RE-POSTING: 28 March 2017
In recent days, the local TV News Media have again presented their “Fake News” about William Costellia. It is terribly wrong for the TV News Media (and Print Media) to promote their false narrative against him, giving wrong information to the public. Please read (below) the Truth of the matter!
WITHOUT PREJUDICE (originally posted here on 13 October 2015)
OPEN PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT THE TRIALS AND CONVICTIONS OF WILLIAM KAMM, ALSO KNOWN AS THE LITTLE PEBBLE – A CATHOLIC VISIONARY.
These are the True Facts behind the Court Cases of William Kamm, taken from the Court Transcripts – not seen by the Public and withheld by the Press – starting with the Committal Hearing in the Local Court at Nowra in April 2003 – August 2003. Two trials: Victim 1 – 2005 and Victim 2 – 2007. A No-Bill was placed before the DPP in 2004, but was rejected.
William Kamm Aggravated indecent assault – victim under 16 years (4)
Aggravated sexual assault – victim under 16 years (4)
Incite aggravated act of indecency – victim over 16 years (1)
(Does not refer to rape or paedophilia.)
Here are the words of the Transcript of the Court Case of William Kamm, the Defendant, starting with the Committal Hearing in the Local Court at Nowra, April – 2002 – August 2003. These documents are the two trials 2005 (‘victim’ 1) 2007 (‘victim’ 2).
Question: Who was in collaboration with the Police?
Question: How do you know that?
Answer: Because [Name withheld] organised it!
Question: Was money discussed, if you were prepared to give him an interview would you be paid money for that interview?
Answer: It was offered!
Question: Mr. Richardson when he interviewed you sometime after 2 August was told by you that you had no motive, you had nothing to gain in making the allegations?
Question: That was a lie wasn’t it?
Question: That was the incentive to make the allegation against Mr. Kamm wasn’t it?
Question: And your answer as is recorded “No I have no reason to lie I’ve nothing to gain out of this”. Do you recall giving that answer to Mr. Richardson?
Question: You now agree don’t you that that was not the truth?
Question: That wasn’t the first time that you’d sought money in respect of making allegations against Mr. Kamm, was it – you understand my question don’t you? You had previously asked Mr. Kamm for money, indeed threatened him that unless monies were paid to you, you would go to the Police. Correct?
Answer: Yes, that’s what [Name withheld] said to William.
Question: Did you tell Mr. Richardson, in the interview given Today-Tonight, that you’d threatened Mr. Kamm – you and Mr. [Name withheld] ; you sought to blackmail him?
Answer: We told David Richardson that!
Question: You were threatening him, pay up or else, correct?
Question: Why did you threaten him, indeed you’ve described them in your letter as demands, and “If these demands are not met then [Name withheld] Solicitor will reveal the evidence which [Name withheld] has gathered against you.”
Answer: To my knowledge, yes!
Question: according to what you told the Court on the last occasion we were involved in these proceedings, that’s just not correct, is it?
Answer: No verbal reply!
Question: Didn’t you tell the court on the last occasion that the first act of intercourse took place on 7th July, 1994?
Question: Fourteen years of age, correct?
Question: Not 15, correct?
Question: But in July last year you wrote in a letter delivered to Mr. Kamm by Mr. [Name withheld] on 16th July, that intercourse commenced from the age of 15 years, correct?
Question: Which is the case, Miss [name withheld]?
Answer: I made a mistake in the letter!
Question: (Magistrate) “Do I take it then, Miss [Name withheld] that sexual intercourse continued on a regular basis, this first occurrence in 1999 right up through until early 1994 to early 1999?”
Question: And how old were you when you went to TAFE?
Answer: I was 14!
Question: “A. I was 16” is the answer recorded. You couldn’t go to TAFE at 14, could you?
Answer: I was thinking of the first time.
Question: And you said 16, correct?
Question: You told Mr. Richardson in the interview with Today Tonight that the first episode of intercourse was at the age of 15, didn’t you?
Question: That was a mistake according to your evidence, wasn’t it?
Question: Yes. You see what I’m referring to on the right hand side of the first page? “Under no circumstances will William Kamm reveal this information to anyone” Why would you demand be so conditional or so conditioned?
Answer: I don’t remember!
Question: Can I suggest to you that you realised that what you were suggesting to him was perhaps criminal itself, a demand, a blackmail?
Answer: It wasn’t meant in that way!
Question: That actually smells of extortion doesn’t it?
Answer: It wasn’t intended like that!
Question: Why did you tell him in the letter 7th July 1995?
Answer: Because I got confused!
Question: What explanation do you offer for that sequence, if any, Miss [Name withheld]?
Answer: I made a mistake!
Question: It was a lie, wasn’t it? The existence of the report in those terms was to your knowledge a lie, wasn’t it?
Answer: I didn’t know!
Question: Your letter in your handwriting ways the DNA report states a certain fact, did you know that such a report existed?
Answer: I didn’t know!
Question: Have you told the Police about this?
Question: Is it in your statement?
Question: Did you tell Hamish you had taken these strands of hair from Mr. Kamm without his knowledge and consent?
Answer: He asked me to!
Question: You did it in some act of deception, didn’t you?
Question: When you went to the Police in August of 2002 you told them something differently, didn’t you?
Question: What did he tell you?
Answer: He wanted to check the dates because it was different to my statement.
Question: And you were prepared to lie in that letter, weren’t’ you?
Answer: For my family!
Question: Do you think it’s justifiable to lie with what you consider a noble purpose in mind, do you?
Answer: Yes, yes!
Question: And that required you to tell lies, did it?
Question: But you did, didn’t you?
“If these demands are not met then [Name withheld] solicitor will reveal the evidence which [Name withheld] has gathered against you. (b) Being part of that evidence is a full written statement from ……”
Question: I’m asking you, does that statement exist?
Question: That’s another lie is it?
Question: That was untrue as well according to your present evidence, correct?
Question: But you told the Police, the year 1996, and you’ve told the Court here today the year 1997, haven’t you?
Question: How many times did you visit that flat with Mr. Kamm?
Answer: I don’t remember how many times!
Question: Six times?
Answer: I only remember two times I went there!
Question: Only twice? That is not your previous evidence though, is it; your claim is that you were a regular visitor to the flat?
Answer: I only remember going there with [Name withheld] and [Name withheld] – that was two times that I remember!
(Para 33 Police Statement)
“….. He would have taken us to the flat about 20 times.”
[Name withheld] let me suggest to you that as his worship’s indicating, in paragraph 31 of your statement the following is recorded:
‘In 1995 William had a flat in Corrimal near the train station”.
Question: Did you tell that to Police?
(The flat was purchased in June, 1996)
Question: Why does your evidence stand in direct contradiction to what’s in the Police statement?
Answer: I couldn’t remember!
Question: How do you account for your claim to the Police and to the Court up to this point that you were enrolled in TAFE in 1996, year 9, aged 16 …?
Answer: I made a mistake!
Question: BENCH: So regardless of what someone else might have in their diary, you affix that time from being picked up from TAFE?
Question: Could I just show you a document . . . do you recognise it? (related to Diary entries).
Question: What dates?
Answer: From ’79 to 2002!
Question: What does it record – events?
Question: Does any of those dates correspond with an event that is described as an episode of either sexual assault or sexual intercourse between yourself and Mr. Kamm?
Question: Why not!
Answer: I remembered that I had sex with William in ’94!
Question: Who asked you to draft this document? . . .
Answer: The Police Officer! ([Name Withheld])
Question: Mr. Kamm’s letter, indicating that he wasn’t going to pay you a cent in furtherance of your demand, or in compliance with your demand, clear?
Answer: The money doesn’t matter, I wanted him to admit it!
Question: No claim for any monies, no demand for $21,000 and $100 a week maintenance?
Answer: We weren’t going to cash that cheque! We were going to take that cheque to the Police!
Question: That was a lie as well, was it?
Question: That was an answer given on oath was it not?
Question: You spoke to your mother again in June of this year, didn’t you – by phone specifically asking her for confirmation of your age at a certain time in your life, correct?
Answer: I don’t think so!
Question: You said to her: “Was I 13, 14 or 15?”
Answer: I didn’t say that!
Question: Your mother said to you: “No, you were over the age of 16, and you said: “You must be wrong, I was only 13”?
Question: You, I want to suggest to you, have used the threat of legal criminal proceedings against your mother in the same fashion that you used them against Mr. Kamm, what do you say about that?
Question: You left a text message with your sister ….., didn’t you? Threatening your mother that unless she dropped the family court proceedings seeking access, you would have her charged with aiding and abetting a sexual assault?
Question: Have you sought to comply with that Court order?
Question: You were scared of William?
Question: You know what next of kin means, don’t you?
Question: It’s a permanent ID card, isn’t it?
Answer: It’s an old diary that went into the bin!
Question: What does it say, who is the next of kin nominated by you?
Answer: I put William Kamm!
Question: You were dishonest and deceptive in company and in agreement with Mr. [Name withheld] to achieve that end, were you not?
Question: because you Wanted money from Mr. Kamm?
Answer: No, I didn’t care about the money!
Question: That was the bottom line of your letter of 15 July, 2002 – 21,000 in a cash cheque and $100 a week, and your silence. That’s what you demanded of him, correct?
Question: You were happy to sue lies and deception both of Mr. Kamm and with others, to achieve that end, correct?
[Name Withheld]: Detective Senior [Name Withheld]:
Question: At what stage in the Police proceedings were you aware that a tape had been made by channel 7?
Answer: Around the time we spoke with the victim, ……!
Question: Prior to the arrest of the defendant?
Answer: Yes it was!
Question: A demand for moneys to be paid conditional upon certain things not being done and being done by the various persons addressed in the letter – a threat?
Answer: I wouldn’t consider it a threat, but I guess ….!
Question: No, it’s capable of being construed, as a threat isn’t it? “If these demands are not met then [Name withheld] Solicitor will reveal the evidence that he has gathered against you” ………
Answer: I guess that part could be considered a threat!
Question: You guess it could be a threat?
Question: That’s the best you can do as an experienced Police Officer?
Answer: Objection: Legal argument: question disallowed
Question: Was the letter ever served as part of the brief material upon Mr. Kamm and his representatives?
Answer: I daresay it could have been, yes!
Question: I would suggest to you that it has never been part of the documents served
Answer: I can’t ……. !
Question: Know a [Name Withheld]?
Answer: No, I don’t!
Question: [Name Withheld] claims to have the permission of the New South Wales Police to investigate this matter with them – (website)?
Answer: I have no knowledge of that!
In summary the contamination falls into the following categories:
- The alleged victim [name withheld] gives clear evidence of [name withheld] being a motivating force and factor in her coming forward and making com-plaints against the accused.
- [Name withheld] was instrumental in bringing together the alleged victims [name withheld] and [name withheld] with members of the media particular David Richardson and to discussing their evidence in meetings prior to the conduct of the programs for broadcast copies of which the DPP has and which form part of the evidence in the Committal Proceedings.
- It is clear that there was ample opportunity and was indeed actual discussion between these persons said to be victims, potential witnesses and members of the media in discussions both before during and after Police investigations were conducted and charges were preferred against Mr. Kamm that raises in the most direct and dangerous fashion imaginable the contamination of the evidence to be placed before the Court. At no relevant juncture of the investigation could it be said that the Police carried their investigations free of the influence of potentially contaminating factors.
Since the date of the last mention of Mr. Kamm’s matter in the Wollongong District Court two significant features have arisen both of which are critical to the determination of this No bill Application.
The first involved the publication of an article in the Australian Winter 2004 Edition of the Magazine commonly known as CQ. A copy of that article is enclosed herewith. I have taken the opportunity of highlighting those portions of the article which we contend are clearly matters that raise a severe prejudice to Mr. Kamm in the conduct of his defence. Apart from the issue of this article and its prejudicial effect being an important factor in the favourable determination of this Application we would ask that you give consideration to the referral of this material to the Attorney General’s Department for consideration for contempt by way of sub-judice bearing in mind its proximity to Mr. Kamm’s up-coming Trial.
In addition to this development there is material again a copy of which is enclosed herewith appearing from the Website said to be conducted by [Name Withheld], who co-incidentally is mentioned in the CQ Article referred to above which was the subject of cross-examination in the Committal Proceedings of Detective ………. . It is significant to note that the Police Officer both denied knowledge of [Name Withheld] and any knowledge of his claim that he had been authorised by Police to seek information in respect of Mr. Kamm’s activities involving other persons said to be the victims of sexual assault.
It is clear from the publicity generated by both the CQ Article and [Name Withheld]’s Website that the prospect of Mr. Kamm receiving a fair trial is remote and fanciful and we would submit that these factors taken in account in combination with the material identified above provides a strong basis upon the determination of this Application for No bill being made in favour of Kamm.
I apologise for the delay in forwarding this material to you but trust that you will have sufficient time between the present date and the 4th June for the determination of the Application.
It is respectfully requested therefore that upon careful consideration of the matters set out above that the Director of Public Prosecutions will file No Bill in respect of the accused William Kamm.
In January and February 2007, the second Trial began with the second victim before Judge Solomon with a Basher Inquiry. The Judge threw the case out with the words that “collusion and concoction” were between the victims and families – Police and Media – the victim and her partner were required to get their own Lawyers due to the evidence that was placed before the Judge, where there was evidence of criminal acts being committed against William: perjury, setting William up for monetary, blackmail, using listening devices, obtaining illegal DNA, demanding money with a note of threat. Approaching the Media for monetary gain before going to the Police, and finally the victim and her boyfriend accusing the DPP, Police and Legal team of fraud.
The second No-Bill was given to the DPP in March 2007. This, too, was rejected.
A new Trial was ordered in May 2007 – an Appeal was issued before the Trial to have the case placed on a Permanent Stay, due to the heavy Media coverage, giving William little chance of a fair hearing. This failed, and the Trial commenced in May 2007. William was convicted.
Set below are parts of the Transcript of the Committal Hearing in 2003 and the Basher Trial Inquiry of February 2007, with the No-Bill of 2007.
Here are the facts and truth:
The Media, since 2002, have branded William as a Religious Cult Leader and Sex Offender, placing him in the same category as Ivan Millet and Charles Manson – both of whom were multiple murderers. The Media have portrayed William Kamm as a notorious paedophile and rapist. Yet the charges and subsequent Trials revealed nothing of such nature. So to be called a paedophile you would need to commit sexual crimes against a minor under 10 years of age [see the legislated Act of Crime]
Secondly, the act of rape is clearly defined – [force]. In William’s case there were acts of indecency and consensual intercourse and over the age of 15 years. Extreme violation of the English language by the Press.
NOTE: The sentence of sexual nature a case must be transferred to a District Court as a Local Court can only give a maximum sentence of two years.
The Committal Hearing: April to August 2003 – Nowra Court.
From the Statement of Magistrate O’Connor given at the end of the Committal Hearing – 24th November 2003.
Victim 1 had lied many times – perjured herself. She gave false evidence and contradicted herself. She had mixed up the dates, time and places and given contradictory evidence regarding her previous statement to the Police. In spite of this, he felt she was a good, honest and reliable witness, and a Jury would support her to convict Kamm.
It is to be noted that Today Tonight Current Affairs had made a programme before William was arrested and charged. There was a large amount of money offered by Channel 7; the Police were also involved, as can be read in the full transcript. Money was also offered, should William be convicted.
In the first Trial, Channel 7 lost the Contracts made between Channel 7 and the victims. During the Trial the Jury were doing drawings instead of hearing the evidence.
An Indictment was changed with the Jury not being advised. The Jury should have been dismissed, and an Appeal was not allowed by the Judge regarding the Indictment change.
Here are the actual Charges – Victim 1:
Charge 1 – 5th July 1993 – September 1993
William kissed [Name withheld] on the lips in his office – using his tongue. Pushed his body against her.
Charge 2 – 5th July 1993 – 30th August 1993
William Kissed [Name withheld] in the office. Touched her breast and her shoulders over her clothes.
Charge 3 – 1st August 1993 – 30th September, 1993
William picked up [Name withheld] from TAFE, drove her to Wollongong. Touched her leg near groin on the outside of her clothes, while driving. Kissed her when he stopped to get fuel; fondled her breasts.
Charge 4 – 1st September 1993 – 30th September 1993
William picked [Name withheld] up at Bomaderry TAFE at 4pm. Parked car near Nowra car park. William kissed [Name withheld], rubbed her leg, and then digitally penetrated her vagina – 15 minutes.
On the stand [Name withheld] said that William picked her up from TAFE between 3.30pm – 4pm, and they picked up [Name withheld] between 4pm and 5pm at Nowra TAFE, and the sexual ”alleged” attack occurred between 4pm and 5pm
Charge 5 – 1st September 1993
William visited [Name withheld] home – mum and dad were present. William went into [Name withheld] bedroom and kissed her and fondled her body outside her clothes.
The Charges and evidence revealed in Court:
It was claimed the events occurred in 1993. The Charges were laid in August 2002 – about nine years later.
[Name withheld] went to the “Current Affairs” Programme before she went to the Police. A Contract was signed with Channel 7, and executed by a Broker by the name of [Name withheld], who received twice the amount of money that [Name withheld] received. [Name withheld] said that she lost her Contract, and so did Channel 7.
Facts not printed in the Press – the evidence:
Judge Williams’ summing up of the Trial was very good, but the Press did not print it. He said that Mr. Kamm was much disadvantaged due to the length of the delay of the events and the Charges laid. He further expressed that the letters written by Mr. Kamm to [Name withheld] of themselves are not evidence – only [Name withheld]’s word against Mr. Kamm’s word.
Charge 1: – [Name withheld]’s word against Williams’.
[Name withheld] stated on the stand that she knew nothing about sex. It was put to her by Mr. Stanton that on her 15th birthday she and [Name withheld] (witness for Mr. Kamm) went to see the movie, “Indecent Proposal”. The Prosecutor checked Paramount Pictures who confirmed that the movie was shown around April-May 1993. [Name withheld] said she did not remember.
[Name withheld] further stated she knew nothing about sex, but Mr. Stanton read three letters to her – two of the letters she had written to Mr. Kamm where she asked Mr. Kamm if she could sleep with him; the other where she asked if she could have his baby; the third letter was written to [Name withheld] where she stated that her mum wanted her to lose her virginity to William.
Charge 2, 3, and 5:
The Prosecutor asked for an Indictment date to be changed as the timing of the offence did not fit in with the three above Charges. Judge Williams accepted the change.
Charge 4 – Only that [Name withheld] went to TAFE:
[Name withheld] stated that William picked her up, then [Name withheld. [Name withheld] – witness for the Defence – gave evidence on oath that she went to an evening class at TAFE.
The following documents of proof were made available:
(a) TAFE Course Certificate;
(b) TAFE Registration
(c) TAFE Calenderia
(d) South Coast Register Newspaper Advertisement, which stated “evening course” only.
Also letter from William to [Name withheld] telling her he would pick her up at TAFE as he had to drop the car off for service.
In Law, this Charge refers to 66C(4). However, Mr. Stanton and the Prosecutor advised the Judge that this Law did not exist in 1993, therefore a Charge of this nature had no validity. It became a defect in Law where Mr. Kamm should have been acquitted of this Charge.
On 1st July 2004, Judge Williams amended the Indictment to 66C(2). Mr. Stanton advised Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not allow an amendment of a defective Charge.
Charge 3 – [Name withheld] claimed William drove her to Wollongong:
He was to visit his children by his previous wife. The children were in a Day Care Centre – in the afternoon.
Mr. Stanton advised [Name withheld] that William never saw the children in the afternoon, but early evening; that the children were never in a Day Care Centre – and William always saw his children at K.F.C. or McDonalds etc.
The Prosecutor produced a document signed by William’s previous wife stating that he saw his children early in the evenings between 5pm and 6pm at KFC or McDonalds.
During the course of the four-week Trial Mr. Stanton reported to the Judge that a Juror was not concentrating, and making obscene gestures – even drawing and showing the gallery what he was doing. This happened four times. Even members of the Press noticed this behaviour and 16 Affidavits were handed to the Judge from the gallery. The Judge marked them and placed them aside.
At the end of the Trial a final witness was brought in by Mr. Kamm – [Name withheld]. She gave evidence of conspiracy relating to the Contract of Channel 7 concerning the programme “Today Tonight”, as she was invited to be part of it – but refused. Her evidence revealed that there was a Contract of $60,000 per person with a bonus of $60,000 on conviction. The Judge dismissed this evidence.
The Judge advised the Jury that they were to remember that if their verdict is not beyond reasonable doubt, and the dates and places did not line up with the victim’s claim, then they must acquit Mr. Kamm.
The Jury went out on Tuesday at 3pm, and on Wednesday the Jury came back and stated that the facts do not line up. The Judge said you must acquit.
On Thursday morning the Judge said if the Jury cannot come to a conclusion by 3pm, the Jury would be dismissed. The Jury requested more time, and the Judge gave them until Friday morning.
The Jury asked for the transcript of the Judge’s summary. The Judge advised that it could not be given as it would take two weeks.
At 2pm Friday the verdict was reached. One of the Jurors wept, as the verdict was read – Guilty!!
As reported by the south Coast Register, the following is what was said by the Magistrate, Mr. David O’Connor:
“The first alleged ‘victim’ had admitted lying and to inaccuracies and inconsistencies in her evidence. However, many of these inconsistencies revolved around the dates of alleged occurrences.”
From the time William was arrested and charged – August 2002 – to the time of release – November 2014 – There were some four hundred articles written against him in the Press with every day television coverage during the Committal Hearing, and two Trials, plus articles in various Magazines and Current Affairs. This was obtained by the statistics for Media Coverage and handed to the Attorney General’s Department in 2013.
The onus is upon the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the offender with facts and viable evidence, and reliable witnesses; and it must be proven with unreasonable doubt. There were 9 charges – 5 for victim 1 and 4 for Victim 2. Both victims were over 15 years of age.
The main challenge was “age of consent” (consensual):
4 were aggravated indecent assault;
4 aggravated sexual assault;
1 Incite aggravated act of indecency.
Now the Second Trial, Basher Inquiry: January – February 2007 before Judge Solomon
Charges x 4:
Indecent Assault – victim under 16 years
Had Intercourse – victim 14 years (2)
Had Intercourse – victim 15 years (4)
Two extra charges were added due to “Under the Authority of”
Statement given by Judge Solomon – 8th February, after six days of cross examination:
Crown Prosecutor: Well Monday and last week, it would seem that Your Honour has formed the view that there is more than sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable possibility of CONCOCTION, COLLUSION, CONTAMINATION with (this case).
His Honour: Subject to your convincing me otherwise – YES!
Now see the transcript which supports this.
Crown Prosecutor: [Name withheld] is one of the proposed tendency witnesses your Honour and she was of course the complainant.
His Honour: What’s the thrust of the appeal? (This Appeal refers to the First Trial)
Stanton: The thrust of the appeal covers these areas. The crown sought to amend the indictment to substitute of fresh count in front of the same jury.
Point one. There’s an unsafe and unsatisfactory, what used to be called the old unsafe and unsatisfactory count on count 4. There was the issue of a discharge of the jury refused by his Honour in respect of an alleged coaching observed between two witnesses by members of the jury.
There was a refusal by his Honour to discharge the jury in respect of a perceived prejudice. I’ll tell your Honour in frank terms what happened. I was addressing the jury and in the course of my address one of their number called out an expletive in court directed at me and his Honour, despite my application to discharge allowed the jury to continue to sit. He wasn’t impressed with what I was saying apparently but they’re probably the four main ground of the appeal.
His Honour: And where we’re going. Am I to determine whether in fact there is pursuant to Section 97 and 98 and the other provisions of the Evidence Act whether evidence of tenancy and co-incidence may be given? Or am I deciding whether in facts there’s been COLLUSION between this –
Crown Prosecutor: Your Honour would have to address the question of whether there’s been any reasonable possibility of CONCOCTION, COLLUSION or CONTAMINATION.
Stanton: …. following each of these interviews, all of the complainants, including this witness and [name withheld] were taken by Channel 7 to a police station at Bowral for the making of statements with a view to having Mr. Kamm prosecuted. So all of those matters point to a collusion.
Up to that point the DPP did not know that such a document or such a source of evidence was even in fact in existence. And we tried desperately to have Mr. Richardson called by the crown in the last trial. He wouldn’t attend and contracts which were entered into between each of these complainants and [name withheld] and Channel 7 have mysteriously and I use that word with caution gone missing. No one knows the exact content of the document. Apparently when Channel 7 moved to Martin Place they go lost in the transfer.
His Honour: I’m here to determine whether in fact there has been any collusion or concoction with the evidence. I should imagine if something similar to the determination I’d make, if there were two complainants contained in the one indictment, to decide whether in fact the crown should split the indictment because of the possibility of CONCOCTION.
Stanton: Richardson takes them with various members of the Today Tonight crew to a police station at Bowral and complaints are made for the first time and they go as a group.
His Honour: I think it’s the possibility of CONCOCTION is the –
Stanton: I’m going to ask you again [name withheld] why didn’t you raise this morning before 10 o’clock the issue of the mistakes in your statement of 25 June 2003 with the DPP?
Answer: Because I never said any of the stuff that is in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 to the police when they took my statements.
Stanton: It got there through some means other than you using those words or you told the police what appears there, but it was a mistake?
Answer: I never said any of the stuff that is printed here.
Stanton: So what you’re telling us now is, not in fact that a mistake was made in those statements by you, but that it appears there because the police included it without you telling them that detail.
Answer: I don’t know how it got there.
Stanton: I’ll read onto the record if necessary the entirety of paragraphs 2 and 3. But let me ask you this question before I need to do that. What appears there now bears your signature on each of the pages of the statement does it not. The statement of 25 June 2003 is signed by you and witnessed by Palamara, correct?
Answer: That’s not my signature.
Stanton: Can I remind you again, you are on your oath in this case.
Stanton: — at the statements?
Answer: Yes, I did not read them yesterday.
Stanton: Did you not look at the statements yesterday and confirm that they were the statements that you had provided to police in the course of the gathering of evidence against Mr. Kamm?
Answer: I did not have enough time to look at them properly.
Stanton: Did you tell us this afternoon when you entered the witness box to give evidence about what appears in paragraphs 2 and 3 of your statement, not only is it not correct but this statement isn’t even signed by me?
Answer: I was trying to talk to Emma Curran before she came into the courtroom this afternoon.
Stanton: Who did you speak with at the Attorney General’s Department?
Answer: Janet De Castro. (Solicitor)
Stanton: Amongst the matters you brought to the attention of Ms De Castro at the Attorney Generals Department was not only that paragraphs 2 and 3 record inaccurately your memory of what occurred between 18 and 25 June 2003, but that that statement doesn’t bear your correct signature?
Stanton: You tell us what you told her?
Answer: I wanted to find out why this statement isn’t my evidence.
Stanton: And you thought someone in the Attorney General’s department rather than a police officer or a prosecutor attached to the DPP would be the preferred source to unravel that mystery or answer that question, is that the case?
Answer: To mediate for me, yes.
Stanton: You now tell us a very different story that in fact this is evidence that you never gave the police and the manner or the fashion in which you’ve entered your statement is unknown to you?
Stanton: [Name withheld] why didn’t you tell the prosecutor when she asked you this afternoon about things that were wrong with your statement that you wanted to change that the document did not bear your signature?
Answer: Because I’m scared.
Stanton: Which means what precisely?
Answer: The fact that this is not my statement.
Stanton: [Name withheld] He is a witness in this case isn’t he?
Stanton: Was he complaining about things in statements that he hadn’t told police?
Stanton: Was he complaining about signatures appearing on statements that were not his?
Answer: I think you should ask [name withheld] that question.
His Honour: So what you’re saying is this that if it be shown that documents that are in the crown brief which are forgeries and which are against your client’s interest then I can form the view that there are forces out there whether from the DPP or the police who have created false evidence and that the integrity of the trial is therefore threatened.
It is obvious she distrusts the DPP and obviously she distrusts the police but why does that in any way affect the integrity of the trial?
Stanton: She has lied to this prosecutor on oath about her attendance at the Attorney General’s Department because she fears the situation.
Stanton: The date in the letter is 1 July isn’t it?
Stanton: That’s a deadline date so to speak?
Stanton: Was the letter delivered to Mr. Kamm prior to 15 July?
Answer: [Name withheld] handed it to Mr. Kamm on that date on 15 July.
Stanton: Was dictated to you by [name withheld[?
Now I put to you specifically this, how do you know that it is 15 July as the day the letter was dictated, written and delivered?
Answer: Because it says, today 15/07/2002.
Stanton: Do you know or believe – I withdraw that. Was it proposed between yourself land [name withheld] that at a time the letter was to be delivered to Kamm, [name withheld] would secretively tape Mr. Kamm’s conversation with [name withheld] if any conversation took place?
Answer: [Name withheld] did not say anything to me.
Stanton: Never a plan. You’ve given evidence, have you not, previously that it was decided between yourself, [name withheld] and Sixty Minutes to try and obtain a body sample of Mr. Kamm’s that could be subject to DNA. Do you recall giving that evidence?
Stanton: And Mr. Kamm was to be left out of the picture in terms of your intention and purpose?
Stanton: And the execution of it?
Stanton: You were trying to set him up, weren’t you?
Answer: I guess so, yes.
Stanton: Have you ever used the expression “I’m going to nail that little sucker” recently?
Stanton: “Nailing the little sucker”. Do you know of someone and call him the little sucker in honest intent, do you?
Answer: In a sense that I tell the truth, yes.
Crown Prosecutor: Well yes, on one view of it your Honour it could be suggested that the letter perhaps amounts to blackmail. My instructing solicitor is just informing me that there was some – my friend just mentioned it, the officer-in-charge –
Crown Prosecutor: My Solicitor’s just confirming that she’s aware of something to do with that. Perhaps the witness should be warned your Honour.
His Honour: And I can give a certificate under 128
Crown Prosecutor: That would be a cautious approach I think.
Stanton: The child was conceived during the majority of a consensual relationship. There’s no dispute about that.
His Honour: The child was conceived after she turned sixteen?
Crown Prosecutor: Yes your Honour. If I can just go back to the tendency and coincidence your Honour. If I could just draw to your Honour’s attention that the crown’s application to lead as tendency evidence the allegations of a sexual nature made by [name withheld] – that’s why the question of COLLUSION, CONTAMINATION, CONCOCTION has to be examined on the voir dire.
His Honour: Yes I – yes, yes.
Stanton: — from them which is capable of being interpreted they have spoken amongst themselves.
His Honour: Yes, yes, yes.
Crown Prosecutor: Your Honour I don’t think that’s a fair submission. My friend –
His Honour: I know I am merely flagging what I perceive to be problems in the Crown case vis-à-vis the reasonable possibility of CONCOCTION.
Crown Prosecutor: [Partner of Victim 2], if I could take you to the first statement?
Answer: I was going to say, these are definitely not my statements, they’re not my signatures and these aren’t my statements I made.
Crown Prosecutor: All right, that’s what I wanted to ascertain from you?
Stanton: Do you see that there’s a signature above that on each of the two pages?
Stanton: What do you say about that signature?
Answer: They’re not my signatures.
Stanton: What is your evidence about the contents of it?
Answer: This is not my statement. These are not my words and that it is not my signature.
Stanton: Just going to the second statement. The one dated 25 June 2003?
Stanton: — understanding prior to his telling the crown that these are not his statements and these signatures are forged, on the clear basis and understanding that that’s the material that he would give in evidence subject to the cross-examination at a Basha inquiry by the accused’s representatives. What now transpires is that he gives evidence that we’re all going to learn about for the first time apparently because he won’t make a statement to the police or talk to the crown, with this sting in the tail, the statements he’s already given purportedly signed by him aren’t his. Does your Honour seriously suggest with great respect that that issue both in respect to himself and the complainant [name withheld] should be a matter that this jury, when it ultimately comes to determine Mr. Kamm’s guilt, would not be made aware of –
His Honour: No.
Stanton: You gave the police your letter of 15 July 2002, did you not?
Answer: Yes I did.
Stanton: That’s not [name withheld] letter?
Answer: [Name withheld] letter.
Stanton: That’s [name withheld] handwriting?
Stanton: The material contained in it is what you had dictated to her?
Stanton: Could I have the exhibit, the letter of 15 July? The material in it is your creation is it not?
Answer: Most of it, yes.
Stanton: If that’s correct, if that’s truthful, you had received from [name withheld] a version or at least an account of something that happened between the two of them, [name withheld] and Kamm, that involved sexual assault?
Stanton: You had never been asked by the police to tell them about when she told you that?
Stanton: You were warned by his Honour today that any questions, that you should answer questions in respect of that letter, correct?
Stanton: That letter was given to you or a copy of it to the police at any stage, do you know by you?
Answer: .Yes, no. I never gave a copy of the letter to the police.
Stanton: What, you never gave the police a copy of the letter?
Stanton: Have you ever been questioned by any police officer under caution about the circumstances in which you came to record the conversation?
Answer: Once, yes.
His Honour: Charged?
Stanton: She cautioned you did she?
Answer: She cautioned me and mentioned that I was going to be called up, this is the last day of the committal trial in the morning, and she called me into her office along with the police officers that were involved with the case.
Stanton: Have you ever been charged with demanding money with menaces from Mr. Kamm as a result the 15 July 2002 letter”
Stanton: Have you ever been charged with blackmail or extortion as a result of a letter sent to Mr. Kamm?
Stanton: Have you ever been charged with attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception as a result of that letter?
Stanton: You gave an answer curiously, that’s my word not yours, when you were asked about this letter earlier today, when you say it was in part the truth and part bluff?
Answer: That’s correct.
Stanton: You attempted to get money from him —
I am presuming, your Honour, the certificate still applies in the course of cross-examination?
His Honour: Any questions and answers in relation to the subject, that is the letter or the conversation, are covered, will be covered by my certificate.
Stanton: You as the deceiver would have us accept, would you, your intention was otherwise?
Answer: Yes it was.
Stanton: — parentage?
Answer: I already had proof.
Stanton: What proof?
Answer: I had it on the tape.
Stanton: What tape?
Answer: That I recorded.
Stanton: You have never been confronted in the circumstances of either the letter or tape and being under arrest and being cautioned as a suspect and being told that anything you saw in respect of these of each matters will be taken down and used in evidence against you and read in court?
Answer: Of course not.
Stanton: Because you knew didn’t you that the taping of the tape and the circumstances in which you had achieved it was illegal?
Answer: No I didn’t.
Stanton: Was that news reporter in your assessment of it the person responsible for the prosecution of Mr. Kamm rather than the police?
Stanton: Why then make it available to him or her rather than the police?
Answer: Because I wanted to expose him through the media.
Stanton: Not to the police and have him brought to prosecution and ultimately justice through that means, you talked to the press first?
His Honour: That question and answer should be considered very much in relation to the possibility of CONCOCTION.
Crown Prosecutor: Yes, your Honour. No doubt Mr. Stanton will further cross-examine the witness about what “involvement” means.
His Honour: All I’m going to ask you to do is present that evidence to me and I will give an extempore judgement as to why, using the evidence, I am of the view that there is a reasonable possibility of CONCOCTION and leave it at that, without going into the law, merely going to the factual issues of the possibility.
Stanton: And you didn’t tell the police in your statement first in time that you had made such as threat?
Answer: Yes I did.
Stanton: Can I put this proposition to you, [name withheld] your letter of demand dated 15 July 2002 was made available to the police not by you or anyone connected with the prosecution, but by Mr. Kamm himself. Can you deny or affirm that proposition?
Answer: I would say that would be true because he was the one with the only copy.
Stanton: He had the original?
Answer: Yes, that’s right.
Stanton: Were any of them lawyers, by the way?
Stanton: So you got legal advice from someone other than a lawyer?
Answer: And I think the advice I got was very good.
Stanton: Had the crown prosecutor and her instructing attorney, in conference with you last Monday afternoon – they’re lawyers, aren’t they?
Stanton: Did you seek advice from them about your position?
Stanton: Did they give it to you?
Answer: I don’t feel it was the right advice.
Stanton: You tell the court, do you, on your oath, that the crown prosecutor in this case and her instructing attorney advised you last Monday in a conference to change and alter your statements?
Answer: Yes, correct. Not my statements, to alter the bits of paper.
Stanton: What bits of paper?
Answer: The bits of paper that were allegedly my statement.
Stanton: To make them look like they were your statements, is that what you tell us they were suggesting to you by way of legal advice?
Stanton: To do something illegal?
Stanton: You are a master of deception?
Answer: That’s why I went to the Attorney-General.
Stanton: You were the man who deceived Mr. Kamm or attempted to in July of 2002 by writing that letter which you’ve now said was part bluff?
Answer: It was mostly bluff, yes.
Stanton: Mostly bluff?
Stanton: The deceiver being you?
Answer: To get him to admit –
Stanton: The deceiver being you, correct?
Stanton: That was another attempt to deceive, wasn’t it?
Answer: That was getting evidence.
Stanton: In a truthful, frank and open fashions, or by deception?
Answer: By deception.
Stanton: You tell us, do you, the crown prosecutor and her instructing attorney attempted to give you advice to commit an act of criminality last Monday and you balked at it?
Answer: Because it wasn’t the right thing to do.
Stanton: You balked at it because your sense of morality and conscience brought to the exercise wouldn’t allow you to engage in what they told you to do?
Answer: Because they weren’t my statements.
Stanton: Not only were they not your statements, you were being invited by the prosecutor in this case and her instructing solicitor to engage in a criminal, act, with their knowledge land consent and indeed at their initiative; you understand the seriousness of that allegation, don’t you sir?
Answer: That is what happened.
Stanton: In your mind, when it is brought to this exercise of gathering evidence against Mr. Kamm, it’s to use a common phrase, no holds barred, you will do whatever, however, whenever and wherever to make sure that he is brought to what you believe is justice, is that the way it is?
Answer: I –
Stanton: Is that the way it is, sir?
Stanton: Oh more than that, sir, because they were telling you to deceive – deceiving is something that’s morally wrong, isn’t it?
Answer: They asked me to alter the statements.
Stanton: To create a deception that’s what you – your evidence is?
Answer: They asked me to alter the statements.
Stanton: Deception is sometimes justified, is it?
His Honour: If that’s the case, then so far as the crown’s application to call the evidence of [name withheld] by way of tendency and coincidence evidence, having regard to the fact that I am of the view there is a reasonable possibility of CONCOCTION, I REJECT THE EVIDENCE.
Stanton: The lies and the threat letter?
Answer: The bluff letter.
Stanton: And there were lies in it as well weren’t there?
Answer: And bluff.
Stanton: There were lies in it weren’t there?
Answer: I considered it a bluff.
Stanton: Do you bluff people by telling them the truth or by lying?
Answer: I –
Stanton: In this case were you bluffing him by telling him the truth or bluffing him by lying?
Stanton: Then you did tell some lies in the letter?
Answer: Of course.
Stanton: You made threats in the letter as well didn’t you?
Stanton: Prior to that letter, had you, on behalf of [name withheld] approached 60 Minutes?
Stanton: What did you tell the 60 Minutes, either you or [name withheld] tell the 60 Minutes people?
Answer: [Name withheld] told them about her situation that had arisen with William and it was 60 minutes themselves that said to her to get a hair sample.
Stanton: Was there any DNA proof?
Answer: I’ve already told you it was bluff.
Stanton: It was a lie?
Stanton: It was a lit was it not?
Answer: It was a lie but it was a bluff.
Stanton: Who authorised you, if any one, to go about making a demand on Mr. Kamm combining lies and threats?
Stanton: You’ve hatched the plot yourself did you?
Answer: Yes I did.
Stanton: Your approach to Kamm that day was entirely and utterly deceptive wasn’t it?
Stanton: And not only deceptive but threateningly so?
Stanton: You were prepared to menace him into listening to and participating in a conversation with you and taking delivery of the letter?
Stanton: You had no lawful right to approach him in that fashion did you, to stop his car from leaving where it was parked, did you?
Answer: Well it wasn’t against the law.
Stanton: Wasn’t it?
Crown Prosecutor: Your Honour, the s128 certificate has been prepared. I would hand those copies up.
His Honour: They should be annexed to the transcripts. You are suggesting I put the whole of the evidence of [name withheld] –
Crown Prosecutor: Your Honour, the s128 certificate should cover the trial as well, your Honour. We shouldn’t need to raise the question of 128 certificates in front of the jury.
Stanton: I am content, and I don’t make this remark in any facile context or with any facile intent; should he be advised the 128 certificate does not protect him from any perjury.
His Honour: Yes, I’d like that to be made clear, that even if they find that she consented to sexual intercourse there’s no defence. And perhaps you could say this was the old offence of carnal knowledge – well don’t say that.
His Honour: Yes, there’s no defence, consent is no defence. Are you happy with that course? –the intercourse took place, however, that the complainant consented to it –
After this the Judge threw out the case and told the Prosecution to re-think the case – as there was CONCOCTION, COLLUSION, CONTAMINATION AND FRAUD.
What is a Certificate 2 128 issued by the Judge? “Unfavourable witness”. It protects against self incrimination.
These are the facts. Then the DPP still brought the case to trial in May 2007.
A Summary of the “No Bill” from Barrister Greg Stanton given to the DPP in March 2007:
I. It is clearly a letter that constitutes on the fact of it, an attempt to exhort monies.
II. Part of the exhortation requires the payment in cash of sum of twenty-one-thousand dollars ($21,000) with ongoing weekly maintenance payments of a hundred dollars ($100.000).
III. If Kamm agreed to the threat then the Police would not be notified, as much is clear by terms of the letter that unless Kamm buckled and paid the monies as requested, the Police would be notified of the allegation, the terms of which are set out in the correspondence.
IV. The letter represents that the Solicitor of [Name withheld] has gathered evidence, which incriminates Mr. Kamm in the alleged sexual activity, complained of, but strangely, no such evidence is ever forthcoming.
VIII. There is further complication in respect of the allegation of the first date of sexual intercourse in the Today tonight interview as pointed out to a witness at page fifty (50) of the Transcript of the 4th August, 2003. See point twenty-five (25) and onwards.
IX. Between pages forty-four (44) to fifty-three (53) the Complainant sought to explain her contradiction in respect of the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse, amongst other reasons, a confusion in respect the birth date of her eldest sister [Name withheld].
X. A further mistake conceded by the Complainant in respect of her recollection. Some total being that the Complainant concedes yet another mistake exists in the body of the evidence, which the Prosecution bring against Mr. Kamm – this mistake being of a critical nature by reason of its initial alleged significance i.e. an event in the Complainant’s life enabling her to fix with certainty the dates relevant to the acts complained of.
XII. The next feature of significance emerging from exhibit 5 appears at page sixty-five (65) of the Transcript of 4th August, 2003, clearly the representation in the letter to Mr. Kamm that a DNA Report existed connecting him with the paternity of the child was not correct. Indeed, it was a lie.
At page seventy-one (71) point five (5) to fifteen (15) the Complainant agreed with the proposition that she was prepared to extract what she perceived to be the truth of the matter from Kamm by telling him lies for the purpose of achieving the end she sought.
XIII. In a subsequent statement of the 8th August, 2002, the Complainant sought to correct the contention in her earlier Statement of 2nd August, 2002.
A summary appearing from the answers from …. emerges as to the form and number of a relatively short period of time over which she made conflicting and contradictory contention in respect of the dates of the alleged sexual assaults.
At pages eighty-five (85) through to eighty-eight (88) there is further cross-examination of the Complainant as to the nature and number of lies that she told, both written and oral, with an attempt to make good her accusations against Mr. Kamm.
It is submitted in short form that the affect upon a Jury of Complainant’s admission of lying, both in and out of the witness box, would be so fundamental to the Prosecution Case that the claim that any Jury hearing that evidence could not have a reasonable doubt as to guilt of the accused, is untenable.
XX. Evidence of [Name withheld] is inherently inconsistent, contradictory, lack weight, credit, varsity and consistency in the fashion and to the extent that a Prosecutions reliance upon it in a case such as the present matter, would result in a reasonable jury properly instructed, not coming to the conclusion by way of the unanimous verdict that the defendant is guilty as charged.
XXI. The two most telling matters revealing a degree of unfavourable treatment by the Police of Mr. Kamm’s interest in this matter is the withholding from the Brief of Evidence of exhibit 5 and the failure to produce prior to the Prosecutor’s making available by way of disclosure on day one (1) of the Proceedings, the tapes of the interviews conducted by Today Tonight between the Complainants, which clearly constituted representations, prior statements and material which the Defendant was entitled to be made aware of, and indeed to be served with pursuant to the obligation of the Prosecution under the rules of Disclosure.