Marc Renton - another DNA mistake? Qld government must reopen the case

The genetic code of a new human begins when sperm fertilises the ovum of the mother-to-be and forms a brand new cell which carries half the genetic heritage of each parent through structures called chromosomes. The chromosomes comprise a chain-like structure of genes made from DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA) molecules.

Two strands of protein molecules entwine to form the famous double-helix structure of the DNA molecule with all the 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 a crime. A chemical called a restriction enzyme is used to divide the DNA into fragments, which are then separated according to size by another laboratory technique, electrophoresis. The separated fragments form a pattern 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 samples, one taken from the crime scene and one taken from the suspect, and determine whether the samples came from the same individual.

It is that unique and individual genetic code that is helping law enforcement solve unsolvable crimes. In the criminal justice system DNA profiling can eliminate suspects as well as enhance the successful prosecution of guilty offenders - but unfortunately DNA profiling is not an infallible tool in the lawyers' arsenal.

1) Charges in the 1997 Arnott's biscuit extortion case were dropped as a result of flawed DNA testing procedures at Queensland's 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 concerning evidence they gave against her son, convicted murderer Ronald Henry Thomas. The prosecution against Mrs Thomas relied heavily on evidence from forensic biologist Barry Blair, who conducted DNA testing for the Crown at the John Tonge Centre.

Blair testified that DNA recovered from a stamp on one of the extortion letters matched Mrs Thomas's DNA but the stamp had not been tested for saliva, so it could not be determined whether 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 the Blair. His report detailing the second DNA profile was 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 that the Crown's silence resulted from a difference of opinion between the two experts.

Rutledge, who had successfully prosecuted Ronald Henry Thomas at his 1994 murder trial, withdrew the charges in Brisbane Supreme Court on Friday 26 April 2002.

2) 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 had been 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 was wearing a shirt similar to the one the girl 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 a 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 counsellor 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. When Button maintained his innocence and refused to do a sex offender's course, Queensland prison authorities told him he lacked remorse and would serve the entire seven years without remission.

His legal team 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 matching 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 linen 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. According to the ABC's Four Corners, 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."

3) On 25 April 1997 Marc Andre Renton, 30, was convicted in Southport District Court, Queensland, Australia, of robbing the Biggera Waters and Paradise Point National banks.

Renton was arrested by Queensland police at Runaway Bay on 19 June 1996 and was originally charged with three bank robberies at Morningside, Biggera Waters and Paradise Point but a District Court jury acquitted Renton of the Morningside robbery.

Another accused, 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 Kenneth Joseph Cox, forensic scientist at The John Tonge Centre, which the Crown argued was conclusive and irrefutable proof that established Renton's guilt in relation to the Biggera Waters bank robbery.

On 21 August 1996 Cox examined 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 it 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 the trial continued with Renton as the sole accused.

Kenneth Cox claimed in sworn testimony he had completed a second examination of the balaclava on 17 April 1997 and isolated a stain that yielded some DNA. Although Cox's second examination did not correspond with his 21 August 1996 examination of the blue balaclava it was claimed that the DNA sample belonged to Renton, Festa and a third unidentified person. The Crown's circumstantial case was bolstered by the late inclusion of the expert DNA evidence and resulted in Renton's conviction for the Biggera Waters bank robbery.

Cox claimed he did not conduct his second examination of the balaclava until the second week of Renton's trial and the late inclusion of the evidence restricted Renton's defence counsel from having independent testing done. The DNA evidence was argued as being conclusive and irrefutable proof that Renton had committed the Biggera Waters bank robbery and Judge Hangar allowed it to go before the jury untested.

A request for a review of the DNA evidence presented at the Renton trial was made to 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.

Professor Boettcher reviewed evidence given at the Renton trial, including trial transcripts, DNA profile collation sheets, gene scan analysis printouts and two statutory declarations sworn by Cox on 14 October 1996 and 17 April 1997. Professor Boettcher disagreed with Cox's evidence, arguing that the DNA was more likely to have come from a third party than from Marc Renton.

Unlike the Thomas and Button cases Marc Renton was convicted and imprisoned on suspect DNA evidence for a bank robbery he claims he didn't commit. Professor Boettcher's independent scientific evidence supports that claim. An independent investigation by the ABC's Catalyst program in June 2002 also raised serious doubts about the use of DNA evidence in the Renton trial.

Conclusion

Generally, the courts have accepted the reliability of DNA testing and admitted DNA tests into evidence without question. However, DNA profiling is 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.

Until the Queensland government re-opens the Renton case and investigates the suspect DNA evidence that has possibly resulted with one of Australia's gravest miscarriages of justice, Marc Andre Renton will remain inside the maximum-security block at Townsville prison for a crime he might not have committed.