Some Answers Ahead of Time Before a Q & A.

By Erin K. Costello

Transcription of “My Statement” Uploaded to YouTube channel Without A Crystal Ball October 26, 2020, along with responses in hopes it clears a few things up.

“I’m just going to wait for a few of you guys I have a statement I’m going to make.
I’m turning off comments because this is serious. This will, um a similar video like this will be shared on my YouTube. This will be my only public statement on this. I will not be repeating this.
This was the first of three videos she has made so far about this.

Alright. It has come to my attention that on October 25, a heavily redacted copy of a police investigation that involved me as a victim of a crime was published online and on YouTube. Well I have made, while I have made some details of this case public and this crime public, I have never relayed all of the details of this crime, nor of the investigation.
After reading her statement to the responding officer on April 24, 2007, and seeing her videos in the beginning of September 2020, I can say without a doubt that she revealed the all details of the crime, and much of the investigation. The way MN privacy law works is this records request never would have been granted using her name. She provided all the necessary information to obtain this report without needing to use her name.

---

According to the police department that was involved in releasing this information along with the investigation, they’ve assured me that this was a heavily redacted report that did not contain any of my identifying information. Sentences of this report were removed and any identifying information including my name, date of birth, or my accounts were removed from this. Pages were marketed out I was told. I was also told that publication of this would not prevent or present the full story to the public nor give any details or um.. the public would not be able to make make a valid opinion based on how heavily redacted this was.
It is true that all her information was redacted. Her name, DOB, address, witnesses names, any and all identifying information was in fact redacted. Maybe one or two sentences were redacted but even then it wasn’t the whole sentence. Pages had a few small marks on them but pages were not marked out. Her account was not at all redacted. Only when identifying information was said was there a redaction for that bit of information. Her entire account of what happened though is quite visible.
Anyone can still make an opinion on what’s in the case file. I personally don’t think there’s enough information to cause an opinion based on what happened, but not because of redaction. Just because there isn’t enough info period.

---

2:10
Despite those redactions and despite the fact that under the law I was protected as the victim of this crime, on October 25, two individuals published these documents then while publicly outing me as the victim in these crimes.
Her identity in these reports remains redacted and hidden. She was protected. WE did not out her as a victim of sexual assault on April 22. 2007 in her home allegedly by a man name Nick Kozlak. SHE OUTED HERSELF AS such victim numerous times over the years and on several platforms, most recently in early September 2020 in tweets, IG and Facebook posts, and several YouTube videos.

---

This was done with the intention, I believe, to mislead the public that I have lied about the crime and have made inconsistent statements over the years.
NEVER have myself or anyone I have publicly discussed this with suggested or accused her of lying about this crime. I BELIEVE HER. I believe her entire statement made in April 24, 2007, minus the being drugged part since lab results suggest otherwise. I believe everything thing else that she reported though.
What I don’t believe is her new narrative of the accounts in question that she has been claiming since 2017. I mean, in her report she said she drove herself to the hospital the next day at about 4:30 pm. She explained to the officer how she waited until she felt sober enough to drive. Yet just a day or two ago she tweeted that her mom drove her to the ER. Yet in blog posts made in 2018 she said she drove herself.
Originally, the only claims I didn’t believe were the accusations she made against the investigative officer and the police dept. However, in September 2020, she suddenly revealed what police dept this was and named the investigative officer. It was after she did this I was able to look into her claims against the officer and dept. I had no interest in learning more about her assault. Only what went on between she and the officer. Katie mentioned the detective set up and turned on a video camera for their interview, the interview she claims he said all those horrible things to her. I was just hoping to obtain the video. That is not public information though due to sensitive content. BUT, Katie can request the video since she is the victim. She could prove her allegations against this officer by doing so, assuming her allegations were correct.
  Though the video was not released, the rest of the case file was released. ONLY THEN did I learn that her many claims have changed. I BELIEVE HER REPORT. But no one can believe her initial report and believe the shit she has said since then without believing different facts and stories simultaneously. So I believe her report she gave to police in 2007. What I’m suggesting she’s lying about is the shit she’s said since 2017.

---

Despite the claims by these publishers there is no truth to the fact that I’ve lied about what happened to me on April 22, 2007. In the 13 years since I’ve filed the report the primary details of my assault and my story have not changed.
This is true. Primary details of her assault have not changed. Though there aren’t many primary details. She herself says she was unconscious and “had no story” about her assault. Regardless, the little bit of details she does have about her assault have not changed.

---

Some things that may have changed, or may have been foggy are my timeline and that was because I was given a drug which rendered me unconscious and also fogged up my memory. Some things like not remembering full timelines not remembering exact times of when I arrived or left or when I woke up may have changed.
Actually, she has almost the same timeline today as she did in 2007. She recalled pretty well when she left the party and went to her house, both in 2007 and now. She also recalled the time she woke up the same in 2007 and today, though her math sucks when she says she slept for twice as long as her timeline suggests, and she hasn’t changed the time she went to the ER. She did get the day wrong on when she called the cops though. She has since changed other information between 2007 and today, but the timeline has stayed pretty much the same.

---

But at the end of the day, my story has not. The assertion by these publishers that I have fabricated this story to gain sympathy or that I made this to this assault or I made up this assault are both baseless and defamatory.
No one involved with this “publication” as she puts it has ever made this claim or even suggestion. We did say that we think she decided to share her story when she did for alternative reasons, but not that she made it up. WE BELIEVE HER STORY, HER ORIGINAL STORY.

---

The police involved in this investigation have assured me that my identity and much of my identifying information along with my account were redacted and this would not provide the full context to anyone that would publish this report. Moreover, the publishing of private redacted information while outing the name of a victim is a crime under the civil law invasion of privacy public disclosure of private facts.
 I as a person do not owe Katie any legal responsibility to keep information private. I am not an agency, a police dept, a records dept, I am not even a resident in MN let alone someone or something that is legally bound by MN data privacy. The information I received is public information. That being said, I never would’ve revealed Katie as the victim if she hadn’t first done this herself in several tweets, posts, and videos in September 2020, as well as other public posts and such in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Also, she could’ve denied it was her in this report if she wanted to. She didn’t. She confirmed this was her.

---

3:54
The publishing of these documents, I believe, was done with the not with the intent to bring light to this issue but rather to shame and humiliate a victim of a crime by taking their account into question which has led me to receiving emails and messages messages on all of my platforms calling me a liar.
I have no doubt Katie feels like this was a violation. I am sorry that she feels this way. I never wanted her to feel violated, or to shame her, or humiliate her. I also don’t feel as though I did shame her or humiliate her as a sexual assault victim. I believe her account. I believe she was a victim. I believe this partly because I don’t want to disbelieve it, but also because I can’t imagine a woman reporting this crime and accusing someone unless they truly felt like a victim, and also because I find it hugely suspect that the accused has not, in the past three years, came forward to deny any of Katie’s claims or to clear his name. Nor has anyone from his life cared to make such an effort. If this was my son (who I know would never be guilty of this) or my fiancé (again, who I know would never be guilty of this) I would be all up on the accuser’s shit. If this were me accused, I’d be an open book and would make myself available to the public to clear my name. But there’s been nothing from that side, only a warning to Katie to leave family and businesses out of this shit. They didn’t care to defend their family member accused, only their businesses. I FIND THAT HUGELY SUSPECT. So again, not taking her account into question, only her differing accounts made between 2017 and today.

---

And claiming that I fabricated and made up my sexual assault for attention. While I realize I am a public figure, redacted police reports and naming victims through the redacted information is not only a breech of journalistic ethics but also a crime under civil law.
It’s a good thing I’m not a journalist then. Neither is Katie though either, which is probably why she violates journalistic ethics often. I’m really curious what law she thinks my blog post violated. I also did not share the entire case file. I only shared cropped sections of screen shots of specific parts of certain pages. I’m not quite sure I’d call her a public figure, but I do think she holds some influence over a small population of people. If you add up all her subs and followers it’s about 200,000. That’s highballing it since I’m sure many do cross platforms. I honestly don’t know if 200K is enough to make you a public figure though. Regardless, she has said multiple times that all her friends from high school believe her, many in her community believe her, that even family/friends of the accused believe her. That tells me she may hold some influence in her area.

---

I have contacted my attorney and will be exploring legal actions regarding these publications. I understand my assault is the in became the interest of the public when I publicly outed my perpetrator and shared my story. But it is not of the public interest to publish police reports with the sole purpose to smear and defame.
Her assault did not become public interest when she shared her story. Her accusations against a civil servant and a police department became public interest since they both serve the public. I suppose her publicly outing someone as assaulting her could become public interest but it was not of any interest to the public being me.
I did not publish the police report. I did not upload the entire pdf document. I didn’t even publish an entire page without cropping it and/or adding my own redaction to it. She did not accuse the officer and dept until for the first time until 2017. It was also in 2017 she made many other claims about her story. Many of these claims changed between 2017 and today. Many of these claims changed from 2007 and today. Every claim that has changed are all events leading up to the assault, and after the assault. The brief information she provided in 2007 about the assault itself has stayed basically the same between 2007 and today.
As established above, she may very well hold influence over her community. She herself claims she does anyway. So making such accusations against against the community police department is public interest. Before people take her word for it, they deserve to know how some aspects of her story have changed and that she didn’t begin to make such claims against law enforcement until ten years later. They deserve to know that they can trust their police and should feel safe in making such reports to them.

---

4:56
Some may say I deserve this because I report on victims of crime. However I respect journalism ethics about reporting on victims of crimes which includes not disclosing private information, not naming victims not otherwise named, and not using the information to shame and humiliate a victim.
I do not feel she “deserves” anything, not even as a result of her having done the same shit. I have heard many people say “Well serves her right, she’s done it to everyone else.” And though I do agree that she is absolutely guilty of all these things she just now claimed to be innocent of above, I don’t care. Never did I think I should do this because she has done the same wrong in the past. I mean, why? If that was my reasoning for doing this then I would either be excusing the shit she has done in the past, or I would be making myself just as guilty as she. Katie’s shitty behavior does not influence my behavior. I will never do something just to prove a point to her or to see how she likes it. I truly hope other people don’t do this either. It’s one thing to recall shit she’s done when she makes these claims like she did above, it another thing entirely to do something just out of spite. I am better than that. I haven’t always been better mind you, but right now, and with all things Katie, I am better than that.

---

Please remember, in 2007 victims of sexual assault were often not believed. And their history with consensual acts was often used as a means to explain their actions. Under federal law which was passed in 2005 victims sexual activity cannot be used by investigators or the court to explain a crime. I’m currently working with the department and have filed a complaint regarding my investigation due to a number of issues that have come up. I was told by police at the time the reason why the case would probably not move forward was not because I was not believed but rather because I lacked memory. I shared my story not because I wanted sympathy but rather to help other victims of crimes like this have a voice.
What? Who says they were often not believed? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are instances where this occurred, I’m sure there are still instances today, but by 2007 these instances were not “often.” I mean, it wasn’t like 1987 or even 1997. Also, victims’ sexual activity can be used in a trial by the defense to provide direct evidence of consent. It’s not usually a smart strategy by the defense but it’s still entirely legal. I searched for the federal law she mentions that was passed in 2005 and all I can find is the Violence Against Women Act. The thing it though, it was actually passed in 1994. VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan support in Congress in 2000 and again in 2005. Sadly, it is not currently reauthorized after expiring in February 2019, and after the Senate failed to negotiate an updated version to include transgendered victims and banning individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing firearms. VAWA did modify the Federal Rules of Evidence to include new procedures specifying that a victim’s past sexual behavior was not admissible in federal criminal and civil cases of sexual misconduct, though it does allow for a few exceptions. Even the military had initiated programs by 2007, though most of their changes came between 2009 and 2012, and the system is still hugely lacking. But I could be wrong here! I’d love to see some links discussing this.
Also, in one of the videos from early September, Katie says she shared her story to tell the internet about what Nick did to her, and to expose the police dept and officer. She also says she shared the story because she had a rough couple days reporting the stories that she reported on, the stories that SHE chose to report on. She was laughing at the fact she tagged the police department on twitter with her claims even saying “I have a really large platform and everyone’s gonna know what you guys did to me [laughter].” Already her claims are changing again.

---

6:20
Victims who are drugged and raped are people that are in the background. We have no memories of our crimes and we often learn of what happened to us not through ourselves but through the police or what our perpetrators tell other people. This was exactly how I learned what happened to me that night, which included being raped three separate times.
See, right here is a discrepancy. Now mind you, none of what I’m pointing out regarding her inconsistencies was reported in 2007, so I am not suggesting she lied in her report. But in two blog posts from 2018 Katie claims the detective told her it happened four times. And, according to the report, Nick claimed it was twice.
That’s two times in 2018 she says the detective told her it was four times. It didn’t become three times until early September of this year. She’s recalling discussions with the detective incorrectly, either in 2018 or in 2020, and that’s assuming that the detective did in fact tell her this information.

---

My perpetrator not being charged does not mean he is innocent. It does not mean I was not raped. I would never and could never lie about something so serious.
I agree with the first two, and I believe the last claim.

---

7:09
And ultimately they did not file charges because I did not have a story. I was given what my same nurse believed to be was rohyphnol, which rendered me unconscious for, I don’t even know, 8 hours or more.
In September she claims charges were not filed because Nick came from a affluent family and the family owned business and was a good family, and people from good families just don’t do that kind of thing, according to the detective. Also, she claimed that they didn’t file charges because they believed her to be a scorned woman who wanted more from Nick than just sex. This is what I mean by her claims changing regarding her interaction with the police. Again, none of this is in her report! These are all claims made at least a decade later, though most recently 13 years later.
Rohyphnol would have been found in urine the next day, even in 2007. Though blood work would also be conducted, any tests for drugs would be done through urine. Katie claims they took blood to test for drugs. An ER nurse who is experienced in SARS exams would likely have an idea on the half life of rohyphnol, and would also know that drugs are tested from urine. Also, according to the timeline that she claimed in 2007, 2017, 2018, and 2020, she couldn’t have woken at 9 and been unconscious for 8 or more hours. 8 hours would have her waking at noon.
AGAIN…..THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST HER ASSAULT DIDN’T HAPPEN. Even though lab work found no traces of a controlled substances in the items tested, IT STILL DOES NOT MEAN HER ASSAULT DID NOT HAPPEN. It just means that she was not likely drugged. It also does not mean she was conscious through the early morning hours when her assault is said to have occurred. It just means she wasn’t likely drugged.

---

When I woke up, I felt unwell which was actually in the police report. And through that release of this police report is how I learned that this case was closed.
So, in early September when she said the statute of limitations had expired on her case, did she still think her case was active? She knew her case was closed, albeit she might not have known it had been closed back in 2007. But, seeing as though the statue of limitations on this crime is 9 years from when the offense was committed, she had to have known her case was closed from April 22, 2016. Beyond that, I don’t know if anyone contacted her back in 2007. The case file does not say one way or the other. If they didn’t contact her I’d have to agree with Katie that that’s kind of fucked up.

---

Imagine you find out the details of your police investigation, not through the police, but because somebody maliciously published your investigation online with the sole purpose to hurt you.
Ok there, back up. It’s been 13 years. If she wanted details about her investigation she had plenty of time and opportunity to obtain them. Maybe she did request them? Maybe she didn’t? I don’t know. But she had, according to a tweet she made in early September of this year, 4885 days to obtain the status and details of her sexual assault investigation.
No malice intended though I’m sure she will continue to claim otherwise. Again the investigation was not published online. I honestly did not consider if this would hurt Katie. I mean, I wasn’t looking to hurt her by any means, but I’m not about to refrain from posting something because it might hurt Katie. Everything that proves she’s wrong about something ends up hurting Katie.

---

I’m seeking legal advice and will be following the advice of my attorney and will be making no more statements nor publicly naming the individuals who published these reports.
 YouTube is a place for everyone but should not be used to hurt people nor hurt victims of crimes. Please know I am ok, I will be ok, and we’ll get this handled. Thank you.”
Katie said in the video she uploaded the next day, or the one she uploaded two days later, that I suggested she could be charged for something. PROVE IT! Where did I say this? Because I never even thought this let alone said this. What I said was the department had considered something along the lines of a C & D. I never said a damn thing about being arrested or even the possibility of criminal consequences. This never crossed my mind! But I get it, she got called out and needs to try and pivot it all back to poor victimized Katie. Though I am not a psychology expert by any means, I have found myself reading a bit on victim mentality. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MEAN SHE WAS NOT A VICTIM IN 2007! I STILL BELIEVE SHE WAS!