Talk:Kathy Shelton

Disputed additions
and You clearly disagree on the edits that FactCheckkerr is making. Please discuss here before continuing to edit war. agt x 23:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. So how does this work, I add comments here? So if it is a question of neutrality, it is indisputable that the judge advised his son to donate to Bill Clinton 7 months before the trial. Nowadays that would be a conflict of interest. So on the one hand, you have Hillary saying she took the case on as a favor to the prosecutor, and thus took the case voluntarily, and then you have her recent statement that she was a "court appointed attorney". But that leaves out how the judge was a Democrat that supported her soon-to-be husband, and we can make the inference, from these facts, that Hillary's appointment was not so involuntary. But stating the facts as I've put them, that the judge donated to the Clinton's, is perfectly neutral. You have a lot of point of view out there saying the entire system was rigged, that the Democrat judge, prosecutor and even judge's son were in cahoots with each. But here I am only putting forward the facts in as neutral way as I can. FactCheckkerr (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily have a problem with the part about the judge's relationship to the Clinton campaign (not sure if others do), since that's from a reliable source and could be relevant. The problem with portions of the edits that rely on the primary source documents from Scribd, like this is that it relies on your interpretation of primary sources. Basically, it looks like you're putting together information you've found from primary sources and adding it to the article. Wikipedia articles cite to secondary sources, not primary sources. Also, the tone of the source for this edit (which is this article) makes me think that it may not be a reliable source, although I'm not sure what the prevailing view on the reliability of that particular website is. agt x  23:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about Kathy Shelton, not the Clintons or the judge. The notion of a "conflict on interest" is OR based on an interpretation of primary sources. FactCheckkerr makes the assumption is that the public defender has a conflict of interest because the judge said something to his son about Clinton's husband in a totally unrelated political matter.  FactCheckkerr assumes that judges in Arkansas are not allowed to comment to their family on state politicians who are not involved in any of the judge's cases. I suggest that FactCheckkerr may have added his interpretation to affect the 2016 presidential election. Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Article is already full of lies and manipulation of truth. As for the question of interpreting whether or not it is appropriate for a judge to also be a political donor to the defense attorney, there is are articles here describing that situation:

1. Hillary Clinton Learned How To Manipulate The Law By Defending A Child Rapist https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/01/hillary-clinton-learned-manipulate-law-defending-child-rapist/ 2. Hillary's rapist client never served a day of his sentence http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillarys_rapist_client_never_served_a_day_of_his_sentence.html 3. The Tragic Life of Kathy Shelton http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/the_tragic_life_of_kathy_shelton.html 4. The TRUTH About Hillary and Kathy Shelton https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-truth-about-hillary-and-kathy-shelton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckkerrr (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Can't Wikipedia get a copy-editor or something?
You have a new section or sub-section titled "Leaked audio recording" and then right at the start of that, you have "In the audio Clinton is heard laughing ...". In "THE" audio? WHAT audio? You don't describe or introduce whatever audio you're talking about. You don't give any background on it. It just appears from out of left field. How about "In [some month, some year] it was discovered that a tape existed of Hillary [doing something]. On that tape one can hear Hillary's comments about her defense of a rapist in Washington County in [etc.] and they are as follows" and THEN you start discussing what she said. Gosh people, read your own articles! You don't see how this reference to "the" audio without first telling us what "the" audio is, is just bad writing?2604:2000:C682:2D00:10F0:9D0:A56:2B31 (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

What Was "Lost"?
What "critical piece(s) of evidence" were "lost" by the prosecution, and what made this evidence so "critical"? They didnt lose the victim's testimony of the crime.72.181.112.54 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm checking on that, as I noticed the same thing and was confused by it.--FeralOink (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There are several errors of fact and ambiguity in the article at present. I am going to list quotes and sources here, then update the articled accordingly.

Via a July 2016 Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville) news story, not opinion but a fact check:


 * 1) "In 1975, Hillary Clinton - then Hillary Rodham - taught at the University of Arkansas School of Law, FactCheck.org reported."
 * 2) "... county prosecutor Mahlon Gibson told her (Clinton) that the accused "wanted a woman lawyer" to defend him, and that Gibson had recommended her to Judge Maupin Cummings."
 * 3) Hillary didn't volunteer to defend the man. She asked to be taken off the case, but the judge denied her request. County prosecutor Gibson corroborated this "in a 2014 interview with CNN, FactCheck.org found."
 * 4) Clinton wrote in her book that Taylor "denied the charges against him and insisted that the girl, a distant relative, had made up her story."
 * 5) "Clinton filed a motion to order the girl to get a psychiatric examination. "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion."
 * 6) "Clinton negotiated a plea deal and Taylor was sentenced to one year in a county jail and four years of probation, according to a final judgment signed by Cummings, FactCheck.org found."
 * 7) "In 2014, the Washington Free Beacon published the audio of an interview that Arkansas reporter Roy Reed had with Clinton in the 1980s. In the interview, Clinton discusses the rape case, and she can be heard laughing in three instances, beginning with a joke she makes about the accuracy of polygraphs, as reported by FactCheck.org: "… I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]". Clinton then said that the evidence she obtained was Taylor's underwear with a hole in it. She took that to a forensic expert in Brooklyn, N.Y., who told her that the material on the underwear wasn't enough to test. "I [Clinton] handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, 'Well this guy's ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.'" [laughs]... she did laugh in the retelling of some aspects of the rape case. As FactCheck.org writes, "We leave it to others to decide whether her laughter was appropriate or not.""

Via Time "Bill Clinton accusers tell their stories"


 * 1) "The public defender was appointed to represent him (Taylor) and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there. But Judge Cummings relieved him and appointed Hillary. She was appointed to that case.”
 * 2) "At 12, she (Shelton) was brutally raped by 41-year old Thomas Alfred Taylor, injured so badly that she was in a coma for five days and robbed of the ability to have children."
 * 3) "Hillary Clinton represented Taylor, encouraging him to plead guilty to a lesser charge so that he would spend only a year in prison, instead of the 15 the crime would ordinarily carry."
 * 4) "Candice Jackson, Kathy Shelton’s attorney, told Hannity that the affidavit amounts to victim-blaming. “All of the things that Hillary Clinton put in that affidavit were intended to portray her as a liar, someone who made up this rape, that if there was sex it was consensual as a 12-year-old virgin,” she said."
 * 5) "“Just about every speech she gives, she says ‘I care about women and children,'” said Shelton. “If she cared about children, she wouldn’t have put me through what she put me through.”"

Via Wapo 2016 Clinton and the Kathy Shelton case


 * 1) "(Clinton) was actually a law instructor who also ran a legal aid clinic.."

There was only one rapist. Two men did not attack her. Via PennLive "Meet PA Lawyer..."


 * 1) "... Washington County, Arkansas, where the Shelton rape case was filed in 1975, and where Shelton's attacker, then 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor, later pled guilty to a lesser count of fondling of a minor. Taylor was sentenced to 10 months in jail. He died in 1992."
 * 2) "Clinton requested a psychiatric exam of Shelton, the request was subsequently denied by a judge."
 * 3) "Jackson said some confusion was to be expected, with Shelton only a sixth grader at the time of the attack, one that also left her in a coma."
 * 4) "Shelton's mother was Nellie Slaten."
 * 5) "(Hillary's) laughter was not directed at the victim but rather at the reliability of polygraphs and a crime lab's accidental destruction of DNA evidence."

Via CNN


 * 1) "Clinton was able to win a plea deal for Taylor based on a forensic mistake that cast doubt on the semen and blood samples found in Taylor's underwear. In court documents, Clinton questioned the girl's emotional state as she sought a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation."

I'm going to make changes to the article now.--FeralOink (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)