Rape victim to Hillary: You lied about me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As I mentioned earlier, you stand by HR's affidavit, which mentions
her own opinion, and no name other than hers.

There is no psychologist on record in HR's "sworn" affidavit.

And HR's affidavit does not address the violent beating the victim
suffered, at the hands of her sick twisted abuser, you seriously
want to go on the record stating that Kathy Shelton wanted,
and or fantasized about being violently beaten?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DeathShield
[ /quote]

You are on an open forum friendo; if you want the ATS-public to refrain from commenting on and sloppily rebutting your questions then... take it to PM i guess? Call a mod maybe?

Are you Bone75? Your reference to me seems kinda strange if not ... at any rate

No. You can even ask the admins to compare our IP's if it bugs you.

The fact that the son of the judge in this 1975 rape case had given $400 to the failed Congressional campaign of Bill Clinton (who wasn't married to Hillary Rodham at that point) a year before this case (1974) somehow contributes to proving that Hillary acted inappropriately in her first defense case.

It was hiillary acting weird after she had a slam-dunk for tampered evidence and loosely implied that she was willing to risk further indicting her client.... and signing off on an affidavit that fits the modern feminist definition of Victim Blaming, while conveniently leaving out who accused her of such things and which expert agreed with the allegation prior to the request for court appointed psychologist ...despite physicians agreeing that she had injuries consistent with a rape.


As to your overall point.


I will say this again and rephrase it...

It implies that Maupin and the clinton/rodham duo shared the same networks of friends and colleagues at an interpersonal level. This doesn't solidify anything beyond proving that there is more than a professional link between two people. I can admit to that. What i can not admit is that it is something to be overlooked given the history of cronyism surrounding her and just about every other career politician and predator....Again, cronyism is a thing and always has been an
issue regardless of parties or leanings.

What is most damning for me personally is that
In her own words less than a decade later she said she took the case as a favor. In the words of former officials involved who are living, it wasn't wholly innacurate to view it as either a personal favor or legal order...which for some reason she never formally challenged despite wanting to be let off the case...but we would never know what actually happened since no documents or tapes of clinton FORMALLY asking to be taken off the case have surfaced. Again, we are expected to take her and the people who are implicated with her at face value when pressed on the issue.

As to the rest of your points....

Why does it matter if the campaign failed and it was a year before they married? What does this prove?

This is part of my issue with you gryphon, and why i injected myself. You are seemingly demanding the same unrealistic level of proof and gnosis that your detractors demand and ridicule people for not taking the people implicated at face value.

Maybe you are attempting to illustrate something, perhaps i misunderstand your goal in these threads...but i will give you a short jab and spare you the personal attacks for the sake of decency.

There is somethig odd about the case and you cant expect either clinton, shelton, the accused or maupin to admit to it....and every decent human agrees that blaming the girl who had physical evidence of being raped and excusing someone who by modern definitions victim blamed and tampered with key evidence in the case is just wrong and weird. It looks bad on EVERYONE involved TBH hence why i dont expect any truth to show up any time soon.

edit on 8-10-2016 by DeathShield because: Formatting errors

edit on 8-10-2016 by DeathShield because: Seriously..we need previews on android.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

As I mentioned earlier, you stand by HR's affidavit, which mentions
her own opinion, and no name other than hers.

There is no psychologist on record in HR's "sworn" affidavit.

And HR's affidavit does not address the violent beating the victim
suffered, at the hands of her sick twisted abuser, you seriously
want to go on the record stating that Kathy Shelton wanted,
and or fantasized about being violently beaten?

I stand by it? Sure. I have no rational reason to doubt it.

Neither did the Court, it was entered into the record, and indeed, a psychologist was appointed to provide an analysis of Kathy Shelton.

So ... what's your point here, aside from generally muddying the waters of the conversation? There was an evaluation of Kathy Shelton performed based on Clinton's argument in the affidavit.

You keep trying to deflect from the facts of the matter.

Alfred Taylor raped 12 year old Kathy Shelton after her mother (who pushed to accept the plea deal) allowed her to go out in the middle of the night with two grown men and a 15 year old boy.

Hillary Clinton was ASSIGNED to defend Taylor. She found the matter distasteful and asked to be released. The judge refused to release her.

It was Hillary Clinton's LEGAL OBLIGATION to provide the best defense she could for Taylor. To do anything else would have been illegal, unethical AND would have likely led to a mistrial.

Alfred Taylor was found GUILTY based on the plea deal that Clinton negotiated (and then as now 97% of these cases are pled out) with a FIVE YEAR SENTENCE.

It was the JUDGE who decided that Mr. Taylor's sentence would be commuted from five years to time served.

These are the facts. Keep repeating your BS analysis and lying spin.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There was an evaluation of Kathy Shelton performed based on Clinton's argument in the affidavit.

Do you have the results of that evaluation?

Nope.

But you keep citing it as a defense, even though the only
"supporting" name is Hillary Rodham?

And you keep citing it as a defense that HR was right in saying
Kathy, then just a 12 year girl fantasized about being violently beaten?

a reply to: DeathShield

I'll assume you'll manage to straighten out your formatting on your own so I'll go ahead and respond.

Nice strawman to start out with. I didn't say you don't have the right to respond, I said your response makes no sense. Sorry if you were upset by a straightforward observation.

You replied to a comment I made to someone else as if I had made it to you. You're defending their point as if it is your own. Kinda silly point, but whatever. No, really I couldn't care less about your IP address.

No, nothing about the fact that political figures in Arkansas knew each other implies anything. That's simply a known fact. If Bill was chosen by the party machine to run for Congress, it's really not shocking at all that he was part of a network.

Well, not shocking to any reasonable observer, of course.

In 1975 at the time of the case we are discussing here, this "history of cronyism" didn't exist. Do you at least realize this?

This was Hillary's first case as a public defender. She wasn't even married to Bill Clinton yet. You're making a very blatant ex post facto argument, i.e. you're saying that because there was (at least in your opinion) a subsequent "crony network" surrounding the Clintons, that must have had some retroactive effect before they were even married, before Bill was first elected to office, acting at the time of Hillary's first official case.

That just doesn't make any logical sense. Can you believe it? Sure. Belief doesn't depend on the facts.

Do you have an issue with me or the argument I'm making? LOL.

I'm not demanding any unreasonable proof, just some proof. Any proof that somehow the fact that the Clintons SUBSEQUENTLY became politically powerful people has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with this case.

Do you have any proof of that? That somehow the future affected the past?

No one here has blamed Kathy Shelton. Hillary Clinton didn't "blame" Kathy Shelton. (Here's another conspiracy for you ... why won't any of you call her by name? Does that make her too human for you? Are you forced to realize that you're using the history of a tragedy that happened to a little girl as part of your political agenda?)

Here's the only thing I'm interested in hearing from you, and I'll be up-front ... I'll be ignoring anything else.

Do you have evidence, that what you call the "network of cronyism" that developed around the Clintons had anything to do with this trial?

a reply to: burntheships

It's a matter of court records.

It's been quoted in the sources that you and several others have presented.

Are your sources faulty?

If not, you're being quite obviously specious.

(You're really starting to bore me ... if this is the extent of your argument, we're done.)

Thanks though for finally deigning to call Kathy by name.

Kathy Shelton, the woman whose story you're prostituting for your own paltry political agenda.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burntheships

It's a matter of court records.

Still waiting on you for the name of the psych evaluator.

Hint: there is no name, other than HR.

I'll be glad to discuss the facts of this matter with anyone, those being:

1. After initially agreeing to take the case, after finding out the details about the matter, Clinton asked to be released and was refused by the presiding judge.

2. Clinton at that point had a legal (and ethical) obligation to provide the best defense case for Taylor that was possible. To fail to do so would have opened the possibility for a mistrial, which would have likely resulted in the charges against Taylor being dropped completely.

2. Crucial physical evidence in the case was effectively destroyed by the investigators. This weakened the prosecution's case against the rapist Taylor considerably.

3. Clinton negotiated a plea deal that would have resulted in a five year sentence for the rapist Taylor. Kathy Shelton's mother pushed for this deal to be accepted because she didn't want anymore "embarrassment" resulting from the trial.

4. After the deal was accepted, the judge in the case effectively commuted the five-year sentence to time served (2 months.)

5. Clinton, while discussing this case years later, did indeed laugh at the incompetence of the investigation and the fact that Taylor had passed a lie detector test. Some will understand this as "gallows humor" shared by those who have been placed in impossible situations, and some will see it as some sort of psychotic enjoyment on the part of Clinton.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You post links that are not even heard of on ATS,
they are non vetted, and seem to linkback to CTR as sources.

So, you want to control the narrative?

You refuse to address the fact; there was no psychologist report,
no PHD names attached to HR's affidavit, which claims girls who are 12
fantasize about being raped. Yet suspiciously, HR does not mention the
violent beating as part of the "fantasizing".

You keep dodging the violent beating that took part of the rape.
Why is that?

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Now BH, you know that they don't like all of that "fact stuff" from Snopes.

Facts are so left wing, you know.

Oh yeah sorry, some of the SS soldiers didn't want to kill millions of Jews they were just doing they're jobs

That makes it okay, err that justifies it.

If you guys don't agree you're hypocritical, and I need no longer to converse

What? Are you seriously comparing the right to an attorney to defend yourself under the US constitution with the holocaust? That's a terrible analogy. With that attitude, why not do away with due process and trials altogether? Why don't we just have the police shoot suspected criminals in the street? Oh wait. If we do that, you'll make another Nazi comparison. Gosh. I guess we just can't win with you.

It all still stinks to me.

EDT: Okay, I was wrong about the DNA. But i found this tidbit.

As fate would have it, Clinton ended up not needing to resort to her planned defense strategy because the crime lab accidentally lost or destroyed the key piece of incriminating DNA evidence against her client. Hillary recounts how she took the remaining potential forensic evidence to an expert in New York City, who determined that there was not enough remaining material to bring down the accused rapist.

townhall.com

a reply to: Cherry0

I mean, there was forensic evidence that had his DNA mixed with that girls blood on her underwear.

DNA evidence in 1975? You're sure about that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cherry0

I mean, there was forensic evidence that had his DNA mixed with that girls blood on her underwear.

DNA evidence in 1975? You're sure about that.

My bad. Fixed in my post above.

a reply to: Cherry0

So, regarding that added tidbit:

DNA evidence in 1975?

a reply to: Cherry0

Yes.
Bull# does tend to smell bad.

The fact is, she was a public defender who was required to take the case.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cherry0

So, regarding that added tidbit:

DNA evidence in 1975?

I already said MY BAD and fixed it. WTF.

a reply to: Cherry0

You deleted the WTF.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cherry0

You deleted the WTF.

I guess I still don't know what you're on about. It's whatever though. Also I was having a lil bit of trouble editing because I'm using my phone atm.

a reply to: Cherry0

Your source says DNA evidence was destroyed. In 1975.
That is bull#.