Stanford strikes again.
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.
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 secrecy. As 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.
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.
– – – – – –
“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.
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.
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.
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.
What about the Stanford press arm: aka: PALO ALTO ONLINE. Nope. 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 order. And 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.