On Friday, 21 March 2003, when Sef had spent almost a year in custody, his bail application was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Sydney. The courtroom was packed with about 40 people, including Emily Luna, who watched from the rear of the court as her nephew’s face filled a large video screen. With the technology now available, which enables an interactive video-link between courts and prisons, there is often no need for Department of Corrective Services staff to physically transport prisoners to court.
Sef Gonzales sat behind a desk in his dark green prison-issue tracksuit, watching as proceedings began. As well as the decision regarding his freedom, this would be the first time that the public would hear the Crown case outlining the motives for the crime, and details of the investigative tactics of Tawas detectives.
Representing the Crown was Mark Tedeschi, QC, Senior Crown Prosecutor, acting for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. His deadly legal oratory had helped claim the scalps of some of New South Wales’s most notorious criminals, among them the backpacker serial killer Ivan Milat, and Kathleen Folbigg, the woman convicted of the murder of three of her children and the manslaughter of a fourth. Tedeschi would be trying to keep Sef locked up until his trial.
On the other side of the bar table was Sef’s barrister Peter Kintominas.
Tedeschi began by talking about how Sef’s life had been unravelling — his faking of his grades and the break-up with Kathy Wu — and how Sef’s parents had threatened to cut him off. He painted the situation of a young man so desperate to regain control he was willing to kill his entire family. He spoke of Sef’s desire to get his hands on his family’s money.
Peter Kintominas argued vigorously and at length for his client, saying Sef had no reason to flee to the Philippines when he could be due to inherit a large amount of money. However, given the seriousness of the allegations against Sef, he was fighting an uphill battle.
In addition to these verbal arguments, Justice Whealey had been handed a number of statements to aid him in reaching a decision. There were statements from Emily Luna and Amelita Claridades arguing that Sef should remain in jail and, on the other hand, some statements of support for Sef from his friends and associates. More than anything, the statements by his family demonstrated that Sef had been cut off by his mother’s relatives.
Amelita stated that from the time of the murders she’d had her suspicions about who was responsible. ‘I suspected my grandson Sef Gonzales, who is the son of my daughter Mary,’ she’d told police.
‘Since the time I made my second statement to police on 18 September 2001, where I outlined my suspicions and feelings about Sef, I would say that my relationship with him has slowly deteriorated,’ her statement continued.
Amelita then went on to describe her fear of Sef.
‘Not long after the murders I started having concerns about Sef and fears for my safety. This was compounded by Sef continually telling me lies about his movements on the night of the murders. In conjunction with this I became the executor of the deceased estate. I knew at that time that Sef was interested in being given the property of the estate and this raised concerns for me. Upon being executor I became even more concerned for my safety as I knew how much Sef wanted to receive property from the estate.’
These fears were such that in late July 2001, a few weeks after the murders, Amelita fled her Collins Street home and moved to Melbourne. She later sold the North Ryde house, which has been knocked down and replaced by a massive brick construction much like the Gonzales home. But even though she lived in a unit in a different State, she told police, she still did not feel safe. (In fact, Amelita did not move back to Sydney until mid-2002, after Sef’s arrest.)
‘After moving to Melbourne in late July I felt a little safer although as I was living in the same street as one of my other daughters, I did not feel 100 per cent safe.
‘Sef is well aware of the address of my daughter living in Melbourne as his sister Clodine was residing with her up until the time she was murdered and Sef would often correspond with her through the mail.’
As a result of these fears, Amelita moved to another Melbourne suburb, to make sure she could not be traced by her clever grandson.
‘Due to these fears concerning Sef, and my knowledge of him being resourceful, I have not changed my address details from my old address for my bank accounts and Centrelink pension. I am reluctant to change my address details as I fear that Sef may attempt to identify my address and cause me harm.’
Amelita then referred to Sef’s abduction and the alarming veiled threat Sef had said he received about his grandmother — that his abductors had said they knew where his grandmother lived. Amelita said she was doubtful about the authenticity of Sef’s abduction report, and that her concern for her own safety increased because Sef had thrown in the reference to her when he reported the incident to police.
‘I take this statement to be an indirect message to me that Sef may do something to harm me, as I am the executor of the estate. During the previous eleven months or so since the murders, I am aware that Sef has inappropriately sold items from the estate and received large amounts of money. As such this demonstrates to me his desire to receive property from the estate.
‘Furthermore, I feel that Sef has mentioned this threat relating to my address during the abduction in order to cover for anything that may happen to me at a later time that he may be responsible for.’
Since Sef’s arrest, Amelita told police, her concerns for her safety had been somewhat relieved. However, she feared for herself and her relatives if he were released.
‘I am extremely concerned now Sef has been charged with the murders that, if released, he may attempt to cause harm to both myself and my daughter Emily, who is also involved in this investigation . . . I have concerns that if released Sef may cause harm to myself or other family members or even attempt to leave the country.’
She told police she believed prior to his arrest Sef may have been planning to leave the country with the money he gained from selling estate property.
‘I have previously had several conversations with Sef since the murders where he mentioned an intention to leave the country and travel to America. In different conversations Sef has mentioned that he wanted to visit family relatives and also to continue his father’s businesses in America. Sef does have a number of relatives in the United States and the Philippines. To the best of my knowledge, I think that the rest of Sef’s extended family is of the suspicion that he is responsible for the murder of his family.’
Amelita then said she feared that Sef would be further motivated to harm her by his wish for the estate property.
‘In relation to the estate and me being executor, a few months ago I appointed my son Joseph as the contact person for Sef’s legal representatives as I was feeling more and more pressured by them. The legal representatives have since been dealing with Joseph and I learned this week, on Thursday, 27 June 2002, from Joseph that Sef’s legal representatives are raising the question of who is going to pay for their fees.
‘I am not prepared for these costs to be absorbed by the estate and I am preparing an appropriate response for Joseph to tell Sef’s legal representatives. I feel that if Sef finds out that I am not allowing the estate to pay for his legal representation that he may have more motivation to cause me some harm.’
A statement made by Emily Luna was also tendered to the bail hearing. In Emily’s statement, she told of visiting her sister’s home at 6 pm on 10 July 2001, and how she had thought that Sef was home on the evening of the murders. She stated that she had informed police about her fears for her safety while Sef was still free in the community.
‘I am still in fear of him because if he murdered his family, then it would be nothing for him to harm my family or me.’
She stated that after the murders, she was too scared to sleep in her own home and stayed with her family in hotels. She and her husband then sold their house at North Ryde and moved to another, undisclosed location.
‘Since the murder my relationship with my husband has broken down and we are now separated. I believe that the murder of my sister, her husband and my niece in some way contributed to this breakdown. After my separation I moved to Melbourne to be with my mother who also moved away from Sydney. The reason I moved to Melbourne was so that I felt safe being in another State away from Sef.’ (Emily had moved away in March 2002 and came back in May 2002. During this period she stayed working for the same company, which allowed her to work from home while in Melbourne.)
Emily stated that she had moved back to Sydney for personal reasons, but had not wished to make this move due to her fears of Sef. However, since his arrest and detention her fears had subsided and she enjoyed being back in Sydney.
She also expressed concern that Sef might try to use estate money to leave Australia and change his identity.
‘Sef speaks Tagalog fluently and would have no problems surviving in the Philippines if he were able to get there.
‘After the murders Sef told me that he was planning on going to Hawaii to stay with a friend he has there. He told me that this friend would look after him and let him stay with him or her as long as he wanted. I have no idea who this friend is or where in Hawaii this friend lives.
‘I know through conversations with Sef that he uses the Internet a lot. Through this use he may have made friends with people living anywhere in the world and may have places to go and stay if he was able to leave Australia.’
Emily stated that Sef was aware of the location of her workplace, as he had been there to see her.
‘Prior to Sef being incarcerated, when leaving work I would ensure that I was not being followed by taking different routes home each afternoon and by leaving at different times. When driving I would also check to see if the same car was following me. Since the arrest of Sef I have been able to drive home without worrying that someone was following me.’
She said that after the murders, because she feared Sef, she had talked to her son about changing schools. (While in Melbourne she enrolled Gerard in a Victorian school, but once she returned to Sydney, he went back to his old school.)
‘I discussed this with him and he told me that he did not want to change schools. Due to the emotional trauma that Gerard had already gone through with the murders and later my marriage break-up with his father, I decided that it would be best to leave Gerard in the school he was in. To ensure his safety, I spoke with the school principal and advised her of my fears regarding Sef.
‘When I heard that Sef was abducted in May 2002 I instantly thought that Sef was becoming desperate and was now making up stories to prove his innocence. This abduction made my fears worse that my family or I may be harmed because of Sef’s desperation to prove that someone else was responsible for the murders of his family.’
Emily stated that since Sef’s arrest she had been able to resume her normal life and start to socialise again with friends. However, if he were released on bail, she would be in fear again that he might harm her or her family, so he would not have to go back to jail.
These statements, of course, were at odds with the picture painted of Sef by his supporters. Indeed, two of them were willing to bet their homes on the fact that Sef would not flee. Obviously, they were convinced of his innocence.
Vivian Raz and her husband Benjamin owned their home in West Pennant Hills outright. It was valued at $650,000. Vivian, who had known Sef since 1999 and had been Loiva’s friend, was willing to post bail for Sef for any amount up to $200,000, and use her home as security. She made a statement that she was willing to have Sef released into her custody, as she was aware there were concerns Sef would be a flight risk.
‘While the police made it clear from a very early stage that Sef was a suspect, he made no attempt to leave Sydney. Instead, he sought employment with the assistance of Father Paul Cahill of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish, Killara.
‘I believe that Sef is aware of his obligations to attend court as required. I was impressed by Sef’s commitment and his respect for the judicial system and his commitment to studying law and [to] follow in his late father[’s] footsteps.
‘I believe that Sef is prepared to attend court when required to prove his innocence and intends to strenuously defend the current charges against him. I therefore believe that Sef will attend court when required to, as he has shown his maturity and respect for the judicial system.’
Also willing to put up his house as security for Sef’s bail was Luis Chito Perez, a bank officer of Cherrybrook, and a friend of Vivian Raz. He owned the house outright with his wife, Teofila Perez. The house was valued at $530,000. Perez was willing to put up $50,000 for Sef’s bail against the net value of his property. He also attested to the fact he believed Sef would attend court when required.
Bernado David, Teddy’s lawyer friend, had also offered to let Sef stay in his home if granted bail. His wife, however, suspected deep down that Sef had something to do with the murders. Yet David did not want to offend his parish priest, Father Nards Mercene, who was influential in the Sydney Filipino community and had asked David to help. David was of the opinion that Sef probably would not get bail, so, unbeknown to his wife, he submitted a statement to the bail hearing.
‘As a legal practitioner, I fully understand the nature of the charges and my legal responsibilities in acting as a surety in relation to the bail undertaking. In the event of Sef Gonzales being granted bail in respect of the charges, I am prepared to provide him with accommodation at my home with my family and . . . on any terms as required by the court.’
David said he believed Sef would not flee Sydney if granted bail.
‘I believe that at all times since the deaths of his family, Sef Gonzales has maintained his innocence and sought the opportunity to be present to clear his name.’
David’s statement indicated belief in Sef.
‘Sef Gonzales’ father and I became very good friends and we frequently had lunch together and discussed our work and our families. Subsequently, we met socially as families. From my observations, I found the Gonzales family to be close, loving and strongly religious.
‘I first met Sef Gonzales in or around 1996 at his father’s legal practice. I understand that he was studying law and from time to time he would provide assistance in his father’s practice. I was particularly impressed by Sef’s commitment and his respect for the legal system.’
David said he had prepared a room at his house for Sef to use, in anticipation of a ‘favourable outcome’ to the bail hearing.
Catholic priest Father Paul Cahill, who since Sef’s arrest had visited him weekly in jail to offer support and comfort, gave a statement that he had known the Gonzales family from 1991 to 1995, when he was a parish priest at Chatswood and Sef Gonzales was one of his altar servers.
‘As parish priest, I got to know the family quite well, including Sef Gonzales who was a very bright and cheerful youngster. In or around 1995 the Gonzales family moved from Chatswood to Blacktown at which time I lost contact with them, although young Sef did call in once or twice when he was in Chatswood to tell us how he was doing in his new school.’
Around 1995, Father Cahill moved from Chatswood to Killara and lost contact with Sef and his family. He saw Sef on the television news in July 2001, in connection with the murder of his family.
‘I attended the funeral and went to the graveside with Sef and did my best to console and comfort him in his hour of sorrow. Afterwards I gave him my phone number and promised I would do what I could . . . to help him.’
Some weeks after the funeral, stated Father Cahill, Sef called him and asked a question to the effect of ‘Can I do some work in the church so that I can spend some quiet time working and praying?’ Father Cahill said that he gave Sef the job of cleaning part of the church so he could earn a little money to assist in paying his rent.
‘I also asked one of my friends if he could provide Sef with a couple of days a week work so that Sef would not have to go on social services which Sef wished to avoid.’
Father Cahill said Sef had always been a happy and enthusiastic boy, full of life. He retained this air after the murders, although he was more subdued now.
‘He is calm and accepting of the heavy cross he has to bear and he also realises that the police would naturally have to consider him as one of the suspects. He seems to have accepted this with some stoicism.
‘In all our discussions about the deaths of his family, Sef has maintained his innocence and has expressed to me his concern that the crime is fully investigated and that justice should prevail.’
Justice Anthony Whealey rejected the bail application, however. He found that there was too high a risk that Sef would flee if released into the community. Sef hung his head in despair at the decision. The prospect of remaining in jail appeared to have brought him to tears.
ON FRIDAY, 16 MAY 2003, another bombshell was dropped in the Gonzales case. Reporters knew that in addition to the three murder counts Sef had been charged in August 2002 with threatening product contamination. However, due to a suppression order, the media had been unable to publish the fact that Sef had been charged in relation to the matter, let alone refer to the alleged circumstances.
After a legal campaign led by the Daily Telegraph, Justice Michael Grove of the New South Wales Supreme Court lifted the suppression order and the media was free to publish. The charge related to the threatening letter received by the food and beverage company and copied to the Federal Police and Quarantine and Inspection Service. Police alleged that in the three weeks before the murders Sef Gonzales made anonymous threats against the company, saying he would contaminate the firm’s products.
Justice Michael Grove told the court this offence was allegedly committed so that Gonzales could deflect attention from himself and inhibit the successful investigation of an earlier attempt to kill the victims by poison. Reference was made to Loiva’s hospitalisation with food poisoning symptoms a short time before the murders.
The charge that the media could now report was that between 25 June and 7 July 2001, at North Ryde, Sef Gonzales ‘did make a statement believing the statement to be false with intent to induce a food and beverage company to believe goods had been contaminated’. It was alleged the statement was made with the ‘intention of causing public alarm and anxiety’.
Peter Kintominas had argued vehemently that the lifting of the order would prejudice his client’s ability to have a fair trial, due to the publicity it would attract. Kintominas said there was concern about his client’s case becoming a ‘cause célèbre’, in the Azaria Chamberlain and Ivan Milat class of matter. ‘People read about it, they talk about it, and they go on and on about it,’ he told the court.