“Abundance of Evidence” Against Craig Thomson

Craig Thomson denies any wrongdoing in Parliament
Sex workers look certain to be called to give evidence against ousted MP Craig Thomson if he refuses to sign a document admitting he used union credit cards to pay for porn and prostitutes.
In what could be a potentially embarrassing blow for the former MP’s case dozens of witnesses could be called to help prosecutors prove more than 170 fraud charges brought against Mr Thomson.
The charges stem from his time as national secretary of the Health Services Union and allege he used union credit cards to spend thousands of dollars on prostitutes, pornographic films, flights, accommodation, meals and cigarettes.
Prosecutors today told the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court there was an “abundance” of evidence against Mr Thomson.
Lawyers for Mr Thomson last week told the court he would agree to certain undisputed facts when the matter is heard in December.
But prosecutor Michele Williams SC today said she wanted Thomson to sign a notice of admission of facts admitting he used the credit cards.
“We need an admission that is an admission,” she said.
“We want a formal admission that it is him.
“There is, we say, an abundance of evidence to say it’s him,” she said.
Ms Williams said prosecutors planned to use the admission to prove their argument about Mr Thomson’s authority to use the union credit cards.
Mr Thomson has vigorously denied the allegations since he was charged in January.
Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg rejected Ms Williams’s submission that the prosecution case would be hampered if Thomson did not sign the admission document.
He said the case should be able to proceed on the basis of an agreed set of non-disputed facts.
Mr Thomson, who resigned from the ALP earlier this year and lost his federal parliament seat at last week’s election after running as an independent candidate, was not in court.
“But he’s innocent….!!”
It is abundantly evident that Craig gave himself permission to use the credit cards to go whoring.
Pathological liars don’t know they are mentally ill.
My top 10.
1. But, but, but…he’s innocent.
2. Think of the baby
3. Look at his wife, she’s so nice
4. Look at that (now ex) Liberal senator
5. There’s no evidence
6. Wait for FWA to complete its investigation
7. He hasn’t been charged with anything
8. That bitch Kathy Jackson is on with Michael Lawler and he ‘shared an office’ with FWA’s investigator Nassios. FWA is tainted
9. It’s all a media beat up
10. Julia has complete confidence in him, or maybe there’s some line crossed or some molecules, or something
Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:
Sadly there are still some minions of the left who think Thomson is not guilty but they are a vanishing breed…
Cheers Comrade Reb
🙂
(It’s good that Shannon, alleged expertise in arts/history/politics, gets a look at the matter, law, without Steve Lewis’s hanging over a shoulder, at last. I do tend to wonder still what happened later in the day, though: “The matter will return to court at 3pm.”)
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ We want a formal admission that it is him. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
.
But will Thomson make this `formal`admission.?
Cheers Canterlopes
I think Craig’s next line of defence should be:
“Yes, it was me but ‘they’ made me do it.”
(The blackmail defence).
cheers rabid right-wing unemployable pseudo-wannabe-tories.