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

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I will refer back to a post I made at the beginning of this thread...

I think it is a travesty that the name of the accused is published at the outset - prior to there being any proof of wrongdoing.

IMO, the accused should have the same rights to privacy as the accuser.

Then, if/when they are convicted - have at 'er. But until such point, it is very unfair to the accused that their name is dragged through the mud before the facts are presented.

Even though no charges will be laid, for a great many people, Kane is still guilty.

No doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, but there will always be the thought from some about if the alleged victim dropped it because her story isn't true, or because she didn't want to proceed any longer. With news that she may have hired a new lawyer, who knows; this may not be the end.

Just as much as it sucks that this may discourage women from coming forward, Kane, and others in similar situation do get their name muddy up, which has actually cost Kane financially at the minimum. So if indeed he did not do it, he's getting screwed over too. But then he could counter sue for defamation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How do you definitely know it didn't happen?

I think because we MUST know.

At this point the evidence supports the theory that he did NOT do it. It's not as though there is no evidence, that raises questions. There IS evidence, and it contradicts the accusation (which is very different than simply "not supporting" the accusation).

The justice system isn't a religion. You don't simply get to believe something based on faith.

This isn't the OJ case. Kane was never even charged.

[sureLoss]

IIRC Mike Ribiero wasn't charged with sexual assualt, but that did not stop his accuser from bringing a civil suit against him and then eventually reaching a settlement.

The standard of proof is much lower for civil cases.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I will refer back to a post I made at the beginning of this thread...

I think it is a travesty that the name of the accused is published at the outset - prior to there being any proof of wrongdoing.

IMO, the accused should have the same rights to privacy as the accuser.

Then, if/when they are convicted - have at 'er. But until such point, it is very unfair to the accused that their name is dragged through the mud before the facts are presented.

Even though no charges will be laid, for a great many people, Kane is still guilty.

I don't think this should be exclusive to rape cases either. I get that the public wants to know who and what happened in violent crimes, but who does it actually benefit?

Edit: Although then how do you canvass for additional information, and if the person is guilty, then they could still pose a risk to the public before going to trial.

[Sakic19]

Not sure if this has been posted but this is a good summary of what happened in the case

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacr...ot-believable/

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Ren Lavoie on 960 brought up a good point.

If the physical and forensic evidence, witnesses, and DNA results (which was supposedly known a few months ago) did not corroborate the accuser's story, why did it take so long for the DA to drop the case?

I believe it was because the prosecutor was running for a state supreme court seat, which he won on Tuesday. He delayed this (and maybe other?) higher profile cases until he had secured that seat. Better for him to not do anything in the weeks leading up to the election, just in case something went bad for him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think because we MUST know.

At this point the evidence supports the theory that he did NOT do it. It's not as though there is no evidence, that raises questions. There IS evidence, and it contradicts the accusation (which is very different than simply "not supporting" the accusation).

The justice system isn't a religion. You don't simply get to believe something based on faith.

This isn't the OJ case. Kane was never even charged.

No, at this point the evidence didn't support a criminal case. In other words, the prosecutor figured there was reasonable doubt. The prosecutor didn't say the evidence contradicted the accusation. He said some forensic evidence "tended to contradict" parts of the accuser's story. That leaves a lot of room for it to be true, but misremembered in part, or for the evidence to be explained in such a fashion as to be consistent.

If it ever goes to a civil case, a jury would just decide " which story is probably true".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, at this point the evidence didn't support a criminal case. In other words, the prosecutor figured there was reasonable doubt. The prosecutor didn't say the evidence contradicted the accusation. He said some forensic evidence "tended to contradict" parts of the accuser's story. That leaves a lot of room for it to be true, but misremembered in part, or for the evidence to be explained in such a fashion as to be consistent.



If it ever goes to a civil case, a jury would just decide " which story is probably true".

- The prosecutor did not "figure" there was reasonable doubt. There was reasonable doubt. The 'case' was rife with it.

- The accusation was that Kane raped this girl on his bed. It does not say "some" forensic evidence contradicted, it says "the physical evidence and the forensic evidence" tend (regularly behave in a certain way) to contradict not 'parts of the accusers story' but rather "that she was raped on Kane's bed" which, as noted in the statement, is the entire accusation.

One must provide a shred of evidence that Kane "might" have raped the accused if it's going to continue to be suggested.

[Street Pharmacist]

And he called it a "so called case". As the person most familiar with the evidence, that's damning

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I believe it was because the prosecutor was running for a state supreme court seat, which he won on Tuesday. He delayed this (and maybe other?) higher profile cases until he had secured that seat. Better for him to not do anything in the weeks leading up to the election, just in case something went bad for him.

He was running unopposed in the election IIRC.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

He was running unopposed in the election IIRC.

I believe that is correct, but isn't it still a yes/no vote? Couldn't he still get enough 'no's to not be elected? I could be wrong here, I know little about the process and have no desire to look it up. I just know that I read in one of the articles that that was the reason we hadn't heard anything in the last month or so.

[polak]

I feel like GioforPM is the only person in the world that is disappointed that a rape didn't take place that night. He's still looking for ways to vilify Kane even though the prosecutor basically tore apart the accusations.

Party on you social crusader.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by polak

I feel like GioforPM is the only person in the world that is disappointed that a rape didn't take place that night. He's still looking for ways to vilify Kane even though the prosecutor basically tore apart the accusations.

Party on you social crusader.

Jesus Christ that is a horrible thing to say about someone. Seriously - check yourself.

[polak]

Wow. After all the attacks he made in this thread?

How else do you explain his staunch defense of the accuser even after the prosecutor completely tore apart the claim.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

I feel like GioforPM is the only person in the world that is disappointed that a rape didn't take place that night. He's still looking for ways to vilify Kane even though the prosecutor basically tore apart the accusations.

Party on you social crusader.

A. I haven't said a word about Kane - just the assumption that a dropped prosecution = a lying accuser. Oh, and the fact that a civil case can be brought and has been possible to win afterwards.

B. The prosecutor didn't "tear apart" anything. The only thing he said that was remotely critical was the inference arising from his use of "so called". Aside from that he used qualifiers like "tended to contradict".

C. Is "social crusader" the new "SJW"? If so, that's pretty much an automatic loss in a debate.

D. "All the attacks" I made? If truthful reference to your previous posts = attacks, OK. Otherwise, prove it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

- The prosecutor did not "figure" there was reasonable doubt. There was reasonable doubt. The 'case' was rife with it.

- The accusation was that Kane raped this girl on his bed. It does not say "some" forensic evidence contradicted, it says "the physical evidence and the forensic evidence" tend (regularly behave in a certain way) to contradict not 'parts of the accusers story' but rather "that she was raped on Kane's bed" which, as noted in the statement, is the entire accusation.

One must provide a shred of evidence that Kane "might" have raped the accused if it's going to continue to be suggested.

It's the qualifier "tended to" and "on Kane's bed" that I was referring to me.

In a civil case, she would testify to a jury. Presumably so would he. The forensic stuff would be included, obviously. But the oral evidence os the "shred" you are looking for. I've won cases based on nothing more than the testimony of a witness who was believed over another who was not. And the standard isn't "I believe A and not B". It's "I don't 100% know who to believe but I am more persuaded by A". It could be that such testimony is far more persuasive to a jury than the prosecutor, who has seen lots of witnesses and likely is harder to convince.

[Hackey]

I might not have phrased it the way polak did (more so to save myself from certain people getting offended) but there is definitely some truth to what he said. GioforPM clearly has a bias that sides with the accuser for whatever reason.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I might not have phrased it the way polak did (more so to save myself from certain people getting offended) but there is definitely some truth to what he said. GioforPM clearly has a bias that sides with the accuser for whatever reason.

And that might be true. But there is a big difference between saying that and saying that someone is dissapointed that someone wasn't raped.
Again a terrible thing to say about someone. Even to make a point.

[Locke]

I have to say, I'm really interested in the upcoming civil suit to see how this plays out.

Can anyone confirm whether her current lawyer is the Preacher or if its a new lawyer?

Now that the only thing on the line is money its easier to follow.

Could Kane, if he were content to pay his lawyers rather than her, just draw this out as long as possible until she cant afford to pay her lawyers anymore?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

Wow. After all the attacks he made in this thread?

How else do you explain his staunch defense of the accuser even after the prosecutor completely tore apart the claim.

I'm not siding with anyone, but it's not like prosecutors are infallible. There are a whole host of reasons why a trauma victim's testimony might not match up with physical evidence that is not strictly limited to "she's making it up."