November 4, 2007

Ms Kylie Starling Kamira Stacey Consulting Level 2, 50 York Street Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Ms Starling,

REDACTED

Thank you for your letter of 11th October, 2007, received by me on October 25th, in which you invite me to respond to a number of matters in "Annexure I" which you have attached.

I note that I now have received my first communication initiated by you, almost twelve months after being formally notified by the Diocese of Wollongong that this investigation was to take place and about nine months after I was informed by the Diocese that you had been appointed by them to investigate this matter. In your annexure you have included no matters about which I have not been previously notified- though in some, names have been added and some evidence improved. It is of some concern that, without the professional resources available to you and your principal, I am expected to reply in a time period of fifteen days, concerning matters alleged to have occurred fifteen years ago.

As you are now aware, I was surprised at the lack of earlier contact. I visited your office address, but was surprised to find that it was merely an answering service and mail collection centre shared with twenty or thirty other unrelated organizations. I then sought you phone number, but neither the current Telephone Directory nor Telstra Directory Assistance was able to supply anything under "Kamira Stacey Consulting" in Sydney.

1. Lack of Procedural Fairness in my not receiving your final repod When I did finally speak to you on July 20, 2007, you stated that you will not send me a copy of the report you make to the Diocese. This is unsatisfactory because the Diocese has a history of ryfy~~g ~q ~~leflse ~Of¥.1ation n~cessary to ensure procedural fairness to me. As I aJrea~y fUP a~are of'the persons who have initiated matters about me, I see no reason why I should not be sent. a copy of this report. If this does not happen, the Diocese can claim that it is acting on ai:l,vice from you but n1fuse to show me the your report. This is precisely what the Diocese did in

' . . ' ' .

the 1997 enquiry into the same matters. Unless it sends your report fully to the 01nbudsman, I will have no way of obtaining it and no way of ensuring that the tmth of these matters comes to light.

CTJH.001.03008.0028_R

This is of particular importance because the previous report- part of which I obtained after nine years of requesting it- contains what appears to be a falsification of evidence. This concerns, as I explained to you, the alleged "complaint" by a Mrs x. When I happened to visit Mrs x in 2007 (not concerning your investigation), she was surprised to read the claim that she had made an allegation; she states that she was canvassed by an official representing the Diocese to make a complaint, but refused to do so. In addition, she was surprised that internal matters aired in a supposedi.y confidential interview with a person who "worked for Catholic C~ntrecare Wollongong- possibly about family difficulties- had been exposed without her consent, used in a different context, and reconstituted as an "allegation".

2. Lack of Procedural Fairness in not being able to Question Witness against me. You stated at our telephone conversation that I was not to approach people who may have knowledge of matters in this investigation; when asked if this were a legal requirement, you seemed to say no; I note you have repeated this warning in your letter to me and I am still not sure of the legality of this; particularly as it seems to breach the legal principle that there is no property in a witness. You also stated in our conversation, that a reason for me not contacting persons concerned in this matter is that their mental state may not be robust. I find this is highly relevant to the supposed or actual allegations they have made: Their mental robustness, or lack of it, directly relates to the credibility with which their evidence should be accepted

However, it is my primary concern that, given what I have discovered by happening to speak with Mrs x, that ifl contacted other persons in this matter, I would discover further falsifications. I note that since I informed you of my discovery concerning Mrs x, her "allegation" has disappeared from your list: this is the only major change in the list of so-called allegations, comparing your list with that of the previous Diocesan enquiry.

The situation where you as the Diocese's agent are the only party to contact witnesses, makes the outcome of the investigation of little value and clearly breaches procedural fairness, even in principle. In the context that the only allegation I have checked, being found to be falsified, it is a most glaring breach of procedural fairness.

3. Your supposed "Independence" of the Diocese and Bishop of Wollongong. I would like to address your assertion that you are an "independent investigator". This is incorrect. You were appointed by the Diocese. You were briefed by the Diocese. You have worked in close collaboration with the Diocese, while not contacting me until now. In some cases, letters have been sent by the Diocese, where a reply is to be sent to you., indicating a close working relationship. You report only to the Diocese, not to me, and you have noted that I do not even receive a copy of your report. Significantly, you are paid by the Diocese. Any future work could come from the Diocese, not from me as an individual. I note that in other correspondence you are said by the Diocese to be "contracted" to them, and I believe there is no doubt that your position to the Diocese is Agent to Principal.

This is of particular importance because the Diocese, who is effectively conducting this investigation through your agency, has a long history of animus towards me. The legal case in 1996-97 was initiated by a Diocesan Official (not my accuser) contacting the police The

CTJH.001.03008.0029_R

Diocese's legal representative, apparently acting on instructions, made pejorative statements about my defense at the pretrial hearings. The Diocese was the only body to challenge subpoenas, and it challenged every one. CriticaI subpoenaed material was said to be unavailable, but was afterwards located by my defense team going directly to a Church employee. Officials of the Diocese made statements to the media designed to cast doubt on my innocence. A letter sent me py a prominent Wollongong layman details a compl.µnt of harassment by a Di9cesan official in attempting to have a person make an allegation against me. My assertion that the Diocese has an animus against me, is confirmed by two independent Church bodies: The Congregation for Clergy , a Roman dicastery, has noted this situation in both its Decision in my favor (December 21, 2000) and its rejection of the Appeal against this Decision by the Diocese (May 19, 2001). The Apostolic Signatura, the highest appeal court of the Catholic Church, overruled the Congregation on the grounds of the technicality tlmt a bishop cannot be ordered to give any priest a pastoral position, (July 20, 2006) but went out of its way to note that the conduct of the earlier Church investigation (which your investigation replicates) breached procedural fairness and notes that the way the then bishop conducted the investigation was "truly extraordinary".

4. Lack of Procedural Fairness in my not receiving Witness's Statements or Specific Allegations. I am concerned that any comments which I make on allegations where I have not received a witness statement, can be used to improve the evidence in the future. This is not just a theoretical concern: At the previous Diocesan enquiry, I was asked to give a response to a matter which was said to have happened "towards the end of 1994". My response was that I was not in Australia at this time. When I finally saw (part of) the Assessor's report to the Diocese some years later, the accusation had been altered by the Assessor to "towards the end of 1994, though it may have been earlier".

There seems to be no reason to justify not providing me with witness statements. The vagueness of several of these allegations, or the vagueness of the circumstances in which it is made (such as whether the person making it claims to be a witness or not, to whom the allegation if any were made, whether it was initiated by the complainer or a diocesan official or agent, whether any pressure or inducement was made, etc) is significant. The absence of witness statements which are duly signed, recorded, and therefore fixed to some extent, denies me procedural fairness.

5. Lack of Procedural Fairness in the Practical Impossibility of being found Blameless At our telephone conversion, you advised me that I would have the opportunity to comment on allegations. But in answer to a further question, you said to the effect that, no matter how many people present at an event which was the subject of an allegation, saw no wrongdoing nor observed any changed behavior which might indicate wrongdoing, this could never prove that it had not occurred.

Given your reply, I wonder, then, on what basis you will determine the likelihood that the allegations actually occurred. I have heard the expression "the balance of probabilities''. but it seems to me that this is never used in our legal system to determine guilt, and that in the context in which it may be used here, it is an extremely flexible, if not vague, yardstick. I would like to know if, in practice, there is any practical situation in which I could demonstrate my innocence.

CTJH.001.03008.0030_R

A subsidiary question would be what is the point of any response I make, from the point of view of any effect it would have on your report.

The lack of clear guidelines in this matter, and the practical impossibility of my establishing my innocence, denies me procedural fairness.

6. Lack of Procedural Fairness in Allegations not being Examined Rigorously and Separately There appear at first sight to be a considerable number of matters raised in your Annexure. A person unfamiliar with these matters could easily come to the conclusion that there must be some fire among this smoke. However, it is known for the lack of any convincing evidence in any matter, to be disguised by a multiplication in the number of matters. I believe this is known in some quarters as "targeting". A feature of the earlier report by assessors to the Diocese, which covers almost entirely the same matters, concludes by admitting that, for example, the evidence for allegation A is thin, but it is consistent with allegation B; later, the evidence for B is admitted to be unconvincing, but is said to be consistent with A. This sort of argumentation can be used to suggest that there is a pattern of behavior where none of the items mentioned has any convincing evidence.

This is one more reason why allegations must be in the form of specific and definite matters. The absence of this, is another example of lack of procedural fairness in this matter.

7. The Lack of Consistency of Treatment of Historical Allegations I would also like to raise the issue of consistency in examinations of possible repmiable conduct. I am lead to believe that a very senior Australian Church official, has never been subject to this process in spite of a serious allegation of criminal behavior towards a juvenile, made a few years ago; at the time, a judge found there was insufficient evidence to support the charge, as in my case before the District Court.

I understand that there is reason to believe that a number of priests and a larger number of teachers of my own diocese, some of whom have been convicted, others merely accused, have not been subject to this process. I wonder at the reason for this.

8. Lack of Consideration of Proven Character and Context I make he point that all of the matters ever raised in my regard, are alleged to have occurred between 1989 and 1994. It seems strange that in spite of the huge amount of publicity surrounding my case (much of it initiated by Diocesan officials, according to the Congregation for Clergy which judged this matter), no matters relating to any other period have appeared. Yet work with young people has been a part of my life over many years.

In 1981-83 I founded and directed Australia's first residential center for first-year country apprentices in Sydney. While in seminary, work with young people was part of many of my pastoral experiences. I worked in Youth and Community services, and other, residential facilities for young offenders, in seminary vacations. I was honorary Catholic chaplain at Minda Remand Centre for a year. From 1989 until 1994, I taught special religious education in

CTJH.001.03008.0031_R

state schools. In 1994 until 1996, I helped in various youth activities in the parish of St Lawrence under Fr F Macafee. From 1996 until 2000 I did some work with home schooling families in the Southern Highlands. Back in the United States, I worked in the largest Catholic Newman (university) center in the world, under Msgr S Swetland, whose references are flattering.

. . Although (except in 1981-83) these activities were always a minor part of my total work, it would be expected that a person who is inclined towards the sort of behavior of which I am accused, would attract accusations more consistently: Particular with the ease with which they could be made, both here and in the United States, over more recent years.

9. Lack of Procedural Fairness: The Role of the Ombudsman's Office. My understanding is that the Ombudsman's Office was originally established in order to ensure that ordinary citizens' rights were protected against large government and other organizations whose disproportionate resources might allow them to unfairly treat these ordinary citizens.

It is ironic that in this case where a comparatively very wealthy diocese with effectively unlimited resources is acting against me, the Ombudsman's Office seems to be on the opposite side. The diocese has been criticized by various of its supervising authorities in Rome for the conduct of its dealings with me. The Ombudsman's Office has refused my requests to conduct this enquiry itself. It believes that the Diocese, which has displayed an animus against me, and been criticized by its supervisory authorities for doing so, is a suitable body to conduct a fair enqub.y.

My written and spoken approaches to the Ombudsman's Office have brought no more helpful suggestion than that any worries I have, can be raised with yourself, the agent of the Diocese.

I suggest that in these circumstances, any finding by the Diocese against me, is of no moral value and would be unlikely to survive judicial review.

10. An Explanation of Summer Safaris/Winter Diocesan Altar Servers' Camps, and the Issue raised Several Times in regard to Procedures for Showering The arrangements for personal hygiene seem to be of particular interest. Summer Safaris/Winter Altar Servers' Camps were a highly successful system of leadership training which aimed to capitalize on the desire of teenage boys and girls to demonstrate their determination in the Australian bush. Their ultimate aim was to produce well-rounded Catholic leaders, strong of character and well instructed in their Faith. From a start in 1987, the numbers attending increased every year in which I was in charge: This indicates that children and parents were happy with the program. In all, over 800 children attended in the time I was in charge. Pre-Safari meetings were held for parents and follow-up visits to the participants' homes during the year.

Leaders for Summer Safaris were personally chosen (there was no general call for leaders) from among University and seminary students, young teachers etc, of exceptional character, demonstrated leadership qualities, appeal to young people, and commitment to the Catholic

CTJH.001.03008.0032_R

Faith. They were expected to be role models for the group of boys or girls in their care and were trained in advance.

Similarly, all procedures were planned and rehearsed to ensure the Safaris ran smoothly and safely. Ve1y successful short and long-term results were achieved. fu every case, the activities were approved. by the Bishop and a repqrt was given to him at th~ conclusion of each activjty. · Nonetheless, I was aware that there was dislike of the success of this program in some quarters.

In a primitive environment, health and safety are most important, particularly with a group of children together. Among our management, we had people who had experience with Department of Youth and Community Services, the Sydney City Mission Wilderness Program, Boy and Girl Scouts of America, and a member of the Premier's Advisory Committee on Youth Affairs. There was also consultation with a medical practitioner and other professionals.

Participants were required to shower daily. As in boarding schools (eg: St Joseph's College Hunters Hill, the largest boarding school in Australia), boys were required to remove clothlng and shower diligently. As in boarding schools, they were supervised to ensure they did so and that no dangerous skylarking broke out; on the activities I conducted, at least two supervisors were always present.. Where communal showers were not available, the system was to use the river and to do so at twilight, after the evening meal, to avoid embarrassment to anyone who might feel so, though very few exhibited any difficulty in his regard. If I were · not returning to my parish, I would shower after the boys; it was possible they could have on occasion vaguely seen me naked; I did not and I do not regard this as a problem. I believe in modesty, not pmdery. Anyone who has difficulty with this should perhaps read the "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul Il.

I am sorry if this arrangement caused discomfort to anyone, but the alternatives available were evaluated and found likely to cause much more harm. I note that well under 1 % of participants have registered any sign of being put out, which compares favorably with almost every other aspe·ct of the activities.

The results of negligence in this area was shown to me while working as a Youth Worker at the Sydney City Mission's Wilderness Program: In spite of having a fixed camp site with running water, the Program was in danger of closing in Summer because of boils and other skin illnesses caused by lack of personal hygiene, which hospitalized staff and participants; among measures to combat this, the Mission's management introduced closer supervision of showering.

It is possible that supervisors, concerned for the welfare of boys, would have asked them to wash with more enthusiasm, or to wash both sides of their bodies. Certainly, there was no touching off BH lor any other child while they were showering. The idea of leaders being asked to touch the boys' genitals is absurd.

It was not just in showering that high standards of cleanliness were set. The participants were required to bring a spare set of clothes and to do washing at the mid point of the camp. Hygiene standards in the preparation of food and in washing up, were also unusually high. Care was

CTJH.001.03008.0033_R

taken that participants did not get excessive sun exposure or heat-related difficulties. Purification of drinking water was continually investigated and improved.

The results in terms of preventing illnesses which are a huge possibility on such activities, were not perfect; but I believe they compare very favorably with similar activities organized by schools ap.d other groups. A num~er of children with specii!1 medical conditions, suq;essfully completed the Safaris/Camps. These aspects have never received the same attention, interest or comment.

Summer Safar/Winter Altar Servers' Camp leaders were chosen for their integrity. They have subsequently succeeded in career areas like the clergy, teaching, the police force, medicine, etc. What conspiracy theory suggests that so many people of undoubted integrity participated in, and suppressed reporting of, improper behavior?

11. Initial Responses to the Allegations Made: Note: Throughout the Annexure, you have used the spelling "Mt Kosciusko". Since 1997, the correct spelling has been "Mt Kosciuzko". I presume that this indicates that you have copied details of places, times and numbers concerning Summer Safari/Winter Altar Servers' Camps from my reports to the Bishop, obviously made before 1997, and supplied to you by the Diocese. I trust that you do not reproduce these details in an attempt to suggest that persons making allegations, were able to supply more detailed accounts than was the case.

Allegation 1

These matters were the subject of a charge against me of May 1, 1996. I denied the accusation and agreed to a police interview, without the assistance of a lawyer, and fully answered all question put to me, with the exception of one asking me the motivation of my accuser, which as I said, I felt incompetent to answer.

At the Wollongong Local Court, where I had agreed to have this matter initially heard by a magistrate, I was found guilty. The magistrate states that he based his finding on the fact that my accuser had suddenly stopped serving Mass at a particular time; I had from the initial police interview denied that my accuser had ever been a Dapto altar server, and it is significant that the accusor was unable to correctly name the Dapto parish priest of the time, the times of Sunday Mass or the names of even one other boy he would have served with.

I had an automatic right of appeal to the District Court. There I was found not guilty in a trial set down for ten days (because I had prepared about sixty witnesses on matters of fact), but which ended without my having to call a single witnesses, because the prosecution case became confused and contradicto1y. The newspaper report noted that the prosecution case fell apart like a house of cards. Judge Phelan gave a list of reasons why he had found in my favor, though the Diocese and other Church officials have misrepresented this judgment.

CTJH.001.03008.0034_R

I suggest you refer to Judge Phelan' s judgment for some of the reasons why IABA ~---~

assertions are untenable; it should be borne in mind that many others were not brought forward because it was unnecessary to present a defense case. I do not have the resources to reproduce them here. Frankly, I am surprised that a matter fully examined by the competent legal channels is now being retried for a third (or fourth) time.

Allegation 4d

At my police interview and at trial, I clearly stated that I slept in the same room not the same bed, as my accuser and his brother. At neither location was there a double bed. The accusation that we all slept in the same bed comes entirely from the prosecution. This was a matter of considerable questioning before the District Court and in his judgment, Judge Phelan suggests that three people fitting in a normal single bed would have been unlikely. The Diocese has continued to make the suggestion that we slept in the same bed.

In the District Court judgment, Judge Phelan suggests that it was imprudent of me to sleep "with" the two boys, by which, given the clear context of his comments in the same judgment that we could not have slept in the same bed, means in the same room. But he notes that the parents were told of it at the time and found it unremarkable, and that the parents had put me to sleep "with" (meaning in the same room) as the two boys when on two occasions I had had to stay ovemight in the family home due to inclement weatheJ;".

Given the changed social situation since 1991, and my own prosecution, of course I would never sleep in the same room as minors. However it is significant to bear in mind that the [iJj•f@ family were never parishioners of mine, I knew them before becoming a priest, and as ah·eady stated by Judge Phelan, the sleeping arrangement at the time was considered normal by the -parents.

Allegation 2

I deny this allegation.

This accusation was included in the earlier investigation, carried out for the Diocese in 1998. It is described there as an allegation which has not been made, but could be made. No details were given at that time, none appear in any Diocesan files I have seen, and the evidence seems to have improved considerably since that time.

Any person who believes he/she has evidence of a serious crime such as the one described, having occuned, has a duty to report the matter to the police. If any person really believes they have such evidence, they should be advised to take this course of action, or otherwise to withdraw it. I suggest that you or the Diocese should also have them advised of their legal position in having published an allegation of a serious crime, other than to the police: Presupposing, of course, that anyone has actually made such an allegation.

CTJH.001.03008.0035_R

I have no further comment to make here and I am surprised that this suggestion is being made in this forum, though in an appropriate place I would be glad to bring fo1ward a considerable body of evidence.

Allegation 3

I deny this allegation.

My understanding is that this allegation was originally made in about 1993 to a NSW Youth and Community Services person by Mrsr-BQ I and/or ~BP I This action was threatened to me by a person who knew the family, who I had removed from teaching religion in a state school. It was put to me by the NSW Church person in charge of these matters and I denied it immediately and gave information to suggest why it was incredible; my understanding is that this official conveyed this to the government official, who took no further action. The matter resurfaced in the 1997 investigation carried out by the Diocese through its agent and I again denied it and offered to be interviewed I received a letter saying that they had decided not to interview me.

The unnamed child did indeed suffer a broken leg and with his parent's permission, stayed on the camp for the remaining six days. As he was plastered from groin to toe, it was necessary for staff, including myself, to provide assistance at various times. This was always done in the presence of at least two staff and the many children. He was capable of washing everything but the lower half of his leg and so I could not even incidentally and unintentionally touched his genitals.

The unnamed child returned to eve1y Summer Safari camp for which he was eligible- another three camps over the next three years. He was always friendly and I believe the prompt medical attention he was given, and the care with which he was treated for the rest of the camp, was greatly appreciated.

If I am provided with more specific information (eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply

Allegation 4a-4b and 4i

I deny the allegation.

My understanding is that this allegation was never made by f BO I or his cousin, and possibly not Mrs~E f if it was made by her (not a witness to any of the alleged events), it was only er bemg specifically approached and possibly pressured; or that the allegation may have been reconstituted from. material she provided to officials of Wollongong

CTJH.001.03008.0036_R

Catholic Centrecare while having counseling for an unrelated matter, in which she expressed fears or anxieties, which were rephrased to give an impression of facts.

I was present on a Confirmation Camp organized by St Paul's School Moss Vale in 1989. Present were the parish pastor, several teachers and perhaps half a dozen parents, as well as the sixth grade, perhaps twenty-five children. I did not have any contact alone with any child, was absent for part of the two day activity, and gave one group talk on connilltment to the Catholic Faith. All supervision was provided by the school staff.

I did not tell r-so I the "facts oflife", or in later years engage in any "competition" It is possible that he saw my penis while using a public urinal etc, but I did nothing to facilitate this.

I continued to se~ABD I when transferred away from Moss Vale; he visited with a friend of his and came on one Summer Safari. However as I became more busy at Dapto in the early nineties, I saw less and less of him and his mother; this was particularly as a another adult friend of his mother, who lived closer, took an interest in him. Unfortunately, the relationship was not good for jABD land he was found dead of a drug overdose in the home of this adult friend.

I was unable to attend his funeral but wrote to Mr¥BE I; this was just after I had been charged by police in 1996, and she wished me well in demonstrating my innocence.

If I am provided with more specific information (eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply

Allegation 4c

I deny this accusation.

I note that this accusation was in the earlier Diocesan Investigation. It still has the same level of vagueness, giving no location, no specific activity, no persons who were present and no time frame, other than "most likely in 1990".

If I am provided with more specific information ( eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply

~llegations 4e and 4m iv

I deny any wrongdoing in this regard.

The inference of 4ei seems to be that I caused distress and embarrassment to~BK ~· I believe he showed no signs of this during any activity I was supervising; if the complainant

CTJH.001.03008.0037_R

nominated supervisors and participants present at the time, there would be the possibility of verifying the matter, or not. There were always two supervisors present. I also believe . that he indicated no changed attitude to me in subsequent years.

In my 1997 appearance, I called IABI las a witness to my district court appearance. I would be unlikely to do this had these ev~nts occurred. In addition,_ though I saw little of jABK I

01jABI I after leaving Dapto in 1994, I kept contact until at least 2002 with a close friend of the l;J@•f@boys; this person often referred to fBI land ~ with no indication that they had ever expressed any dislike of me.

Wrestling matches were held on Altar Servers' Camps. I was never a participant, though I did referee and keep records. Participation was voluntaty.

At the hall at Canben-a, on one occasion, I believe boys did have a "cold shower competition", in which the longest to stay under, wins. This is a well-known activity among teenage boys as a proof of their toughness. I may have triggered this earlier by telling the story of an apprentice I had known who had done so for 45 minutes in Winter. There was no prize offered.

At Canberra, I did not shower in front of~BK I· I showered after the boys were finished and had returned to the main part of the hall. As the showers were adjacent to the toilets, it is possible that fBK I returned to use the toilets, retrieve some item or for some other reason, and may have seen me showering. He recorded no distress then or later to me, or as far as I know to other children, leaders or his parents.

I am not sure of the significance of the suggestion that I ticked f~B_I ---~Ito wake him up.

If I am provided with more specific information (eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply.

Allegation 4fi-iv, 4gi-il ,4h ii, 4j i, 4k i-ii, 4k v, 4m i-iii

I deny any wrongdoing. Section 9 (above) should be consulted regarding these matters. As I think I state there, belief that something improper was happening in the view of leaders of undoubted integrity, who have since maintained a conspiracy of silence, is fantastic.

If I am provided with more specific information (eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply .

. Allegations 4fv and 4g iv

I deny any wrongdoing in this regard.

CTJH.001.03008.0038_R

On one occasion I am aware of, someone hid someone's towel while they were showering. The person covered himself with a soap container and went.to his clothes in a way which caused laughter among everyone who saw it, including myself. The incident latest a few seconds. I am not sure what else was expected to do and would be interested to hear of a range of suggestions. I make no apology for my actions in this matter though I am not confirming the incident as related in the allegations.

If I am provided with more specific information ( eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply.

Allegation 4 fvi-vii, 4 g v, 4j ii, 4 j iii, 4m vii

I deny any wrongdoing in this regard.

The talk on the seven deadly sins was given to the whole group and not given by me. I am not sure of the point being made in 4 j ii; perhaps I was answering questions. The matters would have been normal Catholic morality relevant to the age of the participants, as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As part of the program, each participant had two personal talks with his/her leader and generally one talk with me. The one-to-one talks lasted about ten minutes and though there was a check list to get conversation going, where the talks went, was largely up to the participant. It seems that if these allegations have any substance, about two or three of the 800 involved, claim to have not enjoyed the experience. Many more did, and the increasing numbers of participants and man.y personai thanks and letters, attest to this.

My success in pastoral work, not only in Australia, but in the United States, iudicates that I am respectful and discreet in talking personally. Two references from Msgr Swetland, head of the biggest Catholic University Newman Center in the world, further attests to this.

If I am provided with more specific information ( eg: tin1e, pi ace, acti:vit)', pcrso11s present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply.

Allegation 4h i

I deny any wrongdoing in this regard.

There were no plastic curtains iu the communal showers at Wooglemai camping center.

If I am provided with more specific iufonnation ( eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply.

CTJH.001.03008.0039_R

Allegation 4k iii and 4k iv

I deny any wrongdoing in this regard.

f BH ~ttended one Summer Safari. He was from the my parish of Dapto but neither he nor his mother- a member of the executive teaching staff at Stella Maris school, Shellharbour, attended Mass. I am not sure of the family situation.

In any case, ~ad a difficult time on the camp from other boys. He had transferred schools and seemed ~e poor social skills.

When I was charged on May I, 19%, ~8H I I and Mrs ~ were the only people to approach police to offer collaboration. ~'s statement (of c~as provided with a copy) was internally inconsistent. It did include similar matters to those in your 4 k. I deny touching his leg. I did try to discuss the problems he presented, at the normal talk which everyone had available: In~' s statement to police, he says that after a game of cricket, I put my hand on bis shoulders and he thought he was going to be sexually assaulted and walked away; he also says something to the effect that other boys on the camp said he had left his old school because he was gay.

Obviously teenagers who get to know and trust priests may ask all sorts of questions; I have been asked something similar to what ~claims I told him. However the question would have to be initiated by the participant. Perhaps some participant who had asked me something similar, then discussed the answer and f BH I heard it

~· s statement to police was such that in spite of the paucity of evidence against me, the Public Prosecutor decided not to use ~as a witness. I was not surprised.

If I am provided with more specific information ( eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply.

Allegation 4g iii, 41, 4m v

I deny any \vrongdoing in this regard.

I did not go swimming nude on this or any other activity organized for children.

MrsfBM f.ade her claim to the police at Dapto within hours of the press, radio and television announcmg my arrest on May 2, 1996.

CTJH.001.03008.0040_R

Mrs r-sM rs statement, which made the claims you have reproduced, was not used by the Office of Public Prosecution. Ibis was probably because she was not on the activity mentioned and neither her son, then about twenty years old, or any of the other ·I 7 year olds who attended the short replacement leaders training camp, would collaborate her story.

There was no such competition. Her story may have started at something her son said to wind her up, in my presence. Mrs r-sM I developed something of a specialty in spreading nasty rumors about me. In March or April of 1996, I went to see her to ask why she did this, given that I had done nothing but good to her family. She was irrational, claiming that~was nov,, gay and it was because I must have abused him. In fact, ~never showed the slightest sign of this affliction. When she was not willing to be convinced of this, I suggested she ask him if I had ever done anything wrong to him: She replied that she had, as had his father; he hatl replieJ. no, but that was only because he was macho. At this point, I felt that her condition was beyond my competence.

If I am provided with more specific information ( eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply.

Allegation 4m vi

I deny any wrongdoing in this regard.

The only time when a Winter Altar Servers Camp was divided was to take the older boys on a five-hour hike while the younger boys did other activities. There were a number of leaders v,iith each group. I do not deem "dirty jokes" to be appropriate to any age, and I have little doubt that the other leaders would have the same approach. Again, this allegation seems to rest on the theory that there is a conspiracy by men of the highest integrity (the leaders), to hide wrongdoing over a period of many years.

If I am provided with more specific information (eg: time~ place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place where the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply.

Allegation 4n

I deny that this event occuned.

Given the vagueness of this allegation, I can make no more specific comment, nor offer any more evidence for its falsity. If I am provided with more specific information (eg: time, place, activity, persons present, whether the person making the allegation was present, time and place -;,vhcrc the allegation was first made, etc), I can no doubt provide a more detailed reply. ·

CTJH.001.03008.0041_R

I am happy to meet with you at a convenient time for the interview you have requested. I note that you will provide for the meeting to be recorded and for me to receive a copy at the conclusion of the meeting.

Yours sincerely,

,.:::P- TG-~v/~ Fr JG Nestor.

CTJH.001.03008.0042_R