Child rape victim comes forward for the first time in 40 years to call Hillary Clinton a 'liar'


Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

**Child rape victim comes forward for the first time
in 40 years to call Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ **

*(Hillary) defended her rapist by smearing her, blocking evidence
and callously laughing that she knew he was guilty *

  • ‘Hillary Clinton is not for women and children,’ says Kathy Shelton, 54, who was 12 years old when she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas
  • Clinton was the rapist’s defense lawyer, pleading him down to ‘unlawful fondling of a minor’
  • The 41-year-old drifter served less than a year in prison
  • The plea came after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime
  • Shelton says she’s furious that Clinton has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail
  • Clinton accused Shelton of ‘seeking out older men’ in the case and demanded that she undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination
  • The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotaped interview from the 1980s

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Now we know her name. Kathy Shelton.

The article includes pictures of the girl as she was at age 12 when she went through this.

Court documents showing Hillary Rodham’s accusing the 12 year old multiple rape victim
of being …

[size=]emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing

**-- point 4 on document No. CR-75-203 of the Hillary Rodham filed affidavit, 1975 **


… are included in the article … as is a tape of Hillary intimating she knew her rapist/client was guilty … and laughing about the case to a friendly interviewer.


Just as a point of curiosity: if it was later shown, through DNA testing that while Kathy Shelton was indeed raped, she was not raped by Hillary’s client, would you still have the same feelings about the matter?


Challenging the state’s evidence and the victim’s credibility are actually the defense atty’s duty. What everyone misses is that Clinton committed an ethical violation, violating attorney-client prvilege by discussing the case on the tape.



Hard to figure even DNA could nullify the child’s eyewitness testimony (which she STILL claims),

the fact that police arrested **him, **

and the hospital verified she had injuries consistent with rape,

another witness at the scene testified to “hearing” Taylor rape her in the truck (HIS truck)

and even Hillary’s own suspicions about his guilt (which she aired in the interview in the '80s … you can hear it on the post if you visit the site).

She was by her testimony raped by more than just Hillary’s client.

In Kathy’s new, and more detailed account of her trauma (not from Hillary’s forced psychoanalytical examinations … the crime itself) she reveals her injuries in great detail …
and I find it hard to believe that she would just make up a false story about an innocent man and cause him all that trouble … while doing nothing to the “real (per your theoretical proposition here) perpetrator”.

I find the disappeared evidence regarding the case to be very dubious. Not just Taylor’s bloody underwear section … but the loss of SO many court records regarding the case “to a flood” so that inquiries now run into a stone wall. :shrug:

BUT … another view is that Kathy Shelton MAY be a liar … and DID falsely accuse Taylor (because according to … his lawyer … she was a fantasizer of older men, lied about people touching her body, etc. etc.). < NOT what I think happened.

In FACT … if it were later shown that DNA evidence HAD been found (at long last the underwear sample was FOUND again!) … I think we’d find Kathy’s blood (she claimed at 12 that she was a virgin on the night she was assaulted) … and some of Taylor’s bodily leavings… < the police took HIS underwear that night … Taylor was jailed, the DA saw enough to prosecute him. < details of the physical evidence is recounted here.


And Hilary’s disscusion recorded on tape? You nean lets imagine it didnt take place?


Sentence #1: I know about those duties … and agree.

But making things UP that are otherwise slanderous,

  • and intimidating a 12 year old gang raped victim via court ordered psychological testing

  • based on the thinnest of hearsay (or invented?) evidence …

  • with the result she was bullied into wanted to drop the whole thing < (my paraphrase of Kathy’s words)

  • … was way over the top and unnecessary IMO

… and furthermore RIGHTLY scrutinized later when one puts herself forward for the highest office in the free world.

**Sentence #2: ** I’m not sure if Taylor was dead by the time she made the tapes. I don’t think so … I think he died in the '90s and the tapes were made in the '80s … but you are RIGHT!

Aggrandizing oneself at the expense of a former client DOES seem to be another strike against Hillary. And disingenuous too … admitting she thought he was guilty all the while … yet legally hectoring, with the full force of her powers – a child rape victim who had bravely come forward after life shattering injuries and purported threats.


Exactly. And then saying she’s for women and children. :mad::mad: She admits on tape that she accepted this case as a favor to someone, though before the tape came out she said she was basically forced to take it after saying she didn’t want it. That’s ******** either way. She could have refused the case.


Exactly. How sad for this woman to have to have endured such an ordeal. I hope she is doing ok today.


Did the court consider the evidence hearsay/invented? Why would a criminal defense lawyer hold back on making use of every legal tool available to defend their client? I read the article and nothing stood out to me as unusual for a criminal case.

I might run a summary of the case past an attorney or two just to get their opinion on it.


As unpleasant as it is to consider, sometimes young women do lie about sexual assaults. Consider the case of Gary Dotson, who served 10 years in prison for a crime that never happened:



Post-case: she disses her client publicly … believing him guilty (though laughing about it), writes about how clever she was in her self-congratulatory book, and after all this time … justifies herself without a word of apology to Kathy (which, considering she KNEW her client was guilty, or implied as much on tape, would be a decent thing to do IMO).


The Daily Mail is the rag that comes up with many such articles about everyone. For instance, here is one on Trump:


So the victim is lying?


It’s a true story. History. Dismissing the story as false because of the source is a bit of the “poisoning the well …” logical fallacy.

I AM a bit puzzled as to why no American paper broke the story … and that it is the Daily Mail which published Kathy Shelton’s story. But I’m grateful for the good journalism done.

Up until now we didn’t know who Kathy Shelton was. She’d commented on the case before, but anonymously … and the previous writers did not reveal her ID.

Her story is being picked up by many other media outlets … and Fox News has commented on it too.


See, but now you mentioned Fox News, and we know what happens when Fox News is mentioned


I had a brief conversation with a friend/attorney this AM and she mentioned something similar; that there have existed women that have not been truthful about being raped for reasons such as not wanting to be looked at a certain way, vindictive motivations, or other reasons and that due diligence may include further questioning of the victim in perusing the truthfulness of their claims.

Criminal attorneys may think/know that their client is guilty. But their function is to defend their client.

Was that in the book “Tough Choices”?

That seems par for the course for being a criminal defender. That’s not to say that I like it, but it thus far I’ve not heard anything that doesn’t sound like a usual course for the occupation. There’s a bigger discussion in this about criminal process. But that might be a better discussion for the Philosophy sub-forum. There is at least one attorney that frequents that sub-forum.


12 year old girls cannot consent to sex legally.


I am a bit puzzled by your claim that no American paper “broke the story.” I read about the case quite a while ago, so obviously it was reported in the American press.

As to “breaking the story,” I’m not sure there’s that much of a story to break. Hillary Clinton was appointed to defend a man charged with rape. She does not want to take the case but is convinced she can’t very well defy the judge who appointed her. She employs all legal means to defend her client, which she is obliged to do. I don’t see what other choice she had, other than not do her best to defend him. Not doing so would have been a breach of her responsibility.


As much as I don’t necessarily trust the Daily Mail, I kind of believe it. It’s a good read.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit