HIV problem with dishonest partner

[woodlawn]

>I just love how your story plays out like some kind of role

>playing scene on an internet chat board. Why else do you let

>the "facts dribble out" like a leaky faucet? If you're taking

>this one to a jury, I hope you are more upfront with them,

>than you have been here, and state all the facts straight up.

>You may have played us all for fools, but if you are indeed

>legitimate, I doubt your little games will play well in front

>of a jury.

 

 

In the first place, if wisconguy is a witness in a criminal trial it will not be him but the prosecuting attorney who calls him to the stand who determines how and to what extent his story will be told to the jury. In case you didn't know this, a witness in a criminal trial doesn't have the option of getting up on the stand and saying whatever he wants. He can say nothing other than in response to questions asked by his counsel and by opposing counsel.

 

Second, I am curious to know why you think the additional facts he mentioned have any bearing on this matter. None of those additional data changes the fact that he was tricked into having unprotected sex with someone who knew he was positive, does it?

 

>Imagine, you're willing to showing videos of this guy fucking

>you in the butt, but are unwilling to use your name in the

>trial. Kind of like Jesus Christ going by JC. Now, where did

>I put those rusty nails?

 

This is one of the most sordid and depressing stories I have read on this message board, and I'm not surprised that wiscon doesn't want his name revealed at trial. Unfortunately for him, the fact that the judge agrees his name will not be used in the trial will not prevent the media and others from finding out about it if they really want to. After all, the defendant already knows his name, as will the defendant's lawyer and everyone in his office, and the prosecutor and everyone in his office. And the cops. There's not much chance it can be kept secret. In theory, the judge could order all parties not to mention the name to the media, but that doesn't always work. During the grand jury investigation of the Lewinsky affair the whole process leaked like a sieve, even though grand jury proceedings are supposed to be totally secret. So far as I know, nothing ever happened to any of the media outlets that published those leaks.

[Guest JT]

>How did I find out he had HIV? He was hiding his drugs from

>me. When confronted, he admitted his status reluctantly. So,

>I locked him out(since we were still living together), and

>after doing research and finding that the drugs were for HIV

>patients, I went through his stuff and found copies of his

>medical records, including his T Cell count, etc. I also

>found the papers from the original diagnosis, which is why I

>know when he found out. Since we both had Medical power of

>attorney over each other, I verified the facts with his

>doctor's nurse( a long process of Proving my power of attorney

>to them, but it was done).

 

Mr. Wisconguy.

 

I was one of the people who asked you that question (and some questions regarding your living arrangement). Thanks for the response.

 

Please pardon my curiousity. But I'd like to know how he succeeded in hiding his drugs from you during the two years you lived together. Antiretroviral therapy (especially HAART) and the accompanied medications that deal with their side effects don't exist as a single pill. He could easily be taking a minimum of 4-5 different drugs (2-3 antiretriviral drugs plus meds for side effects) several times a day, and at different times of the day (e.g. before, with or after meals). Since you two were living together, I'm just puzzled as to how he was able to hide his daily medication regimen routine from you in a two-year period.

 

Of course, he could stop taking his meds so that he wouldn't be discovered. But if that was the case, why would he bother to get the meds in the first place and then have to hide them physically from you so that you wouldn't discover his HIV status, especially he was intentionally trying to hide that very fact from you? In addition, if he stopped taking his meds or didn't comply with the strict regimen, then I would assume his health would have deteriorated since the antiviral drugs were not there to prevent HIV replication (i.e. high viral load) and the weakening of his immune system (i.e. low CD4 cell count). If he were to not taking his meds properly, then the risk of HIV transmission from him to you would increase significantly. I'm happy for you that you remain HIV- after two years of unprotected anal sex with him. However, I must say it's a statistically highly improbable event if he wasn't compliant with his antiretroviral treatment regimen. I hope my questions haven't offeded you, but I'm still unable to fully comprehend what actually transpired between you and your ex, especially in light of my biomedical background.

 

Another piece of info that puzzled me further is that if he intentionally tried to hide his HIV status from you, why would he give you the power of attorney to his medical records?

 

Last but not least, you mentioned that your ex used to be an escort. I'm afriad that if this case were to go to court, the defense lawyer could use:

 

1) the fact that you used escort services to damage your credibility;

2) the fact that knowing your ex was in a "high-risk" (pardon me for my inability to come up with a better alternative) occupation category, you did not take the precaution to ask for evidence of his HIV and other STD status prior to committing yourself to unprotected sex. Of course many of us think you're not to blame, but a jury may also think otherwise.

 

Regards, JT

[Guest in yer face]

Wow, so your true nature and intentions finnally are revealed. Let this be a lesson to ALL positive gay men that are in serio-mixed relationships. MAKE SURE THAT YOU TALK TO YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT BEING POSITIVE IN FRONT OF YOUR PARTNER. MAKE SURE YOUR PARTNER COMES TO THE DOCTORS OFFICE WITH YOU AT LEAST ONCE.

 

Thats right. OTherwise he could come right back at you and say that he never knew about it, and you were trying to kill him. Especially you guys out there that live in small towns. One things Ive learned about small city queens is that they are bored, and ruthless. Always looking for drama. Scaary.

 

>I'm a fag, and I've been ashamed of faggots my

>whole life. And that is only directed at those many who are

>faggots. That's why I took this to the state, because it's

>wrong for you assholes to go around killing people. Period.

>

>You want to kill people then Fuck yourself with the narrow end

>of a gun, but leave the decent people out of it.

>

>Fuck those insensitive bastards, (duh, who are you?)

[Guest in yer face]

And BTW: Most people who are poz are that way because they showed the same reckless disregard for their own health that you did. The only difference is that they don't run around pointing a finger of blame at anyone but themselves. People make mistakes, and you are so fucking lucky that you don't have to pay for yours.

 

But your attitude in the last post just speaks volumes. You act like people who are positive deserve what they got, yet if you had tested positive, you would just spend your entire life blaming someone else. The truth is, your story is not so different than anyone elses. In this world, the only person that can look out for you is yourself. You have to be your own advocate. What the hell were you thinking, having unsafe sex with someone that you didn't even know for sure what his story was (if thats really hte case).

 

I guess the only retribution that youll ever have is that you have to live in your own head, and I bet its a pretty ugly place to be.

 

I for one wish I knew how to find your ex, warn him of the impending arrest, and help him find a good defense attorney.

[+ Charlie]

Wisconguy's last post has confirmed my growing suspicions as this thread as lengthened. I am all too familiar with a phenomenon that afflicts crisis counseling centers, hotlines and anonymous settings like this message board: the apparently sincere "victim" with a story to tell, who turns out to be a crackpot. The story always has some inconsistencies, which the listener at first attributes to the fact that the teller is upset and somewhat naive. However, as one probes for clarification, he begins to elaborate details to patch the problems, and eventually the whole narrative structure collapses under the weight of its illogic.

 

For example, the claim--which comes rather late in his retelling the story--that his lover was taking HIV medication for two years while they lived together, without him knowing it. Where was this medication concealed? How could he maintain the strict drug regimen schedule without once being observed? Did the medication never have noticeable side-effects, or begin to fail and have to be replaced with someting new? Where was the lover obtaining the medication, and how was he paying for it, without being noticed? Why would the lover give him medical power of attorney--an even later addition to the story--if he was so anxious to prevent him from knowing anything about his medical history? These all sound like the kind of improvisations made by someone who enjoys embellishing a story but isn't really very good at it.

 

When the inconsistencies are pointed out, the "victim" often becomes angry and defensive, and starts to abuse his questioners; he has found new persecutors, which reinforce his conviction that he is a victim. It doesn't matter whether he is delusional, or has created a story to prove some convoluted point he wishes to make about "faggots", or is simply one of the many people who seek sympathetic care (like people who have unnecessary operations because they enjoy being nursed): wisconguy has got what he wanted from us, which is our time and attention. We've been had. But you can be sure he will deny it.

[Guest in yer face]

I started to realize the same thing as I was rading this thread over. We need more skeptics, and less BS around here!

 

 

>Wisconguy's last post has confirmed my growing suspicions as

>this thread as lengthened. I am all too familiar with a

>phenomenon that afflicts crisis counseling centers, hotlines

>and anonymous settings like this message board: the apparently

>sincere "victim" with a story to tell, who turns out to be a

>crackpot. The story always has some inconsistencies, which the

>listener at first attributes to the fact that the teller is

>upset and somewhat naive. However, as one probes for

>clarification, he begins to elaborate details to patch the

>problems, and eventually the whole narrative structure

>collapses under the weight of its illogic.

>

>For example, the claim--which comes rather late in his

>retelling the story--that his lover was taking HIV medication

>for two years while they lived together, without him knowing

>it. Where was this medication concealed? How could he maintain

>the strict drug regimen schedule without once being observed?

>Did the medication never have noticeable side-effects, or

>begin to fail and have to be replaced with someting new? Where

>was the lover obtaining the medication, and how was he paying

>for it, without being noticed? Why would the lover give him

>medical power of attorney--an even later addition to the

>story--if he was so anxious to prevent him from knowing

>anything about his medical history? These all sound like the

>kind of improvisations made by someone who enjoys embellishing

>a story but isn't really very good at it.

>

>When the inconsistencies are pointed out, the "victim" often

>becomes angry and defensive, and starts to abuse his

>questioners; he has found new persecutors, which reinforce his

>conviction that he is a victim. It doesn't matter whether he

>is delusional, or has created a story to prove some convoluted

>point he wishes to make about "faggots", or is simply one of

>the many people who seek sympathetic care (like people who

>have unnecessary operations because they enjoy being nursed):

>wisconguy has got what he wanted from us, which is our time

>and attention. We've been had. But you can be sure he will

>deny it.

>

>

[Guest JT]

Still waiting...

 

Hi Charlie,

 

In my post three days ago (# 76), I've raised the same issues. I'm still waiting for Mr. Wisconguy's response...

 

JT