Candice Jackson continues to sound off. For example:
She discusses the affidavit in support of the Motion for Psychiatric Examination and goes on to say:
The overall impact on Kathy as a young girl was to leave her feeling completely deprived of justice for the heinous crime committed against her, and leaving her feeling like it was somehow her fault.
The affidavit, however, could have had no impact on Shelton “as a young girl” because she did not become aware of it until Glenn Thrush interviewed her for his 2008 Newsday article. According to Thrush, Shelton was “visibly stunned” when he handed her the affidavit.
Jackson stated that Shelton did not recall ever taking the stand but had “very definite memories of facing Hillary personally on at least two or three occasions during the pretrial proceedings.”
The first, supposedly, was during a “line-up of suspects.”
If there ever was an identification issue in this case, it was resolved no later than May 14, 1975, four days after the offense and prior to Hillary’s involvement. The affidavit signed on that date by a prosecution investigator states the following in the first paragraph after the introduction:
. . . I have personally interviewed Kathy Shelton, the victim of the alleged crime herein, and she has informed me that she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor on May 10, 1975. . . . She also gave me the names of two (2) other persons who were present during this attack. [Emphasis added.]
Jackson described the next meeting as follows:
. . . Hillary and a few other people were present and Hillary and others asked her questions. I think that is a formal witness interview, probably part of the discovery process the defense was entitled to.
Kathy remembers feeling like Hillary was “rude” and “cold” and Kathy felt “like she doesn’t like me.”
There could certainly have been a prosecution team meeting during which more than one person asked Shelton questions, and during which a woman was present. However, defense attorneys are not invited to such meetings.
Defense attorneys are not “entitled” to summon witnesses for pretrial interviews. In fact, the right of a defendant to review prior statements of a prosecution witness is constitutionally guaranteed (with exceptions not material here) only after the witness has testified on direct examination.
In Arkansas, the court has the discretion to compel a prosecutor to make a witness available for a defense interview, but a motion and order would be necessary. None of the discovery motions Clinton filed ask for this opportunity, nor was any such order entered.
Moreover, Shelton told Josh Rogin in 2014 that she did not recall ever meeting Clinton in 1975. Rogin’s interview took place at least six years after she had learned that Clinton had been Taylor’s attorney and had been shown the affidavit.
In short, the claim that Hillary tortured Shelton still fails.
Jackson also claims that Hillary was responsible for the disappearance of the stained portion of the undershorts. The stain had already been tested and the toxicolgist who tested it was, according to the court documents, prepared to testify about the findings. The garment did not have to be present in court for that testimony to be admissible. Evidence tampering would have accomplished nothing for Clinton except the destruction of her own career.
I am keeping a watchful eye on developments.