Covid is (not) a Bioweapon

In a rare win™, an Austrian regional court of appeals absolves defendant of being a superspreader killing her neighbour via infecting him with Covid

Two years ago, I first brought to your attention that an Austrian prosecutor was pressing charges against a woman who allegedly infected™ her neighbour with Covid-19. Sadly, that latter gentlemen had cancer, developed some non-Covid pneumonia, and died of a lung infection. This is what got that anti-mandate woman into trouble:

Covid in Austria: Sars-Cov-2 as Bioweapon discussed in Court

Basically, the court relied on expert™ testimony who asserted that

the coronavirus strain found in the 69-year-old ‘highly likely’ [mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit] originated from his neighbour, public prosecutor’s office spokeswoman Tina Frimmel-Hesse explained to the Kleine Zeitung. According to the virologist, there is a direct and clearly attributable connection between the woman’s illness and the death of the pensioner. [notice the sleight of hand in terms of ‘highly likely’ to ‘clearly attributable’? In a sane world, no state attorney would go near this kind of questionable evidence, in Austro-Covidistan in 2023, however, …]

A bit later, the senior citizen had died, which led to the prosecutor pressing charges, as I reported in early 2024:

A 54-year-old woman was sentenced to four months’ conditional imprisonment and a fine of 800 euros at Klagenfurt State Court on Thursday [11 Sept. 2024]. She stood accused of infecting her neighbour, who had cancer, with Covid-19 in the stairwell in 2021. He died as a result. [yes, it is, and has been ‘before Covid’, illegal to knowingly infect others with diseases; strangely, no gov’t producing bioweapons has ever been hauled in front of—state-run—judges…]…

A forensic expert determined that the cancer patient died of pneumonia caused by Covid-19. A virological expert opinion proved that the virus DNA from the PCR samples of the accused and the man who later died matched. The sample had even surprised the expert witness, who testified on Thursday: ‘A match of 100% is very rare because coronaviruses change very quickly.’ An infection by the defendant was ‘almost 100%’ likely.

For the rest of the piece, please see this posting:

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

As you can imagine, this kind of legal BS was so absurd, it boggled the mind—and the defendant also appealed the ruling.

Today, we’ll follow up on the appeals proceeding—because the higher-level court in Carinthia determined that the conviction was…well, read on for yourself as I’ll let state broadcaster ORF Kärnten take it from here (in my translation, with emphases and [snark] added).

---

Neighbour Infected w/CoV: OLG [Oberlandesgericht Rules [no need to add ‘alleged’, eh?]

The Higher Regional Court of Graz (OLG) has ruled that a Carinthian woman who knowingly contracted Covid-19 and infected her neighbour did not commit gross negligence manslaughter. The woman went into the stairwell despite a quarantine order [orig. Absonderungsbescheid] while a man became infected and died.

Via ORT Kärnten, 20 May 2025 [source]

In an appeals hearing on Tuesday [20 May 2025], the Graz Higher Regional Court ruled that the defendant was not guilty of the offence of gross negligent manslaughter. A conviction for the offence of knowingly endangering others with a communicable diseases had already been ascertained. For this offence, the Carinthian woman now received a conditional [orig. bedingt] prison sentence of four months, reduced from three years. The ruling of the Graz Higher Regional Court is now final.

Time of Infection Not Proven [beyond reasonable doubt]

The woman had [add: allegedly] infected her neighbour in St. Veit/Glan with Covid-19 in December 2021. The man later died as a result of the infection. During the time period the accused was [allegedly] contagious, she had met her neighbour twice. Both times they talked to each other in a confined space for a few minutes [would ‘a few minutes’—orig. einige Minuten—be sufficient time to infect someone?]. On both occasions, the woman was not wearing an FFP2 mask [why would she? If there are no symptoms, the likelihood of transmission is virtually negligible]. On one occasion, however, she did not yet know about her infection. On the second occasion, however, she did, as she was subject to an isolation order [ah, a coin toss, then, which means there must be at least some 50% odds of conviction, isn’t it?].

After hearing an expert witness [none is named here, no further particulars are provided], the Higher Regional Court of Graz ruled that it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the neighbour was infected during the encounter when the defendant already knew that she was contagious.

---

Notes on the (Sad) State of Covid Justice™

Instead of the conventional (expectable) ‘bottom lines’, I must use this space to add commentary on the shitty state of the rule of law in all matters related to Covid.

First of all, the ruling occurred in week 21 (i.e., a week ago), according to the Graz Higher Regional Court’s website (dated 15 May 2025).

The associated press release, however, is the verbatim source of the above ORF news™ item; there is literally no other and/or additional information made public: neither the arguments from the defence lawyer nor the information provided by the expert witness (if that was a second one in addition to the prosecution’s witness from last year).

I hate to do this, but the below paragraph is from the second (2024) piece linked in the introductory comment:

‘I really didn't make the judgement easy for myself’, said Judge Götz in her verdict [which isn’t about her, let’s not forget this]. She continued: ‘I feel sorry for you personally—I believe that something like this has probably happened hundreds of times [speculation]. 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.’ [was there no second expert opinion permitted? I’m 112% certain this will go back to the appeals or constitutional (supreme) court before too long] According to the judge, she therefore had the certainty required for a guilty verdict [read this again: ‘probability bordering on certainty’ morphed into ‘certainty required for a guilty verdict’—you can’t make this up]. The ruling is not yet final [as I said, I suspect this will be bounced to the appeals court before too long].

I told you so.

‘probability bordering on certainty’ morphed into ‘certainty required for a guilty verdict’—you can’t make this up

That is the shitshow masquerading as the rule of law in Covidistan.

If there is a silver lining—and I’m unsure there actually is—it may be that, by now, this kind of lawfare (abuse) is no longer considered o.k., even by the Austrian judiciary, is telling.

Perhaps there may be a chance to claw back to a more sane worldview, that is, provided that there would be a public accounting of, among others,

• the sensationalist journos™ who gloated about the allegation of Covid actually being a bioweapon (see esp. the first piece from 2023)

• a thorough judicial review of all the fines, rulings, and abuses of the law perpetrated by the Covidistan régime, incl. in particular politicos™ who panicked/did this on purpose/too lazy to inform themselves (see the second posting’s bottom lines)

• yet legacy media reporting™ indicates nothing like these things to be forthcoming.

Hence, we’ll do the same shit again once the WHO declares another ‘pandemic’.

And the same people will act alike once more.

Do not comply.