Posted on 10/11/2016 3:50:23 PM PDT by Rusty0604
While the cases of three women connected to Bill Clinton have been well-litigated in the media, the Kathy Shelton case has attracted much less attention. Until a Newsday reporter informed her in 2008 that Clinton was the lawyer in the case, Shelton had no idea that Hillary Clinton had been involved.
In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas ...She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment
As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Clinton offered no source for the claims.
For a variety of reasons, a plea agreement to a reduced charge was reached.
There is little indication that the outcome of the case would have been much different, no matter the defense attorney, given the mishandling of the evidence and Shelton’s difficulties as a witness. Yet now the exam has become a key part of her story in order to raise funds.
Shelton is a rape victim and until recently has not been in the public eye. However, she chose to appear at Trump’s news conference, and Trump has begun to highlight her story in campaign speeches. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yep.....it is what they do. Blame the victim.
Shelton’s ire had risen with the 2014 discovery of previously unpublished audio recordings of Clinton discussing the case ...In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; ...”
...
Yep. That makes all the difference. Does the WaPo even mention the recording?
“She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment”
She lied. Imagine Hillary Clinton lying. She told another story to the interviewer according to this http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=47166
Read down to the bottom. I believe Hillary’s tapes are linked in this article. She’s laughing, LAUGHING after getting off a rapist who she knew was guilty. Look at how she handled evidence. Is anything at all beneath this piece of filth, Hillary Clinton? I think not.
Old Hill - isn’t she the savior in this story ?
Not,,,,,,
“How can they defend Clinton laughing”
Are you kidding? This scum at the compost are beside themselves with laughter as they drag this poor woman through the mud again. Next to the bitch the MSM goons are the worst of the worst.
It does I think I put it in my comment. It’s hard to fit everything into 300 words. The point they didn’t make is that if Hillary was just reluctantly doing her job, why did she think it was such a laughing matter?
Exactly.
A few months ago, someone posted that the reason the rape shield act was enacted in Arkansas was because of this case. Can anyone confirm or refute that.
Investigators mishandled evidence of Taylor’s bloody underwear, cutting out the stain that contained semen for testing and then losing it.
Wasn't it Clinton that mishandled the evidence, by sending it to a lab in NY?
I heard that it was Clinton getting the evidence thrown out, but but maybe now suddenly new facts have come out./s
By the way, did you see the wikileaks emails between the Dems and the media? FACT - the media is completely in it with the Democrats and now we have proof positive. I’d post a few of the pertinent ones that name the networks, CNN, Boston Globe, NY Times, etc. before they disappear.
“Wasn’t it Clinton that mishandled the evidence, by sending it to a lab in NY? “
Yes.
If a defense lawyer knows a client is guilty, what's their ethical obligation?
Do they have any obligations to the court, or just the client?
Can they make crap up (like Clinton did), and justify it as a "vigorous defense"? Or, are they obligated to advise the defendant to confess and take a plea deal?
Are any ethical obligations valid nationwide, or does it vary by state? If it varies, is it any different in Arkansas?
We knew it all the time. And some of the news orgs have told their employees they will get fired for saying anything pro-Trump.
I’m no lawyer, but on TV, the defense lawyer sometimes tells the client they don’t want to know if they are guilty. If someone is guilty and even pleads guilty, they still have a right to defense on the motivation and sentencing.
“In an unpublished interview in the 1980s with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed – which was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon in 2014 – Clinton said she agreed to take the case as a personal favor to the prosecutor.”
She took the case. Taylor originally had a male lawyer and requested a female attorney. Clinton took the case as a personal favor to the prosecutor according to her.
Wow.
The irony.....
Precisely so. Litigators are not seeking "truth" or "justice." The function of a litigator is to advocate for the outcome they prefer. We have an adversarial legal system. The simple view of it is that both sides tell their story to the trier of fact, and the trier of fact, not the litigators, decides which of the irreconcilable stories is true.
If the lawyer KNOWS the client is guilty, it cuts off many misleading angles of argument.
if a defendant admits his guilt to the defense lawyer, the defense lawyer may not permit him to testify that he did not commit the crime.
That's the only big no-no, in a nutshell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.