Covidistan Reprise: Judge Sends Woman to Jail for 'Infecting' Neighbour w/Covid
Judge Götz: 'an expert has established with a probability bordering on certainty' that a dead man's Covid infection came from his neighbour--based on PCR (junk) tests
This is a follow-up to something I wrote about 1.5 years ago when a woman from Carinthia was hauled before a judge for allegedly infecting her neighbour while ‘quarantined’. Said neighbour, who was also suffering from cancer, subsequently (?) came down with Covid and died, which is how that woman ended up in court.
You read this correctly: she stood accused of infecting her neighbour, and she was thus convicted of negligent manslaughter (fahrlässige Tötung):
Now, that story has resurfaced, and we’ll take a look at it once more.
As always, translation and emphases mine, as are the bottom lines.
Neighbour Died from Covid-19: Woman Sentenced
Via ORF Kärnten, 12 Sept. 2024 [source]
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…]
This is the second time the woman has had to answer to the Klagenfurt State Court in connection with her coronavirus illness [more on this below]. Then, she had already been sentenced to three months’ conditional imprisonment last summer for wilfully endangering people with communicable diseases.
However, the woman was acquitted of the charge of grossly negligent manslaughter for allegedly infecting her neighbour, who was seriously ill with cancer and died. This part of the sentence was then overturned because the chains of infection had not been adequately discussed, a court of appeals ruled.
Expert: Infection ‘Almost 100% Likely’ [like the modRNA jabs?]
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.
In the current trial, judge Sabine Götz had the task of shedding light on possible contacts between the defendant and her neighbour. Here it was he said-she said: the son and daughter-in-law of the deceased and his wife stated that there had been contact in the stairwell on 21 December 2021 (i.e., when the accused must have already known she had Covid-19 [I’m unsure if this is proven, but whatever, I suppose at this point in time]). The defendant had been standing in her doorway in the hallway of the apartment block, the deceased had been standing opposite her.
Statement vs Statement About Actual Contact
‘She looked really ill. I asked her if she had coronavirus, but she denied it and said she just had the flu’, said the son [who may not have met the defendant on said day]. He was very worried because he knew [did he?] how dangerous a Covid-19 infection could be for cancer patients. The defendant vehemently denied this: ‘I couldn't get out of bed or talk that day because I was so ill. So it couldn't have happened like that’, she said.
During the trial, the defendant also said that a Covid-19 infection had never been an issue for her: ‘It was clear to me that it was bronchitis, like I have every year in winter.’ The attending GP had also put another questionable statement by the accused on record before the police: she would ‘certainly not be locked up’, she had said to him when a rapid CoV test came back positive [so, the GP sees a lateral flow test result and then rats out his patient: what a jolly feller].
Judge: Decision Wasn’t Easy
‘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 judgement has not yet entered into force for the time being [as I said, I suspect this will be bounced to the appeals court before too long].
Bottom Lines
If this wasn’t setting a potential dangerous case-precedent, I probably wouldn’t bother reporting this. But this is both excessively stupid as it is highly dangerous for what remains of the rule of law (not much).
As the Kleine Zeitung’s Thomas Martinz reported on 8 March 2024, originally
the woman was sentenced to three months’ conditional imprisonment for the offence of wilfully endangering people with communicable diseases. With regard to the grossly negligent manslaughter, of with which she was also charged, she was acquitted due to lingering doubts. However, the verdict of the Klagenfurt Regional Court by Judge Dietmar Wassertheurer was contested by the Klagenfurt public prosecutor’s office with regard to the acquittal. The Higher Regional Court of Graz upheld the appeal on these points, overturned the judgement, and referred the case back to the court of first instance for a new decision.
So, there were doubts about the charge of grossly negligent manslaughter, which the public (!) prosecutor then worked tirelessly to make that woman go back to court.
As Mr. Martinz then reported, once again in the Kleine Zeitung, on 27 June 2024, here’s how that second appearance in court went:
In addition to the witness statements according to which the 53-year-old always maintained contact with neighbours without wearing a mask [the shock and horror] in December 2021, the prosecution is relying on two expert reports: a forensic expert determined that the cancer patient died of pneumonia caused by Covid-19. A virological expert opinion found a match between the virus genome from the PCR samples of the defendant and the person who later died. The two virus samples were genetically identical.
Specifically, the court must now shed light on two possible contacts between the defendant and her neighbour—on 15 December 2021 and 21 December 2021: ‘On 15 December, I had a fever of almost 40 degrees. There was no question that I had coronavirus. It was clear to me that it was bronchitis, like I have every year in winter.’ When she had contact with her neighbour that day, she had only looked out of the door briefly. Six days later [the allegation is that transmission occurred on 21 Dec. 2021], she had contact with the neighbour’s wife. ‘She was standing in the doorway. It's possible that her husband was standing behind her, but I didn't see him’, said the accused in April.
So, this is how this transpired: there were two possible ‘contacts’—brief moments in the staircase, between a cancer patient and/or his wife and the defendant in Dec. 2021.
The defendant’s attending GP spoke to police about his patient (which, I think, isn’t technically illegal—but I’m unsure about the strength of patient-doctor confidentiality here).
Mention is made of ‘a positive test’, which begs the question about the records of said (mandatory) testing. Shouldn’t this be also under wraps due to the presumed privacy afforded to medical information?
Finally, I’ve skipped over most of the tendentious allegations of the defendant being a ‘Covid denier’ and the like, which may be true (for all I know or care about), but it’s also highly prejudicial on part of the ‘journo™’.
This will not be the last time we hear about this case, I suspect, because if the ruling stands, it’ll create a case-precedent. And what kind of case-precedent it would be:
A PCR (or rapid) test that, according to Kary Mullis, cannot be used to determine an infection, is now used as prima facie evidence of grossly negligent manslaughter.
The presiding judge claims that this ‘near-certainty’ is ‘good enough’ for her to render a guilty verdict.
Good-by, rule of law; sanity has long since vanished.
Ironically, comparing two viral samples for genetic similarity is a legitimate use of the PCR test, in contrast to the diagnostic misuse that was forced on the populace.
Everything else here is nuts. Why wouldn’t two people in the same apartment block have been exposed to the exact same strain, at a time when omicron was going round the world? Maybe she gave it to him; or maybe he gave it to her; or they both got it from the daughter-in-law, or from the postman; or maybe the defendant never had it like she says and was only exposed; or who the hell knows?
This ought to be thrown out on appeal, unless the higher court judges are as stupid and/or ill-intentioned as madame judge here.
The part Epimetheus mostly skipped over, about the defendant being known as a covid denier, is I imagine the real crux of the case: she was a non-conformer about the death cult, let her neighbors know what she thought, and this is their and the state’s slightly belated revenge.
I guess after this there is no innocent sneeze anymore. We could all be potential killers.