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?

12 thoughts on “Hmm…

  1. armando cardona November 24, 2012 / 12:45 pm

    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:

  2. saffy November 24, 2012 / 1:02 pm

    yes definitely. It’s a public health issue!

  3. campbell November 24, 2012 / 1:27 pm

    Yes- but only the exact wording on the public document you found online.

    • Meaghan November 24, 2012 / 1:30 pm

      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.

  4. Karen Klinesmith Weber November 24, 2012 / 3:22 pm

    You could put what she was convicted of without coming out and calling her HIV yourself. Others will draw their own conclusions.

  5. Marilyn Berry Rogers November 24, 2012 / 4:43 pm

    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.

    • Meaghan November 24, 2012 / 5:16 pm

      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.

  6. Justin November 24, 2012 / 10:23 pm

    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.

  7. Jeannee November 25, 2012 / 12:51 am

    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.

  8. Celeste November 26, 2012 / 3:57 pm

    Yes. Dependent upon the state it’s a felony to knowingly spread the AIDS virus. It’s a form of assault.

  9. JoLayne Ward November 27, 2012 / 9:19 pm

    She may have passed away from the disease. Have you checked death records?

    • Meaghan November 27, 2012 / 10:39 pm

      I doubt it. She hasn’t been missing that long, and the police believe foul play was involved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s