Archive for Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Third charge weighed against man with HIV

April 12, 2006


Prosecutors may file a third HIV-related charge against a Lawrence man already charged with knowingly exposing two women to the virus through sexual activity.

Robert W. Richardson III, 29, made a brief appearance Tuesday in District Court and was scheduled to have a preliminary hearing where witnesses would testify. But his attorney, Thomas Johnson, asked for a postponement, saying that he had been told prosecutors were considering filing a charge involving a third victim.

Johnson asked that the two cases his client already faces be combined for the preliminary hearing. Judge Stephen Six rescheduled it for May 2.


Linda Endicott 12 years, 2 months ago

This is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how many others there are?

Lohengrin 12 years, 2 months ago

He got around. Sure. He should be euthanized. Great. What action is really being taken? I noticed that in one of states to your weld there have been people arrested for the same crime. Bond was around $100K or more, charge was attemted murder or similar, and jail time was at least 10 years.

Why don't investigating officials see if he has commited the same crime in any of these other states around Kansas that have heavier pennilties and extrodite him there? If he got around as much as it would seem, there is probably a big trail that leads to where he came from.

I wonder if a guy like John Walsh would help?

onebrilliantlady 12 years, 2 months ago

without knowing all of the facts, i cannot make a truly knoweledge based comment. i do know this however. if abstenence is not "your" choice, then safe sex should be. unless he was having forceable sex with these women, or damaging condoms, then this is one of the consequences we face when being wrekless. not that these ladies are guilty, or at fault by any means!!! that is not the point i'm trying to make at all. HE KNEW HE HAD HIV, he most certainly should have said something beforehand or not participated at all, but in this day and age you should treat every intimate partner you are with as if they do have some kind of std. (until absolutely certain!) you need to make sure that if that's the kind of activities you are going to participate in, you NEED, to protect yourself.

(i apologize for my spelling/grammer, its late and i'm tired :) )

Rebecca Valburg 12 years, 2 months ago

I think it's rather obvious that everyone needs to be careful. However, nowhere has it been stated that these women WEREN'T careful, so we need to watch what we assume about them. If these women were embarrassed about their own actions, it doesn't make sense that they would be willing to go public with their accusations. If a woman was in what seemed to her to be a healthy relationship, but was still protecting herself to be on the safe side, and the man was purposefully and diabolically deceiving her about his illness, trying to drag her down with him, or simply wanting sex and counting on the condom not to break and infect her, very few people would judge her for going after this guy. But no one knows the details, and I find it absolutely amazing the assumptions that people are making about these women. And really, as stated in the above comment, his actions are just as wrong, regardless of who he was having sex with. Murder is still murder, whether you kill your 10-year old neighbor, or the prostitute on the corner, though we tend to look the other way if we can in any way de-humanize the victim. And knowingly endangering others with a lethal virus is wrong as well. So lock your doors, use a condom, but also be supportive of those that are willing to make giant personal sacrifices to protect people they'll never even meet.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.