It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rape victim to Hillary: You lied about me.

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 02:22 AM
a reply to: Phage

I found this from a different site.

Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.

So I dunno what to tell you.

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 02:26 AM
a reply to: Cherry0

Don't tell me anything. Learn something about the use of DNA evidence. Calibrate your BS detector.

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 02:52 AM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cherry0

Don't tell me anything. Learn something about the use of DNA evidence. Calibrate your BS detector.

Wow...okay...I do understand about the use of DNA evidence. What I was doing was showing that at least a few sites were referring to her laughing about the crime lab’s accidental destruction of "DNA" evidence. The thing I don't know is what kind of evidence they were referring to.

There's really no need to attack my intelligence.

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 03:03 AM
a reply to: Phage

Also, maybe they were trying to do HLA Testing.

In the mid 1970s, scientists turned from blood typing to tissue typing. Scientists discovered the human leukocyte antigen (HLA), a protein prevalent in all of the body except the red blood cells. White blood cells in particular carry a high concentration of HLA. There are many different types of HLA, and these types vary between each person. Because of the high variability of HLA types between different people, HLA testing became a more powerful mode of paternity testing. The power of exclusion for HLA testing alone is 80% and coupled with blood typing and serological testing is close 90%. Despite its more powerful ability to identify biological relationships, HLA testing is not an ideal technique. HLA testing requires a large blood sample that must be no older than a few days old.


Which would make sense in regards to this:

Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated. “The story through the grape vine was that if you could get [this investigator] interested in the case then you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify, so maybe it came out the way you wanted it to come out,” she said. She said the investigator examined the cut-up underwear and told her there was not enough blood left on it to test.
e dit on 9-10-2016 by Cherry0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2016 by Cherry0 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 03:12 AM

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?

And now you're just blatantly lying? You're babbling about "vetted" sites? Why don't you prove that the affidavit "links back to CTR"? Why don't you PROVE that? Is it because you can't? Your argument such as it was failed and now you're just lying?

LIke for example, that I'm claiming that Kathy Shelton (congratulations, you finally managed to utter her full name!) enjoyed being raped???

What a disgusting little snipe. Getting desperate I see. BTW, so does everyone else.

The website I provided was the particular source of the image of the affidavit I LISTED. You're trying to make hay where only weeds are planted. I think that fact sums up your presentation here perfectly.

Clinton was an officer of the court, and like it or not, her sworn affidavit is unimpeachable UNLESS you have some sort of actual evidence to the contrary. Her statement was not entered into evidence; her statement prompted a psychological evaluation of Kathy.

Do you have any EVIDENCE to the contrary? I say you don't. Prove me wrong.
edit on 9-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 03:16 AM
a reply to: soulwaxer

I don't understand the criticism or the conspiracy theory. Are you saying that because she is a woman she should not be a defense attorney for an accused rapist or that she should not give a good defense to an accused rapist? I believe she was a very young public defender and was as surprised as anyone that the judge and prosecutor did not object or disallow some of her more questionable attempts to defend him.

I can understand not wanting to vote for a candidate. But criticizing a person for doing their job just because she is a woman is not a valid argument against voting for her.
Why not look at her record of voting for the 8yrs she was a Senator. Not just one issue, but all the issues. Many various groups have analyzed her voting record as a Senator. Here is one site that reduced her voting record to a digestible list of issues:
edit on 9-10-2016 by SmashnGrab because: Spelling

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 03:35 AM
The Snopes article listed several times in this and other similar threads, provides a link to an archive at Scribd that contains scans of many of the original documents from the case.

That archive is found here.

The documents are marked with the appropriate time/date stamps of recordation with the Clerk of Court, etc.

The affidavit image linked above is found there as well as document 34. This should dissolve any flagrant (fragrant?) attempts to deflect from the facts of the matter ... by anyone.

edit on 9-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:01 AM
Here's a link to the text of the Newsday article published in 2008: "Election 2008: For Young Clinton, A Case of Clashing Ideals." Newsday. 24 February 2008.

From that article:

The victim, now 46, told Newsday that she was raped by Taylor, denied that she wanted any relationship with him and blamed him for contributing to three decades of severe depression and other personal problems. “It’s not true, I never sought out older men – I was raped,” the woman said in an interview in the fall. Newsday is withholding her name as the victim of a sex crime.

With all the anguish she’d felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized – that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. “I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said when interviewed in prison last fall. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:05 AM
Here's a CNN report from 2014: Prosecutor in controversial case says Clinton had no choice but to defend rapist - CNN, June 25, 2014

The prosecuting attorney in a nearly four-decade-old criminal case, where Hillary Clinton represented a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, is backing the potential 2016 candidate on the issue. Mahlon Gibson told CNN on Wednesday the then 27-year-old Hillary Rodham (now Clinton) was "appointed" by the judge in the case, even though she voiced reservations.

Emphasis mine.

further ...

Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation. “She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy. According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

edit on 9-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:10 AM
a reply to: NerdGoddess

There was plenty of words after that first sentence to give you an idea about what I was asking. Lol

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:18 AM
a reply to: sputniksteve

The only way to evaluate a politician is based on their voting record in office. Hillary Clinton was a Senator for 8yrs. We have about 2,000 votes of hers to evaluate where she stands on the issues.
She was ranked the 11th most liberal member of the Senate and she agreed with Bernie 93% of the time. She differs with Bernie mainly on gun control. She wants background checks and new restrictions on domestic violence records. Bernie was kind of pro NRA.

Th link below is a great site called vote smart. It has information about our representatives, both part and present.
Her record is evaluated on this site as well as a full list of all her votes and all the ratings from various organizations on both sides of every issue:

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:20 AM
a reply to: SmashnGrab

Hello freshly minted ATS member ... welcome.

Please stop spamming this thread with the same statement and link to Clinton's senatorial voting record.


posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:26 AM
a reply to: SmashnGrab

No it's not the only way to judge a candidate. There are many ways to judge

Considering Trump hasn't voted on anything and yet he is being judged on himself and what he has done and said in his life.

If I was to compare Trump and Hillary together like that I would say, Hillary's actions have been far more worse for America then anything Trump has done in his life time.

Trump hasn't done anything yet while Hillary has... And alot of it is bad.

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 05:26 AM

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.

Wow...sounds very similar to the excuses given by the Nazis.

No, it sounds like rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Yes, but no one made her take the case.

That is incorrect.

She asked the judge to be excused. He said no.

You wanna blame someone? Blame the judge.
have proof of that or just hillary's claims like the claim she had one device but she had thirteen devices destroyed?

It's been posted several times in this thread.

well was skimming the thread, and one of the comments I seemed to have read was "there is no proof of that, that's just her claims". If I didn't imagine reading that, it'd be surprising for someone to post that in the face of repeated evidence.

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 05:43 AM

originally posted by: andrewh7

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.

Ethics of the time do not justify anything. Racism, Sexism, antilgbt were prevalent, it does not justify being a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, etc.

If we have a child sexual abuse victim, villifying them in public is psychologically abusing children, and children who're victims of sexual abuse, and abusing them in relation to that.

You carry your defense as far as reasonable, she mistook my client for another, or something. The moment you have to publically abuse children to get your way, doesn't matter what the law says, it's wrong. Oh and even if you bring others to do the dirty work for you it doesn't mean your hands are clean.

Just as child marriage and sex is permitted in some countries, does that make it right? does that justify it?

No matter how you guys want to spin it psychologically and sexually abusing children even if it were legal, even if it were in someone's job description? how can some of you guys stand by that?

edit on 9-10-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 07:46 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

You find the fact that Mrs. Clinton did her job in 1975 (actually, she failed at her "job" because the man was found guilty), that somehow that negates the next 40 years or so of her work on behalf of children and women?

No I don't.

Regarding the rest of the thread, I think the case could legitimately raise questions about Hillary's commitment to women's issues. But only questions, not proof she's not a genuine advocate for women's issues. She was a lawyer doing what the law required of her and it was a long time ago

For me, that she was a lawyer doing her job and that it was so long ago, blunts the case that she isn't a genuine advocate for women. Again, I think the case could legitimately raises questions about her commitment to woman's issues. Anything she's done since, for women, is more important in establishing her bona fides as an advocate for women.

But . . .

The American right-wing generally conflates issues in order to confuse and falsely equate vastly differing problems

And yet it seems to me that that's exactly what you're doing. I couldn't ask a woman to carry a child to term that was a product of rape. But a strong stance against abortion, even in the case or rape, does not equal a favoring of a rapist over the victim. They're two separate issues.

edit on 9-10-2016 by imwilliam because: spellin

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 08:12 AM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cherry0

Don't tell me anything. Learn something about the use of DNA evidence. Calibrate your BS detector.

Yes, experimental only. Making the part where DNA testing in 1975 was hard to believe. It would have to be some kind of wild tale that even if true, it won't fly as acceptable for belief.

:"DNA analysis was first proposed in 1985 by the English scientist Alec J. Jeffreys. By the late 1980s, it was being performed by law enforcement agencies, including the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), and by commercial laboratories. It consists of comparing selected segments of DNA molecules from different individuals. Because a DNA molecule is made up of billions of segments, only a small proportion of an individual's entire genetic code is analyzed."
edit on 9-10-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2016 by Justoneman because: "fixed it"

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:18 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Realtruth

I find your self-righteousness despicable and your pseudo-psychiatric analysis ridiculous. Clinton has overcome what many of us could not and has remained loyal to her marriage vows. In any other context, with any other person, wingnuts would be praising the virtues of such a person standing up for the holy and sacred vows of matrimony ... but not when it is Hillary Rodham Clinton, oh no.

The only despicable people I see here are those who would use the tragic story of Kathy Shelton for a few paltry political points.

But it's fine when you attack members personally, and give your own personal analysis on my opinions related to the topic?

It's interesting you feel yourself above ATS member's and T&C, since this isn't the mud pit.

Hillary's behavior on this case was despicable the facts are there for everyone to read, but it takes some critical thinking and a bit of compassion to see exactly what Hillary did.

edit on 9-10-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:37 AM
a reply to: imwilliam

In rough order of your responses above ...

1. You don't? That's what you said. You stated, quite clearly (do I need to quote you) that your interpretation of Clinton's actions in this trial from 1975 clearly shows she's not interested in women's issues (for the next 40 years - implied) blatta blatta. You didn't mean what you said a few posts ago?

2. "For you" ... fair enough. You have an opinion just as we all do. You're contradicting what you just said. You just told us you DON'T think that her actions from '75 take away from her decades long career of advocating for women and children, and now you're repeating the charge. Frankly, you seem confused in your "opinion."

3. The quotes I linked deal with the specific quotes and positions regarding abortions in the case of rape. You couldn't ask a woman to carry a child to term that was the product of rape, but you're tacitly supporting those that do.


posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:42 AM
a reply to: Realtruth

Ah, the victim complex response, so quickly. Disappointing.

I didn't attack you personally, I described your post and the attitude you strike in your posts (which, conveniently, I see you're not denying.)

... and then you proceed to attack me personally. LOL. PERFECT example of rank cognitive dissonance in your post.

If you feel that I transgressed T&C please report that to the mods. Don't use it as an excuse to blatantly skirt the issues.

Your response is to complain about being attacked, then attack, then post a pointless meme instead of making an argument, then imply that your position is correct because you're a critical, compassionate thinker.

No facts. No counter argument. Nothing. Let me know if you want to debate the issues.

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in