I Googled the name of a certain MP today and found out that she has an arrest record in both her home state and in Florida, halfway across the country from where she lives. The Florida charge was some minor drug thing and it was a decade ago, but this individual is registered as a sex offender in her home state; her offense is given as “intentional exposure to AIDS” and the conviction was only a year and a half before she disappeared.
Given that, do you suppose I ought to mention on her casefile that she’s HIV-positive?
The Charley Project Blog 
Definitely. To me it’s a no brainer, I mean, you don’t have to do what you are doing, but SINCE you are doing it, you should provide all relevant information that you come across; and technically, you should not –legally– say that this person “is HIV-positive” but that this person “was convicted of…” so on and so forth. Medical information is confidential but information pertaining to criminal convictions and sex offender status is in the public record. The distinction may seem irrelevant to a non-legal mind but it does make a world of difference, legally speaking (trust me, I’m a lawyer, I do this for a living). God bless and keep up the good work!
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:39:08 +0000 To: armando_cardona@hotmail.com
yes definitely. It’s a public health issue!
Yes- but only the exact wording on the public document you found online.
It didn’t actually say she was HIV-positive, I just don’t see how else she could have been convicted of intentional exposure to AIDS. Maybe if she deliberately pricked somebody with a pin with infected blood on it or something, but I’m pretty sure that doesn’t happen terribly often. Shrug.
You could put what she was convicted of without coming out and calling her HIV yourself. Others will draw their own conclusions.
I certainly think it would be a good idea – that might make something “click” with someone. Maybe she visited a clinic or a support group, and someone might remember her from that.
Generally that’s why I include things like a person’s education, where they went to college, their hobbies, like if they like knitting or something. You never know when some piece of info might help.
If the article didn’t actually say she was HIV-positive, then I might imagine if the charge of “intentional exposure to AIDS” could mean that she knew someone else was HIV-positive and got them to have unprotected sex with someone who wasn’t. I know that’s an unlikely scenario, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying she was HIV-positive based on that alone. I would just put down what she was charged with and people could draw their own conclusions from that.
YES! because her prior offense could have led to her being a missing person this time AND because drug activity, etc, is listed in biographies.
Yes. Dependent upon the state it’s a felony to knowingly spread the AIDS virus. It’s a form of assault.
She may have passed away from the disease. Have you checked death records?
I doubt it. She hasn’t been missing that long, and the police believe foul play was involved.