Bruce Wilson cannot now, nor ever, help to prove Julia Gillard's innocence he can however help with a smokescreen (what has occurred today) or in proving her guilt. Gillard, who has used a plethora of meaningless statements in her own defense still has serious questions to answer. Just so you know what a meaningless statement is, here are some and why they are meaningless:
- "I was young and naive" - Is a statement that carries no information in response to a question.
- "I / She did nothing wrong" - Is a generalisation that avoids answering a question.
- "These matters have already been dealt with" - Is a statement that is only effective if accurate, clearly in this case it is not.
Besides, his statement sounds (to me) like it's from the same script writer that has been telling her what to say, don't you think?
Comments