Will Dr. William T. Clusin continue deliberately infecting women with genital herpes?

 Stanford strikes again.

crime-scene

Isn’t spreading Herpes is a crime?

Although the number of women Dr. William T. Clusin knowingly and deliberately infected with genital herpes, including in one case, lying when asked point-blank; is: Three, 

the unknown is also pretty scary.

Consider this:

1.  The number of women infected who may not know who gave them genital herpes; and

2.  The number of women Dr. Clusin plans on dating in the future, who are likewise unaware he could infect them, because the various educational and medical “societies” he belongs, appear to shield him.

Much like the police in San Mateo County. More on that later.

However, thanks to the determination of wife number three, the jig may be up for Dr. Clusin’s much protected secrecyAs revealed in the nearly one million dollar award against Dr. Clusin, his behavior is likely to strike many as, completely off-the-rails.  Also, dangerous. Oh, fast fact:   Dr. Clusin has tenure at Stanford.

Dr. William Clusin

Dr. Clusin lies to women about having genital herpes.

Also, Clusin travels.  So,

<——-    Don’t believe him

<——-    Don’t encourage him

<——-    Don’t date him

<——-    Do give him directions to another area.

 

Now for the particulars.

 

 

Justice Conrad Rushing

Justice Conrad Rushing

Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing, in writing for the 6th District Court of Appeals wrote of Dr. Clusin:

– – – – – –

“We believe the trial court could very reasonably conclude, as indeed we have concluded on such of the record as has been placed before us, that defendant, with full knowledge he was carrying what most people would view as a noxious disease, and without disclosing that fact to anyone, burdened three wives and quite possibly other sexual partners with that affliction. The most charitable construction we can place on his conduct, as found by the trial court upon ample evidence, is that he viewed the disease as insufficiently serious to require its disclosure, even when pointedly asked whether he was carrying it. The staggering hubris of this conduct, and its stark transgression against the norms of any decent and civilized society, amply justified a very substantial award of punitive damages.”

Justice Rushing continued:

“Short of forcible rape, or intercourse with someone incapable of consent, it is difficult to imagine a greater outrage against the bodily autonomy and sexual sovereignty of another individual than to fraudulently induce them to enter an intimate relationship with the knowledge that doing so will expose them to likely infection. In plaintiff’s case, defendant’s conduct inflicted what threatens to be a lasting impairment of her ability and willingness to enter into intimate relationships with anyone else. His seemingly total lack of empathy for his victims, his repellent attempts to imply that they bear responsibility for their injuries, and his manifest lack of remorse for his ethically indefensible and morally corrupt conduct, further justify the award. If there is a reason to overturn or reduce the award, it has not been brought to our attention and has not otherwise surfaced in our review of the case.”

Justice Rushing was equally straightforward in the footnotes.

“One passage of the decision resonates strongly here: ‘We did not find the evidence of the appellant impressive or credible. In our judgment, he was seeking to minimise every piece of evidence against him, and to put a construction on events at its most favourable to him. His evidence was neither accurate nor truthful on key issues such as his dealings with [the victim] and what occurred on the day when he pleaded guilty. His evidence was at odds with other objective evidence. Where his evidence conflicted with that of [the victim] and [the appellant’s solicitor], we have no difficulty in accepting their accounts rather than his.’

– – – – – –

As Dr. William T. Clusin’s pattern and practice of targeting women for infection remains a safe bet, it’s important women know nothing will be done by local police.

After all, he is a doctor.  People believe him.  So while the predatory behavior is ignored, women remain at risk. Where would Dr. Clusin find women upon which to prey?  Perhaps while lecturing out of the country, on a speaking engagement.  Or perhaps Dr. Clusin might somehow infect someone with genital herpes at Stanford, where he has tenure.

Also, one question to the American Society of Clinical Investigation.  It’s kind of ironic.

American Society for Cllinical Investiation

Why is a guy like Dr. William T. Clusin, who knowingly infects women with herpes,

allowed to remain involved with The American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI)?  Key word:  Investigation!  Why is an organization which purports to be one of the nation’s oldest and most respected medical honor societies, whose stated mission includes “improving human health:

The ASCI seeks to support the scientific efforts, educational needs, and clinical aspirations of physician-scientists to improve human health

allowing Dr. Clusin to remain in their ranks?  This seems deliberately clueless. Also, to address character issues:  Has the ASCI ever kicked anyone out?  My multiple calls and emails to various ASCI members asking about Dr. Clusin have….not been returned.

Also, is Dr. Clusin’s behavior – criminal?

Criminal Courts?   Please.

San Mateo Sheriff badge - same old problem

San Mateo Sheriff’s new badge hides the same old problem

Although the civil courts get the criminal reality behind Dr. William Clusin’s continued actions:  It appears San Mateo criminal court judges won’t ever become aware of what seems to many, criminal conduct; ever This is due to Sheriff Greg Munks flat out refusal to protect women crime victims.

Sheriff Greg Munks refuses to protect women crime victims

Greg Munks – only likes Some female crime victims<—— ignores the problem

Stephen Wagestaff - protects Dr. ClusinAdditionally, San Mateo District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe, seems to care even less about women crime victims….minus an election year.

However, a serial, genital herpe’s infector?  Nah.  Don’t bother Wagstaffe or Chief Deputy, Karen Guidotti – who has an interest in protecting some, but not all women.  Apparently Tenure at Stanford helps sway her ability to look the other way.

KAREN GUIDOTTI - WON'T PROTECT WOMEN

Karen Guidotti ignores victims when the person causing harm has Stanford University tenure

What about the Stanford press arm:  aka:  PALO ALTO ONLINENope.  San Jose Mercury News.  Maybe, if someone emails them the particulars.  But frankly, the entire Palo Alto area enjoys misconduct in the DA’s office.

Does looking the other way include when Clusin violates restraining orders?

Two words:  Yes:  Repeatedly.

“Citee, William Thomas Clusin, M.D., is guilty of contempt of Court for violating Count 1on Feb. 23, 2010, driving with Ten (10) feet of the person of [Hetrick] and questioning [Hetrick] as follows: ‘Why aren’t you at work?’

“Citee, William Thomas Clusin, M.D., is guilty of contempt of Court for violating Count 2 on Jan. 1, 2010, with Dr. Clusin appearing at [Hetrick]’s home on La Mesa*1212Drive, having previously placed Christmas presents at [Hetrick]’s front door on or about Dec. 25, 2009.

“Citee, William Thomas Clusin, M.D., is guilty of contempt of Court for violating Count 5 when on Aug. 3, 2008, citee came to the residence of [Hetrick] and was found hiding in the bushes adjacent to [Hetrick]’s residence.

“Citee, William Thomas Clusin, M.D., is guilty of contempt of Court for violating Count 12 when on Jul. 3, 2009, at 6:52 A.M. citee parked his car on La Mesa Drive near the fortnight lilies in close proximity to [Hetrick]’s residence, while seeking to observe [Hetrick] and the parties’ daughter, Audrey.”

What might induce San Mateo Sheriff Deputies to act?

Murder?  We’re not sure.  Although Dr. Clusin is Exhibit A of San Mateo Sheriff and District Attorney’s ongoing indifference, this is hardly unusual.  Altahough I’ve said it before, it’s worth repeating.

Women pay taxes for police services, the police and the District Attorney, refuse to provide.   Better to Elect people who will not ignore 50% of the population.

How else to explain San Mateo’s latest example; Dr. William T. Clusin?  Really.  How else?

What Clusin demonstrates is cops give men a pass.  Dr. William Clusin is guy who refuses to abide by court orderAnd so far, nothing has been done.

Ladies, Moms, Brothers who love their sisters, fathers who love their daughters and sisters….pass it on.  Law enforcement might not care about you.  But I do.  One last thing.

Consider working for any candidate running against the above during an election year; and help end the ongoing, deliberate failure to keep the public safe.

Thanks!

Advertisements

About bonnie russell

It's not about me....but working with and sometimes against attorneys, I *do* find interesting people doing interesting things.
This entry was posted in Bad Cops, Civil Rights, Dr. William T. Clusin, Education, Health, Herpes, Medical Research, misogyny, San Mateo County Sheriff's office, San Mateo DIstrict Attorney's Office, Stalker, Stanford University, Update - crime story and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Will Dr. William T. Clusin continue deliberately infecting women with genital herpes?

  1. Moms Hugs says:

    California has one of the strongest stalking laws – both civil tort & criminal (Civ Code § 1708.7 and Penal Code 646.9). Under the current law, a first-time stalker can be sentenced to a felony charge and sentenced to State Prison for up to three years. If a court or restraining order is in effect, the stalker can be sentenced up to four years in prison. The “credible threat” made by the stalker need not be a direct threat but may be implied by his conduct. Helpful links:
    ** http://www.stalkingalert.com;
    ** https://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/civil-stalking-laws-by-state/california
    ** http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=487&state_code=CA (Civil Harassment)

    It appears Hetrick’s attorney chose the tort of stalking to attain financial resources first. Do you know whether the attorney ever presented evidence of the crime of stalking to local LE as well?

    Like

    • Moms Hugs says:

      Also curious if she ever gets a penny. Three wives/child support, etc. + attorney/court costs. He could be close to being judgement proof by now.

      Like

    • In theory. In reality? California is a misogynist’s dream.
      San Mateo Sheriff’s Office has I think, about 20 I Think, restraining order violations. Nothing was ever done.

      In one, Clusin was sentenced to jail for a short period of time, got it reduced…..but was never incarcerated.

      Clusin proved the law is a joke. Have one more column coming.

      Like

  2. Moms Hugs says:

    The 2012 Appellate decision finding 3 out of 4 violations of the restraining order is revealing in that the judge had a lot of trouble sorting out the confused mess Clusin & Hetrick had made of custody involving a child born in 2007 out of a surrogate agreement they entered into in 2005. This part of the Appellate decision is quite instructive as to who they truly are:

    “In 2005, Clusin was 56, and Hetrick was 52. United by the desire to become parents, they contracted to do so by surrogacy.1 A daughter, Audrey, was born to them in May 2007, in Fresno County. This was two months after they married on March 31, 2007,2 and three months before they separated on August 13, 2007.
    Footnote 1.
    Dr. Clusin, a physician at Stanford University, has three adult children from a prior marriage. Hetrick has taught in the San Mateo Community College District for more than 20 years.

    Like

    • Moms Hugs says:

      In other words, Hetrick had plenty of time to figure out she got herpes from him BEFORE this poor child was even born. Something tells me there was good reason the previous 2 wives had washed their hands of him & didn’t want any further dealings with either of them.

      Like

      • Nope. That was the worst part. No one told her. He mostly kept her away from everyone. Hetrick felt like a lamb led to the slaughter. Court records reveal she asked him if he had any STDs and Clusin lied, said “No” and she believed him. These days women not only ask, but verify. Including demanding to be put on the form allowing the lab to reveal the results.

        Like

    • Yes. Fun Fact. They used San Diego attorney Theresa Erickson – from the “Do Not Hire” list at Familylawcourts.com I think Erickson is out of jail now.

      Also, Clusin has a long history of violating restraining orders. Just learned he picked up another one in Tuolumne County, on Thursday or Friday. Tuolumne records aren’t online, so gotta follow up with a call.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s