How David Crowe lost the Parenzee case in three appeal applications to:
1. the Supreme Court of South Australia;
2. the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia; and,
3. the High Court of Australia,
and then persistently lied about it afterwards.
Advocate of the High Court of South Africa
Former District, Regional, and Civil Court Magistrate
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
– Friedrich Schiller
As one knows the poet by his fine music, so one can recognize the liar by his rich rhythmic utterance, and in neither case will the casual inspiration of the moment suffice. Here, as elsewhere, practice must precede perfection.
– Oscar Wilde
In his talk notes for ‘A Survey of Legal Cases’ at his Rethinking AIDS group conference in Oakland, California, on 8 November 2009, RA group president David Crowe claimed that following Judge Sulan’s dismissal on 27 April 2007 of Andre Parenzee’s application in the Supreme Court of South Australia for leave to appeal against his convictions for recklessly endangering the lives of three women by having sex with them while HIV positive, ‘Parenzee abandoned appeals and is serving a 9 year sentence.’
He didn’t. In truth and in fact there was another appeal, to the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. And yet another prepared but not persisted with, to the High Court of Australia. Crowe knew this full well because he’d actively involved himself in them. Why he should have lied to conceal this isn’t hard to figure out.
At the conclusion of the evidence in Parenzee’s initial appeal application, defence counsel Kevin Borick QC was afforded the usual opportunity to argue his case. The Perth Group asked him to assist prepare his summation, because despite how badly he’d conducted the defence following Crowe’s interference in the case after they’d testified, Parenzee’s defence outlined to the court in Borick’s opening address, namely there’s no proof for the existence of ‘HIV’, had amply been made on the evidence; it had only to be pressed in argument.
Borick refused the Perth Group’s request, for the reason that Crowe had got to him: he’d persuaded him that the trial strategy he’d agreed with the Perth Group and had followed in the first half of the case was wrong; it was wrong of him to have presented their evidence that there’s no proof for the existence of ‘HIV’. As Crowe later put it, challenging the existence of ‘HIV’ in court was ‘dangerous’.
A part-time journalist and Duesberg fan, Anthony Liversidge, explained Crowe’s timorous approach in his comment beneath Crowe’s ‘Thoughts on Parenzee’ posted as ‘Crowe on Adelaide’ at his ‘Science Guardian’ website:
For additional points on the discussion of whether Perth goes too far in denying the very existence of HIV, see the comments on ‘Legally Blind’, the last post. The issue is not even whether or on what basis they are right (clearly they are not, given the work done on HIV since 1984), but the simple fact that the claim that HIV does not exist will discredit any scientific witness in any court immediately.
The Perth Group’s involvement had been the ‘Achilles heel’ of the defence, he said.
The case for the defence was lost from the beginning by giving the judge this easy out. He was given a basis for rejecting the credentials of the Perth pair, and did so. Dispensing with all their testimony saved him the effort of comparing the prosecution testimony with the defense claims, and all the trouble of gauging whether the questions they raised on other grounds made any sense.
But this wasn’t the ‘basis’ on which the judge rejected ‘the Perth pair’ as experts. The ‘easy way out … was given’ him by Crowe.
Pressing ‘the Perth Group’s non-existence of HIV arguments’ was bad defence strategy, Crowe thought: unlike Crowe himself (‘I have for more than a decade been persuaded by the Perth Group’s non-existence of HIV arguments’), the judge wouldn’t be ‘persuaded’ by ‘the Perth Group’s non-existence of HIV arguments’. He would more likely be ‘persuaded’ by Duesberg’s ‘arguments’ that ‘HIV’ exists but is harmless – even though ‘The president of RA (me) does not subscribe to [Duesberg’s passenger virus] theory. And this has been documented for over a decade.’
And the reason, the cellphone businessman told his Oakland audience, that the judge wouldn’t have been ‘persuaded’ by ‘the Perth Group’s non‑existence of HIV arguments’ is that ‘The courts don’t care what you know, they care about your degrees, your positions, things like that.’
That is, according to Crowe, the cellphone businessman, scientific issues aren’t determined on the evidence, but on the relative institutional authority of the witnesses presenting it. So Borick needed real experts like Duesberg, Mullis and de Harven, Crowe insisted to him behind the scenes, because the Perth Group would not be accepted as expert witnesses by the court. Indeed, in an email to Jim Wolfe on 3 December 2006 Crowe alleged the judge had said exactly that:
The court has heard from both Val Turner and Eleni [Papadopulos-] Eleopulos. From comments the judge made the lawyer is concerned that the judge will not accept Eleni as an expert witness, likely on the basis that she is neither an MD nor a PhD and because she is a physicist not a profession directly related (in the judge’s opinion) to HIV/AIDS.
These were blatant lies. The transcripts of the hearing reveal that the judge never made any such ‘comments’ and never expressed any such ‘opinion’ before, during, or after the defence case.
It was only in judgment, after Borick had effectively discredited the Perth Group on Crowe’s advice (see below), that the judge rejected their qualifications as expert witnesses to give evidence at a retrial.
Nor was the ‘lawyer … concerned that the judge will not accept Eleni as an expert witness’ – another rank lie. Quite the contrary, after the Perth Group had testified, ‘the lawyer’ Borick emailed English solicitor Clifford Miller, copying Crowe in, informing him that it appeared the judge was indeed going to ‘accept Eleni as an expert witness’.
Crowe told his layer-cake lie that Borick was ‘concerned’ about the judge’s ‘comments’ and ‘opinion’ to justify his intrusion into the case as Parenzee’s self‑appointed scientific and legal advisor, acting behind the Perth Group’s backs. Behind the backs of the RA board too, which at its June 2006 meeting in New York had explicitly voted down his proposal to get involved in the case.
Borick’s meandering, unfocused summation, prepared without the Perth Group’s input, consequently never pressed home his success in having established on the evidence the root, pivotal proposition that he’d set out to demonstrate: there’s no proof for the existence of ‘HIV’. All experts (besides Duesberg) agree that to prove the existence of a virus one must purify it, and all agree this has never been done for ‘HIV’. And there’s no proof ‘HIV’ exists accordingly.
Borick’s failure to argue the case he’d amply made on the evidence was directly thanks to Crowe’s interference in dissuading him from doing so, and in urging him to rather bank on Duesberg’s false claim that ‘HIV’ exists but is harmless.
Crowe had prevailed on Borick to switch from pleading truthfully at a retrial – there’s no virus – to telling the judge lies about it. That is, Crowe urged Borick to distance himself from the truth and to rather present a false defence to the court knowing it to be false, the false defence that ‘HIV’ is a real existing retrovirus neutralised by antibodies into a harmless passenger virus. In sum, instead of telling the simple truth, Crowe thought it better for the defence to try to lie their way out the case.
In his summation Borick said he
would envisage … the defence would call the Perth Group, they may call others like Duesberg or Mullis, it’s hard to look ahead, but at the end of the day in a jury trial the jury would be made well aware that there is a controversy, they would be made very well aware of other experts, the prosecution would say they shouldn’t take any notice of the Perth Group.
Here was the first open indication that at Crowe’s instance Borick was starting to hedge his bets in a backfiring gambit to retract the Perth Group’s scientific claims by anticipating that the prosecution would contend that the jury ‘shouldn’t take any notice of the Perth Group’, so he intended calling ‘other experts … like Duesberg or Mullis’ to testify that indeed the jury ‘shouldn’t take any notice of the Perth Group’ because their evidence was completely wrong: ‘HIV’ most certainly exists, only it’s a harmless virus.
There were ‘two major … dissident views’, Borick told the judge,
the very strict view held by the Perth Group, the purification issue, and the view held by Mullis and Duesberg that HIV does not cause AIDS. They are not contradictory because the Perth Group and those who support them are saying you can’t say that HIV causes AIDS because you haven’t scientifically isolated HIV.
Borick’s contention that ‘the very strict view held by the Perth Group, the purification issue, and the view held by Mullis and Duesberg that HIV does not cause AIDS … are not contradictory’ was right out of Crowe’s lying mouth: he’d later repeat it to the Perth Group: ‘From a perspective of AIDS, Duesberg’s theory is virtually identical to yours.’
Wasn’t it plain to even the most childlike intelligence that the ‘two major … dissident views’ of ‘HIV’ are indeed radically ‘contradictory’: the Perth Group showing upon a meticulous review of the scientific evidence that ‘HIV’ has never been proved to exist, and Mullis and Duesberg claiming diametrically contrarily, without taking the trouble to examine this evidence – the lack of it – that ‘HIV’ has most certainly been proved to exist as Montagnier and Gallo claim and nearly the whole world believes, and that the Perth Group are wrong on this most basic issue?
By irrelevantly mentioning Duesberg and Mullis with their impressive institutional credentials in his closing argument – despite the fact that he’d pertinently ‘disavowed’ their ‘view’ on ‘HIV’ in his opening address (as the prosecution correctly put it; see below), i.e. their ‘view’ that ‘HIV’ exists as a harmless passenger virus neutralised by antibodies, which is why he never led them to present this ‘view’ – Borick himself cast a lethal pall of doubt on the reliability of the only evidence for the defence that he’d led, the evidence of the Perth Group, even though, as he stated, the Perth Group hadn’t been broken as scientific witnesses in cross-examination:
One would have thought that if the Perth Group of Australia were out of touch, so out of line with all scientific thinking, that it would have been very easy to dispose of them with almost one voice, but it didn’t.
Concerning Montagnier’s ‘HIV’ isolation claim reported in his seminal 1983 paper, and considered by just about all scientific and medical authorities including the Nobel Committee as having established the existence of ‘HIV’, Borick repeated his correct point that Papadopulos-Eleopulos had stood cross-examination uncompromised on her case that the existence of ‘HIV’ has not been proven on the available evidence:
In relation to the Montagnier paper, my submission to you about that is that Eleni Papadopulos gave evidence, and on my understanding it was uncontradicted … She listed the criticisms and my understanding of the evidence is none of the witnesses for the prosecution have really challenged that proposition.
But instead of capitalizing on his monumental success in having established on the Perth Group’s evidence, indeed on the prosecution evidence too, the ‘uncontradicted … proposition’ he’d set out to establish – namely that ‘HIV’ has never been purified and so never been shown to exist – and driving home this enormous gain, Borick backed away in his summation and went off speaking to every imaginable irrelevancy.
After Borick sat down, prosecution counsel Sandy McDonald commenced her summation with an incontrovertible, killer argument. Handed to her on a plate by Borick, acting on Crowe’s unbelievably inept advice. The judge summed it up before quoting it approvingly in his judgment:
The second issue is the scope of the applicant’s propositions. Counsel for the DPP, Ms McDonald, submitted that the scope of the evidence proposed to be called at a retrial by counsel for the applicant had changed during the course of the permission to appeal hearings:
My learned friend, at the beginning of this whole hearing, expressly disavowed any reliance upon the proposition that HIV does not cause AIDS. Your Honour might recall that occurred at the time that the respondent’s expert reports had started to come in and they spent some time on the issue between the relationship of HIV and AIDS. My learned friend indicated to the court that wasn’t a plank of their argument. It surfaced its head during the hearing. It is just not a useful exercise to speculate about what other evidence there might be out there that might be called – witnesses who might be prepared to say that they don’t accept that HIV has been proved to cause AIDS. The evidence before your Honour is, of course, that there are two experts who hold the view that HIV has not been proved to exist and they stand, if you like, on an island of their own, in amongst the other dissidents. I raise that in response to my learned friend’s submission this morning, that there might be other evidence presented at another trial. In terms of this hearing, your Honour has heard what the fresh evidence is and it is limited to those two witnesses. …
I accept the submission of counsel for the DPP that the scope of the applicant’s propositions altered between the opening and closing submissions. In particular, the issue of whether HIV causes AIDS emerged during the hearing, despite having been initially disavowed as an issue by counsel for the applicant. … At the commencement of the hearings in the application for permission to appeal, Mr Borick QC, counsel for the applicant, set out the scope of the three propositions he sought to make during the course of the application:
1. ‘firstly, that viruses are proven to exist by a procedure virologists refer to as virus isolation. The presently available evidence does not prove a virus known as HIV has been isolated.’
2. ‘that the tests used to in effect diagnose HIV do not do that. What they do is that they measure not the virus itself but antibodies.’
3. ‘no evidence for sexual transmission of HIV can be found even in the best conducted studies published from the United Kingdom, Europe, United States of America and Africa.’
He [Borick] went on to say:
‘The defence has not introduced and nor are we concerned with the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS. HIV and AIDS, although generally linked in the public mind, are two separate and distinct issues. In this case, what is important is whether there is any scientific evidence whether Mr Parenzee is infected with the unique virus HIV.’
After thus correctly summing up, the judge correctly held:
In determining whether the question whether fresh evidence is to be admissible, it is necessary for the appellate court to apprehend the scope and nature of the evidence sought to be admitted. The change in position of the applicant had the potential to confuse this issue.
All directly thanks to Crowe’s furtive disruption of the fundamental defence strategy by encouraging Borick to change it from whether ‘there is any scientific evidence whether Mr Parenzee is infected with the unique virus HIV’ (the Perth Group) to ‘whether or not HIV causes AIDS’ (Duesberg).
If Crowe thought the judge would be impressed by getting Borick to drop Duesberg’s and Mullis’s names as potential witnesses at a retrial and be impressed by their ‘status’ (Crowe’s craven fixation), he wasn’t. The judge held:
In determining the credibility of the evidence and its potential effect on a trial jury, it has been necessary for me to hear the evidence sought to be led at a retrial. These reasons will therefore be limited to an analysis of the evidence which was led during the course of the application and will not extend to speculation about unspecified further evidence which could be led from additional witnesses.
And quite right. But Crowe’s secret persuasion of Borick to suggest to the judge that he had better, more reliable witnesses to call than Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Turner of the Perth Group fatally undermined the credibility of their ‘evidence which was led during the course of the application’ against the existence of ‘HIV’, and it turned their enormous advance achieved at the hearing into a calamitous reversal: for Parenzee, for the Perth Group, and for the scientific deconstruction and discrediting of the ‘HIV’ theory of AIDS at its fundamentals in a court of law – the only forum in which the conventional experts can be forced to defend their scientific claims.
After losing the first appeal application, Borick told the judge at the sentencing hearing, in as many words, that he agreed the Perth Group’s evidence was garbage:
In the main, we accept that your Honour has rejected the evidence of the Perth Group, that’s a fact in this sentencing submission and, basically, the matters I’m relying upon come from mainstream science.
Borick then started arguing ‘from mainstream science’ that ‘HIV’ is hard to transmit: ‘1 in 1 000 or lower’, he said – totally irrelevantly in light of his concession in the same argument that
one woman did contract HIV [from Parenzee, but] providing she maintained the treatment regime, there was a high likelihood that she should live a normal life.
The ‘treatment regime’ to fight the ‘the HIV/AIDS virus … likely to endanger her life’, as the prosecution alleged in the indictment. The virus she’d ‘contract[ed]’ from Parenzee, just as the prosecution claimed. The killer virus that would kill her unless she took the ‘treatment regime’ of ARVs every day until she died on them.
Here was Borick mouthing Crowe’s advice not only to repudiate the Perth Group’s evidence that there’s no proof for the existence of ‘HIV’, but even to repudiate Duesberg’s harmless passenger virus story.
Borick went on:
What is also emerging is the fact that the risk on all the information available at the moment from mainstream scientists, the risk is very much higher at the very early stages. Once that is recognised then the chance of prevention through counselling once the person is counselled by other means is very much increased.
The ‘risk’ of catching the virus. The ‘chance’ of ‘preventi[ng]’ it. The virus he’d claimed at the start of the hearing hadn’t been proved to exist. But which, on Crowe’s advice, he now conceded to the prosecution did exist, and whose transmission could be ‘prevent[ed] through counselling’.
As if any of these ‘matters I’m relying on … from mainstream science’, any of this ‘information available at the moment from mainstream scientists’ was in the least bit relevant to Parenzee’s appeal for a re-trial, other than as a monumental own goal, a fatal shot in the foot.
Again this was pure Crowe, feeding Borick this ‘mainstream science’, cozying up to the ‘mainstream scientists’ with ‘status’ – as with his subsequent claims in his Rethinking AIDS statement released after his Oakland meeting in 2009, ‘false positive HIV tests can occur and cannot be distinguished from true positives’ – yes, ‘true positives’ – and in his mass‑email on 20 February 2011, pan-handling like a bum at the traffic light for money for his 2011 conference in Washington (cancelled for lack of interest): ‘HIV is [not] the sole cause of AIDS’. Which is to say, it exists; it causes AIDS; but it’s not the only cause of AIDS, it’s one of the causes.
After losing his application before Sulan J for ‘leave to appeal against the convictions on the grounds, inter alia, that fresh evidence had come to light indicating that HIV might not exist’, because Crowe had advised him that this ‘fresh evidence … that HIV might not exist’ wasn’t any good, couldn’t carry the case, and so should be abandoned, Borick appealed next to the
Court of Criminal Appeal (‘the court below’) for leave to argue that the applicant’s convictions should be set aside on the grounds, inter alia, that, the prosecution’s experts had made it clear that the mechanism by which HIV caused AIDS was an unresolved scientific question, a matter which had not been disclosed to the jury.
So Borick put it in his ‘Summary of Argument’ for his third and final appeal to the High Court of Australia.
What could be less relevant to whether a re-trial was warranted than ‘an unresolved scientific question’ about the ‘mechanism by which HIV caused AIDS’? Whether it kills you this way or that – implicitly conceding ‘HIV’ exists, and that the Perth Group were wrong to dispute it; and that ‘HIV’ causes AIDS, and that Duesberg was wrong to dispute that too.
This was classic Crowe, trying to be the clever boy by raising clever-sounding but limp irrelevancies, collateral issues, weak and feeble arguments to avoid addressing the hard core issue head-on: the existence of ‘HIV’ and the Perth Group’s unanswerable case that there’s no proof it exists. Just to guarantee he always loses the argument. Like flinging handfuls of popcorn at a thug with a knife.
In his second appeal after losing before Sulan J, now to the Criminal Court of Appeal, Borick’s position concerning the Perth Group was that he’d ‘abandoned reliance upon their evidence’. That’s how he put it unequivocally in his next appeal notice, and he said why at the next hearing, repeating what he’d told Sulan J:
The Perth Group, as I’ve really discovered as this has unfolded, is on their own in a dissident group. They take a very fixed stance: It is the virus has never been isolated and never been proven to exist, so there is tension between the Perth Group and other dissident groups.
There was something wrong with this inflexible ‘very fixed stance’ that ‘the virus has never been isolated and never been proven to exist’, Borick unequivocally implied to the Criminal Court of Appeal – and this is why the Perth Group weren’t part of ‘the mainstream’ dissident movement, as Crowe would later put it, and were ‘on their own in a dissident group’.
Here Crowe had a natural friend in John Moore of Cornell Medical School. Interviewed by The Australian on 5 February 2007, he
said the Perth Group were ‘not in the mainstream of AIDS denialism … They are considered to be among the more radical of AIDS denialists because they don’t even believe HIV exists.’
Unlike Duesberg’s more flexible harmless passenger virus ‘stance’, the Perth Group’s uncompromising ‘very fixed stance’ that ‘the virus has never been isolated and never been proven to exist’ was eccentric and unreasonable, Borick suggested to the appeal judges. And this was why ‘there is tension between the Perth Group and other dissident groups’ such as Crowe’s RA group championing Duesberg at the head of ‘the mainstream’ dissident movement. Why, the Perth Group were too ‘fixed’ in asserting ‘HIV’ has never been proved to exist, too radical. Too truthful.
In an article ‘Convicted HIV man launches appeal’ wired on the first day of Parenzee’s ‘second appeal for his freedom’ on 16 July 2007, Australian Associated Press recorded:
Parenzee’s lawyer Kevin Borick QC today argued before the full bench of the SA Court of Appeal that the case should be reopened because the judge had failed to take into account the different streams of scientific thought about the cause of AIDS. … ‘The court is not being asked if HIV is the cause of AIDS, the issue we want to put before the court is that there is scientific controversy whether HIV is the cause of AIDS.’ … Mr Borick said the defence would no longer rely on evidence by Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Turner, because he had discovered they were alone in the scientific community and not experts.
This was the ‘discovery’ Crowe had helped Borick make. They were ‘not experts’ because they were ‘alone in the scientific community’.
Previously satisfied – as the law indeed holds – that a substantial peer-reviewed publication record in a given scientific field qualifies witnesses as ‘experts’, Borick changed his mind about this on the advice of the cellphone businessman, oblivious to the fact that as the United Kingdom Law Commission observed in a recent discussion paper, The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales: A New Approach to the Determination of Evidentiary Reliability,
Australian jurisprudence has long accepted that a minority view in a recognised discipline can nevertheless be admissible as expert evidence, contrary to the demands of the Frye test.
As if merely showing that there were ‘different streams of scientific thought about the cause of AIDS’ and that ‘there is scientific controversy whether HIV is the cause of AIDS’ would suffice as grounds for claiming a re-trial when the prosecution’s case was supported by the almost universal scientific consensus – and never mind a few marginal, discredited, comically squabbling dissenters, unable to agree among themselves on even the most basic scientific facts. Like whether ‘HIV’ exists or not.
Not only had Borick conceded ‘HIV’ exists, conceded the core foundational issue he’d raised, here he was trying to woo the court, Crowe-style, by distancing the defence even from Duesberg’s HIV-doesn’t-cause-AIDS line. Why, he said, ‘The court is not being asked if HIV is the cause of AIDS’. Whether ‘HIV is the cause of AIDS’ would not be an issue for trial, Borick was suggesting; he would be asking the jury to acquit Parenzee on the basis that ‘there is scientific controversy whether HIV is the cause of AIDS’ (i.e. ‘HIV’ undoubtedly exists) and that there were ‘different streams of scientific thought about the cause of AIDS’ – like Crowe’s ‘stream of thought’ announced to his mailing list: ‘HIV is [not] the sole cause of AIDS.’ The fact that ‘there is a scientific controversy whether HIV is the cause of AIDS’ was never in ‘issue’ in the case. Anyway, so what, if the ‘HIV-causes-AIDS’ science that the prosecution was based on was supported by the entire scientific and medical establishment? And it appeared that the ‘scientific controversy’ was limited to the objections of a few cranks whose criticism of this HIV-AIDS science was a risible shambles of fundamental contradictions.
Borick and Crowe were no longer disputing the prosecution case that Parenzee (a) was infected with ‘HIV’, (b) had recklessly exposed three women to it, and (c) had transmitted the virus to one of them.
The Australian reported the following day:
Lawyers for an HIV-positive man convicted of knowingly endangering the lives of three women argued in court in Adelaide yesterday that there was no conclusive evidence linking the virus to AIDS. ... Members of the HIV-sceptic Perth Group – who claim HIV has never been adequately identified in the laboratory and cannot be said to cause AIDS – were key defence witnesses in Parenzee’s appeal, but Mr Borick said he would not recall them for new testimony should leave to appeal be granted. ‘We have made the deliberate choice to look to the other witnesses,’ Mr Borick said.
‘We’ being him and Crowe: on Crowe’s advice, and contrary to what he’d stated to Sulan J, Borick was no longer ‘envisag[ing] call[ing] the Perth Group’; ‘he would not recall them for new testimony should leave to appeal be granted’.
But the Criminal Court of Appeal failed to appreciate his ‘deliberate choice’ to ditch the Perth Group’s evidence in favour of Duesberg’s, Borick groused. In his notice of appeal to the High Court, he commenced by emphasizing:
Before turning to the applicant’s argument, it is necessary to first clear up a factual misconception upon which the court below proceeded. Contrary to what appears in the judgment of the court below, the applicant’s counsel was not relying upon the evidence of (what was called) the ‘Perth Group’. The applicant’s counsel had abandoned reliance upon their evidence – this is apparent from page 3 lines 22-31 of the Transcript.
Borick didn’t want the High Court to think he was still basing his case on ‘the evidence of (what was called) the “Perth Group”’, and that he was standing on the ground, on the mountain they’d won. No, he wanted to ‘clear up’ this misconception: he’d ‘abandoned reliance upon their evidence’ that ‘HIV’ hasn’t been proved to exist for the scientific junk it was.
In his notice of appeal Borick continued:
the issue for the court below in determining whether leave should have been granted was whether on the evidence at the trial and before the court below the accused was properly convicted of three offences of endangering life. That in turn depended upon whether the fact that the accused had unprotected sex was likely to endanger life. … That question can be broken down into two sub-questions, first, was it scientifically established that having unprotected sex is ‘likely’ to lead to the other person contracting HIV? And, secondly, if a person contracts HIV does that cause AIDS so as to ‘endanger’ another person’s life?
Reader, even if you don’t have a legal clue, because maybe the closest you’ve ever got to the judicial system has been a parking fine, do you see what a complete and utter mess Borick made of the case, thanks to Crowe’s success in persuading him to keep on changing the factual basis of Parenzee’s defence?
Imagine telling a judge: ‘I’m not guilty of shooting him, Guv, because I wasn’t there. No, actually I was there, but I couldn’t have shot him because I didn’t have a gun. No, actually I did have a gun, but it isn’t likely the bullets I fired could’ve hit him. No, they could have hit him, but it isn’t likely they killed him. Also, you can’t say exactly which of my bullets killed him, so you got to let me off, Guv.’ This is how Crowe handcuffed in the dock would play it, changing his story every five minutes.
And then, when the case was wrecked, and Parenzee was sitting in prison for nothing, and an epochal opportunity to disprove and discredit the ‘HIV’ theory of AIDS on the evidence in a court of law was lost, Crowe starting lying about what he’d done.
First in his email exchange with the Perth Group after the case.
Crowe’s denial that he’d drawn Borick’s useless cross-examination questions for Gallo – ‘I never wrote cross‑examination text for him’ – was later exposed for the lie it was when the ‘cross-examination text’ he’d indeed written for Borick’s cross-examination of Gallo later surfaced.
Crowe subsequently explained why he’d advised Borick to avoid cross-examining Gallo on the scientific validity of his most basic claim, his claim to have also isolated ‘HIV’: why, it would have been ‘dangerous’ to do so. To Crowe it was safer to roll over like a cringing dog. Hence the useless questions he drew for Borick, steering him away from this fundamental issue, with the result that instead of taking Gallo down, Borick faffed around one pointless side‑issue after another, leaving Gallo’s claim to have isolated ‘HIV’ intact.
To conceal his role and his responsibility for Parenzee’s equally botched further appeals, Crowe lied that Parenzee hadn’t filed any. So he told his RA conference in Oakland, California, in November 2009.
Being the compulsive pathological liar that he is, not only did Crowe proceed to tell the premeditated lie planned in his talk notes – ‘Parenzee abandoned appeals’ – he elaborated his lie by cooking up a colourful covering fairy story for the titillation of his RA groupies:
There was talk about having an appeal. There was another level of appeal and Parenzee declined to appeal. He’d basically been told in jail that if you’re not a well‑behaved prisoner, then you won’t get parole, and if you’re appealing then you’re not a well-behaved prisoner. Now they’re not supposed to say that, but they intimidated him to the point where he said, ‘I’m not going to appeal.’
Pure invention, and displaying the childish mentality of a schoolboy who’s just taken and smashed his father’s car, and instead of facing and owning up to what he’s done, the enormous damage he’s caused, he makes up pathetically infantile, transparently false stories to try escaping the blame.
Who will disagree with Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos that this moronic slimeball ‘has betrayed the dissident movement’?