Back in October of 2011 Clark Baker listed the case of Darren Chiacchia in the win column at his HIV Innocence Group website. But as I reported in November of 2011 this win had nothing to do with the strategy that is the foundation of HIV Innocence Group. Mr. Baker discusses this strategy at length at his website under the topic: Winning Criminal HIV Cases. Mr. Baker states that HIV science is “incoherent gibberish”, the evidence for HIV is built on “scientific misconduct” and that HIV tests are fraudulent and cannot be used to diagnose a patient because they test for antibodies to HIV and not the virus itself. On several occasions Mr. Baker has made the outrageous claim that in all the cases he has reviewed, no doctor has ever competently diagnosed their patient with HIV because of these worthless tests. Mr. Baker contends “…no one – not even the so-called experts – have the training or expertise to competently diagnose an HIV infection. To do so requires HIV tests that are designed to do nothing more than market HIV as a disease.”
The Darren Chiacchia case, however, did not come down to the HIV science or if the defendant was or was not HIV positive. This case, as I pointed out in November of 2011, was won by a legal precedent set in a previous case and the definition of intercourse in the Florida Statutes. In Florida the definition of intercourse is penile insertion into a vagina. The Chiacchia case involved two men (and the precedent case involved two women) so this definition did not apply. The State of Florida decided to appeal this decision in Chiacchia and in May of 2013 Chiacchia, and subsequently Clark Baker, lost the appeal. This appeal is discussed here and here.
The pertinent conclusion from the appeal ruling is: “Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal order is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.” This means that the case should no longer be considered a win for HIV Innocence Group at least not until the ruling in the “further proceeding” is known. Of course I never considered it win for them because it was not won using the tactics and strategy of disproving the science of HIV.
It was a solid win for Attorney Baron Coleman but he may well lose in the next round if he reverts back to the anti-science tactics as he alluded to in this 2011 article when discussing the outcome had there been a trial:
“First off, Darren is innocent. He has maintained that he is innocent. We maintain that there is nothing that the state would be able to produce and no person able to testify that Darren was or is HIV positive,” Coleman said. “I have not seen anything that shows he is HIV positive. I have not seen the smoking gun, doctor’s report. I don’t know what Darren’s status is and that’s not for us to prove.”
It also troubles me that this appeal decision came down in May of 2013 and Mr. Baker has never mentioned it. It is now about 9 months later and still no word from Mr. Baker. But it does further underscore Mr. Bakers established pattern of lack of transparency and his reluctance to report anything that might undermine the allusion of success he has crafted.
In November of 2013 there was another appeal in a Florida HIV case that also utilized the precedent set in the original case. That appeal also expanded the definition of intercourse from the Florida Statute. This may only be settled by the Florida Supreme Court. If this statute is ultimately proven to be too narrow, I wonder if any other cases will be subjected to review. If so, another of Mr. Bakers supposed wins may be in trouble. The case of Shan Ortiz also utilized that definition of intercourse and not the anti-HIV science. That is also why I do not consider it a win for the HIV Innocence Group.