Female singer infects others with HIV

Previous Thread Next Thread
M

myselftheother

rubatugtug
Dec 2, 2004
1,275
14
38
vancouver
Who thought that?

Though the article did state that the man she had slept with found out that he was HIV+ after he slept with her, it doesn't say that he was actually infected by her. He may have already contacted the virus through other means, since he having unprotected sex with her may be an indication that he willing delves into risky situations.

Was it established that he wasn't HIV+ before he had sex with her? What about the other two guys? She was just convicted on not telling her partners that she's infected with the virus, not for spreading it around. Big difference.
 
N

normisanas

Banned
Nov 23, 2009
603
1
0
myselftheother said:
Who thought that?

Though the article did state that the man she had slept with found out that he was HIV+ after he slept with her, it doesn't say that he was actually infected by her. He may have already contacted the virus through other means, since he having unprotected sex with her may be an indication that he willing delves into risky situations.

Was it established that he wasn't HIV+ before he had sex with her? What about the other two guys? She was just convicted on not telling her partners that she's infected with the virus, not for spreading it around. Big difference.
Click to expand...
If you google, you'll find that an expert witness microbiologist found that they both had the same rare strain and so it established extreme likelihood. The link does not fib in its basic facts, they are all there and other articles flesh this out.
 
N

normisanas

Banned
Nov 23, 2009
603
1
0
Stormrider said:
How would someone get the idea that only men can spread HIV???
Click to expand...
Female to female spreading of the virus is thought to be rare, and it can be surmised that it is because the virus is not concentrated enough in vaginal fluids. So it has been reasoned that females would have as difficult a time spreading it to men.
 
N

normisanas

Banned
Nov 23, 2009
603
1
0
vancity_cowboy said:
now ain't that the gospel... :confused:
Click to expand...
That's what expert witnesses in court are for... they are relied, based on their expertise, to inform the court. In this case, the microbiologist determined that the strains the two had were identical, and that they were a rare strain. Furthermore, it is known that they can guess approximate period of transmission due to number of antibodies. The court seemed to be convinced that she did infect him due to the expert testimony. You can doubt it if you like, but why would you when there is already a court process, an expert on the matter, and many articles saying the same thing?
 
V

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
normisanas said:
You can doubt it if you like, but why would you when there is already a court process, an expert on the matter, and many articles saying the same thing?
Click to expand...
because i've watched too many american tv shows depicting 'expert witnesses' as blatant liars. but i guess this was in germany so maybe there's no liars there?
 
N

normisanas

Banned
Nov 23, 2009
603
1
0
alinburnaby said:
In the sentencing, the Judge makes it clear that while he accepts the expert witness's evidence, he didn't believe there was no possibility of the man getting HIV through another source. That's why the judgment has the words "in all probability" despite the fact that she admitted having unprotected sex with the man while she knew she was HIV positive. That lack of absolute proof is why she's not in jail and is, instead, doing 300 hours of community service.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100826...s-jail-infecting-sex-partner-germany-benaissa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/26/nadja-benaissa-hiv-sentence-germany
Click to expand...
I saw nothing in the links you gave where the judge cites that any possibility that might exist of her not being the source of his infection be the reason for the lighter sentence. I think you read into what was not there. In fact, probable cause is established in cases with DNA similarly, or even with less certain biometric evidence such as fingerprints, to establish a conviction. The experts established that she was the source of his infection in order to ascertain that she was the offender. Sentencing, on the other hand, would have nothing to do with this but rather to do with the actions and circumstances surrounding the culpability of the offender - for example, that she was under the assumption that there was almost no risk of transmission as a mitigating factor, or that she existed in a troubled life after knowing her infected status (as opposed to another case where someone goes out to infect others on purpose in a vengeful state).
 
M

mercyshooter

Ladies' Lover
Aug 5, 2007
2,183
24
38
Vancouver
Yes, there are lots of ways to contract HIV. It could be by blood or through sex. So, to her defence, to say she gave the guys HIV is somewhat marginal.
 
N

normisanas

Banned
Nov 23, 2009
603
1
0
alinburnaby said:
I think, based on the various articles, that the Judge wasn't convinced that she was the source of the man's infection despite the fact that she is HIV+. Also, the evidence was that she had been on the street since 14, addicted to drugs and earning a living with her body. At 16 she became pregnant and wanted to change her life. She formed a group which entered a music contest, which they won. As a result, she suddenly became famous and no longer was living on a marginal income. Suddenly, 3 men, who had had sex with a minor, come out from under their rocks and try to have the courts award them some of her money.

I think the Judge made the correct decision.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/26/nadja-benaissa-hiv-sentence-germany
Click to expand...
In the link you gave, nowhere does it say that in sentencing that the slight possibility (I mean "slight" because the experts say "almost certainly infected" in the article you cited http://www.france24.com/en/20100826-hiv-pop-singer-escapes-jail-infecting-sex-partner-germany-benaissa) was a mitigating factor, resulting in the rather light sentence. As I said before, the probability or improbability only serves to determine if she was the source of the infection and not the severity of her culpability in knowingly committing a crime and knowingly victimizing others. It is that her troubled life and the bad advice from her doctors resulted in the light sentence - but you have already pointed this bit out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Vancouver Escorts
Top Bottom