With all due respect LOVE 80"s it will be very easy to prove who infected whom.The genetic testing,"fingerprinting if you will" of strains of the hiv virus are very accurate and as stated abouve have passed passed muster in all 9 appellate district courts in the U.S. The great thing about the AIM system is that it is a 'monitoring' system where the same individuals test on a regular basis. Taken as a whole, not broken down to individual test dates, the picture becomes crystal clear as to who parient zero is.And in civil court all you need is a perponderance of the evidence, not 'beyond a reasonalbe doubt.' The evidence here, taken as a whole, with all of the people involved is quite clear. And yes, all of these people had unprotected sex with other people, but none of them were hiv positive. The three infected girls only had one partner in common who was hiv positive and that was darren. None of the girls had contact with eachother.
Darren is not an evil guy. He was just the unlucky one this happened to. It could have been anyone in the buissness. But please, trying to ignore the overwhelming evidence and place blame elswhere does no good for anybody.

Again, you have to look at all the evidence as a whole: all the people involved, all of their past tests, and all of there timelines of who worked with who. The genetic fingerfrinting of the virus is just icing on the cake.

We do these types of investingation an a regular basis for the San Diego county department of health services. This is by far the simplest case of tracking patient zero that i have seen in over 17 years with the health department. There is no doubt in my mind how simple of a court case this is, and no doubt in any of my collegues minds as well. We've wathced this case from day one here simply out of curiosity. It is amazing to us how much speculation with no evidence whatsoever has been written on these adult industry 'chatboards' The level of misrepresentation of the facts by some people who claim to have some type of superior knowledge of the subject is mindblowing. I know for a fact(I have namy friends who work there) that the los angeles department of health services sexually transmitted disease unit wathces the Aim healthcare foundation like a hawk and to this day has NEVER issued any type of citation aor saction against them. When l.a. county siezed the records of their patients last year there was not one single case when the county notified these people that had not already been notified by AIM. It took l.a. county almost a full month to contact all of those people (54 i belive it was) AIM had contacted all of them, if i recall correctly) within 72 hours.

And regarding the law, the fact that the voluntary sysem is in place and that producers and talent alike routinely ask for test demonstrates that they have "superior knowledge" about the risks involved and therefore accept the risks involved.

Here's an analogy for you: At every golf course you see signs that say "GOLF AT YOUR OWN RISK" This does not mean that if you get hit by a ball on the course and injured that you accepted the risk. It means that you as the person who hit the ball accpet the risk of the damage it may do. Much liike if you hire someone to do sex scenes you accept the risk of injuries occuring in your workplace. The fact that you know people are testing, and you as the producer are requiring those tests, you have accepted that risk. When you demonstrate that you know there is risk involved in a job(workplace) you accept those risks and are responsible for anyinjury that occurs as a resutl of taking those risks. The producer, or person paying the bills, is responsible for the risk , not the person being paid.And of course i recognize that these individuals all knew the risk and did it anyway. But the LAW holds the payer, not the payee responsible. ITS a slam dunk case. This is not a perfect analogy but it is very close.