The next day, Kathy Wu took the witness stand. Before she was asked anything, she asked if an order suppressing her real name had been granted. The magistrate assured her it had. She was then questioned briefly by the prosecution about her twelve-page statement to police made on 26 July 2001, which outlined her relationship with Sef.
When Philip Massey, in cross-examination, began to ask a question, Kathy Wu cut in, saying she had signed the statement but couldn’t really recall its contents. Massey asked if it was basically correct, and she said some of it was.
MASSEY: Right, which parts aren’t correct?
WU: Which are or aren’t?
MASSEY: Which aren’t. I’m assuming that the number that aren’t correct is less than the number that are correct, or is it the other way around?
WU: Most of it’s correct.
MASSEY: Most of it, so, which ones aren’t correct?
WU: I think the date in paragraph 11 [referring to the paragraph in her statement that says 24 June, when she in fact meant it was 24 May when she met Sef at his house and he took her out for dinner].
MASSEY: What else is in there that’s not correct?
WU: In paragraph 14, I don’t recall kissing him [when they visited the grounds of the University of New South Wales].
MASSEY: When you say you don’t recall, you say in your statement: ‘And I may have — and we . . . may have kissed each other.’
WU: Yes, I may have, so I don’t recall —
MASSEY: So you may have?
WU: In fact I don’t recall most of the things in this statement, it was so long ago.
MASSEY: But if you made the statement at the time, which was within a month of most of these events or two months —
WU: Yes.
MASSEY: Of most of these events, would you agree that your memory probably would have been better [back then]?
WU: Probably would have been, but as I said I was there [in the police station, making her statement] for the whole day. I was really tired and I was hungry and all I wanted to do was go home. So when I signed the statement I just basically signed it and I trusted the inspector had, you know, written what I had told him, and —
Under further questioning, she continued not to recall aspects of her statement.
MASSEY: What else in there, do you think, is not correct?
WU: I can’t really say because, as I said, I really don’t recall most of this.
MASSEY: Now, if I suggested to you that the difficulties in your memory may arise probably [because of ] the publicity that’s involved in this, what would you say about that?
WU: What do you mean?
MASSEY: The publicity involved in this matter. That you don’t want to be involved in this matter. What would you say about that?
WU: No, I don’t remember, because it was more than two years ago.
Wu went on to say that although she couldn’t recall most of her statement, there were only those previously mentioned two things that stood out as being incorrect. They first met on 14 May. After that they exchanged e-mails before going out several times to dinner or for lunch. The first time she actually went out with Sef was 22 May — eight days after they first met. They broke up on 1 June.
MASSEY: So the relationship extended really in the sense of personal contact, other than e-mails and telephones, only from 22 May till about 1 June, only about ten days?
WU: I suppose.
MASSEY: During that time, when you were speaking with him or e-mailing him or even having dinner with him, or lunch, did he speak about his parents?
WU: Only that his parents had a law firm and his sister studies interstate.
MASSEY: Was there anything more extensive than that, in your conversation with him in regard to his parents?
WU: I don’t recall.
MASSEY: Did you have a conversation with him regarding his parents and his relationship with you?
WU: No, never.
MASSEY: Now when you met his mother, how was she with you?
WU: She was washing her dog, so she didn’t really pay much attention to me.
MASSEY: Did she speak to you at all?
WU: She said hello.
MASSEY: And how did she say that, can you remember?
WU: No, I don’t recall.
MASSEY: But it was basically, would you agree with this proposition, that Sef took you in to meet his mum, she said hello, and he took you out to dinner?
WU: Yeah.
MASSEY: That was basically it?
WU: Yeah.
MASSEY: She certainly didn’t — she wasn’t angry with —
WU: No, she was washing her dog.
MASSEY: She was washing her dog and she didn’t seem concerned about you, from what you could perceive?
WU: I don’t recall.
MASSEY: When you say you don’t recall, is that because she didn’t seem concerned?
WU: I don’t think so. She was busy with her dog, as I said.
MASSEY: Did you have any physical contact with his mother?
WU: Physical?
MASSEY: Yeah. Did she give you a kiss on the cheek or something like that?
WU: I don’t recall.
Kathy Wu was dismissed from the stand and fled the court building, hiding her face as she was pursued by media crews.
The next witness that day was Patricia Tonel, Teddy Gonzales’ secretary, who was in the office on the day of the murders. In her original statement to police on 11 July 2001 she said that Sef arrived at the office at 10.50 am and left about midday. But her statement of 1 February 2002 said he would have left about 3 pm. Tonel admitted in court to being incorrect about the times in the first statement and said Sef arrived at the office at about l.30 pm. There were only Teddy, Loiva and herself in the office that morning, and no clients visited.
MASSEY: And you say in your statement of 1 February that he left around three o’clock, but you’re not sure?
TONEL: Yes.
MASSEY: Could it have been as late as 4.30 [pm]?
TONEL: I’m not sure but I think he left earlier than that.
MASSEY: Right, but you’re not sure about three o’clock either?
TONEL: No.
Sef arrived at the office after Tonel got back from lunch. She said she usually went to lunch about 12.30 pm, and was out of the office for around 45 minutes. Teddy and Loiva were the only people in the office when Tonel left. After Sef arrived, he had a number of conversations with his father. Sef called a bank, something to do with a client, and Tonel heard him on the phone doing this.
MASSEY: Right, but none of this was — would you say that any of the reactions between Mr [Sef ] Gonzales and his father [were] in an angry way that day?
TONEL: No.
MASSEY: So there were no raised voices?
TONEL: No.
MASSEY: What about his mother, was there any —
TONEL: No.
MASSEY: So what, were they just like normal?
TONEL: Yes, I think, yeah.
MASSEY: You said in your statement that you don’t recall him kissing his mother goodbye that day?
TONEL: No. I remember him kissing his mother when he got there but not when he left.
Tonel conceded that maybe Sef had done so, and she might not have seen it. She said at some stage after Sef arrived at the office he was fixing a computer for about ten minutes. He took out the central processing unit and was going to take it somewhere to be repaired. Sef probably did this about fifteen minutes after his arrival.
He took the computer outside, possibly to his car, and came back and rang a bank. A man from a computer shop rang and spoke to Loiva. Sef was gone for about fifteen to twenty minutes. He returned and then went into his father’s office and Teddy gave him a file to take to the bank.
Next Huggett commenced her re-examination.
HUGGETT: Ms Tonel, you were asked the following question. The answer, if you just listen for one moment, the question was could he, could Sef have left around 4.30 [pm] and you answered: ‘Not sure, I think earlier than that.’ How much earlier do you think it could have been that Sef left?
TONEL: Probably an hour earlier.
HUGGETT: Than 4.30?
TONEL: Yeah.
ON THE THURSDAY morning, without preamble, Magistrate Sweeney gave her ruling. She found there was a ‘reasonable prospect’ that a jury would convict Sef Gonzales. ‘The evidence . . . is sufficient to prove the . . . charges beyond a reasonable doubt,’ Magistrate Sweeney said.
She asked Sef whether he had anything to say to the court, to which he replied: ‘No, Your Worship.’
Every day of the committal so far, Father Cahill had sat behind Sef in the dock offering him encouraging smiles whenever he turned around. This day, however, he was absent, on the understanding of Sef’s legal counsel that the court would be closed all day to hear the evidence of the undercover police officer, ‘Leo’. Massey had not expected the hearing to wrap up so quickly.
Only a few media representatives filled the seats behind the dock. So Sef turned around and gave the media a nod and a brief smile, before he was led from the court.