If she had failed to notice these matters, she would have been careless.
If she deliberately ignored the matters described, she was party to Ralph Blewitt’s deceit.
Commissioner Heydon, Trade Union Royal Commission on GILLARD's role in the incorporation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
"Bruce, I got a new client today."
"Good onya. Who is it?"
"The imbecile. You know, the sexist pig, the liar - it's Ralph, the bloke who reports to you. He came to see me separately in his personal capacity to instruct me on creating a separate legal entity in the name of the AWU. He wants to be the person who'll be responsible for your slush fund if anything goes wrong."
"Oh that's big of him. Thanks for letting me know. Now stop stealing the doona and get your contacts out of me beer".
The AWU frauds involve more than $1M in today's value.
There are plenty of records.
All we need now are indictments and a jury.Yesterday StephenJ dropped us a note on how the court will weigh the two cases - the prosecution's and "I did nothing wrong".
"Evidence and Advocacy" Butterworths 1988
W A N Wells, former Supreme Court judge in Sth Aust.
It is well worth reading in relation to the inferences to be drawn about Gillard's knowledge.
A very brief précis.
1.Evidence is weighed not according to its intrinsic worth in isolation.
2.It is weighed as part of the whole body of evidence.
3.Part of this involves a matching of the two cases. Prosecution and defence.
4. In doing this the powers and access to information of the parties is a factor.
5.In the great proportion of criminal trials no direct proof of the crime can be given.
6.If a conclusion of guilt is available and no (convincing) explanation or contradiction is offered a guilty verdict is available.
7. Re the extract on page 55 about denial and explanations re allegations - how many times has Gillards story changed? Recognition of conscious guilt?
"what is revealed when an unsatisfactory attempt is made to contradict or explain, may bridge, or help bridge, the gap between what is, and what is not, positively and explicitly revealed by the evidence." Eg the "election slush fund" excuse can not survive any reasonable examination; the failure to refer to ministerial approval anywhere (interview , RC, press conferences, Parliament).
8. There is a summary starting p 56.