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

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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".

It feels like you're following a different case then everyone else. How could his words not be taken as tearing the case apart in that statement? As a non-lawyer that sounds like he tore it apart and then stopped just short of calling her a liar, only because he can't legally state that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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."

Sorry man, I agree with jayswin below. That was a pretty conclusive statement, they went just to the very edge of what they were legally allowed to say.

Sure, there may be reasons and I'm sure it wasnt the State of New York's first rodeo either. I think they might have some experience dealing with it and if it was so ridiculous that they issued that statement theres probably good reasons behind it.

Originally Posted by jayswin

It feels like you're following a different case then everyone else. How could his words not be taken as tearing the case apart in that statement? As a non-lawyer that sounds like he tore it apart and then stopped just short of calling her a liar, only because he can't legally state that.

I pretty much agree, and as Vlad said, in conjunction with her first lawyer bailing on her it says a fair bit.

[EldrickOnIce]

The really unfortunate part is that this is clearly one of those 1 in 10,000 (or whatever an actual number might be) where the accuser actually lied, for whatever reason.
So it reinforces what is almost exclusively a fallacy, and may lead to less victims coming forward - which is exactly where we did not want this to go.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sorry man, I agree with jayswin below. That was a pretty conclusive statement, they went just to the very edge of what they were legally allowed to say.

Sure, there may be reasons and I'm sure it wasnt the State of New York's first rodeo either. I think they might have some experience dealing with it and if it was so ridiculous that they issued that statement theres probably good reasons behind it.

I pretty much agree, and as Vlad said, in conjunction with her first lawyer bailing on her it says a fair bit.

I wasn't implying anything about this particular case, just addressing the some of the misconceptions about rape and trauma cases in general.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Locke

I pretty much agree, and as Vlad said, in conjunction with her first lawyer bailing on her it says a fair bit.

Just to emphasize this point, we (that is lawyers who work on contingency) generally fire clients for only 2 reasons - they are proven to be liars or they are "crazy" and we just don't want the hassle. Neither is good...

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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."

That was my point (not fallibility - the fact that physical evidence not meeting the exact story of the accuser isn't always because she's lying.. It's also why a prosecutor doesn't speak in absolutes (like this one).I think he made the only choice he could.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Just to emphasize this point, we (that is lawyers who work on contingency) generally fire clients for only 2 reasons - they are proven to be liars or they are "crazy" and we just don't want the hassle. Neither is good...

True enough. The third reason is just a basic refusal to agree on recommendations. Which usually goes hand in hand with "crazy".

I'm not sure her previous lawyer was on contingency though. If not, there's always the other big reason to fire a client.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

True enough. The third reason is just a basic refusal to agree on recommendations. Which usually goes hand in hand with "crazy".

I'm not sure her previous lawyer was on contingency though. If not, there's always the other big reason to fire a client.

I cannot imagine this being something other than contingency - she would need to be almost Kane-level wealthy to run this by the hour...

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I cannot imagine this being something other than contingency - she would need to be almost Kane-level wealthy to run this by the hour...

It probably was. Although the stage at which she hired him, and the involvement in the criminal matter gives me pause. You'd simply not hire a guy on contingency to advise on criminal stuff here. There - who knows? They do weird stuff.

Mind you - if it was contingency, and the criminal matter wasn't going well, he might have not cared to continue on anyway. Lots of work for likely no reward. As much as the civil standard is different, a criminal conviction would have almost salted the civil case away. When that disappears, a jury could be influenced.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

True enough. The third reason is just a basic refusal to agree on recommendations. Which usually goes hand in hand with "crazy".

I'm not sure her previous lawyer was on contingency though. If not, there's always the other big reason to fire a client.

My vote goes to crazy and includes her mother who tried to fake evidence.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A. I haven't said a word about Kane - just the assumption that a dropped prosecution = a lying accuser.

She is not telling the truth about what happened, the evidence shows this in the clearest possible way. At best she doesn't know what happened (very very unlikely) and accused Kane anyway.

Oh, and the fact that a civil case can be brought and has been possible to win afterwards.

This is not going to become a civil matter unless Kane decides to sue the woman.

B. The prosecutor didn't "tear apart" anything.

Yes he did, in the most diplomatic way possible he said the case had no merit there was no way this was going to a grand jury let alone trial. Sedita also stated that no charges would be brought against the accuser, you don't even bring this up unless it is crystal clear the accusers version of events were highly inaccurate to put in kindly.

Watch for yourself.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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.

I guess I just don't understand the value of evidence if it vindicates someone and yet you're still willing to consider them a rapist because an accuser guilty of lying already tells a really good yarn.

[powderjunkie]

I'm not adding anything to an already off the rails discussion, and I do not think this is the most likely considering what we have heard, but I think it is at least worth mentioning that these cases sometimes disappear due to hush money (and I don't say that necessarily as a negative thing; in grey area cases where wrongdoing may not be totally concrete, it can be a solution that achieves some compensation for a victim while avoiding the ordeal of a trial, and some punitive impact to the accused/perpetrator. It can also happen if the accused actually did nothing wrong, but finds it to be the quickest/easiest way to deal with situation).

IIRC it was either Greg Hardy or one of the 49ers in trouble that had chargers dropped after the accuser/victim failed to appear. Hush money seems a likely scenario there.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I guess I just don't understand the value of evidence if it vindicates someone and yet you're still willing to consider them a rapist because an accuser guilty of lying already tells a really good yarn.

I wasn't talking about this case in particular - just pointing out that testimony is evidence. So if someone takes an oath in court and "tells a really good yarn" that's evidence.

No one in this case has been found to be lying by any trier of fact. I know people want to assume that's what the prosecutor decided, and maybe he did. But he didn't say exactly that, nor does he determine it as a matter of law.

Anyway, in a civil case, they start from scratch. It's a whole new case, and while the forensic evidence would be admissible, the prosecutor would play no part.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm not adding anything to an already off the rails discussion, and I do not think this is the most likely considering what we have heard, but I think it is at least worth mentioning that these cases sometimes disappear due to hush money (and I don't say that necessarily as a negative thing; in grey area cases where wrongdoing may not be totally concrete, it can be a solution that achieves some compensation for a victim while avoiding the ordeal of a trial, and some punitive impact to the accused/perpetrator. It can also happen if the accused actually did nothing wrong, but finds it to be the quickest/easiest way to deal with situation).

IIRC it was either Greg Hardy or one of the 49ers in trouble that had chargers dropped after the accuser/victim failed to appear. Hush money seems a likely scenario there.

Hush money is a very real thing when it comes to rich people and allegations, but I think you have to read between the lines of some statements made in this case.

Hush money would make sense if it was a solid progressing case and then all of a sudden the alleged victim dropped out, but this case has loads of crazy coming from the accuser side all throughout the case and the judge basically called her a liar and refused to even refer to this as a real case, instead calling it the "so called case".

That doesn't reek of hush money to me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Hush money is a very real thing when it comes to rich people and allegations, but I think you have to read between the lines of some statements made in this case.

Hush money would make sense if it was a solid progressing case and then all of a sudden the alleged victim dropped out, but this case has loads of crazy coming from the accuser side all throughout the case and the judge basically called her a liar and refused to even refer to this as a real case, instead calling it the "so called case".

That doesn't reek of hush money to me.

There is no hint of any payoff here. And there didn't have to be.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Wow...this thread...

[Hackey]

[hockey.modern]

Mod edit- see sureLoss' comment below.

[sureLoss]

How about we don't post unverified allegations about players unless they come from recognized legit media sources.

For all we know someone made up that story