Just to be crystal clear...your version of the story didnt make sense from a procedural point of view. That is why I did some more digging. If you only read Hannity link I can see why you came to the wrong conclusion. Read the story linked in the Hannity article. The prosecutor lost the evidence. Not clinton and “her lab”
“The prosecutor lost the evidence.”
This is from the Hannity article:
“Clinton’s defense team requested its own testing of the underwear, but it ended up being ‘accidentally destroyed’ by the ‘independent’ lab.”
This is from the Washington Free Beacon article linked from Hannity:
“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.”
This is at http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/ .
So, my initial understanding was not quite right. It was the perp’s underwear, not the rape victim’s. The prosecution needed to establish her blood was on them. His semen alone was not enough.
Apparently, a small amount of blood was on them, which was cut out to perform testing. The LAB, not the prosecutor, discarded the part they cut out. Hillary blames the prosecutor for losing track, but I’m not sure how the chain of custody was broken here. Obviously, the underwear was still available, so the prosecution did not lose the evidence or lose track of it. Hillary CLAIMS the evidence was destroyed during the original testing. But we do not know that.
What we do know is that Hillary got the judge to give her custody of the evidence, and she personally transported it to a forensic expert in New York. We do not KNOW what happened to the evidence before the expert saw it.
Somewhere between the original lab testing it and the second expert testing it, the part with blood on it was gone. It is plausible that the rapist got lucky, and the lab destroyed all of the evidence. It is also plausible that additional parts were destroyed while in Hillary’s custody because it was only after she got her hands on it that the tests came back negative.
In the interview she laughs at this point about “preventing a miscarriage of justice”.
Hillary also LIED to the judge and prosecutor in order to force the little girl to be repeatedly interrogated. Hillary LIED about the girl. That may be done commonly, but it is illegal. This is not “zealously defending” a client. This is win at all costs no matter how unjust. She proved she was willing to DO ANYTHING to get what she wanted.
It was because of cases like this that many states had to enact rape shield laws. Those tactics would be illegal today in many states. And also, Hillary had no ethical duty to use them in the first place. A vigorous defense does not preclude attorneys being honest and humane. Hillary is NEITHER.