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

[PASabreFan]

And Holy Back Asswards:

 

 

And Kane’s attorney, Paul J. Cambria Jr., said the Chicago Blackhawks player is the person who will be hurt most if physical evidence from the investigation – including DNA evidence – is deemed compromised and unusable.

 

“The only person who could be harmed by any attack on this DNA evidence is Pat Kane,” Cambria said.

 

“We were happy with the results of the DNA tests in this case because they are fantastic for my client. This is evidence that shows there was no contact between Patrick Kane and the lower part of this young woman’s body. Why would we have any interest in disturbing that kind of evidence?”

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/revelation-of-evidence-bag-complicates-kane-case-20150923

[wjag]

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

 

 

 

I know that is one point of view, but there are some pretty strong allegations and assertions about the case and DNA evidence leaked to the public in there.

[LGR4GM]

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

Don't bring me back into this.

[JJFIVEOH]

And Holy Back Asswards:

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/revelation-of-evidence-bag-complicates-kane-case-20150923

 

For whatever reason the bag ended up at the mothers house, it appears the analysis has been completed. The results are all that matters, which I'm sure has been submitted and recorded. 

[darksabre]

For whatever reason the bag ended up at the mothers house, it appears the analysis has been completed. The results are all that matters, which I'm sure has been submitted and recorded. 

Unless the tampering occurred before the analysis, in which case the results are completely suspect. 

[wjag]

For whatever reason the bag ended up at the mothers house, it appears the analysis has been completed. The results are all that matters, which I'm sure has been submitted and recorded. 

 

Once chain of custody is broken/breeched, Pandoras box is opened legally. 

[That Aud Smell]

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

 

Impressive internetting technique there. Full marks.

[JJFIVEOH]

Unless the tampering occurred before the analysis, in which case the results are completely suspect. 

 

Understood, just not sure how this proves anything other than somebody got their hands on the bag that wasn't supposed to. Her attorney seems to be focused on the fact that the seal was broken, but the seal would have been broken by the lab in order to analyze the evidence. 

Once chain of custody is broken/breeched, Pandoras box is opened legally. 

 

I agree with you on that.

[Taro T]

And Holy Back Asswards:

 

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/revelation-of-evidence-bag-complicates-kane-case-20150923

It depends upon which point in the process evidence was tampered with (if it was in fact tampered with). Assuming the initial reports of what the DNA indicated (accused's DNA on alleged victim's shoulder and under her fingernails and not found in significant enough quantities to be detectible in other samples) are accurate, then if this is THE evidence bag, if it was removed prior to the samples being tested, it would call the validity of the negative results into question - which should advantage prosecution as it would be defense (or a supporter thereof) muddying the water.

 

Based on the same assumptions except now the bag was removed post-sampling, it shouldn't call the validity of any of the results into question, though it will - which should advantage defense as it is prosecution (or a supporter thereof) muddying the waters.

 

Or stated (probably more clearly) tampering prior to sample analysis would most likely be an attempt to remove d*mning evidence; tampering post sample analysis (or hoax making it appear like there was tampering when there was none) would most likely be an attempt to make potentially exonerating evidence not seem credible.

 

If it's the prior, the alleged victim is harmed (perhaps irreparably); the latter and the accused is harmed (perhaps irreparably).

 

Again, curiouser & curiouser.

[darksabre]

Understood, just not sure how this proves anything other than somebody got their hands on the bag that wasn't supposed to. Her attorney seems to be focused on the fact that the seal was broken, but the seal would have been broken by the lab in order to analyze the evidence. 

 

I agree with you on that.

 

Not sure why you're using the word "proves" here. No one is speaking in the definitive. The concern is that the bag should never have found its way outside official hands. This then raises concerns about possible holes in the security of evidence handling. That's a big deal and something that needs to be looked at. 

[JJFIVEOH]

Not sure why you're using the word "proves" here. No one is speaking in the definitive. The concern is that the bag should never have found its way outside official hands. This then raises concerns about possible holes in the security of evidence handling. That's a big deal and something that needs to be looked at. 

 

Neither was I. Her attorney is the one claiming this is evidence of tampering, not me. It is evidence that something happened along the chain of command, but it's not proof there was tampering. It needs further evidence.

Edited September 24, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[darksabre]

Neither was I, hence the reason I said "not sure". Her attorney is the one claiming this is evidence of tampering, not me. It is evidence that something happened along the chain of command, but it's not proof there was tampering. It needs further evidence.

I don't believe he has claimed it as definitive evidence of tampering. But I think he has expressed legitimate concerns that an investigation into possible tampering should occur. 

[LGR4GM]

I don't believe he has claimed it as definitive evidence of tampering. But I think he has expressed legitimate concerns that an investigation into possible tampering should occur. 

It definitely should occur.  At the very least the bag should be examined to ascertain its authenticity.

[Eleven]

SabreSince70, thanks for bringing your info to the thread.  

[PASabreFan]

It depends upon which point in the process evidence was tampered with (if it was in fact tampered with). Assuming the initial reports of what the DNA indicated (accused's DNA on alleged victim's shoulder and under her fingernails and not found in significant enough quantities to be detectible in other samples) are accurate, then if this is THE evidence bag, if it was removed prior to the samples being tested, it would call the validity of the negative results into question - which should advantage prosecution as it would be defense (or a supporter thereof) muddying the water.

 

Based on the same assumptions except now the bag was removed post-sampling, it shouldn't call the validity of any of the results into question, though it will - which should advantage defense as it is prosecution (or a supporter thereof) muddying the waters.

 

Or stated (probably more clearly) tampering prior to sample analysis would most likely be an attempt to remove d*mning evidence; tampering post sample analysis (or hoax making it appear like there was tampering when there was none) would most likely be an attempt to make potentially exonerating evidence not seem credible.

 

If it's the prior, the alleged victim is harmed (perhaps irreparably); the latter and the accused is harmed (perhaps irreparably).

 

Again, curiouser & curiouser.

Motive to tamper. Opportunity to tamper (history of having friends in law enforcement plus the means to buy someone off). Which side is pointed at?

 

It would be a felony to get caught tampering with evidence, no? Prison time, no? Risk-reward. I don't see the prosecution/accuser side messing with tampering.

[apuszczalowski]

This helps the defence way more then the prosecution. All they have to do now to throw out anything from the kit or almost any evidence in the case that has been in possession of the police in the same area as this kit is say that if security was lax enough to allow this to get out, then who's to say that anything else in their custody could have been tampered with?

 

What doesn't make sense is why it was left at the mothers house insyear of destroyed or tampered with and put back?

 

And now this incident could put the kit evidence out because it could be argued that they don't know now if it's possible someone did something to it before hand.

 

I would say that there is very little chance unless they have video or audio proof he did something to the girl to actually convict him.

[shrader]

Not sure why you're using the word "proves" here. No one is speaking in the definitive. The concern is that the bag should never have found its way outside official hands. This then raises concerns about possible holes in the security of evidence handling. That's a big deal and something that needs to be looked at. 

 

I just want to add to this that it's not just about the bag getting out, but that it got out with, apparently, all the identifying information still on it.  There's a hell of a lot of explanation needed right now.

[Taro T]

Motive to tamper. Opportunity to tamper (history of having friends in law enforcement plus the means to buy someone off). Which side is pointed at?

 

It would be a felony to get caught tampering with evidence, no? Prison time, no? Risk-reward. I don't see the prosecution/accuser side messing with tampering.

While on the surface, it would be intuitive to assume any tampering (if there in fact was tampering) would originate with the accused's supporters, it isn't a given that that was the source. We also don't know that this is any more than a hoax at this point (though my assumption would be this isn't a hoax). If it's a hoax, not sure there's any felony - putting non-hazardous trash in a person's doorway doesn't rise to felony level offense in most cases; maybe, due to potential interference w/ an on-going investigation, in this case it does.

 

Again, curiouser & curiouser.

[LTS]

Despite the pathetic bickering going back and forth... which made it take far too long to get through this.  Let's tackle the announcements and what they COULD mean.

 

First, the existence of this evidence bag.  If it is indeed authenticated as the lawyer claims then the assumption is that the kit was removed from the bag at some point. This leads us to the statement that all evidence is in custody and accounted for.  Using that information we can only assume that the evidence in custody is not the initial rape kit.

 

Now.. let's play detective.

 

The evidence bag is dropped at the mother's door by someone who knows the evidence was tampered with.  How do they know?  Let's assume they are present when the kit is performed and they see something that's out of the ordinary.  They find this bag but they don't want to inject themselves into this circus.  They hope they are wrong, that someone screwed up the bag and discarded it and used a new one.  So, I'll hold onto this bag, because you never know.  The information about no DNA present gets let out and this person believes that they have the original bag.  Drop it off anonymously at the door and see what happens.

 

Now, onto how this happens in the first place.  It's a great question.  One has to assume that the original rape kit would show up evidence of the victim's DNA.  So in order to substitute a separate rape kit that would contain the victim's DNA you would have to perform two at that moment and somehow perform one of them such that it would be assured to NOT show any DNA from Kane.  I won't get into who would do this because people do stupid things all the time for stupid reasons (see putting saws in raw meat to break prisoners out of prison).  

 

I don't have information on what protocols used in the room at the time.  Clearly there is going to be more than 1 person present.  I assume someone from law enforcement should oversee the process but perhaps that is not required. Either way there has to be someone present at the time who can perform a rape kit that will show DNA evidence of the victim but NOT of Patrick Kane.  This implies that someone is working for a favorable outcome for Kane (not working FOR Kane necessarily).

 

Now, if the kit that is still in custody is the original.  Then you have a situation where perhaps someone willfully created a second evidence bag.  Why? Well, if you want to get crazy on ideas.  Let's assume the victim knows a rape kit will be performed but not show anything (yes, this implies that the rape charge was premeditated).  Then, she is working with someone at the hospital to create a situation where it might appear someone is tampering with evidence in FAVOR of Patrick Kane. If the rape kit that shows no DNA evidence is considered to be solid truth then it would hurt her chances of a conviction. However, if someone Kane can be perceived to have tampered with evidence (even if it can't be proven) then it changes things. Perhaps not criminally, but most probably in a civil lawsuit.  Yep.. we're way out there now.

 

So, why does Kane's attorney speak?  Well, in either instance he wants to strongly portray that all evidence is still accounted for.  He wants to underscore the story that shows his client is not guilty and that there is no evidence to indicate he had sex with the victim.  If he knows evidence has been tampered with its in his interest to try and dissuade people from thinking it actually happened.  If it is the opposite line of thinking then it is the case that he is attempting to discredit the finding of this bag as having meaning and thus keeping the sanctity of the original kit intact.  This also helps his client.

 

In the end, this shouldn't be too hard to track down.  Most hospital employees are going to break down in the face of evidence against them and pressure.  Law enforcement officials would be a tougher nut to crack but somewhere along the line some bit of handwriting or some procedural misconduct will likely be found.

 

All I know is.. this is going to be one hell of a story no matter how it plays out.

[X. Benedict]

I just want to add to this that it's not just about the bag getting out, but that it got out with, apparently, all the identifying information still on it.  There's a hell of a lot of explanation needed right now.

That's how I see it. 

[LGR4GM]

This was revised in 2008, not sure if there is a newer one but it is the "NYS Protocol for the Acute Care of Adult Patients Reporting Sexual Assault."

 

https://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/protocols_and_guidelines/sexual_assault/docs/adult_protocol.pdf

[nfreeman]

Serious question:  if Cambria's assertion that no Kane DNA was found on the lower part of the accuser's body is proven to be true, does it make you more inclined to believe that Kane is innocent? 

 

On the one hand, we've been over the various holes in this theory -- the hospital swabbing could have been performed incorrectly or inadequately, he could've been wearing a condom, etc.  On the other hand, it's more or less impossible to prove a negative -- so it may not be reasonable to think that the failure to prove a negative in this situation means that the absence of his DNA should be completely disregarded.

[Taro T]

This helps the defence way more then the prosecution. All they have to do now to throw out anything from the kit or almost any evidence in the case that has been in possession of the police in the same area as this kit is say that if security was lax enough to allow this to get out, then who's to say that anything else in their custody could have been tampered with?

What doesn't make sense is why it was left at the mothers house insyear of destroyed or tampered with and put back?

And now this incident could put the kit evidence out because it could be argued that they don't know now if it's possible someone did something to it before hand.

I would say that there is very little chance unless they have video or audio proof he did something to the girl to actually convict him.

IF the initial reports of what the kits showed are correct, this absolutely hurts the defense. Evidence that didn't corroborate a sexual attack (note, did not say it indicated no sexual attack, merely that it didn't corroborate it) is now brought into question. Actual tampering with the evidence (which at this point we don't have, but we do have heightened suspicion of tampering) which could have led to evidence producing a contra-result (specifically, no evidence of the accused's DNA in areas where it actually had been) WOULD help the accused - barring the evidence of the tampering getting out. Right now we don't know that is what happened, though it is suspected.

 

If someone supporting the accused DID tamper with evidence, how did this bag (if it's in fact what the attorney purports it is) not get destroyed? Holy incompetence Batman. You go through the trouble of tampering and all the risk of getting caught and then you throw the bag in the trash? :huh:

 

I just want to add to this that it's not just about the bag getting out, but that it got out with, apparently, all the identifying information still on it.  There's a hell of a lot of explanation needed right now.

Does anybody know if the "2nd signature/initialling" that SS70 indicated is required in PA is required is required in NY and if a 2nd signature/initial exists on this bag? The alleged victim's lawyer says it is the evidence bag; the guys that handled the sample say the protocols were followed. Somebody is mistaken.

 

Absolutely agree this raises additional Q's which should to be answered.

[LGR4GM]

Serious question:  if Cambria's assertion that no Kane DNA was found on the lower part of the accuser's body is proven to be true, does it make you more inclined to believe that Kane is innocent? 

 

On the one hand, we've been over the various holes in this theory -- the hospital swabbing could have been performed incorrectly or inadequately, he could've been wearing a condom, etc.  On the other hand, it's more or less impossible to prove a negative -- so it may not be reasonable to think that the failure to prove a negative in this situation means that the absence of his DNA should be completely disregarded.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

 

We don't have enough facts.

[3putt]

 

 

First, the existence of this evidence bag.  If it is indeed authenticated as the lawyer claims then the assumption is that the kit was removed from the bag at some point. This leads us to the statement that all evidence is in custody and accounted for.  Using that information we can only assume that the evidence in custody is not the initial rape kit.

 

 

I don't think this logically follows.  If the "kit" was sealed in the bag, it would have to have been opened at some point to be examined.  Whether the bag was considered part of the "kit" would lend question to the completeness of the evidence, but not necessarily impugn the remaining items.  Not disagreeing with the remaining discourse just pointing out that the initial premise may not be true.