Back in October of 2011 I wrote a post about the case of Jason Young. This was the first case that Clark Baker actually attempted to provide proof of his involvement in any of the cases listed at his website. Much of my post involved deconstructing Baker’s grandiose claims and proving why they amounted to nothing more than hyperbole. For example, Baker claimed the prosecution miraculously and spontaneously made a plea deal from 70 years in prison to mere months out of fear of OMSJ cross examining their expert witnesses:

“But as OMSJ prepared to cross-examine the prosecution’s four expert witnesses in a jury trial next week, Aiken’s top prosecutor offered a plea-deal that could set Young free by December.” (Emphasis Baker) “Although prosecutors claimed they wanted to spare Young’s victims from the ordeal of a trial, it now appears more likely that they wanted to spare Aiken’s top HIV experts, hospitals and clinics the ordeal of being discredited in a trial that would result in a flurry of malpractice lawsuits by hundreds of Aiken’s other misdiagnosed HIV patients – including the man Brisbin sent to prison in 2009.”

As I pointed out in my original post about this case, Mr. Baker never provided one single fact or fraction of evidence to back up his extraordinary claims. Thankfully (for my funny bone) Baker did provide one example of the hard-hitting cross examination questions OMSJ would have used to destroy the “so-called HIV experts” of the prosecution:

“OMSJ planned to ask Dr. Ball if he recommended other equally-ineffective and unapproved methods – like Ouija boards and Tarot cards.”

OUCH!

Conversation with Jason Young

Almost 3 years after that post I received a comment from the defendant Mr. Jason Young. That comment lead to a telephone conversation.

(NOTE: I have provided the complete comment at the bottom of this post. I have also contacted Mr. Young twice more telling him I was planning on writing a post about our conversation and asking if he would like me to include anything specifically or if he wanted to give me more details. Mr. Young never responded to my requests. I also plan on sending Mr. Young this post before uploading it to my blog so that he has one more chance to correct me on any factual issues.)

UPDATE: I did send this post to Mr. Young and waited several days. He did not respond.

Mr. Young asked me to remove the post completely because he said that I am wrong. However, even after talking to Mr. Young and re-reading the post, I realize the only thing I got wrong was that Mr. Young received two 5 year sentences to run concurrently which would be 5 years tops not 10 years as I reported. I included the fact that the sentence included the word “concurrently” but I overlooked it and reported it as a 10 years sentence.

I replied to Mr. Young via email and set up a telephone conversation. Mr. Young was very professional and personable on the phone and he did clear up on thing: I did not give Mr. Baker enough credit for the help he provided in this case. Mr. Young stated it was indeed the affidavit by Mr. Rodney Richards that prompted the plea deal and I will take Mr. Young at his word on that. However, Mr. Young verbally told me that the plea deal came about because the prosecution did not want to spend the money to hire experts and go through the expense of a trial. That proves Mr. Baker was simply making unsubstantiated, grandiose claims when he said:
“…it now appears more likely that they wanted to spare Aiken’s top HIV experts, hospitals and clinics the ordeal of being discredited in a trial that would result in a flurry of malpractice lawsuits by hundreds of Aiken’s other misdiagnosed HIV patients – including the man Brisbin sent to prison in 2009.”

Alford Plea

I don’t want to get into the plea deal because I feel I adequately covered that in the previous post 3 years ago. However, I did want to provide another example of the unsubstantiated, grandiose claims Mr. Baker is prone to make. Baker made two statements about the Alford Plea. Both are variations and both are wrong:

“Young’s guilty plea was wholly unrelated to the medical evidence (emphasis mine) that undermined the prosecution’s case. Under North Carolina v. Alford (1970), his “guilty plea” was not an admission of guilt, but was but merely an admission that he wanted to benefit from the prosecutor’s plea agreement.”

This variation at QA.com:
“Aiken’s top prosecutor Strom Thurmond Jr. offered Young a plea deal that involved several years in prison. Young refused and Thurmond eventually reduced his offer to two counts in an “Alford Plea,” which allows defendants to plead guilty without admitting that the charges had any scientific merit. (emphasis mine) Although Young faced 70 years (life), he’s out by Christmas!”

Neither of these statements are true, although I do give Baker credit for his subtle but significant addition of “medical evidence” and “scientific merit” to his statements. The truth is really the exact opposite of what Baker states. Here are 3 definitions:

• According to University of Richmond Law Review, “When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.”

• The book Plea Bargaining’s Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America published by Stanford University Press defines the plea as one in “which the defendant adheres to his/her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

• According to the book Gender, Crime, and Punishment published by Yale University Press, “Under the Alford doctrine, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to find him or her guilty, should the case go to trial.”

“If it was not for Clark Baker my life would have been over with. I owe everything to him.” ~ Jason Young

I explained to Mr. Young that the truth is he got very lucky. If the prosecution had taken this to trial and called Mr. Baker’s bluff, it is more likely he would have spent a much longer time in prison. I told Mr. Young that every trial that challenged the science of HIV as its defense strategy lost the case. I told Mr. Young that included all 6 trials in which Mr. Baker was involved. The exception could be Sgt Terence Dixon but my sources tell me Mr. Dixon’s case had nothing to do with the science of HIV. If Mr. Baker were to step up and provide proof that I am wrong, I would be the first to admit it. But the facts and the statistics clearly show that AIDS Denial in the court room is a losing strategy.

Potential Health Consequences

The worst part of this entire saga could be coming. Mr. Young told me several times that he has taken many different HIV tests and he has gotten many different results. He was not exactly clear on this point or perhaps I just did not understand. And this is one reason I have been trying to get Mr. Young to follow up with me: I want to be clear on this. I am not only concerned with Mr. Young’s health. He told me that he has a new wife and that she is pregnant. I will not go into the possible scenarios. That is not my place or my business to try and influence a grown man. However, I do wonder about Mr. Young’s influences. I will just end with this statement by Mr. Baker:

“After a careful review of Young’s medical records, OMSJ’s team found no evidence that Young was infected with HIV.”

______________________________________________________________________________________
Complete Comment from Mr. Young:

Submitted on 2014/08/11 at 6:36 pm
My name is Jason Young and I am the defendant mentioned in this case. I am sending you this comment while I sit in from of my bank here in Georgia. Not from a prison cell. Now i have made it a point not to look on the Internet since I was released from prison but my new wife text me this link for me to read. I ask you to please remove this page and I will tell you why. You are wrong. I sat in Aiken County Jail for over 10 months, housed in solitary confinement the entire time, only allowed out of my small cell for 1 hour a day all while the courts denied my fast and speedy trial because they said their docket was to full to accommodate. My daughter, who I love with all my heart and have even worked out to me getting for 2 weeks a month with her mother was 6 months old when I was arrested. Her mother is the one who started the investigation because we were fighting over custody. Long story short, I am a Freemason, member of Phi Beta Sigma, spoke at different churches in the area, cub scout leader and coached kids soccor. Even though I was well known in the community I did not take a plea deal of “no contest” to spare anyone embarrassment. My attorney (Aaron Walsh) did not give the affidavits to the prosecution until 3 days before they offered the plea deal. And yes, my attorney told me that I would be home by Christmas. All I thought is that I’m not going into a courtroom and saying that I’m guilty of something I’m not and the paper that my attorney gave me even had a release date of December 12, 2011 if I can remember. Aaron told me that I can fight this once I get out through a PCR. Now being that I have never been in this situation before I believed everything he told me. I should not have become I took the plea as instructed and was not out by Christmas. All and all I only did a year and five months in prison. But when someone is housed in solitary confinement for no reason other then being trained by the military to escape, they would do anything they can to get their lives back. Anything… If it was not for Clark Baker my life would have been over with. I owe everything to him. But to say the solicitor offered the plea to spare the so called victims (none of witch had tested positive) is so wrong. The solicitor has tried a case just like mine 5 years before that and wanted to make a name for herself. She told my daughters mother that they were no interested in a plea deal because I was an animal that should have been stopped. That was told to her 2 weeks before the plea deal. So what is the difference between that moment and the deal???? The affidavits… So please do not sit in the outsiders point of view and act as though you were riding shotgun in the car with me. If anyone knows the truth, I would. So with all due respect sir, you are wrong… And don’t try and judge me due to this so called crime spree when even if someone does have HIV, they are no different then you or I. They are normal people who just want to be treated the same as others. On ALL levels. If they don’t disclose their status to their partner they are ethically wrong. But it has no place in any court room. Just like have hepatitis C is not a crime not to disclose then so should hiv. By allowing this to remain a crime to telling people that they are not personally responsible for their own health. When it’s your responsibility to protect yourself. Not someone else. Thank you for your time and understanding.