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

[X. Benedict]

X, I have too much respect for you. As such, I will stop posting 10 hour random videos in this thread. 

Thanks. :) 

[Hoss]

I find it difficult to believe that the defense wouldn't be able to present evidence of the possibility that the woman was raped by someone other than the accused.

I find it difficult to believe that the defense would be permitted to make this accusation on behalf of the alleged victim on their behalf.

[LastPommerFan]

I find it difficult to believe that the defense would be permitted to make this accusation on behalf of the alleged victim on their behalf.

 

"She is confused, it wasn't Pat, It was someone else, here is the evidence"

 

At this point, I will allow Eleven to clarify, as he is, in fact, a lawsmologist.

[Hoss]

"She is confused, it wasn't Pat, It was someone else, here is the evidence"

 

At this point, I will allow Eleven to clarify, as he is, in fact, a lawsmologist.

I think Eleven would be more qualified to speak on this compared to us if Lawsmopolitan magazine ever approached the three of us, but since Eleven is too lazy to check this board every single second for possible responses I'll continue: I don't think that's nearly enough evidence for that claim, right? I'm just thinking that's a wild and relatively unwarranted claim to make if all you've got is the DNA.

[LastPommerFan]

To clarify, I'm saying the DNA would be admissible, and the promiscuity would simply be left to the Jury's Imagination. The odds of that connection being made by a Jury of 12 americans are pretty solid. Not that the Lawyers would be able to make the argument themselves.

[JJFIVEOH]

I think I might be done with this thread.

 

 

Is there something that was said in which you take offense? 

 

You don't have to answer, I was just wondering if it was something I said. I find it disconcerting that apparently intelligent adults, many of which have never met, can discuss a topic so vehemently yet turn around with their hands over their ears and run out of a room simply because they aren't open to an opposing point of view. 

[woods-racer]

How about if it's done this way.

 

The defense calls Mrs. Lab Tech.

 

Defense:  Mrs. Lab Tech was any of Mr. Kanes DNA found on Ms. Y?

 

MLT. Yes.

 

Defense: Where?

 

MLT: We found it on swabs from area 1, area 3 and area 5.

 

Defense: Did you find any in area 9.

 

MLT: No

 

Defense: You found no DNA in area 9?

 

MLT: We found DNA, just not Mr. Kanes.

[darksabre]

The DNA of someone else would not be relevant, only the absence of the accused's.

 

You can't use the presence of another's DNA to discredit the victim. Nor can you use it to imply promiscuity, because promiscuity can't be used to discredit the victim. This is relevant to cases where sex workers are raped. That sex worker's accusation must be taken seriously, regardless of their habits.

 

The facts of the case are what the jury must base its decision on.

[woods-racer]

The DNA of someone else would not be relevant, only the absence of the accused's.

 

You can't use the presence of another's DNA to discredit the victim. Nor can you use it to imply promiscuity, because promiscuity can't be used to discredit the victim. This is relevant to cases where sex workers are raped. That sex worker's accusation must be taken seriously, regardless of their habits.

 

The facts of the case are what the jury must base its decision on.

 

Ok, that makes sense. 

[Weave]

The DNA of someone else would not be relevant, only the absence of the accused's.

 

You can't use the presence of another's DNA to discredit the victim. Nor can you use it to imply promiscuity, because promiscuity can't be used to discredit the victim. This is relevant to cases where sex workers are raped. That sex worker's accusation must be taken seriously, regardless of their habits.

 

The facts of the case are what the jury must base its decision on.

 

I'm curious what the Sabrespace law dawgs responses to this will be.  Maybe it's too many TV court room dramas, but I expect that the "other" DNA would be brought up, if only to enlist an "I object" response and plant the seed in the jury's mind.

[JJFIVEOH]

If she was inebriated and clamied to have been raped, the possibility of having been raped by another man and she wasn't sober enough to recall the situation can very much be used in court.

[Neo]

Might be own-thread worthy, but maybe not yet given the absence of details or charges: Pat Kane being investigated by the Hamburg police for ... something.

The most spectacular thread opening post I am aware of ....

[LGR4GM]

 

You don't have to answer, I was just wondering if it was something I said. I find it disconcerting that apparently intelligent adults, many of which have never met, can discuss a topic so vehemently yet turn around with their hands over their ears and run out of a room simply because they aren't open to an opposing point of view. 

 

I've asked every question I have. I have said everything I felt I needed to say. I am getting off the merry-go-round.

[darksabre]

I'm curious what the Sabrespace law dawgs responses to this will be.  Maybe it's too many TV court room dramas, but I expect that the "other" DNA would be brought up, if only to enlist an "I object" response and plant the seed in the jury's mind.

I should have worded that post better. The DNA would definitely be brought up, but not in the context of trying to establish promiscuity of the accuser and therefore discredit the accusation on that ground.  

 

There would definitely be questioning about the other DNA as it relates to the facts of the case though. The timeline, the other people involved, etc. 

 

Now, if the accuser was intoxicated like JJ posits, so intoxicated that they have no explanation for the other DNA, sure, that's some good reasonable doubt casting evidence. Especially if the rest of the facts of the case already cast quite a bit of doubt. Keep in mind though that intoxication is a wildcard variable. It can definitely swing things towards erasure of all doubt should all of the other details like timeline, witnesses, injuries, etc., line up. 

 

The original idea being discussed though was promiscuity. And promiscuity is not evidence of anything. 

[Hoss]

Two days after he's been election state judge...

News 4, WIVB-TV

@news4buffalo

News 4 learned DA Sedita will likely issue a decision on Kane's case Thurs. See #News4at11 for an update in Chicago.

 

(Also, this report sounds familiar)

 

We may hear from Sedita officially by the end of the week.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Hoss

[Eleven]

So shouldn't there be repercussions to Cambria for even bringing this up? Or is all fair in love, war, and defending your client?

 

 

Frankly, if the whole thing wasn't tried in the press, Cambria wouldn't have had to.  I don't like that he did it, but he did it in a press conference or an interview and not in court.  We can say things to the newspapers that we can't say to a jury.  It's not a perfect system, but that's the system.

 

 

I'm no lawiologist, but I'm pretty sure the DNA would be admissible, presented as a defense that it wasn't pat in the room. Then the insinuation of promiscuity is left to the jury (and almost assured).

 

 

That's a different story, and I read your follow-up, and I think you're right.  Don't take me at my word just yet; I'm not a criminal lawyer and it's way to late for me to bother researching this.  But I think you're right.

 

 

Two days after he's been election state judge...

News 4, WIVB-TV

@news4buffalo

News 4 learned DA Sedita will likely issue a decision on Kane's case Thurs. See #News4at11 for an update in Chicago.

 

(Also, this report sounds familiar)

 

"Elected." (Assuming that's what you mean.)  "Appointed" would be closer.  The two parties rigged it so neither favored candidate would face opposition.  This town is ###### up corrupt.  And I really, really like one of the "electeds."  I think he'll do a great job.  I don't believe his last name has been in this thread, but his last name has been in many other Sabrespace threads.  

Edited November 5, 2015 by eleven

[Hoss]

"Elected." (Assuming that's what you mean.)  "Appointed" would be closer.  The two parties rigged it so neither favored candidate would face opposition.  This town is ###### up corrupt.  And I really, really like one of the "electeds."  I think he'll do a great job.  I don't believe his last name has been in this thread, but his last name has been in many other Sabrespace threads.  

Yes, meant elected. Also, I'm aware the two parties cross endorsed each other so they wouldn't have to worry about it/fund their own campaigns. Weird system for that to be such an easy thing to do.

 

And I'm aware of the one you speak. I've spoken with him once and he was super nice. I've been told he's the cousin - know if that's true? I know there's a few of said family in Jamestown. Not a common last name yet I know of multiple families.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Hoss

[nfreeman]

yet turn around with their hands over their ears and run out of a room simply because they aren't open to an opposing point of view.

This is obnoxious, weak and obviously inaccurate.

[TrueBlueGED]

As a general rule I dislike judicial elections, so I don't hate the fact it was a faux election all that much. That said, I gave a write in vote for a friend.

[Eleven]

As a general rule I dislike judicial elections, so I don't hate the fact it was a faux election all that much. That said, I gave a write in vote for a friend.

 

I got at least one write-in from a friend.  So that was nice.

Is there something that was said in which you take offense? 

 

So when they test for DNA in a rape case, finding the DNA from other men would not be admissible? Any case, not just this one in particular. 

 

I'm not expert enough in criminal law to answer that second question, but if the theory is that DNA from other men excludes the accused from culpability, I don't think it's coming in.  If the theory is that someone else was the perpetrator, that's different.  But that's not this case.

[LTS]

First para.:  I haven't looked at that thread in a few hours, but I still think it's mainly someone screwing around.

 

Second para.:  I don't think that's likely to happen here.  But I don't know what the DA knows.

 

Third para.:  The moratorium is entirely voluntary, so media outlets can do what they choose now, later, etc.  As I mentioned, there is at least one media outlet--not a big one or a mainstream one, more like a blog--that has named her.

 

Thank you for the response.  With regards to the likelihood I would agree, but I just wanted confirmation of my thinking that he could charge her if it were truly a false accusation.

 

As for the moratorium, thanks for the clarification.  I think a better way for me to ask is that do we think it's likely that those who have voluntarily engaged in the moratorium will then release her name or at least use it freely if she is no longer considered a legal "victim".

 

Honestly, i would hope that would not use her name.  

[Patty16]

The DA's statement is rather strong.  Basically that's there no evidence to support her claims, and her account doesn't match evidence or other witnesses.  Can be many explanations for this. 

[bunomatic]

Hope Kane learns something from this little 'scare'. Mostly about how to carry himself in certain situations he puts himself in and how a true professional will go out of their way to avoid those situations. Kane has a lot to learn in that regard. Time to grow up Pat.

[Patty16]

Hope Kane learns something from this little 'scare'. Mostly about how to carry himself in certain situations he puts himself in and how a true professional will go out of their way to avoid those situations. Kane has a lot to learn in that regard. Time to grow up Pat.

 

He's a 26 yr old pro athlete millionaire who brought a girl home from a bar? That happens in every US city every weekend. What exactly are you talking about? 

[...]

"The totality of the credible evidence – the proof – does not sufficiently substantiate the complainant’s allegation that she was raped by Patrick Kane and this so-called 'case' is rife with reasonable doubt..."
 

From the Buffalo News:

"Significant material inconsistencies between what the alleged victim and those of other witnesses."

"DNA tests conducted on samples taken as part of a forensic sexual assault examination at a hospital 'lend no corroboration whatsoever to the complainant’s claim of penetration, a required element of proof for a rape charge.'"

"Physical evidence and forensic evidence 'tend to contradict the complainant’s claim that she was raped on Kane’s bed.'"

"Sedita wrote: 'Although Kane has exercised his constitutional right to remain silent (which prohibits questioning by law enforcement), he has made no known incriminating statements to any civilian, nor has he engaged in any conduct consistent with a consciousness of guilt.'"

Edited November 5, 2015 by SiZzlEmeIsTEr