• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Father injects son with Aids

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DDad

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,668
0
0
Well, The other prisoners probably know what he did- the case recieved lots of attention. BTW the prisoners in Missouri have no access to the Internet
Haven't ever heard where he went- probably Potosi- if thats the case he's locked down most of the time
 

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
SICK BASTARD!!

I hope HE get's "injected" with aids everyday he's in prison.

I'm sure the sisters will just LOVE this guy !
 

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Originally posted by: Amused
I remember this case from back when it was found out, and when it was tried.

As I recall, the case against the father was pretty sketchy. It boiled down to his motive and opportunity, all of whitch he denied, and they had no real evidence to back up.

The entire cased hinged on a supposed "prediction" Brian made to his GF that the baby would die young.

Go to Court TV and read about the case, Missouri v. Brian Stewart. This was by no means an open and shut case, and the conviction, IMHO, was based on the same type of reactions I see in this thread. In fact, if you look into the case, some of the mother's claims are pretty incredible to anyone who knows anything about this disease. Not only that, but the mother had many IV drug users and a known child molester staying at her house.

I saw everything the jury did, and I was left with more than reasonable doubt about the guy's guilt.


Well I wish I had read your post before I added my 2 cents worth.
If the guy DIDN'T do it, then we all need to feel VERY sorry for him...but if he DID, I stand by my previous statement.
 

gwlam12

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2001
6,946
1
71
Originally posted by: BDawg
Here's what I don't get about cases like this. They won't identify the child because he's a minor. But, the identify the mother and the father. Like anyone who graduated from Poirot 101 couldn't figure out the kid's name.

Hopefully, this guy's ass will get plenty of "injections" in prison.

identifying the father doesn't really help much.
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
1) If I was that kid, I would put a bullet through my head. :(

2) If I was that kid, I would put a bullet through my dad's head. :|


I was going to post something but I have a feeling I'd get banned. :eek:
 

klah

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2002
7,070
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMaul
1) If I was that kid, I would put a bullet through my head. :(

2) If I was that kid, I would put a bullet through my dad's head. :|

Hopefully not in that order ;)
 

dquan97

Lifer
Jul 9, 2002
12,010
3
0
that's really messed up... Hopefully the father realizes the gravity of his mistake soon...
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,386
19,669
146
Here is the Court TV summery of the case. You'll note there was NO direct evidence, and though they say 26 people known to have been in contact with the boy tested negative for HIV, there were countless IV drug addicts who came and went who were not tested, and a child molester/IV drug user in prison who LIVED with the boy and his mother at the time of his infection also was NOT tested.

According to prosecutors, Brian Stewart never wanted his 7-year-old son. When Stewart's girlfriend, Jennifer, became pregnant only months after they started dating and gave birth, he denied paternity. But despite never marrying Jennifer, Stewart initially appeared supportive of his new son.

On February 6, 1992, Stewart visited his then 11-month-old child (referred to as "BSJ" in court documents) at St. Joseph's Medical Center-West, where he was being treated for respiratory problems. Jennifer was also present, but left Stewart and her son alone for approximately 20 minutes. Jennifer claimed that when she returned the hospital room's door was mysteriously closed, and BSJ was screaming and crying in Stewart's arms.

Stewart claimed he did not know what was wrong with the baby. BSJ was scheduled to be released from the hospital that day, but after the incident his condition suddenly worsened. The child was transported to another area of the hospital and eventually released.

Several months later, Stewart and Jennifer separated and began arguing over child support payments. Allegedly, Stewart denied paternity and told Jennifer that she should not try to get child support payments from him because BSJ would not live past five years old anyway. Jennifer was confused by Stewart's alleged statement, but did not give it too much thought until years later.

Over the next four years, BSJ suffered from several illnesses that puzzled doctors. He underwent several tests until he was tested for AIDS on May 17, 1996. Eight days later, at only age five, BSJ was diagnosed with advanced stages of AIDS.

During the next two years, investigators from the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department and the Missouri Department of Health and treating physicians tried to determine how BSJ became infected. They determined there was no evidence that the child had been sexually abused, and he had never had a blood transfusion.

The prosecution says its investigation revealed that the child has not been exposed to anyone who was HIV-positive. Reportedly, at least 26 people who had contact with BSJ were tested for HIV, and all tests came back negative.

However, when questioned, Jennifer recalled Stewart's alleged cryptic statement and remembered seeing Stewart with syringes and blood products at his home. Stewart had access to syringes because he worked as a phlebotomist -- one who draws blood for testing -- at a local hospital. She also remembered seeing Stewart carrying a lab coat into BSJ's hospital room during the February 1992 visit.

Authorities arrested Stewart on April 22, 1998. The defendant claims others, including BSJ's aunt and her boyfriend (who were both drug abusers who lived with him at one time) had contact with BSJ and could have infected him. Another man who lived with Jennifer and BSJ for a time was a convicted child sex offender, Larry Lee Roper.

Roper is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Jefferson City, Mo after pleading guilty in 1995 to sodomy. At the time of that conviction, Roper was already on probation after he pleaded guilty to sodomizing children in Steeleville, Mo. The defense that Roper also has admitted to using heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, valium, and marijuana.

While Stewart's defense suggests BSJ could have been infected through sexual abuse and exposure to several drug addicts' needle, the state says there is no evidence supporting those allegations. In addition, BSJ's aunt and her boyfriend and at least two dozen others who had prior contact with the child have tested negative for the AIDS virus.

BSJ reportedly attends school regularly but needs several doses of medication every day. He has learned to live with his illness. However, his father may have to learn to live with incarceration for the rest of his life. Charged with first-degree assault, Brian Stewart could face up to 10 - 30 years or life in prison if convicted.


This is my summery:

The man had access to tainted blood products, and we can't figure out how else the boy could have got the disease, so we'll nail this guy.... even though we have no evidence whatsoever connecting him to the boy's infection.

Folks, if you read the case at court TV, you'll be left with TONS of reasonable doubt. I followed this entire trial back in '98 and saw virtually everything the jury did... I have more than enough doubt about this man's guilt.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused

This is my summary:

The man had access to tainted blood products, and we can't figure out how else the boy could have got the disease, so we'll nail this guy.... even though we have no evidence whatsoever connecting him to the boy's infection.

Folks, if you read the case at court TV, you'll be left with TONS of reasonable doubt. I followed this entire trial back in '98 and saw virtually everything the jury did... I have more than enough doubt about this man's guilt.
And yet: "While Stewart's defense suggests BSJ could have been infected through sexual abuse and exposure to several drug addicts' needle, the state says there is no evidence supporting those allegations."

No evidence here but they have "evidence" against Stewart because he had access to tainted blood?
 

"Go to Court TV and read about the case, Missouri v. Brian Stewart. This was by no means an open and shut case, and the conviction, IMHO, was based on the same type of reactions I see in this thread. In fact, if you look into the case, some of the mother's claims are pretty incredible to anyone who knows anything about this disease. Not only that, but the mother had many IV drug users and a known child molester staying at her house."

Wow! Amused One, you and I agree on something here. So, have you joined me in being dense now? Or did you underestimate me?

In any case, funny almost no one cared to note your post and references. I too do recall when this was reported years ago. You do have a point there. There's almost no fairness when it comes to charges of this nature brought against a man especially. Even if there's lack of evidence or reasonable doubt to warrant acquital, there's the feeling of obligation by jurors to hold someone responsible. It could be that he's guilty, for the fact that he worked in the medical industry didn't help him at all. But our judicial system isn't there to play God, also know as absolutism. It is there to establish preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant deprivation of a man's freedom.

And if dad is truly guilty, his best torture wouldn't be death. It would be living and suffering. I do hope that the son lives his life in less misery if he should pass away earlier than the natural process of life. :)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,386
19,669
146
Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Originally posted by: Amused

This is my summary:

The man had access to tainted blood products, and we can't figure out how else the boy could have got the disease, so we'll nail this guy.... even though we have no evidence whatsoever connecting him to the boy's infection.

Folks, if you read the case at court TV, you'll be left with TONS of reasonable doubt. I followed this entire trial back in '98 and saw virtually everything the jury did... I have more than enough doubt about this man's guilt.
And yet: "While Stewart's defense suggests BSJ could have been infected through sexual abuse and exposure to several drug addicts' needle, the state says there is no evidence supporting those allegations."

No evidence here but they have "evidence" against Stewart because he had access to tainted blood?

Exactly. And guess what? The MOTHER had a job with the same access to tainted blood that her boyfriend had.

IMHO, the guy, guilty or not, was railroaded. The prosecution had no real evidence.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
I would not presume Brian Stewart was "railroaded". He was convicted by a jury of his peers. I am by no means an expert on the case, but I know the prosecution had several damning statements by Stewart in evidence, including the fact that he told the child's mother that he would not have to pay child support because the child would not live past 5 years old, and, perhaps more importantly, that he told his then-girlfriend that the child had AIDS several weeks prior to his being told about the diagnosis. Ultimately the evidence was enough to convince the jurors.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,386
19,669
146
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I would not presume Brian Stewart was "railroaded". He was convicted by a jury of his peers. I am by no means an expert on the case, but I know the prosecution had several damning statements by Stewart in evidence, including the fact that he told the child's mother that he would not have to pay child support because the child would not live past 5 years old, and, perhaps more importantly, that he told his then-girlfriend that the child had AIDS several weeks prior to his being told about the diagnosis. Ultimately the evidence was enough to convince the jurors.

I find the Mother's testimony highly suspect, as well as the ex-girlfriend's. These are two people with axes to grind already. How would you like to be convicted of a crime, based mostly on the testimony of two disgruntled ex-girlfriends? The second ex-GF's testimony is also suspect for another reason. She's recalling the exact date he said something two years in the past. It's sketchy. I can't recall the day or date I said anything last week, much less two years ago.

The guy was railroaded because he was found guilty in the press months, and even years before his trial. The DA office sat on this case for two years before bringing him to trial.

During the entire trial, a huge blown up picture of the boy in the late stages of wasting was propped on an easel in the courtroom. This served no purpose but to elicit an emotional reaction from the jury.

The nursing station was only 14 feet from the boy's hospital room on the day of the alleged crime. Nurses at that station testified they weren't aware of the hysterical screaming the mother testified to. There was also testimony that there was no physical evidence that the baby had been injected... no bruises or puncture wounds. The prosecution's response was to theorize that Stewart must have taken the child into the bathroom, closed the door to muffle his screams, and injected the blood through the baby's navel where evidence would be virtually impossible to notice.

Can you get any thinner than that? This SCREAMS reasonable doubt. The jury was caught up in an emotional case and were prejudiced by the press accounts.

The climate created by the hideousness of the alleged crime and blatant media bias was such that the burden was on the defense to prove the guy innocent, not on the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.




 

Storm

Diamond Member
Nov 5, 1999
3,952
0
76
Im saddened by what happened to the kid. :( :( :(
Props to Amused for bringing up the linkies to CourtTV that show
the whole story and that the ex-bf is not the only one to blame
just the only one convicted.

I absolutely hate that kind of sh!t, where the media and the court
all get caught up in the emotional hoopla.
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
This is very sad, but from these posts, it's clear that it could have been someone other than the father who did it...