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

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

One theory is that someone was being a whistle blower to show it was tampered with. Otherwise - I don't really know why you'd do it.

Maybe a cop at the PD has Kane in their keeper fantasy league and stands to lose big time if he got convicted.... As outrageous as that statement is, would it surprise anyone given what else has gone on in this case

[GioforPM]

All very weird. The fact the girls' lawyer is the one bringing this up suggests that he is implying the cops did something bad. But if so, why would a whistle blower send the evidence bag to the mom? How would she know if it was tampered with (it sure is now, if true).

[Locke]

Yeah, thats very strange.

Isnt that whole thing inadmissible as evidence now?

[puckedoff]

Thats pretty much the last thing I would have guessed was going to happen at this press conference.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, thats very strange.

Isnt that whole thing inadmissible as evidence now?

Could be. Which is why it's strange - inadmissible evidence is almost always going to help the accused.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

All very weird. The fact the girls' lawyer is the one bringing this up suggests that he is implying the cops did something bad. But if so, why would a whistle blower send the evidence bag to the mom? How would she know if it was tampered with (it sure is now, if true).

Because the bag was ripped open and empty

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Thats pretty much the last thing I would have guessed was going to happen at this press conference.

No kidding, my cynical mind thought this case would end with a settlement and/or Kane being found innocent of any wrong doing, instead it looks like it's going nuclear.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Could be. Which is why it's strange - inadmissible evidence is almost always going to help the accused.

Right, because we were told there was no evidence in the rape kit and now who the hell knows?

[MissTeeks]

Kane's lawyer responds:

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair22m22 minutes ago
Patrick Kane atty Paul Cambria downplays the bag’s significance, says tests already show there was no Kane DNA found below accuser's waist.

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair12m12 minutes ago
Patrick Kane attorney tells Trib that his client would be hurt most by tampered evidence because they can't do their own testing if needed

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair3m3 minutes ago
Patrick Kane atty says that only someone "unhappy with the results" of DNA testing would tamper with evidence.

[Benched]

wow, this case gets stranger and stranger.

the ONLY way the bag gets to her mom is if the evidence has been tampered with and/or the custody of evidence was violated. It should be in lockup in some police station....not out on the street.


sounds like someone in the PD messed up or actively tampered with evidence.

Crazy twist in this case.

[polak]

So it's just an empty bag?

I don't get it.

Tampering could help both sides though, no? Whoever was unhappy with the results of the rape kit wins.

[Benched]

In our system, innocent until proven guilty.

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.

[Kjesse]

Good news for the alleged perpetrator. Bad news for the alleged victim. Ugly news for law enforcement.

[saillias]

The lawyer said he didn't want to speculate and both good Samaritan whistleblower and malicious intent are possible.

So you're either looking at someone in the police force who didn't like how the case was being handled or you have some Godfather style, horse head in bed level threat going on.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by polak

So it's just an empty bag?

I don't get it.

Tampering could help both sides though, no? Whoever was unhappy with the results of the rape kit wins.

But they already released the results of the rape kit. Presumably prior to whatever the hell this was.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Benched

In our system, innocent until proven guilty.

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.

Seems to be redundant though, no. Weren't the results of the rape kit that there was no evidence of Kane? Why would they want that to be no admissible?

Not presuming anything, I'm just trying to figure out why either party would try to make it look like it had been tampered with.

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Kane's lawyer responds:

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair22m22 minutes ago
Patrick Kane atty Paul Cambria downplays the bag’s significance, says tests already show there was no Kane DNA found below accuser's waist.

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair12m12 minutes ago
Patrick Kane attorney tells Trib that his client would be hurt most by tampered evidence because they can't do their own testing if needed

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair3m3 minutes ago
Patrick Kane atty says that only someone "unhappy with the results" of DNA testing would tamper with evidence.

What a BS lawyer response.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

What a BS lawyer response.

Not at all, very shrewd, very timely, fully protecting his client.

[GioforPM]

The one thing that's clear, both lawyers seem to acknowledge the ripped bag is the real thing.

The testing was done, but a ripped and empty bag throws the chain of custody into question. At trial the analyst would have to identify the kit and say "yes, that's what I did the tests on".

because of the burden of proof, this all favors Kane a lot. If the testing is favorable (as has been suggested) he can try to rely on it and the prosecution can't attack it. If it isn't Kane can attack its use in court because of possible tampering.

It might change things in a civil suit against Kane - the burden of proof is on the accuser, but if she can convince a jury that she is probably telling the truth and can cast doubt on the rape kit evidence, she can win.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Seems to be redundant though, no. Weren't the results of the rape kit that there was no evidence of Kane? Why would they want that to be no admissible?

Not presuming anything, I'm just trying to figure out why either party would try to make it look like it had been tampered with.

There was apparently (this is all leaked stuff) no evidence of his DNA in her underwear, but there was under her fingernails.

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Not at all, very shrewd, very timely, fully protecting his client.

That's what I said! Seriously though in what world does this possibly hurt Kane? They were going to conduct their own tests to confirm his DNA was /not/ found? Really?