|
| |
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
P U B L I C R E L E A S E
The Facts behind the Court Case
Of the 'Little Pebble' -- William Kamm
1st January 2004
Dear people of God,
Greetings for the New Year of Hope
-- 2004! The triumph of
Truth over lies is near -- you be the judge!
So far the Press have had the upper hand over my Case
--
releasing information that is highly inaccurate, out of context with an
extremely biased slant against me. According to Press, it seems I have been
tried and found guilty long before the date set for my trial. I have reserved my
defence, so no one, as yet, has been acquainted with my side of the story.
However, without divulging confidential information, I wish the people of God to
know certain facts as they really stand. These facts derive from the Transcript
of the Court Hearing -- what happened in court, and some factual Press reporting,
which is very rare.
The Crown verses William Kamm
-- also known as the 'Little Pebble'.
Persecuted by the Media Power Groups, the Roman Catholic Church and other
powerful bodies in Australia and the wider world, since 1984.
On the 8th August, 2002, I was arrested while
driving with my wife and child. At the same time approximately 30 Police with
rifles, sniffer dogs, and helicopters raided our Community. James Duffy, my
friend and associate, was arrested at the Community property.
The following are the alleged offences:
|
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)
|
The Government paid $100,000 for the raid. They were looking
for weapons and letters related to the revelations about the Queens.
They arrested me as if I were a common criminal
-- when in
fact I had no previous criminal record, nor any fines or driving offences. I am
a public figure known throughout the world, and well known in the Nowra and
Wollongong areas. A simple visit by the Police to the property, with a search
warrant, asking me to accompany them to the Station -- at very little cost to the
Taxpayer -- would have served the same purpose. Why the big drama? Who is behind
it? What weapons did they expect to find? All the Police found was a broken and
rusted crossbow that had been lying in a cave for about ten years and some
ancient ammunition that was not on the property that covered the Search Warrant.
Yet the Press referred to multiple weapons being found, not singular, to make it
look like we were stashing weapons.
On 21st December, 2002, the Illawarra Mercury
reported: "Military style rifles and shot-guns were seized!"
The Police went through my private letters and the two
thousand Messages from the Blessed Virgin Mary -- removing most of them from the
property. They only needed to ask!
An ex-policeman, by the name of Peter Brown, opened an
"Anti-Pebble Website". He gathered information, claiming he had approval from
the Police who were in charge of my Case. In August, 2003, during
cross-examination, the Detective in Charge denied knowledge of Peter Brown. The
Police were advised, but took no action.
In April, 2003, I had to appear in Court. The Prosecutor
examined the first Witness for the Prosecution.
The cross examination started in August, 2003, and during the
Court Hearing the de facto of one of the victims threatened my life. (de
facto means 'victim's' live-in boyfriend or girlfriend) The Police did
nothing -- refusing to charge him. The Press reported that a scuffle broke out
with the defendant and this man -- when in fact I was nowhere near him. The
scuffle involved the de facto and my friend and bodyguard. The Media, once
again, tried to impress upon the public that the de facto of the 'victim' was so
irate he wanted to tackle me to protect the 'victim'.
As the Nowra local Police did nothing, my Lawyers had to
report the incident to the Police themselves. It was mentioned in Court by both
the Prosecutor and our Barrister. Three months passed, and after constant
inquiry by my Lawyers, the Police finally informed me that they did not see it
as a serious matter, and have dropped the Case.
Let us now go to the actual Court Hearing, as described in
the Transcript of August 4th -- 8th. Names have been
removed for Legal protection of the individuals.
At the Committal Hearing
The New South Wales Justices Act 1902
When all the evidence for the Prosecution and any evidence
for the Defence have been taken, the Justice or Justices shall, after
considering all the evidence before the Justice or Justices:
If of the opinion, that, on the basis of all the evidence
before the Justice or Justices, there is a reasonable prospect that a Jury
would convict the Defendant of indictable offence -- commit the Defendant for
trial, or,
If not of that opinion -- forthwith ordering the Defendant
to be discharged as to the information then under inquiry.
Let us now go to the part of the Trial
|
Page 37 |
|
|
15
|
Question:
Who was in collaboration with the Police?
Answer: Today-Tonight!
Question:
How do you know that?
Answer: Because Shane organised it!
|
|
Page 39: |
|
|
45 |
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!
|
|
Page 40: |
|
|
30 |
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?
Answer: Yes!
|
35 |
Question:
That was a lie wasn't it?
Answer: No!
|
45 |
Question: That was the incentive to make the allegation
against Mr. Kamm wasn't it?
Answer: Yes!
| | |
|
Page 41: |
|
|
15 |
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?
Answer: Yes!
|
20 |
Question:
You now agree don't you that that was not the
truth?
Answer: Yes!
| |
|
Page 42: |
|
|
25 |
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 Shane said to William.
|
40 |
Question:
Did you tell Mr. Richardson, in the
interview given Today-Tonight, that you'd threatened Mr. Kamm - you and Mr. Coombridge; you sought to blackmail him?
Answer:
We told David Richardson that!
| |
|
Page 44: |
|
|
50 |
Question:
You were threatening him, pay up or else,
correct?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
Page 45: |
|
|
20 |
Question:
Why did you threaten him, indeed you've
described them in your letter as demands, and "If these demands are not
met then Shane Solicitor will reveal the evidence which Shane has gathered
against you."
Answer: To my knowledge, yes!
|
|
Page 46: |
|
|
10 |
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!
|
50 |
Question:
Didn't you tell the court on the last
occasion that the first act of intercourse took place on 7th
July, 1994?
Answer:
Yes!
Question:
Fourteen years of age, correct?
Answer: Correct!
|
55 |
Question:
Not 15, correct?
Answer:
Correct!
| | |
|
Page 47: |
|
|
20 |
Question:
But in July last year you wrote in a letter
delivered to Mr. Kamm by Mr. Coombridge on 16th July, that
intercourse commenced from the age of 15 years, correct?
Answer:
Correct!
|
25 |
Question:
Which is the case, Miss [Name Withheld]?
Answer:
I made a mistake in the letter!
| |
|
Page 48: |
|
|
25 |
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?"
Answer:
Yes!
|
40 |
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.
|
55 |
Question: And you said 16, correct?
Answer: Yes!
| | |
|
Page 50: |
|
|
25 |
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?
Answer: Yes!
|
30 |
Question:
That was a mistake according to your evidence,
wasn't it?
Answer: Yes!
| |
|
Page 51: |
|
|
25 |
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 your demand be
so conditional or so conditioned?
Answer: I don't remember!
|
|
Page 52: |
|
|
5 |
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!
|
10 |
Question:
That actually smells of extortion doesn't it?
Answer: It wasn't intended like that!
|
55 |
Question: Why did you tell him in the letter 7th July 1995?
Answer: Because I got confused!
STANTON: What explanation do you offer for that sequence, if any,
Miss
[Name Withheld]?
Answer: I made a mistake!
| | |
|
Page 65: |
|
|
25 |
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!
|
30 |
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!
| |
|
Page 66: |
|
|
10 |
Question: Have you told the Police about this?
Answer: Yes!
|
15 |
Question: Is it in your statement?
Answer: No!
| |
|
Page 67: |
|
|
35 |
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!
|
|
Page 69: |
|
| |
Question: You did it in some act of deception, didn't
you?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
Page 72: |
|
|
50 |
Question: When you went to the Police in August of
2002 you told them something differently, didn't you?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
Page 79: |
|
|
5 |
Question: What did he tell you?
Answer: He wanted to check the dates because it was different to my
statement.
|
|
Page 84: |
|
|
55 |
Question: And you were prepared to lie in that letter,
weren't you?
Answer: For my family!
|
| Page 85: |
|
|
5 |
Question: Do you think it's justifiable to lie with
what you consider a noble purpose in mind, do you?
Answer: Yes, yes!
|
35 |
Question: And that required you to tell lies, did it?
Answer: No!
Question: But you did, didn't you?
Answer: Yes!
| |
|
Page 86: |
|
|
5 |
"If these demands are not met then Shane's solicitor will
reveal the evidence which Shane has gathered against you.
(b) Being part of that evidence is a full written
statement from
[Name Withheld]"
|
15 |
Question: I'm asking you, does that statement exist?
Answer: No!
|
20 |
Question: That's another lie is it?
Answer: Yes!
| | |
|
Page 88: |
|
|
10 |
Question:
That was untrue as well according to your
present evidence, correct?
Answer:
Yes!
|
|
Page 104: |
|
|
55 |
Question: But you told the Police, the year 1996, and
you've told the Court here today the year 1997, haven't you?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
Page 109: |
|
|
30 |
Question: How many times did you visit that flat with Mr.
Kamm?
Answer: I don't remember how many times!
|
45 |
Question: Six times?
Answer: I only remember two times I went there!
|
50 |
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!
| | |
|
Page 110: |
|
|
40 |
(Para 33 Police Statement)
" ... He would have taken us to the flat about 20 times."
|
|
Page 111: |
|
|
25 |
Miss
[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?
Answer: Yes!
(The flat was purchased in June, 1996)
|
| Page 116: |
|
|
35 |
Question:
Why does your evidence stand in direct
contradiction to what's in the Police statement?
Answer:
I couldn't remember!
|
| Page 122: |
|
|
5 |
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!
|
| Page 125: |
|
|
25 |
Question:
BENCH: So regardless of what someone else
might have in their diary, you affix that time from being picked up from
TAFE?
Answer: Yeah!
|
| Page 132: |
|
|
45 |
Question:
Could I just show you a document ...
do you recognise it? (related to Diary entries).
Answer: Yes!
|
55 |
Question:
What dates?
Answer: From '79 to 2002!
| |
|
Page 133: |
|
|
5 |
Question:
What does it record -- events?
Answer: Yes!
|
35 |
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?
Answer: No!
|
45 |
Question: Why not!
Answer: I remembered that I had sex with William in '94!
|
50 |
Question:
Who asked you to draft this document? ...
Answer: The Police Officer! (Mr. O'Keefe)
| | | |
|
Page 136: |
|
|
35 |
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!
|
40 |
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!
|
45 |
Question:
That was a lie as well, was it?
Answer:
Yes!
| | |
|
Page 137: |
|
|
25 |
Question:
That was an answer given on oath was it not?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
Page 146: |
|
|
20 |
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!
|
35 |
Question: You said to her: "Was I 13, 14 or 15?"
Answer: I didn't say that!
|
45 |
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"? | | |
|
Page 147: |
|
|
35 |
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?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
Page 148: |
|
|
5 |
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?
Answer:
Yes!
|
35 |
Question:
Have you sought to comply with that Court order?
Answer:
No!
| |
|
Page 152: |
|
|
10 |
Question: You were scared of William?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
15 |
Question: You know what next of kin means, don't you?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
35 |
Question: It's a permanent ID card, isn't it?
Answer: It's an old diary that went into the bin!
|
| Page 153: |
|
|
25 |
Question: What does it say, who is the next of kin
nominated by you?
Answer: I put William Kamm! |
| Page 162: |
|
|
10 |
Question: You were dishonest and deceptive in company
and in agreement with Mr. Coombridge to achieve that end, were you not?
Answer: Yes! |
|
15 |
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?
Answer: Yes!
|
|
20 |
Question: You were happy to sue lies and deception
both of Mr. Kamm and with others, to achieve that end, correct?
Answer:
Yes!
|
| Page 174: |
Lorenda Barber: Detective Senior Barber: |
| 15 |
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! |
| Page 176: |
|
|
40 |
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 ...! |
|
55 |
Question: No, it's capable of being construed, as a
threat isn't it? "If these demands are not met then Shane's Solicitor
will reveal the evidence that he has gathered against you" ...
Answer: I guess that part could be considered a threat! |
| Page 177: |
|
|
5 |
Question: You guess it could be a threat?
Answer: Yes!
Question: That's the best you can do as an experienced Police Officer?
Answer: Objection: Legal argument: question disallowed |
|
15 |
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! |
|
25 |
Question: I would suggest to you that it has never
been part of the documents served.
Answer: I can't ...! |
| Page 184 |
|
|
15 |
Question:
Know a Mr. Peter Brown?
Answer: No, I don't!
|
|
35 |
Question: Mr. Brown 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! |
On the 8th August, the Magistrate made the following Statement, as
reported in the "Illawarra Mercury" and the "South Coast Register".
There was enough evidence to make a prima facie case against
Kamm, but he was yet to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for a
jury to be likely to convict him. He adjourned the Committal Hearing until
November for the defence to make written submissions. When the Hearing resumes
on the 24th November, it is expected Mr. O'Connor will determine
whether Kamm should stand trial.
In the first week of October, 2003, I received a copy of the
Transcript of the Court Hearing of August. On 8th August -- the last
day of the Hearing -- after cross examination, the Administrative Magistrate
allegedly stated in the Transcript:
Q1312 49/03 DN-D - 8/8/03 - No.55 -- Page 377
"I have formed the view that the evidence is capable of
satisfying a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant has committed
indictable offences".
Q1312 49/03 DN-D -- 8/8/03 --No. 5 -- Page 378
"I'm not required to put matters to which you in which I
don't require a response until I indicate that I need an answer, and don't
answer until you've spoken to, Mr. Stanton".
As you can clearly see, the Transcript
-- which is an official
document -- and no one has queried it. It is different from what was reported by
the Illawarra Mercury. Should this be proven true, someone has tampered with the
Court Records. This matter is now being dealt with through my Lawyers and the
Attorney General's Department, as these are serious matters -- a possible "Breach
of Law". The Transcript cost $2,700. It is to be noted the Transcript is a
public document, available for all.
As you can see there seems to be two versions of the
statements from Mr. O'Connor given on the 8th August, 2003. The first
one is from the Transcript, and the second one reported in the Newspapers.
It was due to the discrepancy in the Transcript, and the full
statement given by the Magistrate, as reported in the various newspapers - and
witnessed by at least seven witnesses in Court - that I decided to prove this
matter by ordering the Transcript tapes of the 8th August.
On 4th November I requested a copy of the
Transcript tapes. The Nowra Court advised the tapes would not be ready for six
weeks. We explained that they were needed in three weeks due to the Court
Hearing on the 24th November. They agreed, and the money was duly
paid.
On Friday 21st November, I went to collect the
tapes -- three days before the Hearing -- and was told they were unavailable; that
I could not have them as I already had the typed Transcript. I was asked why I
needed them? When I told them there was a discrepancy in the Transcript, they
said I would have to write to the Attorney General.
Before the 24th November, my Counsellors gave a
Summary of the Case to the Magistrate:
What emerges from the
cross-examination of
[Name Withheld] at pages 38 et seq. is that prior to any complaint being made to the Police in respect of the
alleged criminal conduct of Defendant Kamm, both
[Name Withheld] and her partner Mr. Shane Coombridge were involved in negotiations with the media, particularly Mr. David
Richardson of Today Tonight, for the purpose of giving to that media outlet an
exclusive interview for public broadcast when, and if, a successful prosecution
of Mr. Kamm took place.
In the course of that interview certain statements relevant
to Mr. Kamm's alleged conduct were made by
[Name Withheld] that stand in direct contrast to
the Statement she gave Police, when she was questioned in respect of her
allegations. Detailed Submissions will be addressed in respect of that matter in
due course.
The Complainant was reluctant in cross-examination to reveal
the details as the amount negotiated, amount paid, and the form which the
payment took, she contends that Mr. Coombridge was the moving party in respect
of the negotiations, the signing of contracts and the prime mover in the
organising and the conduct of the interview, including the first meeting.
The salient features which attach to that exhibit and which
in combination provide a compelling and powerful attack upon the veracity,
credibility and reliability of
[Name Withheld] , are as follows:
| 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 ($100.00). |
| 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 Shane Coombridge
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
[Name Withheld] 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. |
My Legal Counsel gave the 38 page Submission to the
Magistrate some days before the Hearing, which was on the 24th
November. The Prosecutor, however, did not give in her Submission until the
morning of the Hearing. The Magistrate said that he did not have time to read
the Transcript (380 pages), nor the Submissions, and needed a few hours to study
them. He adjourned the Hearing until 12.30pm of the same day, when he would make
a decision.
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."
However, this is what was also said, but not printed, as
heard by seven (7) witnesses:
At the Hearing on the 24th November, 2003, the
Magistrate said the following:
Victim one had lied - many times (perjured herself); she gave
false evidence and contradicted herself. She had mixed up dates, times 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.
In the Magistrate's final address he mentioned nothing about
the threats, or the lack of correct findings by the Police, their inaccuracy and
brashness towards the Defendant. He said nothing regarding the collaboration
with the Media before the Charges, nor about monies being exchanged. He did not
refer to the Statement of the Prosecutor regarding the diaries that came into
play on the last days -- that these diaries were not helpful to the 'victim', as
they conceded to the fact that she admitted asking Mr. Kamm if she could have
his child.
At this stage the Transcript is not at hand, but when it is
it will be made available in this Release.
So what is the conclusion of all of this? Who is innocent and
who is guilty?
The first date Hearing is on the 2nd February at
the Wollongong District Court. We are waiting, also, for an explanation of
various discrepancies.
Update: 6 February 2004
ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC LETTER
In my release of the facts
behind the court case dated 1st January 2004, I mentioned that once
the Transcript of the 24th November 2003, came to me, I would make
the information available to the public.
On 27th
January 2004, I received the six-paged Transcript of the final conclusion from
the Committal Hearing made by His Worship, Magistrate David O'Connor. Nine weeks
passed before we received the Transcript, and to my surprise the most important
statement made by His Worship, was missing.
We arrived
in Court at 10am on the morning of the 24th November, 2003, and the
Magistrate's opening statement is as follows:
I have had no time to read the Transcript,
nor the Submissions given by the Defence Counsel, Mr. Greg Stanton, which
arrived in my Chambers on Wednesday, and the D.P.P.'s Submission, which was
handed in this morning. I therefore need to adjourn this Court Hearing until
12.30pm - then I will make a decision.
(The Transcript was 380 pages, and Mr.
Stanton's Submission was 36 pages, and the D.P.P's, six pages. Note: D.P.P.
refers to the Department of Public Prosecution)
All the above was missing in the Transcript
we received. When the Magistrate returned at 12.30pm, he then stated:
"I've had
time to read and consider the Submissions ..."
The fact that the first part did not appear
in the Transcript is misleading to the public, and is a miscarriage of justice
and truth. It indicates that the Magistrate had already studied the Case before
he came into Court, when in fact he said he had not.
In the further
deliberation of His worship's statement, he says: "There are two
series of alleged offences, some including complainant (one) -- and her sister
--
[Name Withheld]" Yet complainant one is not related to
complainant two.
Extracts from the Transcript -- page 384-85:
A Jury would have difficulty accepting
(one) as a totally credible witness because of motive and timing of her
complaints, the extortion letter in which she admits lying, and contradictions
and inconsistencies within her evidence.
Prior to giving evidence in Court she had
given an interview to television media - Channel 7 -- Channel 9, then made two
statements to Police. Her cross-examination has highlighted many (in)consistencies,
contradictions and confusion. She has admitted being in error.
She impressed me as a somewhat
inarticulate, but truthful witness. She readily admitted telling untruths. She
admits lies, and admits the purpose of the lies. There is nothing in her
demeanour or manner that causes me to doubt her creditability. I am of the view
that there is reasonable prospect a Jury would convict the defendant.
So far that
is all I can say about the Transcript. However, on the 2nd February,
as I appeared in court in Wollongong, my Defence Lawyers put to the court that a
challenge has now been issued in relation of the matter of the Transcript as
possibly being tampered with.
May the Truth be victorious!
Wishing all a Blessed 2004.
God Bless
[Signature]
William Kamm
Also known as 'The Little Pebble'
|
