oz ex-prisoner
05-28-2004, 12:35 PM
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the latest weapon in the arsenal of Australian law enforcement agencies. It is the human blue-print that determines eye colour, height, blood type and inherited disorders found in the genetic structure of human cells. It is an individual genetic code and, like fingerprints, cannot be duplicated.
The genetic code of human life begins when male sperm penetrates and fertilises the ovum of the mother-to-be and forms a brand new cell which carries the genetic heritage from both parents through structures known as chromosomes. The chromosomes are divided into twenty-three equal pairs; half from the mother and half from the father, and are long thin structures within each cell. They contain a chain like structure of genes made of dna molecules.
Two strands of molecules entwine to form a double spiral that creates the structure of the dna molecule and contains all information needed to build, control and maintain a living organism in chemically coded form.
Genetic profiling or restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) is used to analyse dna found in biological materials such as blood, semen, bone and hair found at the scene of the crime. A chemical called a restriction enzyme is used to divide the DNA into fragments that are then separated according to size by another laboratory technique electrophoresis.
The separated fragments form a pattern of dozens of parallel bands that reflect the composition of the DNA. In principle, the pattern produced will always be unique to any person. This technique enables scientists to compare two biological samples, one taken from the crime scene and one taken from the suspect, and determine if the samples came from the same individual or not. It is that unique and individual genetic code that is helping law enforcement solve unsolvable crimes.
Structure of the DNA molecule was identified by J D Watson and F H Crick in 1953. Thirty-two years later Professor Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University, England, developed a DNA profiling technique known as multilocus probing (MLP). When Professor Jeffreys’ DNA profiling technique was first used in 1987 it resulted in the freeing of an innocent man and the conviction of another for murder.
The rape and murder of two 15-year-old girls within a three year period near Narborough, England, resulted in the arrest of Richard Buckland, 17, after he was spotted near the crime scene of the second murder. Professor Jeffreys was asked to assist police in building a case against Buckland but when he used a radio-activity based technique he perfected for profiling DNA it proved the murders had been committed by the same person but that person was not Buckland. The murder investigation re-commenced with the mass testing of all men aged 18 to 35 in the Narborough area but after nearly 5000 voluntary samples no match had been found.
The breakthrough came when a local man boasted he had been paid cash to give a DNA sample in place of Colin Pitchfork, 27, who worked in the local bakery. Police arrested Pitchfork and he was tested. The DNA profile matched. Pitchfork was convicted of both murders and is serving a double life sentence.
DNA profiling and the introduction of DNA-based evidence into Australian courts first occurred in 1989 with the convictions of Desmond Applebee for sexual assault in the ACT and Gerald Kaufman’s conviction on 16 counts of rape in Victoria. The Queensland criminal justice system embraced DNA profiling after the 1998 conviction of Lloyd Clark Fletcher for rape and murder eleven years earlier of Janet Phillips, 15, on July 19, 1987.
A vaginal swab taken from the deceased during post mortem in 1987 contained sperm samples that were stored and subsequently matched Fletcher’s DNA when he was arrested in 1997. Ken Cox, a forensic scientist from Queensland’s John Tonge Institute, gave evidence for the Crown that; “the probability of finding someone in the community with the exact DNA would be about one in 6.4 billion.” Fletcher was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In the criminal justice system DNA profiling can eliminate suspects as well as enhance the successful prosecution of guilty offenders. Those significant benefits rely on the independence of DNA testing facilities and the integrity of personnel using those facilities. Both must be of the highest standard if DNA evidence is to continue being accepted as quality evidence in courts of law. Flawed DNA profiling has the ability to create serious miscarriages of justice, a problem Australia is just beginning to experience.
Charges in the 1997 Arnott’s biscuit extortion case which cost the company $22 million were dropped as a result of flawed DNA testing procedures at Queensland’s controversial John Tonge Centre.
Tweed Heads great-grandmother, Joy Ellen Thomas, 72, was accused of threatening to poison the company’s biscuits unless four Sydney detectives took lie-detector tests regarding evidence they gave against her son, convicted murderer Ronald Henry Thomas. The prosecution relied heavily on evidence from forensic biologist, Barry Blair, who conducted DNA testing for the Crown at Brisbane’s John Tonge Centre.
Blair testified that DNA recovered from a stamp on one of the extortion letters matched Mrs Thomas’ DNA but the stamp had not been tested for saliva so it could not be determined if Mrs Thomas had licked the stamp. Blair claimed that although saliva testing would have identified the source of the cells it would have ruined any chance of recovering the DNA profile.
During the pre-trial hearing on April 24, 2002, Blair changed his opinion about the key DNA evidence after a forensic biologist hired by the defence, Lazlo Szabo, revealed the existence of a second DNA profile from an unknown person also present on the stamp.
Szabo, from Tasmania’s Forensic Science Laboratory Centre, believed the presence of the second person’s DNA was evident at twice the levels recorded by Blair. His report detailing the second DNA profile had been given to the Crown two months before the pre-trial hearing. Although the presence of the second person’s DNA was indicated within a table in Blair’s reports, it was not mentioned in the text because, as he testified at the pre-trial hearing, the second profile was a “stutter” – an anomaly in the testing procedures.
The presence of a second DNA profile was evidence that could have freed Mrs Thomas months earlier but the Crown opted to remain silent about its existence until they were forced during the pre-trial hearing to concede the legal significance of two DNA profiles being present. Prosecutor, Paul Rutledge, argued the Crown’s silence resulted from a difference of opinion between the two experts. The five-year effort to prosecute Mrs Thomas finally collapsed when Rutledge, who had successfully prosecuted Ronald Henry Thomas at his 1994 murder trial, was forced to discontinue the Crown case and withdrew the charges in Brisbane Supreme Court on Friday 26 April 2002.
In another Queensland case Frank Alan Button, 32, served ten months of a seven-year sentence for the rape of a 13-year-old intellectually impaired girl before independent DNA testing established that he was not the perpetrator of the crime.
The young girl claimed she was assaulted during a party at her mother’s home at Cherbourg, southern Queensland, on February 17, 1999. The following day she told two school friends she might be pregnant because she'd been raped. The school principal called the police and detectives took her back to the house where the rape had occurred.
Frank Button was asleep in a drunken stupor inside the house when police arrived. He became the prime suspect because he had been wearing a shirt similar to the one the girl had described to the police. Button was taken to the local police station where he was interviewed and subsequently charged with rape and locked up.
The girl was taken to the local hospital and subjected to a full examination during which internal swabs, nail clippings, pubic hair and blood samples were taken. The swabs and samples were sent to the John Tonge Centre for analysis. Although the sheet and pillowcase from the crime scene were not tested for DNA, the vaginal swabs revealed semen that resulted in a DNA profile of the victim. The swabs were tested for male DNA but no male DNA was obtained
The absence of incriminating scientific evidence caused the police to collect other evidence to fill the gaps. A second statement was taken from the victim after she changed her earlier version of events. In that statement she named Frank Button as the rapist. Police typed her new answers into the radically altered version of events.
Police also took a statement from Frank Button's nephew, Lester Malone, who claimed Button had confessed the rape to him while they were in a park shortly after Button had been charged. Malone’s statement fell apart when it was revealed that Button went straight to jail after he was charged and the confession in the park couldn't have possibly occurred.
Malone later withdrew his statement and claimed in court the investigating detective had intimidated him and put words in his mouth, a claim the detective denied.
The case against Button relied heavily on the testimony of the young victim whose evidence was confused and contradictory. A school guidance officer testified that she had a mental age of eight or nine and an IQ half that of her peers. The trial judge also commented that her memory and knowledge of the events were limited but in the end it was up to the all-white Kingaroy jury to decide what to believe. They believed the girl.
Frank Button was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. At the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Wacol, he became the target of violence and brutal rape by other mainstream prisoners. Although prison authorities placed Button in protective custody the violent abuse continued because he was classed as a ‘rock spider’ – a prisoner accused of sex crimes against children. Button maintained his innocence and refused to do a sex offender’s course but Queensland prison authorities told him he lacked remorse and indicated he would serve the entire seven years without remissions.
As Frank Button struggled with his new life behind prison walls a team of lawyers began working on his appeal and requested further DNA testing of the vaginal swabs and the bed linen from the crime scene. When scientists at the John Tonge Centre re-tested the semen taken from the young victim a male DNA profile was finally discovered. That discovery resulted in the DNA testing of the bed linen, which revealed traces of semen that matched the profile on the swab.
The DNA profile from the swab and the bed-sheet was then entered into a database of DNA samples taken from prisoners and a match was recorded. The DNA profile on both the bed-sheet and the swab from the victim was not Button’s, it belonged to a prisoner doing time for another rape. He was a youth from the girl's community who had been convicted of a separate assault.
The biologist who did the DNA testing was cross-examined by Button's counsel and asked why he hadn't tested the bed-sheets prior to the trial. A forensic examination would have clearly established Button’s innocence because the semen on the bed linen did not contain Button’s DNA profile. It became apparent to the court that the innocence of an accused was not part of the forensic science culture at the John Tonge Centre when the biologist answered; "The tests were directed to try and implicate your client."
On April 12, 2001 the Queensland Court of Appeal immediately ordered Button’s release from prison after the new DNA evidence established he was innocent of the rape. The court’s judgment contained a blistering criticism of the Queensland criminal justice system:
“Today is a black day in the history of the administration of criminal justice. What is of major concern to this court is the fact that that evidence was not available at the trial. This court can do little so far as compensation to the appellant for the fact that he has had to suffer the ignominy of a conviction for rape which now proves to be entirely false.”
Marc Andre Renton, 30, was convicted in Southport District Court on April 25, 1997 for robbing the Biggera Waters and Paradise Point National Australia banks. Police arrested Renton at Runaway Bay on June 16, 1996 and originally charged him with three bank robberies at Morningside, Biggera Waters and Paradise Point. A District Court jury later acquitted Renton of the Morningside robbery.
Brunetta Festa, 35, was also charged in relation to the Biggera Waters and Paradise Point bank robberies in what the Queensland news media dubbed ‘The Bonnie and Clyde Robberies’.
The strength of the Crown case against Renton relied upon DNA evidence delivered by John Tonge Centre forensic scientist, Kenneth Joseph Cox, and the Crown argued it was conclusive and irrefutable proof that established Renton’s guilt.
On August 21, 1996 Cox conducted an examination of a blue balaclava located inside a stolen white Ford Laser allegedly used in the Biggera Waters bank robbery and found dumped in a back street. Two areas of fabric in the balaclava were sampled in an attempt to isolate DNA that could originate from mouth cells via saliva. No DNA was isolated.
The trial of Renton and Festa commenced on 2 April 1997 but was marred with controversy from the outset when Festa jumped bail and fled interstate. Festa remained a fugitive until her 1998 recapture in Sydney but her absence from the dock did not compel Judge Hangar to abort the trial and it continued with Renton as the sole accused.
Renton’s jury was allowed to witness some of the most stringent security precautions ever show-cased by the Queensland Police Department despite the lack of any evidence indicating Renton had also intended to abscond. The security overkill included permanent manacles and leg shackles on Renton in the dock and the deployment of the elite SERT (Special Emergency Response Team) to sweep all courtrooms and visitors with metal detectors. Outside the Southport court complex police snipers displayed an alert vigilance from roof-tops during the remainder of the trial.
In that frenetic trial atmosphere Kenneth Cox testified he completed a second examination of the balaclava during Renton’s trial on April 17, 1997 and managed to isolate a stain that yielded FES types 10/11/12/13. Although Cox’s second examination did not correspond with his August 21, 1996 examination of the blue balaclava he testified the DNA sample belonged to Renton, Festa and a third unidentified person.
The Crown’s circumstantial case was substantially bolstered by the late inclusion of the DNA evidence and the timing of its inclusion restricted Renton’s defence counsel from having independent testing done. The trial judge allowed the DNA evidence to go before the jury untested resulting with Renton’s conviction for the Biggera Waters bank robbery.
Following the conviction Renton requested professor Barry Boettcher, Professor Emeritus of Biological Science at the University of Newcastle and a Member of the Order of Australia for his work in the field of reproductive immunology, to review the DNA evidence presented at his trial.
Professor Boettcher practiced and taught the principles of scientific method in courses involving DNA including its structure and use in forensic work. He also taught courses on forensic biology and the use of variable DNA sequences that resulted in collaboration with overseas scientists to publish studies of variable DNA sequences suitable for use in forensic work.
Professor Boettcher reviewed evidence given at the Renton trial which included trial transcripts, DNA profile collation sheets, gene scan analysis print-outs and two statutory declarations sworn by Cox on 14 October 1996 and 17 April 1997. He concluded that Cox’s evidence was scientifically incorrect.
In a statutory declaration Professor Boettcher explained his conclusions:
“The dna in the sample came from more than one person since normal persons have only one or two FES Alleles. The simplest explanation is that the dna in the sample came from two people possessing the pairs of Alleles:
10/11 and 12/13 or
10/12 and 11/13 or
10/13 and 11/12
(RENTON possesses the FES type 12/12).
Since the most appropriate conclusion to be derived from the results obtained by Mr Cox is that the donors of the dna isolated from the balaclava had one of the FES system combinations of 10/11 and 12/13; or 10/12 and 11/13; or 10/13 and 11/12, it should be concluded that Mr Renton’s DNA has not been identified as being present on the balaclava.”
Professor Boettcher concluded:
“It is apparent that, at the trial of Mr RENTON, the court was given wrong scientific opinion about the possible presence of DNA originating from Mr RENTON being found on the balaclava.”
Unlike the Thomas and Button cases Marc Renton was imprisoned on suspect DNA evidence for a bank robbery he claims he did not commit. Professor Boettcher’s scientific re-examination of the DNA evidence used to convict him supports that claim. An independent investigation by the ABC Catalyst program in June 2002 also raised serious doubts about the use of DNA evidence in his trial. A critical analysis of the Renton case by Catalyst resulted with a US media science award for investigative journalism.
Although Australian courts have accepted the reliability of DNA testing and admitted DNA tests into evidence without question DNA profiling remains controversial in a number of areas; the accuracy of the results, the cost of testing and the possible misuse of technique. The possibility of human error during the interpretation of tests, as indicated by the Arnott’s extortion case, could also lead to false results.
As Marc Renton enters the eighth year of his prison sentence inside the maximum-security block of Townsville Prison in north Queensland the Queensland government steadfastly refuses to re-open his case. Possibly Australia’s gravest miscarriage of justice remains unresolved because of that bureaucratic procrastination. It also casts doubt over the reliability of DNA evidence in all Australian criminal trials.
For those who wish to give Marc moral support in his fight for freedom please write to:
Marc Andre Renton
Maximum Security Block
Townsville correctional Centre
PO Box 5574
Townsville MSO
Townsville AUSTRALIA 4810
The genetic code of human life begins when male sperm penetrates and fertilises the ovum of the mother-to-be and forms a brand new cell which carries the genetic heritage from both parents through structures known as chromosomes. The chromosomes are divided into twenty-three equal pairs; half from the mother and half from the father, and are long thin structures within each cell. They contain a chain like structure of genes made of dna molecules.
Two strands of molecules entwine to form a double spiral that creates the structure of the dna molecule and contains all information needed to build, control and maintain a living organism in chemically coded form.
Genetic profiling or restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) is used to analyse dna found in biological materials such as blood, semen, bone and hair found at the scene of the crime. A chemical called a restriction enzyme is used to divide the DNA into fragments that are then separated according to size by another laboratory technique electrophoresis.
The separated fragments form a pattern of dozens of parallel bands that reflect the composition of the DNA. In principle, the pattern produced will always be unique to any person. This technique enables scientists to compare two biological samples, one taken from the crime scene and one taken from the suspect, and determine if the samples came from the same individual or not. It is that unique and individual genetic code that is helping law enforcement solve unsolvable crimes.
Structure of the DNA molecule was identified by J D Watson and F H Crick in 1953. Thirty-two years later Professor Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University, England, developed a DNA profiling technique known as multilocus probing (MLP). When Professor Jeffreys’ DNA profiling technique was first used in 1987 it resulted in the freeing of an innocent man and the conviction of another for murder.
The rape and murder of two 15-year-old girls within a three year period near Narborough, England, resulted in the arrest of Richard Buckland, 17, after he was spotted near the crime scene of the second murder. Professor Jeffreys was asked to assist police in building a case against Buckland but when he used a radio-activity based technique he perfected for profiling DNA it proved the murders had been committed by the same person but that person was not Buckland. The murder investigation re-commenced with the mass testing of all men aged 18 to 35 in the Narborough area but after nearly 5000 voluntary samples no match had been found.
The breakthrough came when a local man boasted he had been paid cash to give a DNA sample in place of Colin Pitchfork, 27, who worked in the local bakery. Police arrested Pitchfork and he was tested. The DNA profile matched. Pitchfork was convicted of both murders and is serving a double life sentence.
DNA profiling and the introduction of DNA-based evidence into Australian courts first occurred in 1989 with the convictions of Desmond Applebee for sexual assault in the ACT and Gerald Kaufman’s conviction on 16 counts of rape in Victoria. The Queensland criminal justice system embraced DNA profiling after the 1998 conviction of Lloyd Clark Fletcher for rape and murder eleven years earlier of Janet Phillips, 15, on July 19, 1987.
A vaginal swab taken from the deceased during post mortem in 1987 contained sperm samples that were stored and subsequently matched Fletcher’s DNA when he was arrested in 1997. Ken Cox, a forensic scientist from Queensland’s John Tonge Institute, gave evidence for the Crown that; “the probability of finding someone in the community with the exact DNA would be about one in 6.4 billion.” Fletcher was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In the criminal justice system DNA profiling can eliminate suspects as well as enhance the successful prosecution of guilty offenders. Those significant benefits rely on the independence of DNA testing facilities and the integrity of personnel using those facilities. Both must be of the highest standard if DNA evidence is to continue being accepted as quality evidence in courts of law. Flawed DNA profiling has the ability to create serious miscarriages of justice, a problem Australia is just beginning to experience.
Charges in the 1997 Arnott’s biscuit extortion case which cost the company $22 million were dropped as a result of flawed DNA testing procedures at Queensland’s controversial John Tonge Centre.
Tweed Heads great-grandmother, Joy Ellen Thomas, 72, was accused of threatening to poison the company’s biscuits unless four Sydney detectives took lie-detector tests regarding evidence they gave against her son, convicted murderer Ronald Henry Thomas. The prosecution relied heavily on evidence from forensic biologist, Barry Blair, who conducted DNA testing for the Crown at Brisbane’s John Tonge Centre.
Blair testified that DNA recovered from a stamp on one of the extortion letters matched Mrs Thomas’ DNA but the stamp had not been tested for saliva so it could not be determined if Mrs Thomas had licked the stamp. Blair claimed that although saliva testing would have identified the source of the cells it would have ruined any chance of recovering the DNA profile.
During the pre-trial hearing on April 24, 2002, Blair changed his opinion about the key DNA evidence after a forensic biologist hired by the defence, Lazlo Szabo, revealed the existence of a second DNA profile from an unknown person also present on the stamp.
Szabo, from Tasmania’s Forensic Science Laboratory Centre, believed the presence of the second person’s DNA was evident at twice the levels recorded by Blair. His report detailing the second DNA profile had been given to the Crown two months before the pre-trial hearing. Although the presence of the second person’s DNA was indicated within a table in Blair’s reports, it was not mentioned in the text because, as he testified at the pre-trial hearing, the second profile was a “stutter” – an anomaly in the testing procedures.
The presence of a second DNA profile was evidence that could have freed Mrs Thomas months earlier but the Crown opted to remain silent about its existence until they were forced during the pre-trial hearing to concede the legal significance of two DNA profiles being present. Prosecutor, Paul Rutledge, argued the Crown’s silence resulted from a difference of opinion between the two experts. The five-year effort to prosecute Mrs Thomas finally collapsed when Rutledge, who had successfully prosecuted Ronald Henry Thomas at his 1994 murder trial, was forced to discontinue the Crown case and withdrew the charges in Brisbane Supreme Court on Friday 26 April 2002.
In another Queensland case Frank Alan Button, 32, served ten months of a seven-year sentence for the rape of a 13-year-old intellectually impaired girl before independent DNA testing established that he was not the perpetrator of the crime.
The young girl claimed she was assaulted during a party at her mother’s home at Cherbourg, southern Queensland, on February 17, 1999. The following day she told two school friends she might be pregnant because she'd been raped. The school principal called the police and detectives took her back to the house where the rape had occurred.
Frank Button was asleep in a drunken stupor inside the house when police arrived. He became the prime suspect because he had been wearing a shirt similar to the one the girl had described to the police. Button was taken to the local police station where he was interviewed and subsequently charged with rape and locked up.
The girl was taken to the local hospital and subjected to a full examination during which internal swabs, nail clippings, pubic hair and blood samples were taken. The swabs and samples were sent to the John Tonge Centre for analysis. Although the sheet and pillowcase from the crime scene were not tested for DNA, the vaginal swabs revealed semen that resulted in a DNA profile of the victim. The swabs were tested for male DNA but no male DNA was obtained
The absence of incriminating scientific evidence caused the police to collect other evidence to fill the gaps. A second statement was taken from the victim after she changed her earlier version of events. In that statement she named Frank Button as the rapist. Police typed her new answers into the radically altered version of events.
Police also took a statement from Frank Button's nephew, Lester Malone, who claimed Button had confessed the rape to him while they were in a park shortly after Button had been charged. Malone’s statement fell apart when it was revealed that Button went straight to jail after he was charged and the confession in the park couldn't have possibly occurred.
Malone later withdrew his statement and claimed in court the investigating detective had intimidated him and put words in his mouth, a claim the detective denied.
The case against Button relied heavily on the testimony of the young victim whose evidence was confused and contradictory. A school guidance officer testified that she had a mental age of eight or nine and an IQ half that of her peers. The trial judge also commented that her memory and knowledge of the events were limited but in the end it was up to the all-white Kingaroy jury to decide what to believe. They believed the girl.
Frank Button was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. At the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Wacol, he became the target of violence and brutal rape by other mainstream prisoners. Although prison authorities placed Button in protective custody the violent abuse continued because he was classed as a ‘rock spider’ – a prisoner accused of sex crimes against children. Button maintained his innocence and refused to do a sex offender’s course but Queensland prison authorities told him he lacked remorse and indicated he would serve the entire seven years without remissions.
As Frank Button struggled with his new life behind prison walls a team of lawyers began working on his appeal and requested further DNA testing of the vaginal swabs and the bed linen from the crime scene. When scientists at the John Tonge Centre re-tested the semen taken from the young victim a male DNA profile was finally discovered. That discovery resulted in the DNA testing of the bed linen, which revealed traces of semen that matched the profile on the swab.
The DNA profile from the swab and the bed-sheet was then entered into a database of DNA samples taken from prisoners and a match was recorded. The DNA profile on both the bed-sheet and the swab from the victim was not Button’s, it belonged to a prisoner doing time for another rape. He was a youth from the girl's community who had been convicted of a separate assault.
The biologist who did the DNA testing was cross-examined by Button's counsel and asked why he hadn't tested the bed-sheets prior to the trial. A forensic examination would have clearly established Button’s innocence because the semen on the bed linen did not contain Button’s DNA profile. It became apparent to the court that the innocence of an accused was not part of the forensic science culture at the John Tonge Centre when the biologist answered; "The tests were directed to try and implicate your client."
On April 12, 2001 the Queensland Court of Appeal immediately ordered Button’s release from prison after the new DNA evidence established he was innocent of the rape. The court’s judgment contained a blistering criticism of the Queensland criminal justice system:
“Today is a black day in the history of the administration of criminal justice. What is of major concern to this court is the fact that that evidence was not available at the trial. This court can do little so far as compensation to the appellant for the fact that he has had to suffer the ignominy of a conviction for rape which now proves to be entirely false.”
Marc Andre Renton, 30, was convicted in Southport District Court on April 25, 1997 for robbing the Biggera Waters and Paradise Point National Australia banks. Police arrested Renton at Runaway Bay on June 16, 1996 and originally charged him with three bank robberies at Morningside, Biggera Waters and Paradise Point. A District Court jury later acquitted Renton of the Morningside robbery.
Brunetta Festa, 35, was also charged in relation to the Biggera Waters and Paradise Point bank robberies in what the Queensland news media dubbed ‘The Bonnie and Clyde Robberies’.
The strength of the Crown case against Renton relied upon DNA evidence delivered by John Tonge Centre forensic scientist, Kenneth Joseph Cox, and the Crown argued it was conclusive and irrefutable proof that established Renton’s guilt.
On August 21, 1996 Cox conducted an examination of a blue balaclava located inside a stolen white Ford Laser allegedly used in the Biggera Waters bank robbery and found dumped in a back street. Two areas of fabric in the balaclava were sampled in an attempt to isolate DNA that could originate from mouth cells via saliva. No DNA was isolated.
The trial of Renton and Festa commenced on 2 April 1997 but was marred with controversy from the outset when Festa jumped bail and fled interstate. Festa remained a fugitive until her 1998 recapture in Sydney but her absence from the dock did not compel Judge Hangar to abort the trial and it continued with Renton as the sole accused.
Renton’s jury was allowed to witness some of the most stringent security precautions ever show-cased by the Queensland Police Department despite the lack of any evidence indicating Renton had also intended to abscond. The security overkill included permanent manacles and leg shackles on Renton in the dock and the deployment of the elite SERT (Special Emergency Response Team) to sweep all courtrooms and visitors with metal detectors. Outside the Southport court complex police snipers displayed an alert vigilance from roof-tops during the remainder of the trial.
In that frenetic trial atmosphere Kenneth Cox testified he completed a second examination of the balaclava during Renton’s trial on April 17, 1997 and managed to isolate a stain that yielded FES types 10/11/12/13. Although Cox’s second examination did not correspond with his August 21, 1996 examination of the blue balaclava he testified the DNA sample belonged to Renton, Festa and a third unidentified person.
The Crown’s circumstantial case was substantially bolstered by the late inclusion of the DNA evidence and the timing of its inclusion restricted Renton’s defence counsel from having independent testing done. The trial judge allowed the DNA evidence to go before the jury untested resulting with Renton’s conviction for the Biggera Waters bank robbery.
Following the conviction Renton requested professor Barry Boettcher, Professor Emeritus of Biological Science at the University of Newcastle and a Member of the Order of Australia for his work in the field of reproductive immunology, to review the DNA evidence presented at his trial.
Professor Boettcher practiced and taught the principles of scientific method in courses involving DNA including its structure and use in forensic work. He also taught courses on forensic biology and the use of variable DNA sequences that resulted in collaboration with overseas scientists to publish studies of variable DNA sequences suitable for use in forensic work.
Professor Boettcher reviewed evidence given at the Renton trial which included trial transcripts, DNA profile collation sheets, gene scan analysis print-outs and two statutory declarations sworn by Cox on 14 October 1996 and 17 April 1997. He concluded that Cox’s evidence was scientifically incorrect.
In a statutory declaration Professor Boettcher explained his conclusions:
“The dna in the sample came from more than one person since normal persons have only one or two FES Alleles. The simplest explanation is that the dna in the sample came from two people possessing the pairs of Alleles:
10/11 and 12/13 or
10/12 and 11/13 or
10/13 and 11/12
(RENTON possesses the FES type 12/12).
Since the most appropriate conclusion to be derived from the results obtained by Mr Cox is that the donors of the dna isolated from the balaclava had one of the FES system combinations of 10/11 and 12/13; or 10/12 and 11/13; or 10/13 and 11/12, it should be concluded that Mr Renton’s DNA has not been identified as being present on the balaclava.”
Professor Boettcher concluded:
“It is apparent that, at the trial of Mr RENTON, the court was given wrong scientific opinion about the possible presence of DNA originating from Mr RENTON being found on the balaclava.”
Unlike the Thomas and Button cases Marc Renton was imprisoned on suspect DNA evidence for a bank robbery he claims he did not commit. Professor Boettcher’s scientific re-examination of the DNA evidence used to convict him supports that claim. An independent investigation by the ABC Catalyst program in June 2002 also raised serious doubts about the use of DNA evidence in his trial. A critical analysis of the Renton case by Catalyst resulted with a US media science award for investigative journalism.
Although Australian courts have accepted the reliability of DNA testing and admitted DNA tests into evidence without question DNA profiling remains controversial in a number of areas; the accuracy of the results, the cost of testing and the possible misuse of technique. The possibility of human error during the interpretation of tests, as indicated by the Arnott’s extortion case, could also lead to false results.
As Marc Renton enters the eighth year of his prison sentence inside the maximum-security block of Townsville Prison in north Queensland the Queensland government steadfastly refuses to re-open his case. Possibly Australia’s gravest miscarriage of justice remains unresolved because of that bureaucratic procrastination. It also casts doubt over the reliability of DNA evidence in all Australian criminal trials.
For those who wish to give Marc moral support in his fight for freedom please write to:
Marc Andre Renton
Maximum Security Block
Townsville correctional Centre
PO Box 5574
Townsville MSO
Townsville AUSTRALIA 4810