Jump to content

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


That Aud Smell

Recommended Posts

By the way, good sir, if I'm Pangloss, who is he? Should we all really be examining ourselves instead of posting here?

 

Haha. I'm not sure who he is. I didn't read his open letter in any detail. He's a Grade A Wingnut, is my best guess.

 

But you? You're our PAngloss (pAngloss).

Also, looking at it again. I love the idea that due process takes a natural course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Dan Herbeck, Lou Michel and Tim Graham of the Buffalo News reported "sources said doubts have emerged about the woman's allegations and make criminal prosecution highly unlikely."

District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said he is "waiting for the investigation to be completed to [his] satisfaction and to confer with the assigned prosecutor, who is on her vacation six time zones away, before announcing anything further."

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2584179-patrick-kane-under-investigation-for-rape-latest-details-comments-reaction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up.

 

Due process is all anyone can ask or expect. Seems like it's been had here.

Problem is a gross amount of sexual assaults and rapes don't get prosecuted. The longer the process goes the less likely the prosecution goes forward. It's don;t difficult to avoid or beat a rape or sexual assault charge, especially if you have money.

 

My hope in all of this is that this women's life hasn't been completely destroyed. There are some things in life you just can't move on from. Even if the prosecution were to move forward and end in a conviction it is less likely that this women would go on to live a reasonably normal life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is a gross amount of sexual assaults and rapes don't get prosecuted. The longer the process goes the less likely the prosecution goes forward. It's don;t difficult to avoid or beat a rape or sexual assault charge, especially if you have money.

 

My hope in all of this is that this women's life hasn't been completely destroyed. There are some things in life you just can't move on from. Even if the prosecution were to move forward and end in a conviction it is less likely that this women would go on to live a reasonably normal life.  

 

I have read and heard some things that suggest to me that it may not have happened.  (I will not post this information or send it in a PM to anyone.)  I have to conclude that if -- IF -- Sedita decides not even to proceed to a grand jury, that there's a real reason not to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides having high dollar lawyers, I don't see what having lots of money does for a criminal case. 

 

My hope in all this is that it doesn't affect the long term health of a professional sports organization, the reputation of one of its elite athletes, and the professional relationship with their sponsors. Because that's an awful lot on the line if he really didn't do anything wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides having high dollar lawyers, I don't see what having lots of money does for a criminal case. 

 

My hope in all this is that it doesn't affect the long term health of a professional sports organization, the reputation of one of its elite athletes, and the professional relationship with their sponsors. Because that's an awful lot on the line if he really didn't do anything wrong. 

 

1) Quality of representation is a pretty huge advantage. Also, money allows for the defendant to fully exhaust appeals if convicted.

 

2) I don't see any reason why there would be permanent damage. Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, Floyd Mayweather...just a few examples of stars who have faced accusations without any meaningful repercussions.

 

Edit: Further to #1, prosecutors have limited resources to work with, so they have to think long and hard about going through with a case that is going to be longer and more expensive than is typical. In general prosecutors are going to want a stronger case for more well-funded defendants because the "cost" of losing is higher. In a perfect world that wouldn't matter, but resources and potential costs very much work in tandem with likelihood of conviction for prosecutorial decision making.

Edited by TrueBlueGED
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...