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 on 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 appeal strategy:
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.