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

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

There is a lot of research showing lie detectors don't work, and none showing the opposite.

The National Research Council concluded that polygraph accuracy for specific-incident questioning is in the region of 81 to 91 percent. So, that makes you pretty much wrong.

Originally Posted by National Research Council: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003

CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

The National Research Council concluded that polygraph accuracy for specific-incident questioning is in the region of 81 to 91 percent. So, that makes you pretty much wrong.

Wow, 10% range in their study eh? Their study seems inaccurate.

Here in Canada, SCC ruled against it's ussage as evidence.

[googol]

The FBI uses it because if you can't fool one, you do not deserve to join the FBI....

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

The National Research Council concluded that polygraph accuracy for specific-incident questioning is in the region of 81 to 91 percent. So, that makes you pretty much wrong.

Well here's an actual link to the National Research Council study. So, that makes you pretty much wrong.

Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures.

http://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/10

[AcGold]

So has Kane played with the Hawks?

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

Well here's an actual link to the National Research Council study. So, that makes you pretty much wrong.



http://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/10

And in the end, they found that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that while not perfect, polygraphs do work. That was their conclusion from their review of the evidence.

You are trying to imply that they came to the opposite conclusion.

[Krovikan]

NM, post below is better

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

And in the end, they found that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that while not perfect, polygraphs do work.

No, they found that there is little or no evidence that polygraphs work, but that they may have utility for reasons unrelated to their actual effectiveness. I quote from pp. 214-215 at the link above:

Utility Polygraph examinations may have utility to the extent that they can elicit admissions and confessions, deter undesired activity, and instill public confidence. However, such utility is separate from polygraph validity. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that admissions and confessions occur in polygraph examinations, but no direct scientific evidence assessing the utility of the polygraph. Indirect evidence supports the idea that a technique will exhibit utility effects if examinees and the public believe that there is a high likelihood of a deceptive person being detected and that the costs of being judged deceptive are substantial. Any technique about which people hold such beliefs is likely to exhibit utility, whether or not it is valid. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that admissions and confessions occur more readily with the polygraph than with a bogus pipeline—an interrogation accompanying the use of an inert machine that the examinee believes to be a polygraph. In the long run, evidence that a technique lacks validity will surely undercut its utility.

[TorqueDog]

BACKCHECK!!! is digging quite the hole here.

[sureLoss]

Buffalo News reporting Kane unlikely to face charges:

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...s-say-20151031

Nearly three months after a local woman told police that Patrick Kane raped her in his Hamburg home, it appears no criminal charges will be filed against the Chicago Blackhawks hockey star, according to three sources closely familiar with the investigation.

Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III declined to discuss his plans for the case, but other sources said doubts have emerged about the woman’s allegations and make criminal prosecution highly unlikely.

The three sources also said they do not believe the case will be presented to a grand jury.

“This case is going nowhere,” one knowledgeable source told The Buffalo News when asked about the possibility of criminal charges.

“I was told…the case will be administratively dismissed” without being presented to a grand jury, a second knowledgeable source added.

[sureLoss]

Bufflao News now reporting accuser will no longer cooperate with the investigation:
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...ation-20151103

The local woman who accused National Hockey League star Patrick Kane of rape three months ago has notified the Erie County District Attorney’s Office that she no longer wants to cooperate in the investigation, five sources with knowledge of the case told The Buffalo News on Monday.

The woman has told authorities that the high-profile investigation has caused tremendous stress for her and her family, and that she no longer wishes to participate.

The alleged victim spoke to investigators at the District Attorney’s Office at length last week, and after that, signed a document called an “affidavit declining prosecution,” which is now under consideration by District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III, one of the sources said.

“She was no longer interested in going forward,” another source told The News.

The woman first asked the DA’s staff about the status of the investigation before stating that she no longer wants to cooperate, this source said.

Sedita, who ultimately will decide whether the case goes forward or not, declined to confirm or deny the information obtained by The News. He said he will not announce his next moves in the case until he speaks with the prosecutor who is directly handling the case.

That prosecutor is currently on vacation, said Sedita, who will be elected Tuesday as a State Supreme Court judge. He faces no opposition.

[handgroen]

well that's the end of that chapter

[Locke]

So thats that then.

[Poe969]

What are flyer fans going to chant now??!?!?!?!?!?!

[CroFlames]

I suspected it would amount to this.

[Locke]

I would love to know the real story. She doesnt have enough evidence to back up her claims after accusing someone of rape?

I understand that its been difficult for her, but it was always going to be difficult, it likely hasnt been 'high tea in the drawing room' for anyone involved.

I dont know, I guess I just cant help feeling that there should be consequences in this somewhere for her.

It feels like such a cop-out.

"Well, that went nowhere, now I'm walking away."

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Locke

I would love to know the real story. She doesnt have enough evidence to back up her claims after accusing someone of rape?

I understand that its been difficult for her, but it was always going to be difficult, it likely hasnt been 'high tea in the drawing room' for anyone involved.

I dont know, I guess I just cant help feeling that there should be consequences in this somewhere for her.

It feels like such a cop-out.

"Well, that went nowhere, now I'm walking away."

I'm sure it's left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that Kane's camp is probably just happy to walk away and won't pursue defamation or what have you. I'm not sure if he's even able or not, but whatever the case I'm sure he's just glad to walk away.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

I'd bet it was settled with a "zip your lip" clause.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm sure it's left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that Kane's camp is probably just happy to walk away and won't pursue defamation or what have you. I'm not sure if he's even able or not, but whatever the case I'm sure he's just glad to walk away.

I get that, and that makes total sense. But without any more information what we're seeing here is someone who accused someone of rape without sufficient evidence without consequence.

This is where the rubber hits the road and you get people wondering if she was getting into him for money or even just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

Its hard to believe that the person who was allegedly raped is the one walking away.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its hard to believe that the person who was allegedly raped is the one walking away.

Considering that it's exactly what the vast majority of all rape victims do, that's a really odd thing to say.