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

[Hawks818]

Geez- you don't ignore the fact that he is being investigated for rape. Do you want to wear a rapist's jersey? I would think not. You had no reason to think that in July. Now you do so you leave it on the hanger till you know more.

Or you continue to wear his jersey because you're not aware of any facts that tell you he's guilty.

 

[DPHawk]

For arguments sake: Because you think he has been wrongfully accused and you want to cheer him up, show support during a bad time.

That's the kind of support he should be getting from his friends and family, not people that haven't met him. Also, when camp opened there was really no publicly available info that would allow someone to come to a informed conclusion about his innocence.

 

[Fortyfives]

Judging other peoples fandom in the scenario is ridiculous.

 

[Keithsteeth]

Also, even if they don't charge him with sexual assault, assault and harassment charges are still on the table. He is not out of the woods yet.

With little to no physical evidence and no eye-witness I can't imagine a DA would press charges. DAs don't like cases they have little chance of winning

 

[BobbyJet]

Or you continue to wear his jersey because you're not aware of any facts that tell you he's guilty.

Exactly.

… and some of you just hope that you are never falsely accused of something so serious, cause some people will want to punish you just because, and regardless of what the law says.

Kaner's bac, my arse.... ironic handle there.

 

[WaltWhitman]

. Also, when camp opened there was really no publicly available info that would allow someone to come to a informed conclusion about his innocence.

Not saying it's right, but people come to conclusions based on different things. .

The point is that they believe they're cheering for an innocent person.

Some people wanted to throw him in jail just for being accused without knowing anything...which is worse?

 

[Kaners PPGs]

Exactly.

… and some of you just hope that you are never falsely accused of something so serious, cause some people will want to punish you just because, and regardless of what the law says.

Kaner's bac, my arse.... ironic handle there.

LOL- I'm not surprised these allegations don't affect your outlook. What would it take- someone's wife showing up with a black eye? Oh wait....

 

[CallMeShaft]

First of all, we're all adults here (or most of us are) and thus, each of us has the ability to applaud any person to which we feel like applauding. Hell, if I felt like it, I'll applaud to Bill Cosby. Not saying I'm a fan of his or that I think he's innocent, just the fact that I'm a grown man who can cheer for anybody I damn well feel like applauding.

If Kane is indeed innocent, which looks a bit more likely given the newest bit of info, would you want to turn your back on him? If I was in his shoes (and innocent) I would have some extremely dark thoughts popping into my head (I hope I don't have to further explain what I mean by this).

So given the fact that I'm an adult who can cheer for whoever I damn well please, and the fact that Kane may very well be suffering through deep depression, I'd cheer for him as loud as I can. If someone doesn't like it, too bad.

 

[Hawkaholic]

LOL- I'm not surprised these allegations don't affect your outlook. What would it take- someone's wife showing up with a black eye? Oh wait....

If these allegations are false, why should it change our outlook on Kane?

 

[BroadwayJay*]

I can't imagine they would charge him with rape if the DNA came back negative for sexual intercourse or rape.

Now - maybe a lesser charge?

But if these reports are true....my first question is, did she allege a forcible rape or not? Because if the reports are true, and she did indeed make that allegation...that probably makes her reliability as a witness questionable. Or at least she would get torn apart by the defense if this ever went to trial for anything.

I've been expecting this from the start. My position has always been that the fact that there has been no arrest is as exculpatory a piece of information as you'll ever find.

The original story was a "forcible" rape. It is generally considered a rare event that a rape occurs with a condom. Even when someone wears a condom, there is DNA present in the pubic area because of the nature of sexual intercourse; skin cells, hair cells, etc... all fall off from the friction and contact.

I always figured that Kane's position would be that they had consensual intercourse and it would be a he said/she said. It is a good, strong defense to a case like this.

I never thought that finding DNA in, or on, her would be an issue. However, the fact that there is no DNA in her underwear or vagina is a pretty good fact for Kane. There is no interpretation in which it is bad.

The fact that this was leaked is the most intriguing fact of all though. Patrick Kane's camp might be just finding out about this through this report as well. There is no obligation to turn that over when he hasn't been arrested.

 

[rick hawk]

Thanks again, Jay. Its always nice to hear from someone who actually adds something of value to this subject.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Thanks again, Jay. Its always nice to hear from someone who actually adds something of value to this subject.

You won't be so complimentary when you're watching the Islanders sweep the series against you guys two weeks from Saturday.

In compensation for that impending disappointment to you guys, I'm happy to answer all the questions I can about criminal procedure.



EDIT: I'll just add that I suppose you guys will only have your stanley cup victories to comfort you, and I can only imagine how unsatisfying that will be.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Might be a good guess. And you might also wonder if the DA purposely leaked this information out, so if/when they decide not to pursue charges, people aren't blaming the DA for being soft on a celebrity.

This is 99% what I think happened. Defense probably didn't even know about it...

Also, as to lesser charges; if the complainant said it was a forcible rape with intercourse and ejaculation inside her there will be no lesser charges. Some greasy DAs out there, but none that greasy.

In New York really only our rape 1 statute fits the fact pattern as we've gotten it so far. If there is an injury that's another ballgame, but if there was an injury he'd be arrested by now.

 

[Sarava]

You won't be so complimentary when you're watching the Islanders sweep the series against you guys two weeks from Saturday.

In compensation for that impending disappointment to you guys, I'm happy to answer all the questions I can about criminal procedure.



EDIT: I'll just add that I suppose you guys will only have your stanley cup victories to comfort you, and I can only imagine how unsatisfying that will be.

Oh the Hawks are soooo winning the Cup again this season, so if you guys take these 2...that's ok. Maybe if you're lucky, the Hawks will add the NYR to their list of conquered foes in the SCF

 

[BroadwayJay*]

One more add: I read somewhere that someone would be compelled to testify about a conversation had with the lawyer about conversations he had with Kane.

That's hogwash. Although hearsay is admissible in the grand jury, this would be double hearsay and the second level of hearsay is referencing privileged communications and the lawyer is not unavailable either. I wouldn't put much stock in that one.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Oh the Hawks are soooo winning the Cup again this season, so if you guys take these 2...that's ok. Maybe if you're lucky, the Hawks will add the NYR to their list of conquered foes in the SCF

I'd rather that the Rangers are in the lottery, but I'll take what I can get.

 

[CallMeShaft]

I'm not concerned about the possibility of losing two regular season games to the Islanders.

Their a good team, with one heck of a defensemen (Leddy!!!). As long as they don't blow us out Avs style or beat us in a cup final, I'll be constantly A-okay with the team, and thus, BroadwayJay.

 

[wafflecones]

I always figured that Kane's position would be that they had consensual intercourse and it would be a he said/she said. It is a good, strong defense to a case like this.
.

Someone on another site was saying that this recent news means nothing if Kane told investigators that it was consensual sex. My point was that I doubted Kane's lawyer had let him say much of anything to the police (especially before he even submitted his DNA which happened in late August). Am I off base here or is it likely Kane told his version of the events to the prosecution?

Also...why would the investigator wait until late August (around the 24th if the reports are correct) to take Kane's DNA. That's like 20 days after the incident. That reads as strange to me.

Thanks for sharing info with us!

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Someone on another site was saying that this recent news means nothing if Kane told investigators that it was consensual sex.

I mean, it isn't Kane that needs corroboration. It is the complainant. He would be a complete moron to have those cops come to his lawyer's office and lie to him. In fact, his lawyer would be a complete incompetent if that happened. Yet, here we are and Kane is still not arrested and he had the detectives in to talk. That would mean to me that what he told them is believable and the other site fella doesn't know very much.

My point was that I doubted Kane's lawyer had let him say much of anything to the police (especially before he even submitted his DNA which happened in late August). Am I off base here or is it likely Kane told his version of the events to the prosecution?

Well, why talk if you're going to dig yourself into a hole? He's not required to speak to them, he ELECTED to speak to them with his lawyer. That leads me to believe he had something good to say on his behalf, probably something airtight.

Also...why would the investigator wait until late August (around the 24th if the reports are correct) to take Kane's DNA. That's like 20 days after the incident. That reads as strange to me.

They have no right to swab him if he hasn't been arrested. He has to consent to it. They wait because they have to wait for Patrick to have time for them.

Thanks for sharing info with us!

Happy to help!

 

[Supertack]

Happy to help!

Yep, your interjections have been a much appreciated read from the beginning of this 4 thread marathon topic.

 

[LordKOTL]

The Sun-Times says their source has verified what the Buffalo News reported last night.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/974832/source-confirms-report-dna-evidence-kane-case

Does this lead to lesser charges that originally was feared? I would think his DNA being on her shoulder shows something...but what is it?

Here's what I've noticed:

For staters no report has mentioned anything about spermicide residue or any "residue" of a foreign object. Therefore it's still possible that Kane did rape her either using a Coney Island Whitefish or some foreign object.

Also, this doesn't necessarily mean that he can't be guilty of a lesser charge, but it's pure speculation at this point. Even the "witness claims" seem to be tainted by the clickbait TMZ media". Ergo, was it "definitive rape" as she claimed it, or typical meda grandstanding?

As for the DNA on her shoulders and underneather her fingernails? Again, nothing their proves sexual misconduct/assault of any degree. Hell, our last anniversary trip I had my wife's DNA on my shoulder, bite marks, her DNA under my fingernails, amongst other things that are too TMI for this forum, but the only thing it showed was that we had an awesome anniversary. .

Thus, with he lastest *factual* news about the story, it may make the changes that Kane's guilty of rape in the 1st less, but it's not putting the issue to bed yet, and even after that you're still going to have people blithering about him.

 

[Kitty Hawk]

I mean, it isn't Kane that needs corroboration. It is the complainant. He would be a complete moron to have those cops come to his lawyer's office and lie to him. In fact, his lawyer would be a complete incompetent if that happened. Yet, here we are and Kane is still not arrested and he had the detectives in to talk. That would mean to me that what he told them is believable and the other site fella doesn't know very much.



Well, why talk if you're going to dig yourself into a hole? He's not required to speak to them, he ELECTED to speak to them with his lawyer. That leads me to believe he had something good to say on his behalf, probably something airtight.



They have no right to swab him if he hasn't been arrested. He has to consent to it. They wait because they have to wait for Patrick to have time for them.



Happy to help!

So happy you shared your expertise with us! Thanks so much.

 

[hawksrule]

Here's what I've noticed:

For staters no report has mentioned anything about spermicide residue or any "residue" of a foreign object. Therefore it's still possible that Kane did rape her either using a Coney Island Whitefish or some foreign object.

Also, this doesn't necessarily mean that he can't be guilty of a lesser charge, but it's pure speculation at this point. Even the "witness claims" seem to be tainted by the clickbait TMZ media". Ergo, was it "definitive rape" as she claimed it, or typical meda grandstanding?

As for the DNA on her shoulders and underneather her fingernails? Again, nothing their proves sexual misconduct/assault of any degree. Hell, our last anniversary trip I had my wife's DNA on my shoulder, bite marks, her DNA under my fingernails, amongst other things that are too TMI for this forum, but the only thing it showed was that we had an awesome anniversary. .

Thus, with he lastest *factual* news about the story, it may make the changes that Kane's guilty of rape in the 1st less, but it's not putting the issue to bed yet, and even after that you're still going to have people blithering about him.

Am I the only one who has no idea what this means?

 

[madgoat33]

Am I the only one who has no idea what this means?

it was just a humorous non-penis item that could have been used to penetrate the alleged victim.

 

[sharkhawk]

it was just a humorous non-penis item that could have been used to penetrate the alleged victim.

Um, I think he was referring to a condom. It's an old slang term, since so many are found on the beach.