Posted on August 2, 2007 at 2 p.m.

Interested in your thoughts on the latest posts.

On HIV-positive Frisco man accused of having unprotected sex with four women

Posted on August 2, 2007 at 1:43 p.m.

E Rice, thanks for your comments.

I don't really have an opinion on this case, since we don't know the facts. As stated, it is possible that M. Padieu passed this disease on before he knew he had it; or even that he could have gotten it from one of the women. We simply do not know.

It is also possible that he was never asked about his status in 2006; if he was in relationships with these women for a number of years, he may have told them he was clean in 2002-2004; may even have been tested and been able to show proof of that. So it was established that he was clean, and it did not come up subsequently. Or perhaps he said he never had an STD, and one or more of these women got themselves tested by their doctors when they had an exam, and they tested clean. So he said he was clean, they tested clean before late 2005, and everyone thought no worries.

Also, what was it that motivated these two women to get tested 7 months after not seeing him? Could he have told them he was sick, and was concerned for their health, and told them or implied they should get tested? We simply do not know.

My only point is we do not know all the facts; so I typically reserve judgement until I do.

I realize, of course, that we are in a state where people are generally assumed guilty, and not innocent - look at our abysmal record of wrongful executions, and now how many people have been wrongfully imprisoned only to have finally been exonerated by exculpatory DNA evidence. Look at the recent preposterous case where a black honor student athlete was imprisoned because he and his girlfriend had consensual oral sex; I believe he was 17 and she was 15 or 16, so he was prosecuted for something like indecency with a minor, statutory rape, or assault, I'm not sure which.

I sure wouldn't want to face a Collin County jury. Reminds me of the old saw - Do you know what the definition of a Democrat is? A Republican that's been arrested.

My question to you is - should passing on of STD's be a criminal offense? Should it be the same for all STD's - herpes, syphilis, gonnorhea, HIV, etc? What do you think?

Also, is there a conflict with management of public policy health issues, and the threat of criminal prosecution? What do you think?

Unfortunately, I think Rawlins has the right answer: Protect yourself. Always. Period. Do NOT have unprotected sex, until you are in an extremely committed relationship, or married.

The sad thing is, if people would simply always practice safe sex, and not share needles, this deadly disease simply would not spread.

Interested in everyone's thoughts, particularly on the public policy issues and the criminal prosecution of STD transmissions. Thanks.

On HIV-positive Frisco man accused of having unprotected sex with four women

Posted on August 1, 2007 at 11:59 a.m.

Please see latest comments and offer your comments

On HIV-positive Frisco man accused of having unprotected sex with four women

Posted on July 30, 2007 at 8:58 p.m.

This is truly a very tragic story for all involved; but unfortunately it is one that gets played out in one form or another far too often. Given the spread of STD's, obviously everyone that has it got it from someone - as did the person they got it from.

It also strikes me there is an awful lot we do not know about this case. Everyone involved here is a victim of this awful disease. I only hope M. Padieu was not aware of his disease when he was with these women. A lot of our - or a jury's - opinion will be determined by circumstantial, or prejudicial, information.

For example, allegedly Mssr. Padieu found out he was infected in "fall of 2005". I wonder how long he had it, or who he got it from. Was he bi-sexual? A drug user? Did he have homosexual encounters? Did he frequent prostitutes?

One woman was involved with him from 2002 - before he allegedly knew he was sick. Another was involved with him from 2004; and yet another from October 2005. So it is entirely possible this man did not know he was sick when he was with these three women. It is also possible he could have gotten it from one of these earlier two women. The 4th woman, as I understand it, got involved with him in the spring of 2006; so that one is hard to imagine he would not have known - but again, we do not know all the facts. Interestingly, all these relationships ended in summer of 2006; and one or two of these women tested positive in January 2007. So...it is possible this man simply had no idea until sometime late fall of 2005....might have felt he may have been exposed somehow (yes, I know, duh!), and gotten a test that came back positive. Maybe he got a type of test that needs confrming 3 to 6 months later...I don't know, I'm no expert. But if he did, and got a bad result in fall 2005, he may have gone into denial in the hope against hope it was a false positive - particularly if he felt fine otherwise - and would hope he didn't have it until he had to face a confirming test 3 or 6 months later. He seems physically fit as a martial arts instructor, so he may have convinced himself he was fine. So he got a confirming test sometime in 2006....and stopped seeing the women. But he couldn't bring himself to face them, because of guilt, and shame, and fear....yet he convinced himself they didn't have it. Or maybe he is the one who told one or two that he was sick, and they should get tested....we simply don't know what motivated them to get tested, since I understand people can have it for years and feel fine, and then only find out when it's too late.

It is easy to believe he convinced himself he didn't give it to them; since the odds of transmission from male to female in a single heterosexual vaginal encounter are extremely small....I've read perhaps 1 or 2 in 1,000, or less. There was a reference in a recent article to a Southwestern doc commenting that the chance of it spreading depends a lot on the type of behavior....and how recent his infection was, if he was on medication, if other STD's were present, etc....I'm guessing he was not on medication until sometime in 2006 when he realized he really had it, it wasn't going away, and he needed to be treated.

But think about what I alluded to earlier about how other facts influence our opinion....for example, was he a drug user? Was he homosexual? Was he a "swinger"; did he frequent prostitutes? Did he have any other STD's he was aware of ?

I don't know the facts here, and clearly if this man knowingly and intentionally tried to harm other people that's despicable and should be prosecuted, I suppose, as an assault crime. But it's not like he was sticking people with needles in the middle of the night, or on a crowded train.

And I think our opinion of M. Padieu would be different if it was determined he did not do drugs; he did not engage in homosexual encounters; did not have any other STD's, never had any STD's, and did not frequent prostitutes. If he did all that, clearly our view of him would be different.

And if somehow it came out that he has practiced safe sex after finding out he was positive - say for the past year - I think we'd have a better opinion of him.

We have a difficult public policy question here. We want to, through the health departments, get people to come in and be tested if they put themselves at risk. Then, if they are infected, we want them to tell us everyone they have slept with.....yet, as long as we have the threat of criminal prosecution looming over their heads, legally many people will not do so out of fear of either criminal prosecution, or civil litigation. So they don't say, or they say they picked it up in a one nighter and they lost the person's number, or they haven't been with anyone since they got it, etc. The problem is, as long as we threaten these people - victims themselves - with criminal prosecution, we're hampering our public health authorities in the attempt to catch these infections early and get these people treated - and educated and counseled to engage in safe sex. Or worse, we are encouraging people not to get tested - because if it can't be proven they knew they were positive, then they can't be criminally prosecuted.

I feel very sorry for all the victims in this tragic case. Everyone who has it got it from someone; so they are all victims of this dreaded disease. If this man has any shread of decency, he must be racked with guilt the way these recent events have transpired in his life. Given that he apparently went out with these women for awhile, I would like to think he had a certain affection for them, and now he must be filled with self loathing because of what has happened.

A friend of mine who is gay explained it to me as a certain percentage of people are perhaps addicted to intimacy; or what they think is intimacy, but is really just physical sex. And they go out looking for it all the time. Or it is how they blow off stress and pressure. And when they go out, they just intend to have a few drinks and unwind. They really don't intend to have sex with a perfect stranger when they go out....and if they ever did, they would certainly use a condom and practice safe sex....

And yet then, as fate would have it they meet another person of similar chemistry , and the next thing that happens is...well, you know how it ends. They both drink too much, judgement lapses, and the next morning someone wakes up in a strange bedroom with a hangover....not remembering if they used a condom or not, hoping they did, but somehow if they didn't they will convince themselves that they are fine because of the small odds of transmission in a single encounter. And they will both ensure each other that the other has nothing to worry about.....and if one of them has it, he will still say that because he thinks of the small odds his partner caught it......or he simply can't bear to think of the grim reality if he got another person infected.

And that is just how it spreads in the heterosexual community, absent drug use, bi-sexuality, etc.

I just have a hard time with criminally prosecuting spreading of STD's, unless there is a knowing and premeditated intent to harm other people. That's not easy to prove, but as I suggested earlier, his lifestyle and other prejudicial issues will have a large part of determining how a jury looks at this case.

I just thought there were an awful lot of issues to unearth here. I'm interested in everbody else's feedback on these issues as well. Thanks.

On HIV-positive Frisco man accused of having unprotected sex with four women