US: Padieu case gets the 20/20 treatment; phylogenetic analysis totally misrepresented

The case of Philippe Padieu, the French-born Texan found guilty in May 2009 on six counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 45 years for five counts and 25 years for the remaining count – all of which run concurrently - was featured last Friday night on US ABC TV's tabloid-style news magazine, 20/20.

Five and half million viewers watched as Mr Padieu faced trial by media yet again. All six parts of the one hour show (actually 39 minutes minus commercials) are available to watch online.

Part 1: Women recall HIV criminal's allure
Part 2: HIV diagnosis rocks women's lives
Part 3: Women take matters into own hands
Part 4: HIV serial dater faces victims in court
Part 5: Man convicted of HIV crime speaks
Part 6: Women want case known to protect others

It's basically sold as the story of a group of scorned women uniting to put Mr Padieu behind bars, summarised beautifully by the accompanying story on the ABC news website headlined, 'How Women United to Stop HIV-Positive Man, Women's Horror at Diagnosis Replaced With Mission: Stop Man From Infecting Others.'

There's so much I could say about the show, which is something of a milestone in criminal HIV transmission reporting in the mainstream media, but I'm going to limit my comments about the very worrying misrepresentation of phylogenetic analysis as 'proof' that Mr Padieu was the source of all the women's HIV infection. Perhaps blog readers could fill in the comments sections with insights and criticisms of their own about this programme.

[Update: Catherine Hanssens of The Center for HIV Law and Policy has some terrific comments and insights in her Sept 29th blog post.]

In Part 4 of the show, presenter/journalist Elizbeth Vargas says that it was Mr Padieu's "own DNA" that proved he was guilty. But phylogenetic analysis is all about testing the genetics of HIV, not the individual. They then showed one of the US's foremost experts in HIV forensics, Dr Michael L Metzker, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who testified for the prosecution that Mr Padieu's virus was extremely similar to that of the six women. Except here he says definitively that Mr Padieu was "the source" of the six women's HIV. I've written about the limitations of phylogenetic analysis many times: the issues are summarised here.



In the final part of the show, we are introduced to 'Lisa' who dated Mr Padieu in 1997, and was diagnosed HIV-positive that same year. The show gives Dr Metzker a sample of Lisa's blood and he says that "preliminary analysis" suggests that Mr Padieu was the source of all seven women's HIV infection. The show concludes that Mr Padieu "gave Lisa HIV in 1997" and goes on to suggest, without a shred of evidence, that he had been diagnosed earlier than 2005 and knowingly infected Lisa and possibly hundreds of other women.



I'm extremely disappointed in Dr Metzker for totally misrepresenting what phlyogenetic analysis can prove. It is impossible to conclude, given the many limitations of phylogenetic analysis, that Mr Padieu infected Lisa in 1997. It is, in fact, just as possible that Lisa infected Mr Padieu.

I don't expect 20/20 to explain the science (in fact, I expect them to get it wrong), but I do expect Dr Metzker, who is (was?) considered to be a respected scientist, to be less definitive about his conclusions. Maybe Dr Metzker would like to explain how he could be so sure - it would be very helpful to know if he has developed new, as yet unknown, techniques in phylogenetic analysis that can definitively pinpoint timing and direction of transmission.

Germany: Nadja Benaissa gives TV interview, claims she's been blackmailed

Nadja Benaissa, the German pop star who is the highest-profile person ever to have been accused of criminal HIV exposure and transmission yesterday gave her first interview since her arrest - on national TV!

Talking to a very sympathetic Günther Jauch - who also hosts Germany's 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - on Stern TV, she suggested that she had been blackmailed in the past due to her keeping her HIV status secret, and was now somewhat relieved it was out in the open, despite the traumatic way it had been revealed.




Highlights of the interview, published on Stern.de, are below:

How are you?
I'm HIV-positive. That means I carry this virus inside of me, but I don't have AIDS. I am taking medication that controls the virus. I look after myself, I work out, I eat well. I am a completely healthy person, even if I'm HIV-positive.

How are you dealing with the fact that your HIV status is now public?
It still feels like a state of emergency. I still can't just go anywhere and be free and live like a normal human being. I now have this mark. But I am trying to make the best of it.

Have you experienced any angry reactions to the media reports about you?
There have been a few situations. I was called a slut by someone on the plane. "There's that slut from the newspaper!" I'm really amazed that grown people behave that way.

And how has your family dealt with the situation, especially your daughter?
My daughter knew nothing of my infection until it was published in the newspaper. It's been a huge shock. My parents had tried keep the headlines away from her. She didn't go to school for a while. We tried as hard as possible to protect her but it was impossible.

What do you say to the accusation that you have knowingly infected others?
There are these allegations that need to be clarified. There is an investigation by the prosecutor against me. I am working with the authorities to try and clarify these allegations. I can't comment about the specific allegations, since there's an active case against me and so I shall say nothing about this. But I am fighting for my rights.

You were in custody for several weeks. Were there moments when you lost courage?
Sometimes people we saying: "Have you heard that they want to give you ten years!" And I'd be sitting there totally defenseless and helpless. And I sometimes thought, "My God, what if I never get out of here?"

Was it difficult to keep your HIV infection a secret for so long?
It was always a strain - this pressure. Because there were always people who wanted it to come out. And I always fought to keep that information to myself. It was very stressful - always keeping my head up high, struggling to keep going. But now it's out in the open. Now I can no longer be blackmailed.

US: Padieu gives TV interview, highlights Texan 'injustice'

It wouldn't happen anywhere else, but three days after Philippe Padieu was sentenced to 45 years in prison after being found guilty of six counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, after having unprotected sex without first disclosing his HIV status with six women who subsequently tested HIV-positive, he gave a TV interview to CBS 11 News.

In it, he essentially repeats the same accusations of bias and lack of evidence that he made in court prior to be sentenced.

I thought the trial was just public opinion turned against me. It wasn't a fair trial at all... The reason I'm serving 45 years is because I had an ineffective counsel. I had no money...

However, seeing him say these things in the flesh makes me appreciate that he has a point. In particular, since Texas has no HIV-specific law, the bar is set much higher in proving that he actually infected the six women with HIV. Although phylogenetic analysis linked his strain of HIV with the six women's, that is not enough to prove the direction of transmission, and - notably - the timing.

He noted that all six women had multiple partners, and that he had sex with three of them before he tested positive (which means he could have infected these women before knowing his status, which definitely would not be a crime).

I think it was an injustice. You couldn't say anything about these woman in court. You couldn't bring up their past sexual history.

However, some of his other allegations are more difficult to swallow, including saying that the six women were "very vindictive."

You could blame them because they failed to take responsibility. They lied. They were involved in a conspiracy. They formed a hate group. I believe they should step up to the plate. They are just as responsible as I am...There's rage. There's vengeance. Admitting knowledge is not admitting responsibility. Hate and anger is fear and guilt in disguise.

Mr Padieu will now appeal and is looking for a new lawyer.