24 October 2006 (PDF,
383 KB)
25 October 2006
(PDF, 371 KB)
18 December 2006
(PDF, 39 KB)
19 December 2006 (PDF, 276 KB)
20 December 2006 (PDF, 489
KB)
21 December 2006 (PDF, 138 KB)
30 January 2007 (PDF, 451 KB)
31 January 2007 (PDF, 370 KB)
1 February 2007 (PDF, 2.1 MB)
2 February 2007 (PDF, 2.9 MB)
Notes on transcription errors and David Crowe’s
decision
not to make these transcripts available: an excerpt from the Perth Group’s email exchange with
Crowe
following his fatal interference in the case:
At the end of the evidence given by the “HIV” experts, the
DPP noted
that there were many mistakes in the transcripts and asked for
permission to
correct them. We were never asked to correct them, and judging from the
EPE
evidence quoted by the DPP and the Judge, it appears neither has
anybody else.
Mistakes appear to be especially frequent in EPE’s evidence, so much so
that
the meaning is lost or seems to appear to be the opposite to what was
intended.
For example (three of the significant mistakes are underlined):
“A. I’m not interested in what she [Padian]
says. I’m not interested in her data [EPE testified it was only
Padian’s data,
not her interpretation, that interested her]. And her evidence does not
prove
heterosexual transmission, no matter how you take it. It is not what
she says
in AIDSTruth. It is not what she says in published scientific work, and
for
published scientific work let me tell you in her prospective studies
she has
over 170, or 173 I think, or five, individuals, men who are positive
and their
negative partners, and women who are positive and their negative
partners. In
the average, they live up to 60 years, and even at the end of the
study, when
the study started, the one I think, only 33% of people who are using
condoms.
And at the end of the study, 25% who were still not using consistently
condoms,
and no-one, no-one of these couples become positive. How can I say that
the
Padian paper proves heterosexual transmission? How she can say that her
studies
prove heterosexual transmission, more importantly?” Among the many
mistakes,
the most significant are: There should be no not in the second and
fifth
sentences. And 60 should read 6.
....
... when we asked you to allocate some of Jim Wolfe’s funds to purchase court transcripts of our evidence and cross-examination, to put on your website along with testimony of the “HIV” experts, you refused. ... And you have never explained why you decided against buying and posting our evidence in chief and cross-examination. Don’t you agree that one can be forgiven for thinking that your suppression of our testimony, combined with your strategy—HIV exists but does not cause AIDS—which has failed for over two decades, was to the benefit of the prosecution and not the defence?
* PowerPoint presentations to the court by Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Turner can be accessed as PDF files in The Parenzee case section of the Perth Group website.