Kane legal drama in Buffalo III (no hearsay, verifiable sources only)

[Sarava]

I also wish Jay was still here to comment. What I would wonder... being that this case is already unconventional in some aspects, could it be possible the prosecution is using a Grand Jury to decide against an indictment, thus taking themselves off the hook for backlash.

What made me wonder that is the report that everyone at Kane's house being asked to testify. Everyone seemingly would include Kane himself (which he would probably decline), but also his friend and the cop who drove them. So if that's the case, that's 2 witnesses (or 3 if Kane is included) that potentially might be on Kane's side that are testifying.

I wouldn't think they would invite potential/probable Kane ally witnesses to this grand jury if they were looking for a slam dunk indictment?

 

[SAADfather]

I also wish Jay was still here to comment. What I would wonder... being that this case is already unconventional in some aspects, could it be possible the prosecution is using a Grand Jury to decide against an indictment, thus taking themselves off the hook for backlash.

What made me wonder that is the report that everyone at Kane's house being asked to testify. Everyone seemingly would include Kane himself (which he would probably decline), but also his friend and the cop who drove them. So if that's the case, that's 2 witnesses (or 3 if Kane is included) that potentially might be on Kane's side that are testifying.

I wouldn't think they would invite potential/probable Kane ally witnesses to this grand jury if they were looking for a slam dunk indictment?

Yeah if only people diddnt think they knew more than a NY lawyer about NY law proceedings...

I think its very clear we can put that whole "slam dunk" thing to rest. If it really was a slam dunk, wouldn't the DA would have had him arrested and charged rather than leaving it up to a Grand Jury? I would bet this is more of a he said/she said kind of thing. Which is why everyone that was there may be asked to testify.

 

[JustABlackhawksFan]

Tribune article with comments from Carcillo and Bickell about the situation... Also says the Blackhawks won't say whether Kane will be at preseason camp (of course).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/ct-patrick-kane-preseason-20150904-story.html

 

[Sarava]

Tribune article with comments from Carcillo and Bickell about the situation... Also says the Blackhawks won't say whether Kane will be at preseason camp (of course).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/ct-patrick-kane-preseason-20150904-story.html

Thanks for posting that. Here's a bit from the article that concurs that we shouldn't be making any negative assumptions yet:

--------

"His predecessor as district attorney, Frank Clark, said he expected Sedita to present the case to a grand jury to determine whether Kane should be indicted. Sedita almost always sends high-profile investigations to a grand jury, even in cases that he doesn't intend to prosecute. The move — which often prolongs investigations — prevents him from being the sole voice on the case.

"You take too much heat if you do that," Clark said."

--------

So really, all we know is this case is advancing. Whether it leads to an indictment is very much up in the air.

 

[EmeticDonut]

Doesn't the DA also have political ambitions and taking the case to the Grand Jury is just covering all the bases, he can always blame the GJ if no charges are made.

 

[MR2010]

Doesn't the DA also have political ambitions and taking the case to the Grand Jury is just covering all the bases, he can always blame the GJ if no charges are made.

Every felony has to have a grand jury indictment to go forward (unless the right to prosecution by grand jury is waived), so this is just part of the process. What is unusual is that Kane has not been charged or arrested. BroadwayJay said it is unusual for a grand jury to convene prior to an arrest but not unheard of.

 

[pvr]

I too would like to read more from BroadwayJay about his legal insights into this case. Fascinating.

It's unfortunate that a poster with an obvious agenda (50 out of his/her last 57 posts are on this subject and are largely accusatory and condemning of Kane) has chased BroadwayJay away.

 

[Periwinkle]

I too would like to read more from BroadwayJay about his legal insights into this case. Fascinating.

It's unfortunate that a poster with an obvious agenda (50 out of his/her last 57 posts are on this subject and are largely accusatory and condemning of Kane) has chased BroadwayJay away.

I assume this means me. I suggest you go back and read those post and then come back to me with quotes of me condemning Kane. My interest is with offering a counter balance since the discussion seems to constantly be tugged at a direction which serves the narrative that it is likely that Kane is innocent. Which I understand, this being a Blackhawks board, but the flip side of that is that this means the posters suggest the accuser is a liar. We don't really know one way or another.

I find it a rather bizarre message board dynamic that a person shows up as an expert and expects their views being completely uncontested. I understand that some of my comments were confrontational (all the while still standing behind them), but if you read the last pages of the previous thread you can see that BroadwayJay, for some reason, saw any contesting of his views as being disrespectful towards him - offered by me or someone else. It's a rather strange Appeal to Authority mentality in this discussion if we're expected to simply rely on his words, since already in this thread we are finding other sources claiming opposite things than what he said. Literally a post on the last thread said "Why do people need to attack and question other people's opinion and credibility." Umm, I guess a blog would be a better format for that type of discourse.

I personally found some of his comments defying simple logic, but since Broadway Jay has chosen not to participate in this discussion, I will not take the time to point those out.

 

[rick hawk]

Most of us have been guessing what was or could be happening with the Kane case. It was nice to have someone who had some basis for his guesses. I appreciated Broadway Jay trying to help us. I don't blame him for not having patience with people second guessing him. Usually people pay handsomely for his advice and opinions.

 

[Periwinkle]

Most of us have been guessing what was or could be happening with the Kane case. It was nice to have someone who had some basis for his guesses. I appreciated Broadway Jay trying to help us. I don't blame him for not having patience with people second guessing him. Usually people pay handsomely for his advice and opinions.

I frequently engage in online discussions and offer knowledge about my field of work for which I'm paid for. I personally find it refreshing if someone contests my views, since it offers me a chance to dwell into topics. But of course every person sees that in their own way.

 

[hawksrule]

I frequently engage in online discussions and offer knowledge about my field of work for which I'm paid for. I personally find it refreshing if someone contests my views, since it offers me a chance to dwell into topics. But of course every person sees that in their own way.

I appreciated Broadwayjay's participation, particularly his procedural insight, but he was too thin-skinned if he expected to show up and have everyone accept his word as gospel.

He continually harped on a few points which seem far fetched. One was that if Kane was to be arrested, it most likely would have happened already because the DA wouldn't let a suspected rapist roam the streets. Given that Kane will get out on bail if/when he's arrested, this doesn't make sense.

He also presented the strange dichotomy that grand juries move to indict 98-99% of the time, while implying he didn't think Kane would be arrested. He never reconciled these competing notions.

Finally, his opinion that the reason an arrest hasn't yet been made is the credibility of the accuser is his pure conjecture. So was calling here credibility into question based on the lawyer she called. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't know any better than the rest of us.

 

[BobbyJet]

I appreciated Broadwayjay's participation, particularly his procedural insight, but he was too thin-skinned if he expected to show up and have everyone accept his word as gospel.

He continually harped on a few points which seem far fetched. One was that if Kane was to be arrested, it most likely would have happened already because the DA wouldn't let a suspected rapist roam the streets. Given that Kane will get out on bail if/when he's arrested, this doesn't make sense.

He also presented the strange dichotomy that grand juries move to indict 98-99% of the time, while implying he didn't think Kane would be arrested. He never reconciled these competing notions.

Finally, his opinion that the reason an arrest hasn't yet been made is the credibility of the accuser is his pure conjecture. So was calling here credibility into question based on the lawyer she called. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't know any better than the rest of us.

Which is exactly what he kept stating.... and that he was basing his conjecture on his experience as a lawyer in NY. I found his posts refreshing and at least based on knowledge and experience. However, there are always the wise arses around here and throughout the web who are just plain abnoxious to the point where real contributors just give up posting. It was only a matter of time for this guy.

 

[madgoat33]

Yea, hawksrule take on him is way off base from what I read in the last thread.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Guys, let's not discuss each other. Keep it to what's happening in Buffalo.

 

[Fortyfives]

I appreciated Broadwayjay's participation, particularly his procedural insight, but he was too thin-skinned if he expected to show up and have everyone accept his word as gospel.

He continually harped on a few points which seem far fetched. One was that if Kane was to be arrested, it most likely would have happened already because the DA wouldn't let a suspected rapist roam the streets. Given that Kane will get out on bail if/when he's arrested, this doesn't make sense.

He also presented the strange dichotomy that grand juries move to indict 98-99% of the time, while implying he didn't think Kane would be arrested. He never reconciled these competing notions.

Finally, his opinion that the reason an arrest hasn't yet been made is the credibility of the accuser is his pure conjecture. So was calling here credibility into question based on the lawyer she called. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't know any better than the rest of us.

It's pure speculation on my part but it taking this long to have him arrested or a grand jury decide speaks to the fact there isn't a ton of hard evidence against Kane. It's going to be he said she said.

 

[ploppsdman]

What's the saying about a Grand jury.. They'll indight a ham sandwich if you want them to...

 

[archimet]

It's pure speculation on my part but it taking this long to have him arrested or a grand jury decide speaks to the fact there isn't a ton of hard evidence against Kane. It's going to be he said she said.

The vast majority of rape cases are he-said, she-said. That's one reason such a low percentage are ever prosecuted. It's very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when it boils down to he-said she-said. It still doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nor does it mean it did. Due to the nature of rape allegations, not only are most accusation never prosecuted, many go unreported. The truth is arrests are more the exception than the rule in rape cases. Unless the accuser admits she made it up or Patrick Kane confesses, we'll probably never really know what happened... even if there's a trial. Perhaps we shouldn't attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion and let the case take it's course. Of course, everyone (including me) has their opinion, so I'm sure the conversation will go on.

 

[hawksrule]

Yea, hawksrule take on him is way off base from what I read in the last thread.

Read what I wrote, and then the quotes below. Yeah, I was way off.

Originally Posted by BroadwayJay
Imagine Patrick Kane goes out and goes on a raping spree and rapes 30 girls over the next three days. Wouldn't the police look quite foolish for electing not to arrest a guy that they had on a "slam dunk"?

Originally Posted by BroadwayJay
The grand jury was meant to be a protection for defendants but is really just a rubber stamp for prosecutors.

Originally Posted by BroadwayJay
The fact that a grand jury is sitting, if it actually even is, is not good for Kane. However it doesn't foreclose the possibility of no true bill.
Defendants testify and blow out cases all the time.

Originally Posted by BroadwayJay
I also think it is somewhat suspect that she acquired a "legal team" immediately.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

we have no verification Jay is who he said he is versus being just another internet schmo masquerading as something

I just popped in after some time and I saw that some folks seem to be sleuths who believe they have caught me in some sort of masquerade.

Lol.

So we are clear, my feelings are not hurt. I just won't be "arguing" with people who have no understanding of the system. I will help people trying to understand procedure, I won't debate it.

Nevertheless I thought I should drop in quickly to note that the more witnesses in the grand jury the better for Kane in my view. Muddies up the girls story. Does anyone really think Kane's friends are going to back up her story?

The grand jury has the power to subpoena witnesses on their own. The DA only needs to put the girl in! I wonder if the grand jury is calling the witnesses itself. That would be really something.

 

[SAADfather]

I wasn't expecting you to be that ugly...

Glad to have you back though.

 

[madgoat33]

He's a 6'3" lawyer with brown eyes named Jason.

 

[hawksrule]

I just popped in after some time and I saw that some folks seem to be sleuths who believe they have caught me in some sort of masquerade.

Lol.

So we are clear, my feelings are not hurt. I just won't be "arguing" with people who have no understanding of the system. I will help people trying to understand procedure, I won't debate it.

Nevertheless I thought I should drop in quickly to note that the more witnesses in the grand jury the better for Kane in my view. Muddies up the girls story. Does anyone really think Kane's friends are going to back up her story?

The grand jury has the power to subpoena witnesses on their own. The DA only needs to put the girl in! I wonder if the grand jury is calling the witnesses itself. That would be really something.

I think everyone appreciates the perspective of a criminal defense attorney. I disagree that arguing = not taking everything you say as gospel, particularly when some statements are contradictory or just don't make sense.

If your goal is internet popularity, telling people whatever they want to hear while disparaging those who dare question you is an easy path. Mission accomplished.

 

[MR2010]

Read what I wrote, and then the quotes below. Yeah, I was way off.

If the grand jury is but a rubber stamp, then it rests with the prosecutor and whether he feels he has enough to convict, am I right? If he controls the grand jury proceedings, doesn't it follow that if he doesn't think he has enough to convict he will present his case as such to the grand jury???

 

[Kaners PPGs]

Thanks for your contributions to this thread Jay. As someone who is reading and following this thread without anything useful to add, I say thank you for taking to time to enlighten us about this situation. Please just ignore those who want to argue and pick apart every detail you write. Appreciate the knowledge.

 

[EbonyRaptor]

I just popped in after some time and I saw that some folks seem to be sleuths who believe they have caught me in some sort of masquerade.

Lol.

So we are clear, my feelings are not hurt. I just won't be "arguing" with people who have no understanding of the system. I will help people trying to understand procedure, I won't debate it.

Nevertheless I thought I should drop in quickly to note that the more witnesses in the grand jury the better for Kane in my view. Muddies up the girls story. Does anyone really think Kane's friends are going to back up her story?

The grand jury has the power to subpoena witnesses on their own. The DA only needs to put the girl in! I wonder if the grand jury is calling the witnesses itself. That would be really something.

Just to be clear, since you used the word masquerade which is the word I used in my earlier post, you may possibly think my post was suggesting you were not who you said you were. That is not the case. The knowledge you proffered convinced me (and apparently others) that you are what you claimed to be - a defense attorney in N.Y. The reason for my post was to defend the right of Periwinkle (or anyone) to question statements made on a message board without having others suggest he leave and never post here again.