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

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

She has essentially been called a "liar" if you read between the lines, so I think any civil case would be hopeless. The fact that her civil lawyer fired her tells you all you need to know.

That and the fact that her own friend wasn't willing to testify on her behalf seemed a bit strange to me as well.

[MissTeeks]

She has a new lawyer:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...151810909.html

The complainant’s new attorney, Roland Cercone, declined to say to the Buffalo News whether the woman and her family would be filing a civil suit against Kane. According to the Chicago Tribune, Kane's lawyer, Paul Cambria, believes she will after she hired a lawyer who works with personal injury cases.

[Locke]

Isnt this her 3rd lawyer now? She had one quit, the other was a Baptist preacher and is this a new lawyer or the same guy?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

I think the most damning line in that press release is the line "and this so called 'case' is rife with reasonable doubt." The strength of language there really jumps out at me, as I wouldn't expect such an... emotional wording in a document of this nature. Especially the quotes around the word case.

They basically called her a liar, I'm actually surprised the press release was so damning... almost unprofessional to be honest.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

If I was Kane and I caught wind that she was preparing a civil suit I would get in there first and sue her for libel, just to muddy the waters. If she does go that route, in light of what we've read today, I will be inclined to think this was always all about the money. At first, and every day up until now, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but that press release really changed this for me. Suing Kane now would be preposterous in my view.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They basically called her a liar, I'm actually surprised the press release was so damning... almost unprofessional to be honest.

To be fair, the DA's office probably didnt appreciate being jerked around by crazy stunts and inconsistent statements that made the whole thing look like a circus sideshow.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Locke

To be fair, the DA's office probably didnt appreciate being jerked around by crazy stunts and inconsistent statements that made the whole thing look like a circus sideshow.

That's true, I could see how that would be really frustrating, it was a total gongshow. However, I'm still surprised at the tone and insinuations in the press release. Usually the anger doesn't jump right off the page in documents of that nature.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They basically called her a liar, I'm actually surprised the press release was so damning... almost unprofessional to be honest.

I get the sense that the DA was holding back, recall how angry he was when he addressed the whole bag hoax thing. False allegations are a huge waste of time and resources which are far better served pursuing actual criminals, that frustration seems like it came out to an extent in the statement.

[flylock shox]

Assuming their law is like ours, there's absolutely nothing stopping her from suing Kane in civil court. Kane could counter sue in malicious prosecution and defamation (though the defamation suit couldn't be based on the pleadings she files in civil court as those pleadings are subject to qualified privilege).

If there's a civil suit the parties would obtain an order for the investigative materials from the criminal case. They would also have the chance to examine each other (Kane can't stay silent in the civil case) and both sides would have to produce relevant documents.

Civil trials, because of the disclosure obligations involved and fewer rules restricting the use of evidence, can be much more revealing than criminal cases. But they can (and usually do) settle confidentially.

In terms of the viability of her civil claim, the standard of proof is much lower: a balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt. So in that sense it's an easier road. However the events we know of from the investigation - and the fact this seems to be a he said she said case - makes her credibility central to the case, and weakens her legal position. That said, Kane won't want the ongoing media attention, scrutiny, and won't want to risk his private life being opened up publicly. So the case may settle regardless of weaknesses in the complainants case.

It is an unfortunate reality of the civil process that even weak cases are more often bought out rather than litigated.

Again, all this depends on how similar the law is down there.

[Zapruder]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Victims don't weight the evidence when they make their accusations. They expect they will be believed.

And yes, while it may be hard to believe, walking away happens to "real" victims all the time, when they realize they can be put through a trial and still not get anywhere. And when it appears to them that the cops/prosecution either don't care or side with the accused.

Who knows what happened here? But I don't think one can make a conclusion based on the victim giving up.

You calling her "the victim" implies that you somehow do know what happened here. IF there is a false accusation, the accused is, of course, the victim. IF one makes a false accusation, there should be a stigma against them doing so - False accusations can destroy lives too (money, reputation, relationships, cases of false imprisonment etc). IF it's the case that Kane has been falsely accused here, he'll still always carry a stigma with him in the eyes of some for something he didn't do.

Just walking away and giving up happens to many victims of false accusation also, because sometimes the accused is not believed and the accuser just automatically assumed to be "the victim", see what I mean?

False accusation is (at best) an insult to victims of rape also, which I think you can understand.

I don't know all the details about what happened either, but the DA has apparently announced no charges. Do you or I have a better handle on the case and all the evidence from where we are to determine who is the victim and who isn't?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Zapruder

You calling her "the victim" implies that you somehow do know what happened here. IF there is a false accusation, the accused is, of course, the victim. IF one makes a false accusation, there should be a stigma against them doing so - False accusations can destroy lives too (money, reputation, relationships, cases of false imprisonment etc). IF it's the case that Kane has been falsely accused here, he'll still always carry a stigma with him in the eyes of some for something he didn't do.

Just walking away and giving up happens to many victims of false accusation also, because sometimes the accused is not believed and the accuser just automatically assumed to be "the victim", see what I mean?

False accusation is (at best) an insult to victims of rape also, which I think you can understand.

I don't know all the details about what happened either, but the DA has apparently announced no charges. Do you or I have a better handle on the case and all the evidence from where we are to determine who is the victim and who isn't?

"Victim" is a term of art in criminal investigations. Substitute "accuser" if you like.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They basically called her a liar, I'm actually surprised the press release was so damning... almost unprofessional to be honest.

It was the perfect response. It's very clear the woman is a liar. While we will never know what did happen that night, we definitely now now that what she said didn't happen. She has done personal and professional harm to Patrick Kane, and if anyone has cause for a civil suit, it's him. Kane may be and have done questionable things, and possibly even some in this instance, but if the prosecutor can be considered a credible source, he didn't do what she claimed he did.
The whole thing is vile

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

It was the perfect response. It's very clear the woman is a liar. While we will never know what did happen that night, we definitely now now that what she said didn't happen. She has done personal and professional harm to Patrick Kane, and if anyone has cause for a civil suit, it's him. Kane may be and have done questionable things, and possibly even some in this instance, but if the prosecutor can be considered a credible source, he didn't do what she claimed he did.
The whole thing is vile

I liked the response, I was just surprised by it. Unprofessional doesn't mean it was bad... it's just not something I would expect from a professional. I actually admire people that can rise above our PC society's trappings and speak/write honestly like that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

It was the perfect response. It's very clear the woman is a liar. While we will never know what did happen that night, we definitely now now that what she said didn't happen. She has done personal and professional harm to Patrick Kane, and if anyone has cause for a civil suit, it's him. Kane may be and have done questionable things, and possibly even some in this instance, but if the prosecutor can be considered a credible source, he didn't do what she claimed he did.
The whole thing is vile

How do you definitely know it didn't happen? The prosecutor just can't recommend a charge where he knows there will be reasonable doubt. He said the combined evidence "tended to contradict" her claim, which is a little short of "she's for sure lying". It simply means that he couldn't support a charge.

He also couldn't proceed because of the non-prosecution affidavit, since it would have become pretty difficult to carry on in that circumstance. I'm sure the death threats and twitter releases of her identity had something to do with that.

[spuzzum]

I find it mind boggling that if no charges are filed, one can still follow up with a civil suit. Charges with a guilty criminal case should only permit civil cases to follow.

Civil cases still have their place such as money owning or contracts being broken, but this case smells of money.

[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?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

I find it mind boggling that if no charges are filed, one can still follow up with a civil suit. Charges with a guilty criminal case should only permit civil cases to follow.

Civil cases still have their place such as money owning or contracts being broken, but this case smells of money.

So OJ shouldn't have been (successfully) sued?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

I find it mind boggling that if no charges are filed, one can still follow up with a civil suit. Charges with a guilty criminal case should only permit civil cases to follow.

Civil cases still have their place such as money owning or contracts being broken, but this case smells of money.

There is a different level of "proof" in civil vs criminal.


As mentioned OJ, is the poster boy for that.

[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.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So OJ shouldn't have been (successfully) sued?

The poster suggested no charges filed, not a not guilty verdict after charges - but yes, burden of proof is completely different.

How do you definitely know it didn't happen? The prosecutor just can't recommend a charge where he knows there will be reasonable doubt. He said the combined evidence "tended to contradict" her claim, which is a little short of "she's for sure lying". It simply means that he couldn't support a charge.

He also couldn't proceed because of the non-prosecution affidavit, since it would have become pretty difficult to carry on in that circumstance. I'm sure the death threats and twitter releases of her identity had something to do with that.

This is what the prosecutor said
- evidence did not match her account of events
- eye witness accounts did not match her account of events
- he referred to it as her 'so-called case' against Kane
No, the prosecutor didn't say she lied - he can't.
But what he did say leaves no doubt.