Case of Woman Convicted for 'Infecting' a Neighbour 'Likely to be Headed for the Appeals Court'

As per an op-ed by Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer who provides some more evidence of the weaponisation of justice and the legal profession by the Covid putschists

Two weeks ago, a judge (sic) in Austria sent a woman to jail for allegedly ‘infecting’ her neighbour with Covid. Although it remains unclear if said neighbour died of or with Covid (he was also a cancer patient), this is what the competent (sic) judge—a woman by the name of Sabine Götz—said in her verdict:

I really didn't make the judgement easy for myself’, said Judge Götz in her verdict. She continued: ‘I feel sorry for you personally—I believe that something like this has probably happened hundreds of times . But you have the misfortune that an expert has established with a probability bordering on certainty that it was an infection that originated from you.’

I’ve added the emphasis, and you can read up on these shenanigans here (which also incl. the rest of the piece from which I clipped the quote):

Covidistan Reprise: Judge Sends Woman to Jail for 'Infecting' Neighbour w/Covid

In that posting, we also discussed the fact that the defendant was already convicted (fraudulently, I’d opine) but cleared of the charges of ‘negligent manslaughter’ (fahrlässige Tötung). The public (sic) prosecutor then appealed and hence we got to the second round of what is arguably a weaponised campaign of lawfare by the judiciary vs. a citizen.

Now, as another appeal appears in the works, there’s a follow-up piece by Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer over at TKP.at, which I provide here.

As always, translation and emphases mine.

Appeal Against Wrongful Conviction of Woman Who Allegedly Infected Neighbours Likely

By Hans-Joachim Kremer, TKP.at, 29 Sept. 2024 [source]

Recently, an obvious miscarriage of justice caused quite a stir. Now it has been decided: the defendant will appeal.

As recently reported on TKP and later commented on by me, a woman in Klagenfurt was convicted of ‘grossly negligent manslaughter’ because she allegedly infected a neighbour suffering from cancer with SARS-CoV-2 in December 2021. The neighbour later died of pneumonia.

According to the case file, there were at least two concrete, highly questionable aspects of this judgment, apart from many fundamental ones.

Firstly, there was apparently no reliable evidence that the neighbour died from Covid-19 and not just with it. According to the files, it currently only looks like it was with it. In this respect, the allegation of murder would already be off the table.

Secondly, the conclusion of the expert, who claims to have found a 99.9% match between viral samples from the neighbour and the defendant, appears to be factually unfounded. The expert failed to prove the quality of the sequencing in comparison samples. It was evidently neglected to examine other samples from that time and area. There is evidently no evidence that other samples would not have shown a 99.9% match. This makes the significance of this test invalid. The judge has merely relied on an opinion, i.e., eminence, and not on facts. If this sequencing was even carried out as claimed, there are doubts there too.

Another thing to consider is that the samples were test sticks that were archived at the time by the two Carinthian laboratories that carried out the two RT-PCR tests. Whether archiving was even legally permissible would be another legitimate question.

---

Bottom Lines

I do hope this shitshow of a ‘trial’ goes back to court before too long: Hans-Joachim Kremer highlights the quite important facts of ‘expert’ opinion and tampering with evidence.

Then there’s the apparent issue with only relying on ‘test™’ results from the defendant without, apparently, weighing her results vs. those of the other residents nearby.

Speaking of the cause of death, pneumonia, I’ve yet to see reference to anything that explains its viral, as opposed to the much more common bacterial, origins.

And there’s the issue issue of weaponisation of fear by the Covid clowns masquerading as gov’t, ‘experts™’, and the like (via Dr. Kremer’s other piece):

In any case, it is not the task of criminal law to criminalise general risks to life, especially not when media have sparked a kind of hysteria in the population that is very reminiscent of the times of witch-hunts and the most primitive degenerations of the administration of justice. Abstruse views such as ‘Man is a murderous virus to man...’ or ‘Those who refuse to comply with Covid measures may kill their own grandma!’ were spawns of this fuelled hysteria.

On top of it, we also note, in passing, that this entire charade transpired in late 2021, i.e., during the infamous ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated’.

The most telling sign of the advanced decay of the rule of law is—the unholy matrimony of arbitrary measures, often imposed by ‘executive’ order (a ‘decree’, if we would be talking about, e.g., ‘Russia™’) or regulatory ordinances, with the selective application of the letter of the law.

In this sense, and as I’m currently putting on the finishing touches on my forthcoming book about crime, law enforcement, and punishment around 1800, I think I’ll quote from the General Rules of Court, or Allgemeine Gerichtsordnung, first decreed, no less, by emperor Joseph II (r. 1765/80-90) in 1781 (this comes to you in my translation):

The judge shall act and speak according to the true and general meaning of the words of the law, and they shall not depart from the clear provisions of these rules under any pretence of a difference between the words and the meaning of the law…only if a case were to come before him which, although not determined by these here rules, would have a perfect resemblance to another case decided in these rules, then the judge is permitted to decide the unexpressed case according to the rule laid down for the expressed case; if, however, a well-founded doubt should arise as to the meaning of the law, such a doubt shall be reported to the Court and a decision obtained from thence; but if a judge should delay the proceedings contrary to this General Rule, or otherwise prejudice the parties, he shall be liable for all damages.

One of the core provisions of the modern judiciary is that, although a branch of government, there are hardly consequences for misconduct. Yes, one may get sidelined for promotion or appointed to this of that (unwanted) position, but in general it’s as safe as anything once you’re a federal judge. Should there be a miscarriage of justice, though, any damages fall on ‘the state’.

Perhaps we need to adjust this proviso?

In any way, here’s hoping that this travesty of justice will be overturned once more before too long.