View Full Version : Australian woman lies to court to get back at ex-husband

March 13th, 2009, 05:18 PM
Here's another bizarre case of someone using HIV and the legal system as a weapon to beat an ex-partner with.


A woman infected with HIV by her husband says her life has been destroyed by the disease, which has left her unemployable and unable to sign her own name.

Her husband did not tell her he had the virus when the couple began a sexual relationship in 1996, the Victorian County Court was told on Friday.


The man, now aged 39, had contracted HIV when he was about 15 after receiving a blood transfusion for haemophilia.

The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, discovered she was HIV positive in March 1996, about three months into their relationship, and the virus has now progressed to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

She was worried she might have infected him, but he did not tell her he actually had the virus until she suggested he get tested.


It was not until a year later that he revealed he had contracted HIV from the blood transfusion about 12 years earlier.

When asked why he lied, he replied that he was afraid the truth would end the relationship.

The couple married in 2001 but the marriage ended in 2007. The man was charged with recklessly engaging in conduct endangering life in 2008.

In her victim impact statement, the woman said her life had changed beyond recognition since contracting the disease.

"I'm unemployable. I can't have children due to my health and associated risks," she said.

"I need help for everything, to fill in forms, attend medical appointments, pay bills. I cannot even sign my name.

"I thought that one day I would have a family of my own, get married and have children."
Here are a few questions I have about this case:

Why did the woman go for an 'HIV test' in March 1996, just three months in to her new relationship?

Why did she marry him four years AFTER coming to the conclusion that he passed HIV on to her.

Why did the woman wait 11 years before going to the police with her story?

If the man 'confessed' to being an HIVer in 1997 and picked up the virus 12 years previous he's had it for 24 years. Yes, 24 years! Doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone?

Why is the woman so ill? She was, allegedly, diagnosed with the virus very shortly after contracting it, so presumably she's had access to HIV care and treatment during the whole time she's been an HIVer. Shouldn't she be a picture of health and a shining example of how successful HIV wonder-drugs are?

I was diagnosed an HIVer over fourteen years ago and have NEVER taken any treatment for the non-virus. I don't recognise the symptoms and problems this woman describes. It seems to me she's just another malingerer using HIV as a way to get back at an ex-partner.

March 14th, 2009, 03:06 AM
She decided to sue only after she got sick? That's pretty weird. So her husband would've remained innocent if she hadn't gotten sick? Did their love end because she got sick or dis she decide to get sick because their love had ended? Oh man.... The amount of unanswered and unasked questions here is amazing.

March 14th, 2009, 04:02 PM
Of course this will lead to another arguement which is what a fellow member has pointed out before:

the INTENTION to inflict someone with the virus is no difference from someone who treatens to kill someone with a knife.

It is because of such statements, hence in places like my country, we have a new law passed on whereby you CAN BE convicted for crime if you do NOT disclose your HIV status. Even if you DONT KNOW you are HIV-positive, you are still liable to be charged in court.

Then again, MY arguement is, with all this debate going on about the actual existence of a virus, how can we even charge someone in court for a virus that is not proven right?