[News] Patrick Kane being investigated for rape. UPD: DA announces no charges

[DJones]

Terrible thing to laugh at but reading that article I couldn't help but think what if one of her co-workers actually said she was a sketchy person and could see her lying? Haha there would be a twist. No one in their right mind would ever say anything like that though, doesn't matter if she was the devil incarnate.

So wonder why he didn't go for the girl that was all over him? Playing the ol' be nice to the ok friend to get at the hotter girl and he was shut down?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MattyC

That was all in the same conversation. There was no backtracking. He was really trying to hammer home the point that he did not and cannot confirm whether or not that girl he saw with Kane was the alleged victim. Literally just repeating what he saw and made multiple qualifiers that there was no way for him to know anything other than what he saw.

My point is he should have kept his mouth shut, he was blaming the victim before he knew who she was! He was implying.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by T@T

My point is he should have kept his mouth shut, he was blaming the victim before he knew who she was! He was implying.

Your point was you were saying he was a liar, which wasn't the case.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by T@T

My point is he should have kept his mouth shut, he was blaming the victim before he knew who she was! He was implying.

No, your point was that he was a lying liar, which he's not. So you could just say "whoops misread, sorry guys." Or "my bad." but instead you dig further. He wasn't implying anything, just recounting what he saw, because he was asked. I would argue he was vehemently trying to get across that he wasn't implying anything as he can't comment on anything that happened after they left or if it was even the same girl. He said those things. Those were words that left his mouth.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Your point was you were saying he was a liar, which wasn't the case.

So Police and Investigators ask the guy questions and he's supposed to say he didn't see anything???

[Coach]

I love the new found irony behind the "backtracking" comment after T@Ts last post.

[Larry David]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Your point was you were saying he was a liar, which wasn't the case.

It's been reported that Kane was going to bring the cup to his bar, Skybar, as part of his day with the cup. It's even in the link Sureloss posted.

Put 2 and 2 together and you can see why some are speculating that Croce didn't want to lose this opportunity to have Kane come to his bar with the Cup and was looking out his own best interests with his comments.

The investigation caused Kane to cancel a planned celebration last weekend at SkyBar, where he had been expected to show up with the Stanley Cup that he and his Chicago Blackhawks teammates won in June.

The link again if you actually want to read the article.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...riend-20150812

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Larry David

It's been reported that Kane was going to bring the cup to his bar, Skybar, as part of his day with the cup. It's even in the link Sureloss posted.

Put 2 and 2 together and you can see why some are speculating that Croce didn't want to lose this opportunity to have Kane come to his bar with the Cup and was looking out his own best interests with his comments.



The link again if you actually want to read the article.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...riend-20150812

I dunno it sounds like someone was interested in Kane and wanted to go home with him. The victim went along so her friend didn't go alone.

Seems to collaborate what the owner said, a girl looked interested in Kane, but he had no idea if it was the victim or not.

I don't know what your link is trying to prove or disprove. T@T said the owner was backtracking and lying, which he was not, which is all i said.

[Larry David]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I dunno it sounds like someone was interested in Kane and wanted to go home with him. The victim went along so her friend didn't go alone.

Seems to collaborate what the owner said, a girl looked interested in Kane, but he had no idea if it was the victim or not.

I don't know what your link is trying to prove or disprove. T@T said the owner was backtracking and lying, which he was not, which is all i said.

I'm not saying the man is a liar either, but it wouldn't surprise me under the circumstances. Also, under New York law, a bar could be liable if they continue to serve an obviously intoxicated person and that person goes on to injure somebody. So again, he may or may not be protecting his own interests here.

Goes in to more detail in this link:

http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/...about-pat-kane

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Larry David

I'm not saying the man is a liar either, but it wouldn't surprise me under the circumstances. Also, under New York law, a bar could be liable if they continue to serve an obviously intoxicated person and that person goes on to injure somebody. So again, he may or may not be protecting his own interests here.

Goes in to more detail in this link:

http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/...about-pat-kane

Fair enough.

I personally feel they shouldn't have ran the owners comments strictly because it does nothing but inflame the situation and as that article says he has "skin in the game".

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Fair enough.

I personally feel they shouldn't have ran the owners comments strictly because it does nothing but inflame the situation and as that article says he has "skin in the game".

That's the medias problem. Half the people on tv don't deserve to have the platform.

Doesn't mean you should bash a guy for explaining what he saw. As the owner of the establishment he should be the first one asked. Only makes sense.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I dunno it sounds like someone was interested in Kane and wanted to go home with him. The victim went along so her friend didn't go alone.

Seems to collaborate what the owner said, a girl looked interested in Kane, but he had no idea if it was the victim or not.

I don't know what your link is trying to prove or disprove. T@T said the owner was backtracking and lying, which he was not, which is all i said.

Jesus. are you his brother?

If I told the cops I saw you grabbing a chicks ass one day and then the next day I said "well, It might have been him but I'm not positive now" is that not backtracking and lying?

Fact is he implicated to the newspaper that the chick was partially to blame with the way she was acting(flirting, following him around..etc.) basically calling her a skank and it wasn't even the right girl. He was trying to save his ass plain and simple.

[Ryan Coke]

That's some crazy interpretation and justification there.

And no, I'm not his brother either.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Larry David

I'm not saying the man is a liar either, but it wouldn't surprise me under the circumstances. Also, under New York law, a bar could be liable if they continue to serve an obviously intoxicated person and that person goes on to injure somebody. So again, he may or may not be protecting his own interests here.

Goes in to more detail in this link:

http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/...about-pat-kane

Thanks for the link.

At the end of the article it sums up my thoughts.

We don’t know what happened, and neither does Mark Croce. Mark Croce should STFU and the News was irresponsible for uncritically reporting what he says he saw.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by T@T

Jesus. are you his brother?

If I told the cops I saw you grabbing a chicks ass one day and then the next day I said "well, It might have been him but I'm not positive now" is that not backtracking and lying?

This is all from one article though isn't it? It's not one story one day and another story another day as far as I know.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by T@T

If I told the cops I saw you grabbing a chicks ass one day and then the next day I said "well, It might have been him but I'm not positive now" is that not backtracking and lying?

It's more like someone came up and asked him "hey, did you see Patrick Kane rape a girl?" and he said "I saw him hanging with a girl and leave with a couple girls."

Because that's what he said. And what you've compared it to here isn't even the same thing. If anything it's the reverse of everything you said.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It's more like someone came up and asked him "hey, did you see Patrick Kane rape a girl?" and he said "I saw him hanging with a girl and leave with a couple girls."

Because that's what he said. And what you've compared it to here isn't even the same thing. If anything it's the reverse of everything you said.

From the article above he said a lot more than that.

Croce told The News that he and several of his employees noticed a young woman “hanging all over” Kane at SkyBar for at least two hours that night, putting her hands on his arms and “being very forward, very flirtatious with him.”

“It was almost like she stationed herself near him and was keeping other women away from him,” Croce said. “I noticed it and kind of laughed about it.”

Croce said the woman and a female friend “followed” Kane as he left the nightclub with a couple of male friends around 3 a.m. last Sunday.

He sure saw a lot, must be a Kane fanboy and followed him around himself.

[nik-]

It's not very hard to notice a famous patron.

[justafan]

Maybe he wanted to be invited over for a night cap?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

No, your point was that he was a lying liar, which he's not. So you could just say "whoops misread, sorry guys." Or "my bad." but instead you dig further.

MattyC, T@T. T@T, meet MattyC.