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

[civilwarbuff]

gp back to 2008

who keeps bringing it up now?

She did a voluntary interview in 2014.....Unless you are claiming she was somehow forced to do the interview.....it is her decision.

"The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings."

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Which means that everything Clinton had, the prosecutor also had.

She did her job well; he did his job poorly... and somehow, that's her fault.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings."

The first is a serious allegation -- the rest is pretty much what a defense attorney is expected to do.

It's almost as if people didn't understand why lawyers are so hated...

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On

To Not Flame each other
As the Thread has been Cleaned
Carry On​

 

[Dave-W]

Hey, that's great. In this case the twelve year old rape victim is scum because Hillary. At least you guys are consistent.

As much as I dislike Hillary and dislike rapists, as a defense attorney she SHOULD have done everything in her power to clear her client. Including lying. Including painting the victim as scum.

To do otherwise would have been not giving her client a constitutionally required defense.

That is the system of justice we have. It may be somewhat less now, but in 1975 it would have been considered legal malpractice to do otherwise.

 

[Dave-W]

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.

Everything the prosecution has (including anything potentially exculpatory) MUST be turned over to the defense. But the defense does not have to turn anything they find over to prosecution.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Everything the prosecution has (including anything potentially exculpatory) MUST be turned over to the defense. But the defense does not have to turn anything they find over to prosecution.

We are talking physical evidence here not non-physical evidence. If a defense attorneys client turns over the murder weapon to his attorney said attorney is required to give it to LE; same goes for any other physical evidence. Not so for non-physical evidence.

 

[Dave-W]

We are talking physical evidence here not non-physical evidence. If a defense attorneys client turns over the murder weapon to his attorney said attorney is required to give it to LE; same goes for any other physical evidence. Not so for non-physical evidence.

That is not my understanding. ANYTHING the defense finds on its own can be presented in court (or not - their choice) without the prosecution ever seeing it or even knowing of its existence. Physical or otherwise.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is not my understanding. ANYTHING the defense finds on its own can be presented in court (or not - their choice) without the prosecution ever seeing it or even knowing of its existence. Physical or otherwise.

Then you need to go do some research......

 

[Belk]

That is not my understanding. ANYTHING the defense finds on its own can be presented in court (or not - their choice) without the prosecution ever seeing it or even knowing of its existence. Physical or otherwise.

I admit no expertise in this area but I was under the impression that all evidence had to be shared by both parties?

 

[Dave-W]

I admit no expertise in this area but I was under the impression that all evidence had to be shared by both parties?

Not at all. Prosecution can get their butts in a serious sling if they do not share any evidence even remotely connected to the case, but the defense has no such mandate. It is a 5th amendment (self incrimination) issue.

How exactly that works varies somewhat by state.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I admit no expertise in this area but I was under the impression that all evidence had to be shared by both parties?

The defense has access to the evidence but does not take physical possession of it; they can even have their own experts run forensics but if the defense can take possession of physical evidence they can alter it to get the results they desire.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I expect a good defense attorney to do what Clinton did.

I do NOT expect a good defense attorney to brag about it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The defense has access to the evidence but does not take physical possession of it; they can even have their own experts run forensics but if the defense can take possession of physical evidence they can alter it to get the results they desire.

Actually, I will alter this statement some. After the prosecution is finished with the evidence the defense may take possession of it; there may be some exceptions if the evidence is to be admitted during trial. The earlier discussion revolved around the idea of chain of custody.

 

[Belk]

Not at all. Prosecution can get their butts in a serious sling if they do not share any evidence even remotely connected to the case, but the defense has no such mandate. It is a 5th amendment (self incrimination) issue.

How exactly that works varies somewhat by state.

Actually, I will alter this statement some. After the prosecution is finished with the evidence the defense may take possession of it; there may be some exceptions if the evidence is to be admitted during trial. The earlier discussion revolved around the idea of chain of custody.

There seems to be some truth in both of your statements from what I was able to find.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-when-the-prosecution-must-disclose.html

Traditionally, the prosecutor wasn’t entitled to information about a defendant’s case. But in recent years, discovery has become more of a two-way street. Just as defendants can discover information from prosecutors, so too can prosecutors examine certain evidence in the hands of defendants.

 

[civilwarbuff]

"Traditionally, the prosecutor wasn’t entitled to information about a defendant’s case. But in recent years, discovery has become more of a two-way street. Just as defendants can discover information from prosecutors, so too can prosecutors examine certain evidence in the hands of defendants."
I thought it was still a one way street....wonder what made it change.....

 

[rawo]

I expect a good defense attorney to do what Clinton did.

I do NOT expect a good defense attorney to brag about it.

A good defense attorney cannot lie about a witness, the same as a prosecutor cannot lie about a witness. A "vigorous defense" does not include illegal activities like committing perjury or bribing a judge. It is giving the best defense possible within ethical and legal limits.

In Hillary's case she crossed that line, just to win. The woman directly contradicts her and says, at 12 years old, she never "fantasized" about old men or wanted to get raped. We know Hillary has a problem with lying (ran under sniper fire in Bosnia) so it seems she has had that problem all her life. Winning is all that matters. What is true doesn't figure into it.

 

[tulc]

A good defense attorney cannot lie about a witness, the same as a prosecutor cannot lie about a witness. A "vigorous defense" does not include illegal activities like committing perjury or bribing a judge. It is giving the best defense possible within ethical and legal limits.

In Hillary's case she crossed that line, just to win. The woman directly contradicts her and says, at 12 years old, she never "fantasized" about old men or wanted to get raped. We know Hillary has a problem with lying (ran under sniper fire in Bosnia) so it seems she has had that problem all her life. Winning is all that matters. What is true doesn't figure into it.

You seem to have missed the part about how Sec. Clinton was told that about the girl. She didn't make it up. Of course that particular fact doesn't fit the "HILLERY IS THE EVIL QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!" narrative people want to push in this thread, so it's probably just as well you didn't apparently read the rest of the thread where this was discussed before.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You seem to have missed the part about how Sec. Clinton was told that about the girl. She didn't make it up. Of course that particular fact doesn't fit the "HILLERY IS THE EVIL QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!" narrative people want to push in this thread, so it's probably just as well you didn't apparently read the rest of the thread where this was discussed before.
tulc(just a thought)

Well, I still think she's evil - this is just one of many things that contribute to that belief.

 

[tulc]

Well, I still think she's evil - this is just one of many things that contribute to that belief.

Well see the thing is? that's a belief or rather your opinion, it's not something that the facts back up.
tulc(hey PreachersWife! long time no see!)