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

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Poe969

He screwed up the answer to the question but maybe he'll just pay the reporter enough money for it to all go away...

Must be nice.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I'm sure if they are going to make a gold digger accusation there will be some evidence to go along with it. If not oh well is that the end of the world? If the negative treatment for Kane will pass wouldn't the same pass even quicker for the accuser? If media, fans and the internet are your concern I'm sure you understand how quickly they all move on to the next story. It's not an ideal situation but this idea that the woman will face such terrible treatment is just overblown in my eyes. Ya I'm sure there are a few idiots out there who will act like it towards both of them but for the large majority I don't think people will really care. And those that do care will likely forget pretty fast. I honestly couldn't tell you the name or face of any high profile rape accusers. People focus on the celebrity way more than the accuser. Sure while its directly going on people care a bit more but as soon as its over I think the vast majority of people move on.

There's a lot more evidence of people trashing rape victims' reps than of false accusations aimed at getting a payday, which seems to be your slant on things. And sometimes those attacks have had some pretty sever consequences for the victim. The point isn't that you remember her name or not a few years later - it's what happens to them at the time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eal-court.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicid...ehtaeh_Parsons

[Locke]

Well, realistically what do you expect the guy to say?

Profess his innocence? - Check.
Profess respect for the legal process? - Check.

Beyond that this sounds like a pretty standard hockey interview.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There's a lot more evidence of people trashing rape victims' reps than of false accusations aimed at getting a payday, which seems to be your slant on things. And sometimes those attacks have had some pretty sever consequences for the victim. The point isn't that you remember her name or not a few years later - it's what happens to them at the time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eal-court.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicid...ehtaeh_Parsons

Not that it is what's most important here. But neither of those are examples of the media or general public trashing victims of their crime. The first one is a horrible story about what the victim was subjected to in court during the proceedings, and the second was another horrible story, but again nothing to do with the general public or media attacking the victim, but actually about what her attackers did in social media.

I also keep reading statements like the one you put into your post like "far more evidence" of what happens to victims versus evidence supporting false accusations. Doesn't that go without saying? When would there ever be evidence of "false accusations"? I would guess any false accusations that occur either get settled out of court if the "alleged attacker" has money or there is a not guilty verdict found court (or not enough evidence to prosecute). But in both of those cases, there will be no "evidence" that the claim was false, just not enough evidence to convict. Also, I'm not meaning that in all the above scenarios it means a crime didn't happen, just in false accusations, I'd assume there is rarely an outcome that ends with, "it was proved it was a false accusation", but rather it either goes away, gets settled or it's just determined there wasn't enough evidence to prove a crime was committed.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Meers

Unless you are a complete and utter moron, it is practically impossible for a wealthy white man to be successfully prosecuted for sexual assault in the US.

All Kane has to do is throw money at it, and the problem will go away.

For example, a classic trick of defence lawyers is to invite the victim (who will usually be poor) to a settlement conference on the pretext of offering a lot of money in exchange for silence, withdraw the offer and then leak that there was a settlement conference to the press - in the hope of tainting the grand jury or jury with the "gold digger" slander.

It's a tactic as old as the hills, and seems to have worked here.

Are you a lawyer?

You just can't do a settlement conference, make an offer and then withdraw it and then leak it to the press, that would probably lead to a mistrial and if I've read right, a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer, in other words its not ethical to do that.

Evidence rule 408 which when I looked it up applied to civil actions.

http://adrr.com/law1/rule408.htm

Unless she goes into the settlement conference and basically compromises herself or admits she lied, anything in the settlement conference can't be bought in front of the jury and can have nothing to do with the juries judgement.

If a judge sees this in the press that a settlement was reached and then withdrawn, and Kane's lawyers went to the press, he would probably instruct the jury to disregard and then go after Kane's attorneys for an ethical breech.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Not that it is what's most important here. But neither of those are examples of the media or general public trashing victims of their crime. The first one is a horrible story about what the victim was subjected to in court during the proceedings, and the second was another horrible story, but again nothing to do with the general public or media attacking the victim, but actually about what her attackers did in social media.

I also keep reading statements like the one you put into your post like "far more evidence" of what happens to victims versus evidence supporting false accusations. Doesn't that go without saying? When would there ever be evidence of "false accusations"? I would guess any false accusations that occur either get settled out of court if the "alleged attacker" has money or there is a not guilty verdict found court (or not enough evidence to prosecute). But in both of those cases, there will be no "evidence" that the claim was false, just not enough evidence to convict. Also, I'm not meaning that in all the above scenarios it means a crime didn't happen, just in false accusations, I'd assume there is rarely an outcome that ends with, "it was proved it was a false accusation", but rather it either goes away, gets settled or it's just determined there wasn't enough evidence to prove a crime was committed.

I can give lots more examples of public humiliation of rape victims, that miight fit the description better. I thought the first one was interesting in light of the rape shield discussion. The second one involved both attackers and other people. For a closer example - how about the Steubenville case.

There is one fairly big case involving a soccer player and a false accusation, but it basically took an admission from the accuser. The motive wasn't money in that one either.

I agree - neither a not guilty verdict or a settlement = false accusation. I doubt too many get settled though. Most probably fall into the not guilty category. In a lot of cases where that verdict is returned it is fairly apparent if it was a matter of "not enough evidence" or "he clearly didn't do it", though the verdict is the same either way.

But what I've never seen was proof that an accuser was going after money all along. There are way easier and more certain ways to do it, and you don't get dragged through the press or a trial.

[Zach]

So has there been any proof he is guilty of anything yet? A lot of people just saying he is because of his past behaviour. Odds he plays Game 1 of the regular season?

[polak]

No. He hasn't even been charged.

There is no victim or criminal or crime as of yet.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Meers

Unless you are a complete and utter moron, it is practically impossible for a wealthy white man to be successfully prosecuted for sexual assault in the US.

All Kane has to do is throw money at it, and the problem will go away.

For example, a classic trick of defence lawyers is to invite the victim (who will usually be poor) to a settlement conference on the pretext of offering a lot of money in exchange for silence, withdraw the offer and then leak that there was a settlement conference to the press - in the hope of tainting the grand jury or jury with the "gold digger" slander.

It's a tactic as old as the hills, and seems to have worked here.

This is utterly ridiculous. This is a criminal case. The state (or crown in Canada) has carriage of it, not Kane or the victim. There is no settlement to be made.

[burn_this_city]

If he wasn't a superstar he wouldn't be at camp. Blackhawks are potentially bobbling this issue and should have taken the safe road in waiting for the indictment.

[Dogbert]

There's nothing stopping the NHL from suspending Kane indefinitely for "conduct unbecoming," then lifting the suspension when he inevitably buys his way out of this mess. Instead, they've created a massive distraction for the Blackhawks and the league as a whole - not to mention a whole lot of angry, angry fans who might just choose to reduce or eliminate their support for the league.

Any time there's an important decision to make, you can count on the NHL to do the stupidest thing possible.

[AcGold]

Even if he's guilty I refuse to accept it until proven guilty. The foundations of a civil society are built upon innocent until proven guilty. If they had all the biological evidence and picture evidence I'd still hold my tongue until he's convicted, innocent until proven guilty has to mean something. Let him play in camp as a matter of principle, can not ruin someone' life that has not been convicted or charged.

[polak]

How can the NHL suspend him for something that isn't actually real yet?

"Were suspending you because you might end up being charged with a crime" let alone convicted of it.

Absolutely insane.

Using that logic let's just start accusing McDavid of random crimes, regardless of validity and the NHL will have to suspend him.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I agree - neither a not guilty verdict or a settlement = false accusation. I doubt too many get settled though. Most probably fall into the not guilty category. In a lot of cases where that verdict is returned it is fairly apparent if it was a matter of "not enough evidence" or "he clearly didn't do it", though the verdict is the same either way.

But what I've never seen was proof that an accuser was going after money all along. There are way easier and more certain ways to do it, and you don't get dragged through the press or a trial.

Why would you think not many false accusations get settled? Wouldn't that be a major motivating factor in false claims? Especially with celebrities who A) have a lot of money and B) have a public image they need to maintain. I'm not sure what proof you expect that money was their motive unless they come outright and say it. I think your being naive if you think a false accusation isn't a real possibility. In celebrity cases especially. In other situations revenge could be the motivating factor. It might not be common but false accusations are a real thing and gold diggers exist. To act like it isn't a real possibility is pretty unfair.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Why would you think not many false accusations get settled? Wouldn't that be a major motivating factor in false claims? Especially with celebrities who A) have a lot of money and B) have a public image they need to maintain. I'm not sure what proof you expect that money was their motive unless they come outright and say it. I think your being naive if you think a false accusation isn't a real possibility. In celebrity cases especially. In other situations revenge could be the motivating factor. It might not be common but false accusations are a real thing and gold diggers exist. To act like it isn't a real possibility is pretty unfair.

It's possible but completely farfetched when you think of what has to be planned and what has to actually occur

[Badgers Nose]

My excitement for the season is inversely proportional to my hatred of the hockey interview.

'Hello, ask me anything except the one thing you all came here to ask me about.'

I hope the Flames never end up with a #### storm magnet like this.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Or just don't rape people and it won't be a problem if you are wealthy or not.
Strange point you are trying to make regardless.

This comment is strange in itself. People have spent decades in jail for rapes that they've later been exonerated of.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by polak

How can the NHL suspend him for something that isn't actually real yet?

"Were suspending you because you might end up being charged with a crime" let alone convicted of it.

Absolutely insane.

Using that logic let's just start accusing McDavid of random crimes, regardless of validity and the NHL will have to suspend him.

Actually that is pretty common in the workplace.

The standard procedure for a lot of companies whose employees are under investigation for a serious crime is to suspend them with pay until more details come out.

[Weitz]

If I was suspended because I was being investigated and nothing came of it I would be sueing somebody.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If I was suspended because I was being investigated and nothing came of it I would be sueing somebody.

You'd spend a bunch of money and lose. The standards are completely different in criminal and contract law (and tort - look at OJ who won his criminal case and lost the civil case).