I. Charges dropped due to defendant testing negative:
Monthly Archives: April 2014
For the first several years that the HIV Innocence Group was operating, their core strategy, as I have discussed before, was to attack the reliability of ELISA and Western Blot tests. Mr. Baker claims these tests can not accurately diagnose HIV infection because they test for antibodies to HIV and not the virus itself. Baker bases this “winning strategy” on his assertion that “HIV research is comprised largely of incoherent gibberish…” (inexplicably the link is to the HIV Sequence Database for some strange reason) and “evidence that is built on scientific misconduct (of Robert Gallo).” It is also worthy to note that Baker consistently ignores the fact that this evidence was also supplied by Luc Montagnier who not only won the Nobel Prize, but also was never charged with any wrongdoing whatsoever. In addition, the “scientific misconduct” had nothing to do with the accuracy nor the validity of Gallo’s work. It was concluded that Gallo tried to downplay the role of the French in the discovery of HIV and give himself more credit.
NOTE: Some hyperlinks are not working. They are all to Baker’s sites. Is this a coincidence? You can see the url address, however, please google the urls and you will find the exact reference.
Case: William S. Trout (Well, it is not actually a case because it never got past the Grand Jury)
Three days ago I posted about the Case of Robert Uballe. In that post, the defense attorney confirmed that Clark Baker and the HIV Innocence Group had nothing to do with that case despite being listed as a “win” at Baker’s site. Now a third attorney confirms that Mr. Baker was not involved in a case that is listed as “win” #45 at his website.
First I will post the email from Public Defender Lisa D. Collums in its entirety which can serve as factual in this post. Then I will follow up with my take on the email itself.
To: my email address redacted by me
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:57:35 -0500
Subject: RE: Case of William S. Trout
Mr. Trout’s case was no true billed by a Harrison County Grand Jury. The only persons present during Grand Jury Hearings in this State are attorneys from the District Attorney’s Office, Law Enforcement Officers, the Grand Jurors, and any witnesses who appear to give testimony. Once the D.A.’s Office is through presenting a particular case to the Grand Jury, that prosecutor steps out of the room and the Grand Jurors vote on whether to Indict the person, and what particular offense they should be indicted for. These proceedings are not recorded, so there are no records as to what happens inside the Grand Jury room.
I do not recall sending any information to the District Attorney’s Office regarding Mr. Trout and/or the charges against him.
My interaction with Baker’s group was to acknowledge their interest and to advise them that the case had been dismissed.
I do not know what interaction Baker’s group may or may not have had directly with either law enforcement and/or the Harrison County District Attorney’s Office.
In the first paragraph Ms. Collums states that the case was “no true billed” by the Grand Jury. This means there was insufficient evidence to prove that a crime had been committed and therefore the accused will not be indicted nor face trial. Ms. Collums also states: “The only persons present during Grand Jury Hearings in this State are attorneys from the District Attorney’s Office, Law Enforcement Officers, the Grand Jurors, and any witnesses who appear to give testimony.”
That is standard procedure for a Grand Jury which is convened to see if there is enough evidence supporting a criminal act to indict the accused and proceed to a trial:
“The grand jury’s accusatory function (emphasis mine) is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offense within the venue of the district court.”
The threshold for indictment is low. “The burden of proof at the preliminary hearing is probable cause, an extraordinarily low threshold for the prosecution to meet…” There is an old saying; “you can indict a ham sandwich.”
The Grand Jury is only a function of the prosecution. The defense attorney is not even allowed inside. They may stand outside the court to offer advice to the witnesses only, and that is mostly to make sure they do not incriminate themselves in some way.
Ms. Collums even states that she does not remember sending any information to the DA’s office.
SO in my opinion, from the facts supplied by Ms. Collums and my knowledge (supported by research) about Grand Juries, Mr. Baker had no involvement in this case at all. Mr. Baker’s function is to support the DEFENSE. Because the defense has no part in the Grand Jury hearing, it is safe to conclude that he is once again being neither truthful nor accurate.
Lastly, I believe this statement by Ms. Collums speaks volumes:
“My interaction with Baker’s group was to acknowledge their interest and to advise them that the case had been dismissed.”
How much actual work does Mr. Baker think he needs to do to be considered as part of a winning team?
That brings the total to 3: 3 separate attorneys in 3 separate cases. You know what they say: “Three is a pattern.” 3 things that come to my mind are:
Deceit, Deception and Duplicity.
Case: Robert David Uballe – Odessa, TX
Case #: A-39,177
You will find the above case listed as win #48 at Clark Baker’s HIV Innocence Group website:
Subject: Re: 3rd and Final Request: Case: Robert David Uballe #A-39,177
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:03:46 -0500
To: my address redacted by me for this post
I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a quick moment to verify if Mr. Clark Baker was or was not involved in the above case.
Thank you for your time,
J. Todd DeShong
Subject: 2nd Request: Case: Robert David Uballe #A-39,177
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:19:50 +0000Dear
Any help and clarification you could provided would be greatly appreciated.
J. Todd DeShong