Child Rape Victim Says Hillary Lied on Affidavit to Set Free Client She Knew Was Guilty (moved)

[civilwarbuff]

rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences."

Who informed her? I have not seen any statements, aside from her own, that make such a claim. Until then it is hearsay at best and at worst a lie on an affadavit.

In a 2008 Newsday article, the victim said she bore Hillary no ill will.

Do you have a link to that article?.....cuz she is saying very differntly now.....

" and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences."

Can anyone even substantiate that statement as sound psychology, even in 1975? If so, please show it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you have a link to that article?.....cuz she is saying very differntly now.....

Sure.

In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.

Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read “Living History” – at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Interesting......
So is this from the same article:
I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”

Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn’t recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks. The assistant prosecutor who handled much of the case for Mahlon Gibson died several years ago. The prosecutor’s files on the case, which would have included such details, were destroyed more than decade ago when a flood swept through the county archives, Mahlon Gibson said. Those files also would have included the forensics evidence referenced in “Living History.”

The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting......
So is this from the same article:
I have been informed ...

“I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”

These two statements can both be true.

 

[civilwarbuff]

These two statements can both be true.

But without any evidence to back up her claim on the affadavit it is at best hearsay and at worst a lie.

 

[FreeinChrist]

That can't be right. Taking the underwear, evidence, away from proper storage is a violation of the chain of custody. That has to be wrong.......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time such a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).

Another lie on her part?

And when a defense attorney receives evidence, it is signed for and part of the chain of custody along with the paperwork involved in sending it to a different lab.

You are fishing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And when a defense attorney receives evidence, it is signed for and part of the chain of custody along with the paperwork involved in sending it to a different lab.

You are fishing.

I was going to say floundering.... but that hardly matters when the goal is smearing Clinton, not truth.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Interesting......
So is this from the same article:
I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”

Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn’t recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks. The assistant prosecutor who handled much of the case for Mahlon Gibson died several years ago. The prosecutor’s files on the case, which would have included such details, were destroyed more than decade ago when a flood swept through the county archives, Mahlon Gibson said. Those files also would have included the forensics evidence referenced in “Living History.”

The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”

Dale Gibson, an investigator, may not recall, and probably was not privy to everything the defense attorney receives.

Much was destroyed in a flood now. That is too bad.

imho, it was a callous lack of concern and care to the victim to politicize this case in the past and it continues to show a callous lack of concern for the victim now. That is on the Republicans.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I was going to say floundering.... but that hardly matters when the goal is smearing Clinton, not truth.

Very true

 

[trunks2k]

Much was destroyed in a flood now. That is too bad.

That just goes to show you the lengths Clinton will go to to cover for herself

 

[TLK Valentine]

That just goes to show you the lengths Clinton will go to to cover for herself

Indeed -- she commands the wind and waves.... Witchcraft, I tell you!

 

[essentialsaltes]

But without any evidence to back up her claim on the affadavit it is at best hearsay and at worst a lie.

No, at best it's the perfect unadulterated truth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, at best it's the perfect unadulterated truth.

Yes, but the AntiClintons have been ordered to never expect truth from Hillary Clinton.... don't expect them to fight their indoctrination.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And when a defense attorney receives evidence, it is signed for and part of the chain of custody along with the paperwork involved in sending it to a different lab.

You are fishing.

I don't believe defense attorneys are allowed to take custody of evidence; only LE can do that. They can look at it but I believe it is either in a sealed area or under the eyes of LE.
I posted this once before but here it is again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

Criminal casesEdit

When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been “planted”fraudulently to make someone appear guilty.

Establishing chain of custody is made of both a chronological and logical procedure, especially important when the evidence consists of fungible goods. In practice, this most often applies to illegal drugs which have been seized by law enforcement personnel. In such cases, the defendant at times disclaims any knowledge ofpossession of the controlled substance in question. Accordingly, the chain of custody documentation andtestimony is presented by the prosecution to establish that the substance in evidence was in fact in the possession of the defendant.

An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time such a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).

Maybe you can find something that says otherwise......

 

[FreeinChrist]

I don't believe defense attorneys are allowed to take custody of evidence; only LE can do that. They can look at it but I believe it is either in a sealed area or under the eyes of LE.
I posted this once before but here it is again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

And for all we know, it was sealed and done entirely proper under the rules of 40 years ago.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And for all we know, it was sealed and done entirely proper under the rules of 40 years ago.

But your claim was a defense attorney 'receiving' evidence which they cannot do. They can view it and they get copies of the results of forensic tests but they are never included in the chain of custody. In fact, if they themselves discover physical evidence they are required to turn it over to LE.

 

[FreeinChrist]

How she "received" it, I do not know. I would expect that it had to comply with all the legal requirements of the time. How else could it have been sent to another lab? It wouldn't have been released without compliance with the legal guidelines.

That poor woman is having to deal with all this now because the right wing keeps dragging it up and politicizing a decision that also involved the prosecutor, judge, and the victim's mother.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That poor woman is having to deal with all this now because the right wing keeps dragging it up and politicizing a decision that also involved the prosecutor, judge, and the victim's mother.

The "right wing" did not force her to do an interview:
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...on-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

 

[TLK Valentine]

The "right wing" did not force her to do an interview:

Why would they? She's just a tool to smear Clinton with; they have no interest in anything she has to say.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The "right wing" did not force her to do an interview:
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_147344863068311&key=da53d7416ed606366eff5a3c28e0b6bb&libId=isw520gd01010mgr000TAn985nfju&loc=http://www.christianforums.com/threads/child-rape-victim-says-hillary-lied-on-affidavit-to-set-free-client-she-knew-was-guilty.7964467/&v=1&out=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html&ref=http://www.christianforums.com/threads/child-rape-victim-says-hillary-lied-on-affidavit-to-set-free-client-she-knew-was-guilty.7964467/page-12&title=Child Rape Victim Says Hillary Lied on Affidavit to Set Free Client She Knew Was Guilty | Christian Forums&txt=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...on-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

gp back to 2008

who keeps bringing it up now?