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

[Patty16]

I believe the suggestion was that Kane should pursue a civil defamation suit against the accuser.

 

 

You're right that she's not obliged to talk to the police. Of course, she previously gave a sworn statement to the police subject to the penalties of perjury. And she could, in theory, be compelled to appear before a grand jury or plenary jury by lawful process (subpoena). But, I take your point: Notwithstanding what she said in her statement, she could suddenly and "inexplicably" become totally unhelpful to the People's case. And then there would be no case.

 

I'm not sure I follow your second point: If there were a settlement agreement between Kane and the accuser that provided that payment was given in consideration of her refusing to cooperate with the D.A., that would, in fact, be buying her silence. And it would most likely be illegal to enter into such an agreement (obstruction of justice, witness tampering), and, if that were the case, the agreement would be unenforceable.

Another thought: It's not that she would be committing a crime by agreeing to accept money in exchange for certain conduct; it's that Kane would potentially be committing a crime by making such a payment in order to obstruct the orderly administration of justice by the D.A.

 

See below, its not defamation to report to police.  Now Kane could still sue, but then truth is the accuser's defense. So the civil suit would explore everything that happened that night.  So Kane really has no incentive to do that. Plus, if there was a settlement, it probably had a clause prohibiting such a suit. 

 

As for witness tampering,  it could be but it NEVER is charged.  In theory you are right, but again the DA really doesn't want to go there and most never ever do.  

 

What is the basis for this?

 

Well she spoke to police, and it's not defamation to make a good faith statement to the police.  

 

 

 

******** I haven't been on lately, but i'm not taking any position on the underlying issue. Just telling you the analysis of what happens next from a practical sense. 

Edited November 3, 2015 by Patty16

[That Aud Smell]

As for witness tampering,  it could be but it NEVER is charged.  In theory you are right, but again the DA really doesn't want to go there and most never ever do. 

 

My point being: Lawyers being lawyers, they tend not to counsel in favour of agreements that would be unenforceable if push were to come to shove.

[Patty16]

My point being: Lawyers being lawyers, they tend not to counsel in favour of agreements that would be unenforceable if push were to come to shove.

 

Right but the agreement wouldn't be unenforceable. Lots of ways to make it legit. 

[That Aud Smell]

Right but the agreement wouldn't be unenforceable. Lots of ways to make it legit. 

 

Fair deuce. 

 

The ones I had in mind were to tie the compensation to an outside date and/or make it somehow contingent on the accused's level of annual income or work status. As to the latter, the idea being that if the charge goes away, the accused will still have his lucrative career. (The accuser's counsel would need to control for other stuff, though -- like a catastrophic injury, or death.)

[Patty16]

Fair deuce. 

 

The ones I had in mind were to tie the compensation to an outside date and/or make it somehow contingent on the accused's level of annual income or work status. As to the latter, the idea being that if the charge goes away, the accused will still have his lucrative career. (The accuser's counsel would need to control for other stuff, though -- like a catastrophic injury, or death.)

 

Yes. Usually structured for lump payment after SOL has expired etc.  

 

Bottom line is that if she doesn't want charges pressed, then its all over on both sides. If not, it would be highly unusual. 

[nfreeman]

Well she spoke to police, and it's not defamation to make a good faith statement to the police.  

 

 

And what if it were an intentionally false statement?

[Patty16]

And what if it were an intentionally false statement?

 

Is the discovery that would come out in the defamation lawsuit worth the suit? NO it is most certainly not.  I have handled a profile defamation suit, it's not fun and usually not worth the client's time, especially for an athlete with a huge guaranteed contract. 

 

Would you adivse your client to bring suit, testify under oath about what he did that night? All the details??? For what?  I've worked with Cambria, he's sharp and there's no way he would advise Kane to do that. 

 

Hypothetically he would find a way to let the DA know it was false and let them do the work for him. avoid all the traps of civil litigation. 

[Eleven]

Is the discovery that would come out in the defamation lawsuit worth the suit? NO it is most certainly not.  I have handled a profile defamation suit, it's not fun and usually not worth the client's time, especially for an athlete with a huge guaranteed contract. 

 

Would you adivse your client to bring suit, testify under oath about what he did that night? All the details??? For what?  I've worked with Cambria, he's sharp and there's no way he would advise Kane to do that. 

 

Hypothetically he would find a way to let the DA know it was false and let them do the work for him. avoid all the traps of civil litigation. 

 

Whether it's advisable (it's not) is a different question than whether it's possible.

[Patty16]

Whether it's advisable (it's not) is a different question than whether it's possible.

 

True. I answered above that it's almost certainly not possible. She didn't publicly speak or "publish" anything. Statement to a third party constitute publishing but:

1) exceptions for statements to police - even if she's wrong that it was rape or not, that would be good faith. 

2) he's a public figure so way higher standard. 

 

So still pretty much impossible. 

[That Aud Smell]

Yes. Usually structured for lump payment after SOL has expired etc.  

 

That makes good sense.

[nfreeman]

Is the discovery that would come out in the defamation lawsuit worth the suit? NO it is most certainly not.  I have handled a profile defamation suit, it's not fun and usually not worth the client's time, especially for an athlete with a huge guaranteed contract. 

 

Would you adivse your client to bring suit, testify under oath about what he did that night? All the details??? For what?  I've worked with Cambria, he's sharp and there's no way he would advise Kane to do that. 

 

Hypothetically he would find a way to let the DA know it was false and let them do the work for him. avoid all the traps of civil litigation. 

 

11 beat me to it, but the point is that you said this:

 

Defamation against who?  There's absolutely no defamation case against the accuser. None. Zero. 

 

 

 

...which is a far cry from saying that it wouldn't be in Kane's best interests to bring the case.

 

For that matter, I think it's entirely reasonable, if he knows she falsely accused him, for him to conclude that it would be in his best interests.

 

 

 

True. I answered above that it's almost certainly not possible. She didn't publicly speak or "publish" anything. Statement to a third party constitute publishing but:

1) exceptions for statements to police - even if she's wrong that it was rape or not, that would be good faith. 

2) he's a public figure so way higher standard. 

 

So still pretty much impossible. 

 

Again -- you are assuming she acted in good faith.  It's quite possible that she did not.

[Patty16]

11 beat me to it, but the point is that you said this:

 

 

 

...which is a far cry from saying that it wouldn't be in Kane's best interests to bring the case.

 

For that matter, I think it's entirely reasonable, if he knows she falsely accused him, for him to conclude that it would be in his best interests.

 

 

 

 

Again -- you are assuming she acted in good faith.  It's quite possible that she did not.

 

There isn't a defamation suit AND it wouldn't be worth it if you could anyway.  That's the point i was trying to show over multiple posts. 

 

Lets assume she wasn't acting in good faith..... it would be difficult to show, and it seems unlikely given that the DA has held onto the case for a while. Kane is a public figure so he would need to show the accuser knew she was wrong and she made the statements to cause him harm.  

 

AND

Lets assume all that's true.... she's 20ish and working a menial job, she has nothing to compensate you with, so the only real way to "win" is to go to trial. That means trial testimony by Kane about alll his sexual acts that night, etc.   

[Norcal]

This whole thing will go away pretty quick now, people have short memories

[nfreeman]

There isn't a defamation suit AND it wouldn't be worth it if you could anyway.  That's the point i was trying to show over multiple posts. 

 

Lets assume she wasn't acting in good faith..... it would be difficult to show, and it seems unlikely given that the DA has held onto the case for a while. Kane is a public figure so he would need to show the accuser knew she was wrong and she made the statements to cause him harm.  

 

AND

Lets assume all that's true.... she's 20ish and working a menial job, she has nothing to compensate you with, so the only real way to "win" is to go to trial. That means trial testimony by Kane about alll his sexual acts that night, etc.   

 

But these are simply questions of facts and evidence.  For example, as others have pointed out, it's quite possible that he has a surveillance video (or home porn production equipment) that could, e.g., show that she was a willing participant and then got PO'd when he told her to get lost after he was finished.  Or that she sent him text messages saying that she would accuse him of rape unless he paid her $1MM.  Or a number of other possibilities.

 

So -- if she falsely accused him, and they both know it -- there could easily be a defamation suit. 

 

As for "worth it" -- money isn't the issue.  It's his reputation.  If the above happened, Kane could easily conclude that exposing her as a fraud would clear his name and thus worth his time, legal bills and aggravation.

[TrueBlueGED]

But these are simply questions of facts and evidence. For example, as others have pointed out, it's quite possible that he has a surveillance video (or home porn production equipment) that could, e.g., show that she was a willing participant and then got PO'd when he told her to get lost after he was finished. Or that she sent him text messages saying that she would accuse him of rape unless he paid her $1MM. Or a number of other possibilities.

 

So -- if she falsely accused him, and they both know it -- there could easily be a defamation suit.

 

As for "worth it" -- money isn't the issue. It's his reputation. If the above happened, Kane could easily conclude that exposing her as a fraud would clear his name and thus worth his time, legal bills and aggravation.

If Kane has anything resembling this I can't imagine why the case wasn't dismissed ages ago.

[That Aud Smell]

If Kane has anything resembling this I can't imagine why the case wasn't dismissed ages ago.

 

thing's only been a thing for 3 months.  :P

[TrueBlueGED]

thing's only been a thing for 3 months. :P

I'm getting old, time is precious!

 

That would be the type of thing to stop an investigation in its tracks though, right?

[Patty16]

But these are simply questions of facts and evidence.  For example, as others have pointed out, it's quite possible that he has a surveillance video (or home porn production equipment) that could, e.g., show that she was a willing participant and then got PO'd when he told her to get lost after he was finished.  Or that she sent him text messages saying that she would accuse him of rape unless he paid her $1MM.  Or a number of other possibilities.

 

So -- if she falsely accused him, and they both know it -- there could easily be a defamation suit. 

 

As for "worth it" -- money isn't the issue.  It's his reputation.  If the above happened, Kane could easily conclude that exposing her as a fraud would clear his name and thus worth his time, legal bills and aggravation.

 

They are, of course. But the likely scenario is if he had those he would've turned them over, or let them be viewed, to shut down any investigation and not let it drag on.  

 

The stuff we know now simply does not fit a defamation case.  There's been no hint of wrongdoing on behalf of accuser to suggest that. Cases like this don't hang around if there's the kind of evidence you suggest might exist.  It's likely that this encounter was in a grey area of the law. 

 

I'm agreeing money isn't the issue, its that the process itself won't clear his name more than it will embarrass him.  The stuff that would come out during the suit would not be worth the suit itself.  Having no charges filed at all, not even a grand jury, is pretty strong.  

 

Would a reasonable person say yea i know i wasn't charged but let's throw my partying and sex life out there for a civil suit? No. Even if it's not criminal it would kill his reputation. 

[nfreeman]

They are, of course. But the likely scenario is if he had those he would've turned them over, or let them be viewed, to shut down any investigation and not let it drag on.  

 

The stuff we know now simply does not fit a defamation case.  There's been no hint of wrongdoing on behalf of accuser to suggest that. Cases like this don't hang around if there's the kind of evidence you suggest might exist.  It's likely that this encounter was in a grey area of the law. 

 

I'm agreeing money isn't the issue, its that the process itself won't clear his name more than it will embarrass him.  The stuff that would come out during the suit would not be worth the suit itself.  Having no charges filed at all, not even a grand jury, is pretty strong.  

 

Would a reasonable person say yea i know i wasn't charged but let's throw my partying and sex life out there for a civil suit? No. Even if it's not criminal it would kill his reputation. 

 

I agree with just about all of this except the bolded -- I think her mother's actions on the evidence bag, plus the attorney resigning, constitute a hint of wrongdoing (albeit certainly not enough to make out a defamation case).

 

I was mostly disagreeing with your initial blanket statement about there being no possible defamation case -- and mostly because I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that it arose from sentiments similar to the knee-jerk "the accuser is always right" opinions that have been expressed by others in this thread.

[Thwomp!]

I've stayed away from commenting on this thread, but the turn it's taken recently is disgusting.  The level of victim-shaming and accusations against the accuser is off the charts.  It is very possible that something happened yet is still not able to be prosecuted due to the he said/she said nature of these cases.  Rape is all too common in this country and the rate at which rapists get away with the crime is abhorrent.  Just because a rape is not prosecuted does not mean it didn't happen or the accuser is lying and/or should be punished, especially when viewed as part of the big picture.

 

Can't we just stop the speculation and victim-shaming and let the whole thing die?  This woman could be scarred for life, but paraphrasing the immortal words of Liger, "PATRICK KANE WILL BE FINE!"

 

The same doubters from the beginning are now crowing over their "victory".  Congratulations!

 

I know I'll be attacked for this view point, but whatever, it needed to be said.  I'll leave this chart from RAINN:

 

 

References

1. Justice Department, National Crime Victimization Survey: 2008-2012
2. FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Arrest Data: 2006-2010
3. FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Offenses Cleared Data: 2006-2010
4. Department of Justice, Felony Defendents in Large Urban Counties: 2009
5. Department of Justice, Felony Defendents in Large Urban Counties: 2009

[...]

EastsideOasis, on 03 Nov 2015 - 8:19 PM, said:EastsideOasis, on 03 Nov 2015 - 8:19 PM, said:

I've stayed away from commenting on this thread, but the turn it's taken recently is disgusting.  The level of victim-shaming and accusations against the accuser is off the charts.  It is very possible that something happened yet is still not able to be prosecuted due to the he said/she said nature of these cases.  Rape is all too common in this country and the rate at which rapists get away with the crime is abhorrent.  Just because a rape is not prosecuted does not mean it didn't happen or the accuser is lying and/or should be punished, especially when viewed as part of the big picture.

 

Can't we just stop the speculation and victim-shaming and let the whole thing die?  This woman could be scarred for life, but paraphrasing the immortal words of Liger, "PATRICK KANE WILL BE FINE!"

 

The same doubters from the beginning are now crowing over their "victory".  Congratulations!

Excuse you, but this kind of post is disgusting.  So you decided to come in here and shame people based on positions you are clearly misrepresenting. 

 

You like stats and data?  Provide some data yourself: who is victim shaming in this thread?  And what is your evidence?

 

Who is "crowing over their 'victory'" in this thread?  State your evidence.

 

If you want to be the moral bully, at least have the courage to call people out directly.

 

And here's a question that's sure to make you apoplectic: how do they know 68 in 100 rapes go unreported if they are, in fact, unreported? 

Edited November 4, 2015 by SiZzlEmeIsTEr

[WildCard]

65 full pages of conversation, 40 posts/page, 2600+ posts, and East comes in guns blazing, throwing accusations around about posters.

 

Have you read the whole thread, East?

Edited November 4, 2015 by WildCard

[LastPommerFan]

Excuse you, but this kind of post is disgusting.  So you decided to come in here and shame people based on positions you are clearly misrepresenting. 

 

You like stats and data?  Provide some data yourself: who is victim shaming in this thread?  And what is your evidence?

 

Who is "crowing over their 'victory'" in this thread?  State your evidence.

 

If you want to be the moral bully, at least have the courage to call people out directly.

 

And here's a question that's sure to make you apoplectic: how do they know 68 in 100 rapes go unreported if they are, in fact, unreported? 

 

I agree with the thrust of the non-bolded statements. 

 

To the bolded, the measure is of sexual assaults "reported to police" To compile the numbers for unreported crimes, the Justice Department does statistical surveys, and then compares them to police records. I'm sure there is some noise in the data, but in general that some fraction, less than half, of all rapes are reported to police is probably a reasonable assumption.

[JJFIVEOH]

 

I've stayed away from commenting on this thread, but the turn it's taken recently is disgusting.  The level of victim-shaming and accusations against the accuser is off the charts.  It is very possible that something happened yet is still not able to be prosecuted due to the he said/she said nature of these cases.  Rape is all too common in this country and the rate at which rapists get away with the crime is abhorrent.  Just because a rape is not prosecuted does not mean it didn't happen or the accuser is lying and/or should be punished, especially when viewed as part of the big picture.

 

Can't we just stop the speculation and victim-shaming and let the whole thing die?  This woman could be scarred for life, but paraphrasing the immortal words of Liger, "PATRICK KANE WILL BE FINE!"

 

The same doubters from the beginning are now crowing over their "victory".  Congratulations!

 

I know I'll be attacked for this view point, but whatever, it needed to be said.  I'll leave this chart from RAINN:

 

 

 

Nobody is celebrating anything, stop being so dramatic.

 

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in your thread, mainly calling people victim-shamers and speculators all while being guilty of the exact same thing.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, I suppose this thread was due for a hand grenade...it's been awhile, after all.