Linguistics experts Adjunct Professor Diana Eades, Dr Sally Dixon, and Dr Cindy Schneider and UNE Law academic Dr Laura Smith-Kahn keenly understand that speech patterns and language use are specific to an individual’s cultural and social context, and there are many examples where linguistic misattribution has led to wrongful convictions.
In the case of Stephen Jamieson, many linguistic experts believe he has been the victim of a serious injustice, in light of new evidence that raises questions around the possibility of police verballing, that is, fabrication of a confession.
Jamieson, serving a non-parole sentence for brutal abduction, rape and murder, has always maintained his innocence. His conviction relied on a confession typed by a police detective, a practice now understood to be flawed.
“Linguistic analysis has shown that a purported confession could not have been a verbatim record of words spoken in the police interview,” says Dr Schneider, a senior lecturer.
This analysis has included comparing Jamieson’s speech in an unrelated taped and transcribed interview with the typed confession, which shows important variations. Though Jamieson signed the typed confession at the time, he immediately denied what he’d signed.
Jamieson could not read and has foetal alcohol spectrum syndrome.
At the time, even the four witnesses (two of whom were also convicted of the crime due to substantial physical evidence) who had accused an older man nicknamed “Shorty” called out during the committal hearing that they had “the wrong Shorty”.
“There is also untested DNA evidence that could help resolve these questions,” says senior lecturer Dr Laura Smith-Kahn. “If these concerns are founded, it means not just that Jamieson has suffered a terrible injustice, but that the real murderer has been walking free all these years.”
Dr Diana Eades, an adjunct professor, has spent her career advocating for individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds who could be disadvantaged in court due to differences in their usage and understanding of English.
Her research has been cited across Australian states and territories and even in the High Court of Australia to ensure a fairer trial process.
The first case in which she was called to provide an expert report in the late 1980s bears eerie similarities to Jamieson’s. That case involved an Aboriginal man convicted on the basis of a confession typed by police, which he maintained was not what he had said. He was released and compensated for seven years wrong imprisonment.
Eades and her colleagues are urging NSW citizens to add their support to a petition calling for a retrial for Jamieson based on the linguistic inconsistencies and evidence that has since come to light.
“This was a terrible crime, and a life sentence is fully justified in such cases,” says UNE Linguistics senior lecturer Sally Dixon. “The important thing is to be sure it is the right person getting the life sentence. In this case, it seems Shorty Jamieson was mistaken for another short man, also nicknamed Shorty.”
All four academics have signed on to a memorandum that lays out the detail of why this case warrants review. They are among 43 eminent lawyers and academic experts to do so.
“The outcome really matters for Jamieson and his family, and for our legal system. It is essential that justice here is done, and we’re calling on everyone to read the petition and add their signature for a retrial,” Dr Schneider says.
The petition needs to reach the required 500 signatures by 29 September.
