Tag Archives: OMSJ

HIV/AIDS Denial In The Court: A Losing Strategy

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 racistI 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 racistIt’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 stupid8 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.

Darren Chiacchia UPDATE: Clark Baker with Office of Medical and Scientific Justice Silent on Appeal Loss

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.

Hiatus Is Over

In November of 2013 I wrote that I would not post again until my lawsuit is over. Due to my (thankfully) lack of experience with lawsuits, I naively stated that I would not post until the suit was done. But I can not adhere to that statement. Not only are the courts backed up and this suit is taking longer than I had hoped, there are also too many new developments from OMSJ and the HIV Innocence Group for me to sit idly by.

I expect to have my first new post by Sunday, if not before.