Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"

[bbb]

  

2 men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong.

 

:lol:

[WildCard]

  

2 men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong.

Or both  :ph34r:

[X. Benedict]

  

2 men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong.

Or both right. Garcia and Escobar. 

[Doohickie]

  

2 men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong.

 

There's a protest singer.  He's singin' a protest song.

[beerme1]

  

2 men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong.

 

 

Depends what religion you are if any.

[Weave]

Depends what religion you are if any.

 

It's a simple logic statement.  One *must* be wrong. 

[Doohickie]

*Sigh* 

 

So many people who don't know their Dire Straits songs, eh, Taro?

[LTS]

Let me say this..

 

"Why report to the police if you have no intention to testify?"

 

That's a pretty cut a dry question. This assumes, that at the time the allocation is being made that the victim knows they will not testify. In some situations I could see that you would do this because you hope that merely reporting something allows for charges to be brought without your involvement. As we've covered, in a rape case, that's very difficult.

 

However, the real problem is the assumption that the victim didn't want to testify at the time the report was made. Knowing that every human on Earth has made a decision without being aware of all the potential ramifications that come from that decision I think it's supportable to say that in a moment of emotional and physical distress that the victim would not be thinking about the pain that might be felt upon cross-examination when deciding to talk to the police. It's much more plausible that the victim would be thinking about the pain they are feeling at the moment.

 

As time progresses and the immediate reality of what happened settles in there then comes the understanding of what comes next. The realization that some defense lawyer will absolutely paint the victim as someone who was in it to frame his client and that the "victim" (lawyer's words) made no clear indication that the sex was unwanted and every other little thing in the victim's life will be mentioned (even if overturned and the jury instructed to ignore the comment).  That realization is why the decision to no longer want to testify could be made.

 

It would be a better argument to find an improved method of handling a rape case such that the victim is not trotted out in front of strangers and forced to relive the events that happened. It might lead to a greater chance of the victim testifying.  There is no reason that a rape victim needs to sit in an open courtroom for this.

 

Let's break this down into a word equation of sorts.

 

This incident occurs.  It could be rape.

The people involved will never undo the incident itself or what transpires after that.

 

The victim, believing she was raped, will always believe she was raped. This stands regardless of a court result.

She cannot undo that.

If she proceeds to trial (any trial) she must relive the events again and be subjected to extensive examination of the way she lives her life and her decision making abilities. This will be painful. So you have pain of initial incident + pain of reliving in public which is logically greater than initial incident.

 

Assuming the attacker is found guilty she can (in this situation) win a sizable civic lawsuit monetary settlement as well. = She has the money + pain of initial incident + pain of reliving the incident in public.

Assuming the attacker is not found guilty, she MAY win a sizable monetary settlement as well. = She may have the money + pain of the initial incident + pain of reliving the incident in publi.

She can settle pre-trial. She has the money + pain of initial incident.

 

The last option. Never report it.  She has the pain of the initial incident.

 

The money is not presumed to help her heal. It might help her afford ways to seek healing that she would otherwise not have but that is all.  If she never reports it she is left to cope with the pain without any additional financial and other resources that might be made available to her because of reporting it.

[That Aud Smell]

the real problem is the assumption that the victim didn't want to testify at the time the report was made. Knowing that every human on Earth has made a decision without being aware of all the potential ramifications that come from that decision I think it's supportable to say that in a moment of emotional and physical distress that the victim would not be thinking about the pain that might be felt upon cross-examination when deciding to talk to the police. It's much more plausible that the victim would be thinking about the pain they are feeling at the moment.

 

As time progresses and the immediate reality of what happened settles in there then comes the understanding of what comes next. The realization that some defense lawyer will absolutely paint the victim as someone who was in it to frame his client and that the "victim" (lawyer's words) made no clear indication that the sex was unwanted and every other little thing in the victim's life will be mentioned (even if overturned and the jury instructed to ignore the comment).  That realization is why the decision to no longer want to testify could be made.

 

Lot of good stuff in there - this piece above was the most salient, to me.

[MattPie]

Lot of good stuff in there - this piece above was the most salient, to me.

 

Agreed. And anyone that's watched enough Crime Procedural TV knows that evidence degrades. It's not like the victim has the option in this case to mull it over for a few days.

[Eleven]

Agreed. And anyone that's watched enough Crime Procedural TV knows that evidence degrades. It's not like the victim has the option in this case to mull it over for a few days.

Yes. This is why victims are advised to report immediately and decide later.

[X. Benedict]

*Sigh* 

 

So many people who don't know their Dire Straits songs, eh, Taro?

:)

[Taro T]

*Sigh* 

 

So many people who don't know their Dire Straits songs, eh, Taro?

It is truly sad.

[Weave]

*Sigh* 

 

So many people who don't know their Dire Straits songs, eh, Taro?

 

 

:)

 

 

It is truly sad.

 

*hangs head in shame*

[Neo]

LTS: Good thoughts. I get it.

[Doohickie]

*hangs head in shame*

 

For your penance, listen to Lover Over Gold and Making Movies each 10 times.  And no, you can't skip over Les Boys.

[Hoss]

Paul Cambria says the Grand Jury investigation will continue but he doesn't have a timeline of when. He did NOT request that the grand jury reschedule in the first place and has no clue why they did (seemed genuine in that sentiment - so maybe there was a scheduling conflict?).

[That Aud Smell]

Paul Cambria says the Grand Jury investigation will continue but he doesn't have a timeline of when. He did NOT request that the grand jury reschedule in the first place and has no clue why they did (seemed genuine in that sentiment - so maybe there was a scheduling conflict?).

 

I won't link to the Chicago Tribune page where that was reported, as I've been told it's got paywall issues for some.

 

Below is what the report attributed to Cambria. What did you find genuine about it? Or was the sense of genuineness communicated elsewhere (like in a video-recorded interview)? To me, Cambria's words appeared carefully chosen, and cagey. Which is what I would expect from him.

 

I'm intrigued by the prior report (from the BN) that the proceedings were adjourned because of settlement talks. Of course, those reports would be corroborated if the accuser's attorney had contacted the D.A. to say "she can't be available on Tuesday" and that her unavailability was tied to an interest in facilitating settlement talks.

 

Stay tuned, I guess.

 

+++

 

Kane's attorney, Paul Cambria, said Thursday that he did not know why prosecutors canceled the grand jury presentation but that the move did not come at his request. He also said he was told the proceedings would resume soon, though he would not discuss any other aspect of the case.

"We were informed that it (the grand jury) was rescheduled," Cambria said.

....

Cambria declined to discuss any aspect of the criminal investigation or any potential civil actions facing the Blackhawks star.

"There's a process. We're going through the process and we're going to leave it that way," Cambria said.

[Hoss]

I talked to Cambria myself.

[That Aud Smell]

I talked to Cambria myself.

 

Aye. I see. Well then.

So, was he just giving interviews today? You, the Chicago Tribune -- anyone else?

[Hoss]

Aye. I see. Well then.

 

So, was he just giving interviews today? You, the Chicago Tribune -- anyone else?

The Tribune was first. Others will likely want to independently confirm the info, so he'll get some calls.

[LTS]

I talked to Cambria myself.

 

Just a quick note.. you should say that you were able to get a call and spoke directly to Paul Cambria who told you that.  I didn't read it as you talking to him but that's good to note.  Just easier to do it beforehand than afterward in clarification. :)

[LTS]

Hmm.. so there was some discussion back awhile about the whole porn and violence thing.

 

https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/10/porn-viewers-hold-more-egalitarian-views

 

Just posting this for discussion.  I will freely admit I've not looked into it any more than scanning.

[Doohickie]

Hmm.. so there was some discussion back awhile about the whole porn and violence thing.

 

I will freely admit I've not looked into it any more than scanning.

I just read it for the articles.

[JJFIVEOH]

No DA, ever, anywhere in the US, is going to force a rape accuser to testify.  And of course he can't put Kane on the stand.

 

Didn't the accuser in the Owen Labrie case take the stand?

 

Absolutely.  I think immediately labeling her a gold digger as some other posters have done is disgusting. 

 

Nobody has any facts one way or the other. The same could be said about Kane being a rapist as equally disgusting.

 

You had to go and ruin your finest hour.

 

Yeah right, that was a 'comedian laughing at his own joke' moment............. just ruined the whole thing. :doh:

 

Kane avoids the bigger penalty for sure, but he's also lost all of his endorsements, respect from his teammates and around the league, and any prestige awarded to him for his American status/play in hockey is thrown out the window. He doesn't just write a check and nobody remembers this.

 

As far as the victim goes, if she wants to settle out of court and avoid having her name slandered by the media, go through the actual court proceedings where top lawyers from Kane's side will try their best to break her, and avoid constant public difficulties, then that's her choice. It's easy to say we should objectively look at this, we should objectively look at a lot of things, but it's not that easy. 

 

Maybe there oughta be a law. If you go to the police and say so and so raped you, you are compelled to testify. You then have no option of being bought. What's the problem? Why are you making such an allegation if not to see the rapist go to prison?

 

This law could serve to discourage those who falsely accuse with the intent of going to settlement.

 

Supporting and protecting the victim who has been compelled to testify becomes paramount.

 

I agree 100%. If there is irrefutable evidence that the rape never happened and she is doing this for money, she should face harsh penalties. No matter what happens, she will always be the 'victim'. Even if this was all made up Kane's reputation will forever be tarnished. As was mentioned above he will lose endorsements, he will be frowned up by his peers, the public scrutiny.............. There is no evidence either way (that we presently know of) to support either side so what if he is the victim?

 

Maybe I don't understand the process well enough. There is always the possibility of her pressing charges in a civil case. But how can there be a settlement in this particular case? Shouldn't charges be pressed by the county? If so, why does she have the power to change that if the check is big enough? If Kane legitimately did something wrong the county should be pressing charges. I don't see how the grand jury hearings can be postponed while they discuss numbers. If you commit a heinous crime the county should be moving forward regardless of what happens between the two parties. If I'm the county legal system, I'll be damned if you're going to waste probably hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars for us to investigate an accusation you made only to collect a big check and tell us 'nevermind'. I'm not entirely familiar with the process, I just figured a serious charge would be pressed by the county simply because of the severity of the accusation.