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

[JJFIVEOH]

And the claim isn't pointless. I was rebutting something you implied.

 

I'm still looking for a reason why I would imply that she is a liar. I'd have a much easier time accepting your claims if there was one plausible reason why I would do it. 

[shrader]

For the 85th time, no evidence showed up at her door. Are you intentionally ignoring everything here?

 

LGR, stop. You're not helping.

Edited September 24, 2015 by shrader

[LGR4GM]

For the 85th time, no evidence showed up at her door. Are you intentionally ignoring everything here?

 

LGR, stop. You're not helping.

I am deliberately not helping at this point.  :beer:

 

[JJFIVEOH]

For the 85th time, no evidence showed up at her door. Are you intentionally ignoring everything here?

 

LGR, stop. You're not helping.

http://deadspin.com/lawyer-of-patrick-kanes-accuser-claims-rape-kit-was-tam-1732598494

 

Thomas Eoannou, the attorney for the woman accusing Patrick Kane of rape, held a press conference today and claimed that the rape kit, which had reportedly shown no signs of Kane’s DNA on the woman’s genital area or underwear, was tampered with. Eoannou discovered this because the rape kit’s evidence bag was left outside the accuser’s mother’s house.

[shrader]

That's obvious, but you still need to stop. It's way too juvenile.

http://deadspin.com/lawyer-of-patrick-kanes-accuser-claims-rape-kit-was-tam-1732598494

 

Thomas Eoannou, the attorney for the woman accusing Patrick Kane of rape, held a press conference today and claimed that the rape kit, which had reportedly shown no signs of Kane’s DNA on the woman’s genital area or underwear, was tampered with. Eoannou discovered this because the rape kit’s evidence bag was left outside the accuser’s mother’s house.

A bag that previously contained evidence is not evidence.

[LGR4GM]

That's obvious, but you still need to stop. It's way too juvenile.

 

A bag that previously contained evidence is not evidence.

:flirt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFZG8KQJni8

[JJFIVEOH]

Sigh........................................

[LGR4GM]

ok okay, I promise that's the last one.

[nfreeman]

Alright boys.  The debate over the meaning of the word "if" has really been beaten to death. 

 

(BTW, there really is no ambiguity as to that definition.  JJ50 was misusing it.  Time to move on.)

[JJFIVEOH]

ok okay, I promise that's the last one.

 

I used to have some level of respect for you. 

[Johnny DangerFace]

I used to have some level of respect for you. 

 

 

[shrader]

Seriously, enough with the gifs and videos.

[Johnny DangerFace]

Seriously, enough with the gifs and videos.

 

air your grievances elsewhere, get on topic!

[sodbuster]

A bag that previously contained evidence is not evidence.

I was under the impression that both the items in the bag AND the bag itself are both evidence because, as is especially true in a case such as this, parts of the evidence can become attached or soaked into the bag. Edited September 24, 2015 by sodbuster

[...]

I was under the impression that both the items in the bag AND the bag itself are both evidence because, as is especially true in a case such as this, parts of the evidence can become attached or soaked into the bag.

Ewww.

[shrader]

I was under the impression that both the items in the bag AND the bag itself are both evidence because, as is especially true in a case such as this, parts of the evidence can become attached or soaked into the bag.

I don't think you'd have things soaking into the bag in this case. That's just begging for contamination. Any fluids are going to be contained within their own containers inside the bag.

[woods-racer]

air your grievances elsewhere, get on topic!

 

There is a thread for that now, and its WAY more fun than this thread.

 

But you already know that because you've posted there.

 

Just sayin in the nicest possible way...

Edited September 24, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[PASabreFan]

I am so lost. So very very lost. Maybe some part of this will make sense in the morning. I doubt it.

[That Aud Smell]

If you can't take my word for it, that's your problem. I really couldn't care less.

Take your word for it? Your words are all I've relied on here.

I'm still looking for a reason why I would imply that she is a liar. I'd have a much easier time accepting your claims if there was one plausible reason why I would do it.

Again : I'm a witness to what you wrote. I don't need to understand your motive to say what I saw, what I read.

 

If I'm standing on a street corner, and some dude approaches another guy and punches him in the face, I don't need to understand why he did it to say be did it. Similarly with an impliedly disparaging remark: If someone says something to me that implies someone else is lying, I don't need to understand why that person would say such a thing in order to say what was said and plainly implied.

Edited September 24, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Weave]

This is silly.  Whether JJ is willing to admit he poorly worded something or not, he has explained what he really intended.  Not sure why its still an issue.

[That Aud Smell]

I agree it's somewhat silly. I probably should've stepped off. But sometimes I allow my buttons to get pushed.

[Sabresince70]

I don't think you'd have things soaking into the bag in this case. That's just begging for contamination. Any fluids are going to be contained within their own containers inside the bag.

You wouldn't have multiple items in a bag. The "kit" is unique in that way (and yes, everything in the box is labeled and in its own container).

[shrader]

This is silly.  Whether JJ is willing to admit he poorly worded something or not, he has explained what he really intended.  Not sure why its still an issue.

 

It continued to be an issue because he continued to use that same poor wording.  At some point you lose the option of claiming that defense if you keep doing it over and over.

[PASabreFan]

The bystander comment picked up by a mic at 3:00 says it all.

 

[JJFIVEOH]

Take your word for it? Your words are all I've relied on here.

Again : I'm a witness to what you wrote. I don't need to understand your motive to say what I saw, what I read.

 

If I'm standing on a street corner, and some dude approaches another guy and punches him in the face, I don't need to understand why he did it to say be did it. Similarly with an impliedly disparaging remark: If someone says something to me that implies someone else is lying, I don't need to understand why that person would say such a thing in order to say what was said and plainly implied.

 

You and LGR need to let it go. I was willing to drop it two pages ago.