Transcripts of the evidence* given by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner in
R v Parenzee: Supreme Court of South Australia: Application for Permission to Appeal:
[2007] SASC 143

In January 2006 Andre Chad Parenzee was convicted by the South Australian Supreme Court on three counts of endangering life by having unprotected sex with three women. In March 2006 he appealed his conviction on the principal basis that HIV has not been proved to exist, as argued by the Perth Group. Prior to the appeal, Parenzee’s defence counsel Kevin Borick travelled to Perth to consult two members of the Group, Eleni Papadopulos Eleopulos and Valendar Turner, who told him he could argue his case on the grounds that the existence of HIV has not been proven or he could use other experts who accept that HIV does exist but does not cause AIDS. And that he could not use both sets of witnesses, because that would set his experts against each other in court with obvious negative consequences for Parenzee. Borick called Papadopulos Eleopulos and Turner to testify as expert witnesses on three separate court sittings held over 2006/2007. In April 2007 Parenzee’s application for leave to appeal was dismissed. At subsequent sentencing proceedings, Parenzee was jailed for nine years. He then appealed the refusal of his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, Criminal Jurisdiction, Adelaide, arguing that ‘the single appeal judge failed to take into account the different streams of thought on the cause of AIDS’. This new approach shows Borick eschewing the Perth Group's advice not to mix his opposing experts. On 24 August 2007, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed this further appeal. Borick drew a Summary of Argument for a further appeal to the High Court of Australia but this did not proceed.

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner evidence and cross-examinations
(See note below on transcription errors)

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.