Neferti wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 6:47pm:



so does aussie and geo..

I await them telling us what the french sex kit is all about..

If you want a fair and detailed report of todays proceedings in court:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/craig-thomson-tria...

Aussie wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 4:33pm:


she won't talk to you either now .

cods wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 7:21pm:


cods, I'm not going to play your game of helter skelter rubbish. 

You allege I reckon Thomson is innocent.  I know I have never posted anything which remotely suggested that.

You can either back up the allegation you make against a Member ~ me (unlike my allegations which involve politicians) or not.

You say I have the position that Thomson is innocent.

Up to you.

When you read the detailed coverage of the whole day in court then you hear time and time again from HSU officials—Craig Thomson trying to improve financial control, reporting etc. That is likely why Craig was targeted by those with plenty to lose by tight financial/reporting controls—Kathy Jackson, Michael Williams, all that clique who got booted out the HSU by the membership.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 7:20pm:




HILARIOUS

One must be very careful here to point out that, in this context, ‘admitted facts’ means facts admitted into the court for the purposes of the trial, and is not, as has been commonly misunderstood by many ‒ including most breathless media reports ‒ an admission by a party of doing an act.





its noticed this journo only hears one side doesnt he... he hasnt mentioned the hand writing expert... and the brothel owner who said all customers must produce their drivers licence..

guess they arent important to the case..
"...

there is a lot of "this journo heard" or "this journo feels" or "this journo thinks"...

not the usual way a journalist writes..

looks more like his TAKE on what he thinks happened...

most court cases as written up word for word...

I prefer that to be honest..

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 7:20pm:


I've read it George, and there is some intriguing stuff there.

This prosecution looks completely unprepared, scrambled, novice ~ zero direction even.  I can say from years of experience that many "not guilty" verdicts are achieved because of a technical or evidentiary failure by the Prosecution, rather than a conclusion of innocence.  They have to get their shyte together and present it in a cohesive, convincing factual fashion to the Judge/Jury to such an extent that only one conclusion is available.........guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt on admissible evidence is what is required before conviction.  That puts a very serious obligation on the 'Crown,' and always allows defence to sit back and either attack or not..........depending on the quality, credibility, substance and clarity of what the 'Crown' has put up.

It is far too difficult to come to any conclusion out here in ether land, but I will give credit to that IA Reporter's coverage because at least he is describing....or seems to be...... all of the evidence.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 7:48pm:



says the independent.. give them the credit geo..

btw does the magistrate read the Independent.. 

I doubt it.

wont be long though and they might have no choice but to read website journalism

as you say ITS HIS ACCOUNT...

mmmmmmmm not sure that what I want to read someone account  be honest..

prefer the real deal..word for word.