In the airport corridors and in the magazines in stores

• France - oui oui

Palais de Justice

The Cannes Film Festival is in full swing, and Lady Gaga performed the other night on the beach (video of the performance right here). You should watch it. The Côte d'Azur is gorgeous during daylight hours, with glowing bright blue water, rocky cliffs capped with terracotta rooftops, and at times the backdrop includes the edge of the French Alpes du Sud. But that clip pans about and gives you an idea of how stunning it is at sunset too.

In Monte Carlo, they're all set up for the Grand Prix of Monaco, kicking off next week. The streets are essentially turned into a racetrack and lined with guardrails and bleachers. It's a little strange, but anyone who has been to Monaco knows that the country is anything but normal.

• And in other news...

The Rossiter v. Evans case is still making headlines around the world. If you're reading from Ireland, head out and pick up the latest issue of Stellar magazine. It's got a solid article about the case, and if you need some extra motivation, here it is: it's got some exclusive information that hasn't been published before.

On another continent: Australia

 
The story made it to Europe several times over, plus Asia, and now... 

Cleo magazine in Australia has a fantastic article about the Rossiter v. Evans case featured as a cover story for their March 2011 issue. The interview was conducted by the fabulous Rebecca Whish, who has also written for Vogue, Project Runway, and GQ.

And what a cute cover. LC looks great. The write-up is awesome, too. So if you're down under, grab a copy of the mag and head to the nearest beach to soak up the summertime rays with this great read. Don't forget the sunblock.

Details about the Rossiter v. Evans case

"Four years ago, I decided that the most valuable thing I could do with my story was to help people by being public about it. My article has now been released in other editions of Glamour magazine around the world and syndicated on the MSN.com homepage. I thought it was only being run in the United States, but it appears it has now been distributed worldwide in other versions of Glamour magazine and to MSN, although I didn't know any of that would happen or that it was even a possibility.

Anyway, I'm hearing from more people daily. It's been wonderful to get so many messages of support, and to know that others are brave enough to speak out and stand up for themselves as a result of hearing about this. And there's more good news: I'm working on some other projects as well. Details to come down the road.

I wanted to talk quickly about some things that weren't included in the article because I get questions about the missing pieces. The story was long, but not long enough, and a lot of important backstory surrounding the case and facts that helped the jury reach their decision weren't able to be included. I just want to cover a few items for now.

On my decision to file suit against Dr. Alan Evans: Deciding to proceed legally was not easy, but in the end I felt like I didn't have a choice. I knew I was right, and I was worried about past and future victims. What would stop him from doing it again? (Since the trial, I've had others Alan was involved with come forward and contact me that I never had any idea about.)

On events leading up to trial: Alan tried to settle with me a few weeks before trial and I rejected his offers. The main reason was that if I settled, I would've had to keep everything that had occurred confidential. It would have done nothing to deter him from doing it again to someone else — it would have protected him. And no amount of money was ever going to take away a cancer-causing virus. I asked my attorney about other options instead of money — maybe we could ask for an apology, or some kind of acknowledgment — but these things were simply not a reality.

On proceeding to court: I went into the Muscatine, Iowa courtroom knowing very well that I could get less than Alan had offered in his settlement attempts, get nothing, or could even end up owing him money because he countersued me. (All of his counterclaims were dismissed during the trial.) What I wanted was the chance to be heard by a jury and a chance for him to be held accountable.

On the jury's decision: Fortunately, the jury saw through him. I didn't ask the jury for $1.5 million, or for any named amount of money. I asked them to compensate me as they deemed just and proper, if they agreed with my position. I could never put a price on my own health, and the jury decided on $1.5 million based on what they learned over the course of a three and a half day trial. They sat and listened attentively to everything, which was followed by a lengthy deliberation.

Over half of the amount — $800,000 — was awarded in the form of punitive damages. Let's be clear: Punitive damages are different than compensatory damages. They are not awarded to compensate, or "to make up for." They are something extra, awarded to deter and punish. In my case, the jury awarded them to punish Alan Evans for the "willful and wanton disregard" for my rights and safety. I think that sends a very clear message of disapproval as to his behavior, and I'm thankful.

On other evidence...: It's been noted around the blogosphere that the number of partners a person has had often presents a ridiculous double standard in everyday life, and I'm glad people are taking notice. I was forthright with my past during discovery, and as you can see, so was Glamour.

...Like evidence about number of partners
So people want to know, why was Alan Evans' number of sexual partners not mentioned in the article, and what was his number? No one seems to know what it is exactly. Before trial, my attorney asked Alan to turn over a list of his sexual partners, as I'd already done. We asked for this information multiple times. Alan responded in writing that his sexual partners were "irrelevant and immaterial to any issue before this Court" and refused to turn over his list — he provided no names, and certainly no actual number.

Alan's own expert had no idea as to Alan's total number of partners for use in forming his professional opinion and testified as to that fact. His expert also said that Alan's number was relevant, as did my expert. By the end of our relationship, I estimated Alan's number to be over 50, and I testified as to that. Based on additional calls and conversations since then, I now estimate it to be significantly higher.

(Towards the end of trial, Alan Evans casually testified that his number was maybe 14. For a man who was dating at least three women in January 2004 at the age of 32 and lost his virginity at a younger age than most (including me), this seems suspect. Okay, maybe it's even a little mystifying that he thought "14" would ever be taken seriously, especially since his testimony indicated that exclusivity was not really his thing.)

And lastly for now, I want to address Alan's quote toward the end of the article.

“Despite what happened in court, I do not and have never had any STD. Furthermore, I have never had any sign or symptom of HPV.”

It's par for the course. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that he never showed symptoms of anything (even though he did, and the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed: "However, Evans had genital warts, which Dr. Brotzman testified was 'the most common way for someone to know they had HPV.'"). We were still involved for a year and a half when I was absolutely positive for two distinct strains, meaning he was absolutely exposed. Finally, and most importantly, what he said in the article flies in the face of his own testimony:

Q: You did tell Karly you were clean and didn't have STD's and had never been exposed, correct?
Alan: No, I told her I'd never had an STD to my knowledge.
Q: So you didn't tell her you'd never been exposed to STD's either to your knowledge?
Alan: I don't think I would have said that. I think if you are sexually active, I think it's very likely that you are exposed to STD's.

Right!

So I'll wrap things up with my favorite portion of the decision (I am a lawyer, after all, so I get into this stuff) by the Court of Appeals of Iowa:

In determining reprehensibility, the court considers a number of factors including whether the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic, the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others, the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident, and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident. On our de novo review of the record, we find all of these factors were established in the evidence. The harm caused was not only physical, it concerns the most intimate and private interests, including sexuality and childbearing. Evans's conduct demonstrated a reckless disregard for Rossiter's health and safety. Evans is a dentist. . . . The harm was not a result of mere accident.

(Emphasis mine, citations omitted.)"

Article about Rossiter v. Evans September 2010 Glamour Magazine

A brief note, for now...

As many of you know, there's an article about Karly K. Rossiter v. Alan B. Evans in Glamour magazine's SEPTEMBER ISSUE! Condé Nast has reported that it's their biggest issue in twenty years, and it's Rossiter's hope that the  story reaches and helps as many people as possible. It touches on serious issues for both women and men, and the bottom line is that these problems are real and human lives are at stake.

Says Rossiter: "To those who've already reached out to me, my family, my attorneys, or Glamour, thanks again. It's been incredible to hear so many words of support and reaction stories in the past four years -- keep 'em coming. It's also been heart-wrenching to hear how many people have had similar experiences. No one in this world should have their health put at risk because of dishonesty. But what's notable is that even in the messages of other victims, time and time again, the resounding themes go back to strength and courage. So keep those coming too!"