Let me start this post by saying that Clark Baker may very well deserve the credit for getting this appeal off the ground. When Gutierrez was originally tried, Baker offered his “expert services” to Defense Attorney Aaron Maness. Maness turned down Baker because he did not agree with Baker’s anti-science strategy. Baker’s dainty feelings got butt-hurt and he cried ineffective counsel. However, this military document clearly shows that charge was false and the appeal did not proceed on Baker’s false allegations.
“The record clearly rebuts the appellant’s claim that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance. The convening authority appointed an HIV expert to assist the trial defense team, and the expert actively participated in pretrial interviews of the Government’s expert who, as a result of challenges by the defense expert, modified her opinions concerning the likelihood of transmission during various forms of sexual activity in favor of the appellant. A voucher shows payment to the named defense consultant for over 16 hours of consultation and records review. The specific error claimed by the appellant that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance is simply incorrect. Rather, the appellant’s argument is essentially a request to try the case again with a different expert. Having considered the record of trial and the post-trial submissions of counsel, we find that the appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing that his counsel were in any way deficient under the standards of Strickland.”
No matter how this appeal happened, one thing is certain: The appeal is going forward based solidly on the current, orthodox science despite Mr. Baker’s claims:
Clark Baker London’s Daily Mail has a fair report about OMSJ’s appeal for USAF Sergeant David Gutierrez in Washington DC. I’m leaving for DC in three hours. The case could change military law and end the practice of charging people like Gutierrez who aren’t infected at all. Our examination of the evidence showed that he was never infected at all. Our examination of the evidence showed that he was never infected, but that his doctor received $2.9 million from the makers of drugs he was given. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865033/Military-appeals-court-hear-case-Kansas-airman-exposed-multiple-sex-partners-HIV-swinger-parties.html
Is anyone surprised with Baker’s claim that Gutierrez was not infected at all based on OMSJ “review of the evidence”? Mr. Baker has steadfastly claimed that out of all the cases (real or imagined) he has been involved with, not one, single, solitary time has OMSJ ever found evidence that any of those clients was actually HIV+. Shocker! Mr. Baker just makes a fool out of himself with such statements. For this to be a significant revelation Mr. Baker would have to be a non-partisan, unbiased and objective investigator. Mr. Baker has proven time and again that he is anything but objective and that he has a clear cut agenda to promote his AIDS Denial via the court system. A more accurate analogy would be that Mr. Baker is like a grifter operating a shell game; you know that pea is under the shell no matter how adroit the huckster’s sleight of hand. Baker just further stretches his own credibility when he pretends that anyone is fooled by his supposed objectivity.
But I digress.
The defense of this case is focusing steadfastly on the current, orthodox science. This military trial is not hidden away and we have actual proof in the form of audio. You can go to this military blog to hear the trial audio for yourself. At no point does the new defense attorney, Kevin McDermott mention anything about Gutierrez not being HIV positive or any of Baker’s other anti-science strategy. To the contrary Mr. Mc Dermott discusses his client’s Viral Load and CD4 counts, thus validating the testing methodologies. McDermott also states that HAART has made HIV a chronic, manageable disease. And much to the chagrin of AIDS Deniers everywhere, McDermott throws his support squarely to Nancy Padian:
“I am NOT here to argue that AIDS is not a potentially deadly and dangerous outcome of sex.”
Again, the defense is laser-focused on the current science. McDermott even begins with a discussion of other diseases and how society and laws have changed as our knowledge of the disease, progression and transmission has advanced. McDermott brings this evolution back around to HIV. I will not go into dissecting the argument. You can listen for yourself and know that if this case is won, it will be because of science, not denial.
However, McDermott does shed light on the only case that Clark Baker claims to have won at trial: Tarence C. Dixon. McDermott clearly says in the court audio that the judge in the first Gutierrez case stated that when a condom was used in previous cases, those charges were dismissed. That would further support my belief, along with other information I have published, that the one and only case that Clark Baker claims to have won, that of Tarence C. Dixon, was because, as stated at trial, Mr. Dixon wore condoms.
Military Courts Are Out of Control Regarding HIV Cases
The most important, dramatic and amazing thing that I discovered because of this case is just how much Military Courts are out of control. This Amicus Brief filed in support of the Gutierrez Case demonstrates just how the Military Courts have grown to ignore their own rules, regulations and laws. This document is a great read and highlights the problems with the Military System and how this case and others are set to change the way these cases are adjudicated in the military: with solid science! I will not deconstruct the issue. The Amicus Brief does a beautiful job of that and I suggest you read it and support getting the justice system back on track, not just in the military, but in civilian courts as well.
I may be responsible for the death of the HIV Innocence Group, but if the Gutierrez Case is overturned on appeal, this will be the nail in the coffin of that dangerous group…and it was done with Orthodox Science. How bittersweet will it be for Clark Baker to have been so vigilant to get this appeal going only for it to end on such a beautiful, scientific note.