So if the evidence of the case is not admissible due to tampering, then the case comes down to he said, she said, which = no charges.
I think that helps the defendant more, so in this case Kane.
But if the accuser did not like the results, then she could want to make the evidence inadmissable. Of course, Kane would know this and would therefore also know that by destroying the evidence the accuser looks guilty. Which of course, the accuser would know, which is why they would want to destroy the evidence... Which of course....
Meh. I haven't really posted in this thread because I really don't care either way. Either he did it or he didn't and it's pretty obvious the accuser lacks any slam dunk evidence and this latest news makes them look desperate. The bottom line is that it's basically his word against hers and I don't believe that's enough to convict any man of a crime without supporting evidence. Kane will get out of this and hopefully the sooner the better so we can move on and focus on hockey as this whole thing is becoming a waste of time.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 09-23-2015 at 12:39 PM.
But if the accuser did not like the results, then she could want to make the evidence inadmissable. Of course, Kane would know this and would therefore also know that by destroying the evidence the accuser looks guilty. Which of course, the accuser would know, which is why they would want to destroy the evidence... Which of course....
"No evidence" is not very favorable to the accuser.
I don't understand how this could be of benefit to Kane? The evidence was already "tested", and it "tested" negative for Kane's DNA below her waist. That was a home-run result for the Kane camp.
The sending of this evidence to the girl's family sends a very clear message. Someone inside the PD or test lab does not agree with the leaked test results.
There was apparently (this is all leaked stuff) no evidence of his DNA in her underwear, but there was under her fingernails.
Which is exactly what you'd expect to find, being that she was at his house.
I would expect that if anyone came to my house, sat on my furniture and dried their hands with my towels, that my DNA would absolutely be present under their fingernails.
Meh. I haven't really posted in this thread because I really don't care either way. Either he did it or he didn't and it's pretty obvious the accuser lacks any slam dunk evidence and this latest news makes them look desperate.
How? How does this girl get her hands on the evidence, that would obviously be protected by the police? She couldn't.
Unless you're suggesting it's not the real evidence? In which case, it'd be very easy for the police/lab to come out and say that it's a fake, as they still hold the real evidence bag. The fact that this hasn't happened, and both sides have acknowledged that it's real, pretty much puts that theory to rest.
Meh. I haven't really posted in this thread because I really don't care either way. Either he did it or he didn't and it's pretty obvious the accuser lacks any slam dunk evidence and this latest news makes them look desperate. The bottom line is that it's basically his word against hers and I don't believe that's enough to convict any man of a crime without supporting evidence. Kane will get out of this and hopefully the sooner the better so we can move on and focus on hockey as this whole thing is becoming a joke.
If his story is disbelieved, either because it lacks internal or external credibility, he can be convicted. "He said/she said" cases are quite numerous and often can correctly result in a conviction.
In fact, it might only be a one-sided story. Example: Shoplifter walks out of a store, gets caught and says "I just got distracted and forgot to pay". The judge (no jury for summary conviction crimes) can believe her (acquittal), be undecided as to whether or not to believe her (acquittal) or disbelieve her (her evidence is disregarded, leading to a conviction).
I have actually had all 3 happen in my long ago criminal law cases. What was a bit surprising was which of my clients was believed and which was not. I had a girl who took half of a pack of hairbands who claimed she was going to ask to buy a partial package, and forgot they were in her pocket - stupid right? She was acquitted. I had a couple who put an item on their baby carriage and said the baby was screaming so they left the store, forgetting the item was on there. They were not believed and convicted, though in my mind it was a far more likely story (in the judge's defence on the latter, it was a more expensive item and therefore less likely to be forgotten).
But if the accuser did not like the results, then she could want to make the evidence inadmissable. Of course, Kane would know this and would therefore also know that by destroying the evidence the accuser looks guilty. Which of course, the accuser would know, which is why they would want to destroy the evidence... Which of course....
Are you saying the kit tested positive for Iocaine powder?
The Following User Says Thank You to Demaeon For This Useful Post:
I don't understand how this could be of benefit to Kane? The evidence was already "tested", and it "tested" negative for Kane's DNA below her waist. That was a home-run result for the Kane camp.
The sending of this evidence to the girl's family sends a very clear message. Someone inside the PD or test lab does not agree with the leaked test results.
"The lawyer for a woman alleging she was sexually assaulted by Chicago Blackhawks forward Patrick Kane said Wednesday that an empty evidence bag was improperly left in the doorway of the woman's mother's home".
Key word in the press conference. They never sent the evidence, so debating and hanging either party for this is non-relevant. (Not questioning you, just used your post as I didn't have time to read all of today's posts).
In regard to the information conveyed today by Mr. Thomas Eoannou, the Hamburg Police Department will cooperate with any authorized investigation regarding the handling of evidence and the procedure of such. That said, The Hamburg Police Department has documentation that unequivocally demonstrates that its handling of the evidence and the integrity of its chain of custody of evidence in this case is unassailable. As is policy with active investigations, there will be no further comment regarding this situation.
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
If his story is disbelieved, either because it lacks internal or external credibility, he can be convicted. "He said/she said" cases are quite numerous and often can correctly result in a conviction.
In fact, it might only be a one-sided story. Example: Shoplifter walks out of a store, gets caught and says "I just got distracted and forgot to pay". The judge (no jury for summary conviction crimes) can believe her (acquittal), be undecided as to whether or not to believe her (acquittal) or disbelieve her (her evidence is disregarded, leading to a conviction).
I have actually had all 3 happen in my long ago criminal law cases. What was a bit surprising was which of my clients was believed and which was not. I had a girl who took half of a pack of hairbands who claimed she was going to ask to buy a partial package, and forgot they were in her pocket - stupid right? She was acquitted. I had a couple who put an item on their baby carriage and said the baby was screaming so they left the store, forgetting the item was on there. They were not believed and convicted, though in my mind it was a far more likely story (in the judge's defence on the latter, it was a more expensive item and therefore less likely to be forgotten).
Well I'm no lawyer but you comparing a shoplifter who was caught red handed to an woman accusing a man of rape without any supporting evidence isn't even remotely close to the same thing. Kane wasn't caught doing anything. A woman is accusing him of something but there's no witnesses of the act and apparently this rape kit had nothing. Like I said I don't care one way or another but I simply see nothing here that says Kane was without a doubt guilty of rape.
Not sure why some of you love these types of discussions and topics as IMO it's embarrassing that this thread has hit 60 pages in a Calgary Flames forum. I don't like the topic rape and I don't like jumping to conclusions daily on Kane being a rapist or her being a liar. I don't dislike Kane like others so I'm not clinging to this in hopes he is found guilty and I don't like how everyone seems to jump to conclusions whenever a celebrity or athlete is implicated in something bad. I just want it to end one way or another so this thread can die or maybe have the thread moves to the other forums so the people that want to talk hockey aren't reminded of this case every day.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
"The lawyer for a woman alleging she was sexually assaulted by Chicago Blackhawks forward Patrick Kane said Wednesday that an empty evidence bag was improperly left in the doorway of the woman's mother's home".
Key word in the press conference. They never sent the evidence, so debating and hanging either party for this is non-relevant. (Not questioning you, just used your post as I didn't have time to read all of today's posts).
