Ralph Lopez majored in Economics and Political Science at Yale University. He has been published in the Boston Globe and the Baltimore Sun.
Victim of Rape When Child Says Hillary Lied About Her
Hillary Clinton, in a court affidavit in 1975, swore that she had been "informed" that a 12-year-old girl, who had been brutally raped by a 42-year-old man, had "fantasized" about "older men," and said that the child had made false accusations in the past. It has come to light, from archived audiotapes of Clinton, parts of which have been broadcast on CNN, that Clinton knew the man to be guilty. The victim, now 53, has gone public, stoutly denying that she had been attracted to "older men," nor that she had ever made any false accusations.
The victim spent five days in a coma after the attack and was told she would probably never be able to have children. The victim is childless.
The woman stepped forward after hearing her case discussed in the media. Prior to the national coverage, the victim says she didn't even know it was Hillary Clinton who represented her attacker.
Of Clinton's contention in the sworn affidavit that she had 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" the woman, speaking to the Daily Beast in 2014, said:
“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying...I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
It has been pointed out that Clinton's statements in the affidavit amount to "blaming the victim," and impugn the credibility of the victim. The victim says that she was a virgin at the time of the attack.
In a 2008 New York Newsday article by Glenn Thrush, Thrush wrote that the lead police investigator in the case, Dale Gibson, did not know of any evidence that the girl had ever made any false accusations, writing:
"Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn’t recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks."
At the time, Clinton was a young attorney in Arkansas, and had not yet married Bill Clinton. When the story broke, after researchers had listened to audiotapes in which she discusses the case with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed, Clinton responded that "I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability." Critics, however, point out that a defendant's right to a vigorous defense does not include their attorney filing false affidavits.
In the affidavit signed by Clinton, Clinton wrote, without citing a source:
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Upon seeing the affidavit for the first time in 2008, handed to her by a reporter, the victim said:
“It kind of shocks me – it’s not true...I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”
Clinton can be heard admitting that she knew her client was guilty in an archived Arkansas audiotape, saying:
“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,”
Clinton can be heard chuckling at the memory.
The woman says Hillary "lied like a dog," and that she didn't care "if those guys did it or not." There was another attacker in the case who was never charged.
In interviews with New York Newsday and the Daily Beast, the publications agreed to withhold the victim's name. Part of a tape recording of one of the interviews has been run on CNN.
During the case, Clinton engaged a foremost expert in blood and semen stains, from New York, and can be heard saying on the audiotape to Reed:
“And so the, sort of the story through the grapevine was, if you get him interested in the case, then you know you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify so that it came out the way you wanted it to come out,”
Clinton later discovered that the prosecutor had lost a key piece of evidence: a piece of material cut from the suspect's underwear which contained blood and semen. She was able to reduce the sentence to a year with "time served," rather than life in prison as the suspect was facing.
The victim said:
“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down...But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
The victim told the Daily Beast:
“It’s proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not...Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.”
At one point the victim failed a lie detector test. She says it was because, at 12, she didn't understand one of the sex-related questions.
Clinton makes mention of it in her book "Living History." The passage in the book neglects to include any mention of the beating, the girl's internal injuries, or Clinton's assertions in her affidavit that the victim "fantasized" about older men, and had made false accusations. The passage focuses on the suspect's underwear, but neglects to mention that they were spoiled evidence, implying they were uncompelling evidence, which they were not but for the missing key piece of material. In the book Clinton casts herself as a woman who is not squeamish, and is inspired to set up a rape hotline.
Clinton writes in her book:
"He denied the charges against him and insisted that the girl, a distant relative, had made up her story.
I conducted a thorough investigation and obtained expert testimony from an eminent scientist from New York, who cast doubt on the evidentiary value of the blood and semen the prosecutor claimed proved the defendant’s guilt in the rape. Because of that testimony, I negotiated with the prosecutor for the defendant to plead guilty to sexual abuse.
When I appeared with my client before Judge Cummings to present that plea, he asked me to leave the courtroom while he conducted the necessary examination to determine the factual basis for the plea. I said, “Judge, I can’t leave. I’m his lawyer.” “Well,” said the judge, “I can’t talk about these things in front of a lady.” “Judge,” I reassured him, “don’t think of me as anything but a lawyer.” The judge walked the defendant through his plea and then sentenced him.
It was shortly after this experience that Ann Henry and I discussed setting up Arkansas’s first rape hot line…"
The propriety of Clinton's actions have been defended by her allies, with one, former Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfenson saying in response to the Newsday story:
“As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”
However, others have maintained that falsifying information in a court document is never a legitimate part of a vigorous defense, and in itself constitutes a "breach" of professional responsibilities. Clinton has never said who "informed" her that the little girl desired older men, which even if true, would be a completely irrelevant defense to the rape and beating of a 12 year old. The maneuver, say Clinton's critics, seems only to create a subtle atmosphere for "blaming the victim," in this case a young child who could have had no possible culpability for the savage attack.
The woman has admitted to fearing Clinton, saying:
“I’m a little scared of her… When this all comes about, I’m a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not...They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what’s true.”
The Daily Beast shared its recorded interview with the victim with CNN. Asked what she would say in addressing Clinton directly, the woman said:
“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
"Hillary Clinton took me through Hell," the woman says.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
Lisa McConaughy on July 07, 2016:
I can only speak about the democratic primaries in Iowa. They were not prepared for large numbers of people, even though they expected record numbers of voters. Where I was most of the Sanders supporters were excluded, from the debating because they were placed in an area where we could not hear or see what was going on. It was reported, on the local news at the time, that some locations for the democratic primaries were locked, and voters had no place to vote in the primaries. I am ashamed that the Iowa primaries were so messed up. I first thought that it was caused by inept people. I now fear, after reading about fraud in other primaries, it was done on purpose to put Clinton ahead.