But the best it could do would be to ‘not exclude’ the other Shorty. That’s irrelevant to Jamieson’s case. We already know it is someone other than Jamieson – whether the other Shorty or a different male altogether is a matter for another case, not this one. See 60 minutes episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjdI2jfEeWE
~~
What got Jamieson convicted was the fact that two detectives swore on oath to the jury that the words of a confession they had transcribed as part of their ‘verbatim record of interview’ were Jamieson’s words, exactly as he spoke them.
That can’t possibly be true: https://theconversation.com/new-linguistics-research-casts-doubt-on-decades-old-murder-conviction-267425
And looking at the detectives’ so-called verbatim record in more detail reveals a slew of additional reasons to doubt the authenticity of the confession it purports to represent: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07268602.2025.2548998
Furthermore, as readers of this site will know well, many ‘confessions’ in police ‘records of interview’ that were accepted into evidence in the 1980s were later shown to have been falsified. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjyXuQv224s
The point is: Jamieson was convicted on thoroughly misleading confession evidence – of a kind now known to have caused systemic injustice for many decades.
Let’s get his case reviewed on these grounds first – and worry about DNA later.
And let’s be clear on the key point.
If Jamieson is innocent, Ms Balding’s ‘heinous murderer’ is walking free today, perhaps deciding right now whether he might like to commit another similar crime.
~~
Interested to discuss further? Come to our Panel / Symposium mentioned above: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/stephen-shorty-jamieson-37-years-in-prison-for-a-crime-he-didnt-commit-tickets-1982848283593?aff=oddtdtcreator
This is an important case, and invokes concerns about stereotyping suspects especially in cases which invoke great public sympathy because of the horrific nature of the crime. Sometimes the ‘rush to judgment’ means that there is a failure to undertake proper consideration of alternatives.