When Craig Lamar Davis was found guilty in January 2014 it was the latest trial loss in a string of trial losses for Clark Baker and his HIV Innocence Group. This was the fifth trial and the fourth loss for Mr. Baker. The “win” of Sgt. Tarence C. Dixon may not have actually been won using “junk science” that is the foundation strategy of the HIV Innocence Group. According to Dr. Seth Kalichman who has worked closely with the military in another case lost by Mr. Baker:
“The military case that Clark Baker boasts winning was actually thrown out of court. People close to the case have told me that the judge’s ruling had nothing to do with OMSJ testimony delivered by Nancy Turner Banks and Rodney Richards. In fact there were technical factors regarding the alleged assault that resulted in the dismissal.”
That statement by Dr. Kalichman also comports with another article about the case interestingly written by AIDS Denialist Terry Michael:
“There was no testimony in the trial from any of the women disputing Dixon’s claim that he used condoms. There also was no testimony from any of the women that they had contracted HIV from Sgt. Dixon.”
Until I can corroborate the above statements, I will acquiesce this win to Mr. Baker. But losing 4 out of 5 trials is not good and certainly does not bode well for this type of strategy.
When Mr. Baker does suffer defeat in a trial he is quick to place blame on the judge or jury.
- In the case of Andre Davis, the judge was a racist: I doubt that Judge Metz wants to be known as the judge who released a black AIDS-infected man to defile Cincinnati ‘s white womenfolk… His opponents in the next election would have a field day!
by OMSJ 11/23/2011 6:48:23 PM 12:48 PM
- In the case of Nushawn Willimas, the jury was racist: It’s easier to put him away than explain to their white neighbors why they released him into their white community. After thirty years, this is the first time I’ve ever blamed racism for a conviction.
- In the case of Craig Lamar Davis, (discussed in this current post) the jury was stupid: Clark Baker You’re right, Rocky. We always prefer a court trial (judge only) but Turner and Davis wanted a jury. We had no idea that Davis’ doctors would admit that they never diagnosed him – or that the jury would ignore such a salient fact. Although the burden was on the prosecution, we PROVED Davis’ innocence and the jury didn’t care. You can’t fix stupid…8 hours ago · Like · 5
The above statement by Mr. Baker is telling for a reason other than his bitter refusal to take responsibility for the loss. Notice he says: “we always prefer a court trial (judge only)…” Despite the fact that Mr. Baker has also lost at least one trial that was “judge only” he acknowledges that it is easier to fool one person than it is to fool twelve.
Trying a case with such a controversial tactic is quite rare. The only other case I know of outside of Mr. Baker’s failed attempts is the Parenzee Case in Australia. That case was a colossal failure for the defense using the anti-science tactic. The judge in that case humiliated the so-called “experts”. That case also led to a huge rift that fractured the AIDS Denialsts causing two groups to emerge: The Perthians and The Deusbergians. That rift exists to this day. It grows steadily wider and is evident from time to time at the facebook page of ReThinking AIDS where periodic fights erupt.
The Winning Strategy
While Mr. Baker fights a losing battle using a failed strategy, the rest of the country is making strides using the opposite strategy: 30+ years of solid science. In 2013 a bill was introduced to REPEAL these discriminatory HIV Criminalization Laws that only serve to further HIV stigma. The bill was introduced in the U.S. House on May 7 and in the Senate on December 10. The language of the bill is pertinent to Civilian and Military cases alike. Part B of the bill specifically states:
(B) A determination of whether such laws, policies, regulations, and judicial precedents and decisions demonstrate a public health-oriented, evidence-based, medically accurate, and contemporary understanding of— (emphasis mine)
(i) the multiple factors that lead to HIV transmission;
(ii) the relative risk of HIV transmission routes;
(iii) the current health implications of living with HIV;
(iv) the associated benefits of treatment and support services for people living with HIV; and
(v) the impact of punitive HIV-specific laws and policies on public health, on people living with or affected by HIV, and on their families and communities.
This bill is the result of years of hard work and dedication by many individuals and groups alike. These are reputable groups that focus on the actual science of HIV. Mr. Baker may have asserted that OMSJ Victories Raise Humanitarian Complaints but that is ridiculous and laughable. As I pointed out, real AIDS Activists have been aware of the dangers of these detrimental laws and have worked for years to change them long before anyone ever heard of the HIV Innocence Group. When these laws are changed it will be a result of laws coming into alignment with the solid science of HIV and not because some bargain basement PI fooled a judge or two.