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

[madgoat33]

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

ah, I stand corrected. Never heard that before.

 

[CallMeShaft]

But if he was wearing a condom, chances are that there would still be some sort of DNA on the victims private regions and her undergarments.

A hair (unless Kane likes to manscape) or dead skin cells near her privates or on her underwear would likely appear on a rape kit. The fact that neither seems to be present is good news for Kane.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

But if he was wearing a condom, chances are that there would still be some sort of DNA on the victims private regions and her undergarments.

A hair (unless Kane likes to manscape) or dead skin cells near her privates or on her underwear would likely appear on a rape kit. The fact that neither seems to be present is good news for Kane.

This is all correct.

 

[SimpleJack]

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.

LOL

I've been looking at our opening 3 games ever since the schedule first came out and been like "ReallY? c'mon!" Rangers, Isles, Isles. Boom, boom, boom. Just like that. 2 of my favorite 5 teams in the NHL to watch the Hawks play, and unfortunately it goes by in the blink of an eye and we wont be well rested either. But thats no excuse. Should be a fun start to the season.

I really like the way the Isles forwards look(though i think for the first time since 2 years ago they now have the NHL's 2nd best 4th line, not the best ). Defensively you guys will be improved as well. Probably another year away from truly Cup contending, but definitely a dangerous team.

Oh, and of course, thx for all the insight on the Kane situation.

 

[Killer Boots Man]

I'd just like to point out how wrong Giangreco was with "...from what I've heard from my reputable inside legal authority sources with close knowledge of the investigation, this case is as close to a slam dunk as you get get..."

No DNA, no "slam dunk."

[mod]

 

[Sir Loin]

BroadwayJay, I've mostly just been sitting back and reading, just wanted to thank you for sharing all your expertise with us. Whatever happens, it's good reading ya.

 

[BHFan]

Most condoms have spermicide on them and I know they test for that in a rape kit. And there was no spermicide mentioned.

I think Kane and his lawyers wouldn't be surprised at all by the DNA results. They knew exactly what would be in the report because Kane didn't forcibly rape her and it looks like he didn't have intercourse with her at all. Kane is one of only two people who actually know what happened that night and he's maintained his innocence all along, as has his lawyer. I can't imagine how she got to forcible rape in this case and how they're so far apart on their stories. But I'm starting to believe that Kane is on the right side of this and she might have ulterior motives.

Her side hasn't come out with anything in the press to counter the DNA report. And they always have something to counter once Kane's side leaks something. DNA under the fingernails can come from casual contact. They didn't say blood or tissue under the fingernails, but I don't know if that's usual for them to distinguish between the two. And a scratch on her thigh could come from running into a end table on her way out.

Can we just get the DA to move fast on this and clear it before the actual season starts? That would be nice.

 

[wafflecones]

Most condoms have spermicide on them and I know they test for that in a rape kit. And there was no spermicide mentioned.

This is just based on a suspicion of mine but I'd think that if the Buffalo News had information that spermicide/lube/condom particles/etc. were found they would have leaked that information. They've been structuring a narrative by editorializing on their articles (questioning motives of off duty cop, going to the woman's work to ask her coworkers if she's a nice person, etc.) and I think they would definitely want to include evidence of condom use based on that. Of course, it's entirely possible that their sources simply didn't have access to all of the information from the rape kit.

And they always have something to counter once Kane's side leaks something. DNA under the fingernails can come from casual contact. They didn't say blood or tissue under the fingernails, but I don't know if that's usual for them to distinguish between the two.

That's something I've been curious of as well. From what I remember from reading about different case, news reports will usually say something like 'the defendant's skin was found until the nails of the victim' so I do think the wording around DNA is very vague. Maybe that is intentional, maybe it is a case of incomplete information.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Had a few beers at the Isles game tonight but I just checked in on my friends in Second City and I want to clear the air on something:

There is virtually a zero chance that the DNA leak comes from Kaner and Co. There is no requirement that the DNA be turned over to a "suspect", which is as far as this investigation has gone. The DNA report, which was clearly fast tracked because I'm still waiting for a DNA request from 2011, goes straight to the Detective who submitted it and the assigned assistant district attorney. It only came out because one of those two parties wanted it out.

Remember when I said that the only reason to call anyone besides the complainant was if someone wasn't trying his hardest to secure a true bill? Well, here we are.

Let no one forget that he could have been arrested and indicted on the word of the complainant alone.

 

[MR2010]

The DNA report, which was clearly fast tracked because I'm still waiting for a DNA request from 2011, goes straight to the Detective who submitted it and the assigned assistant district attorney.

2011? On the same type of charge? And yet this case is fast tracked. I know it's high profile but that is disappointing to hear. Good for Kane though, obviously.

Let no one forget that he could have been arrested and indicted on the word of the complainant alone.

And of course the media response (some who are actual attorneys) will say that he hasn't been arrested because it's a high profile celebrity athlete case, allowed to remain free until charges are brought. DSK was a flight risk so they had to arrest him, another example being Ray MacDonald (8 months until his arrest, although that case was not in NY).

Thanks for coming back to the thread and giving us your insight.

 

[Nocando]

BroadwayJay, I've read several times that the two sides may be working on a resolution, not a settlement. What do you think that might mean? Thanks.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

BroadwayJay, I've read several times that the two sides may be working on a resolution, not a settlement. What do you think that might mean? Thanks.

They have no power to reach a resolution. The two parties that can do that are the DA and the defendant. At present there is no defendant to reach a resolution.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

2011? On the same type of charge? And yet this case is fast tracked. I know it's high profile but that is disappointing to hear. Good for Kane though, obviously.

Nah, that's a murder and they were hiding it for years because he was innocent. In normal cases it takes several months.

And of course the media response (some who are actual attorneys) will say that he hasn't been arrested because it's a high profile celebrity athlete case, allowed to remain free until charges are brought. DSK was a flight risk so they had to arrest him, another example being Ray MacDonald (8 months until his arrest, although that case was not in NY).

Thanks for coming back to the thread and giving us your insight.

Your DSK distinction is an incorrect one. He was arrested and was released on bail, so if he wanted to disappear he could (forgiving the fact that we have extradition with France and he'd never be able to disappear). Flight risk is a bail factor, not an arrest factor. You can disregard that notion completely.

 

[wafflecones]

Remember when I said that the only reason to call anyone besides the complainant was if someone wasn't trying his hardest to secure a true bill? Well, here we are.

Let no one forget that he could have been arrested and indicted on the word of the complainant alone.

This is a completely speculative question, but do you think it's likely that the delay in the starting the grand jury is related to this recent news?

Do you see this still going to a grand jury so they prosecution can "clean their hands of it" so to speak or could the case be dropped completely?

I'm just curious what your thoughts are, it's really great to get perspective from someone with experience!

 

[BroadwayJay*]

This is a completely speculative question, but do you think it's likely that the delay in the starting the grand jury is related to this recent news?

I couldn't begin to know. Once presentation has begun, it would be pretty unorthodox to never vote on a true bill.

Do you see this still going to a grand jury so they prosecution can "clean their hands of it" so to speak or could the case be dropped completely?

My view would be that if there are substantial enough credibility issues with your witness that you don't think you have probable cause to make an arrest, you probably shouldn't go into el gran jurado. Of course, if you want to get rid of it and not look like you're getting rid of it you have to present, but you present in a way so as to make a true bill impossible.

Not really answering your question, but it is hard to predict that one. The best I can do is present the options I think.

I'm just curious what your thoughts are, it's really great to get perspective from someone with experience!

My wife just walked by me and said "babe stop hockey typing" while giving me two middle fingers. It is her view that hockey typing after a hockey game is too much hockey.

I am glad you guys appreciate this more than she does.

 

[wafflecones]

Oh I wasn't aware that the presentation had already started, that changes things. Thanks for replying to my unanswerable question, I did appreciate it haha. There are a lot of internet "armchair" lawyers talking pretty loudly about this case without making much sense...so it's nice to get feedback from someone who actually has experience with law.

 

[BrianE]

Had a few beers at the Isles game tonight but I just checked in on my friends in Second City and I want to clear the air on something:

There is virtually a zero chance that the DNA leak comes from Kaner and Co. There is no requirement that the DNA be turned over to a "suspect", which is as far as this investigation has gone. The DNA report, which was clearly fast tracked because I'm still waiting for a DNA request from 2011, goes straight to the Detective who submitted it and the assigned assistant district attorney. It only came out because one of those two parties wanted it out.

Remember when I said that the only reason to call anyone besides the complainant was if someone wasn't trying his hardest to secure a true bill? Well, here we are.

Let no one forget that he could have been arrested and indicted on the word of the complainant alone.

Thanks for your insight Jay but being arrested and indicted on the word of the complaintant alone? This is not good, i wonder how many are in prison that never committed a crime?

 

[sharkhawk]

Thanks for your insight Jay but being arrested and indicted on the word of the complaintant alone? This is not good, i wonder how many are in prison that never committed a crime?

Arrested and indicted, not convicted. You go to the local jail (at least in Illinois) when you are indicted and then released on bail or held over for trial at the county jail, not prison. Prison is reserved for sentences over one year. You always have the right to a jury trial.

 

[MR2010]

they have no power to reach a resolution. The two parties that can do that are the da and the defendant. At present there is no defendant to reach a resolution.

Did you read the article (link below), BroadwayJay? The headline and lead paragraph says resolution, then the rest of the article goes from formal agreement to civil resolution to settlement. Given what you said above, do you read between the lines something I must be blind to?

 

[MR2010]

Nah, that's a murder and they were hiding it for years because he was innocent.

They, meaning the authorities?

Your DSK distinction is an incorrect one. You can disregard that notion completely.

I knew you'd have an answer. Thanks, Jay!

 

[MR2010]

Oh I wasn't aware that the presentation had already started, that changes things.

That hasn't been confirmed. This was what was The Buffalo News initially reported on 9/08:

A grand jury investigation into rape allegations against National Hockey League star Patrick Kane set to begin Tuesday afternoon has been abruptly postponed, according to three current and former law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case.

This is from the Chicago Tribune on 9/08:

The grand jury had been scheduled to hear that afternoon from Kane's accuser and a friend who was with her on the night of the alleged incident, sources told the Tribune. Though the Erie County district attorney's office canceled their appearances, Kane's accuser continues to cooperate with the investigation, according to a source connected with the case.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Arrested and indicted, not convicted. You go to the local jail (at least in Illinois) when you are indicted and then released on bail or held over for trial at the county jail, not prison. Prison is reserved for sentences over one year. You always have the right to a jury trial.

Very good! This is a common misunderstanding.

Jail is a "holding" facility, typically run by the County (although sentences of less than one year are completed there.)

Prison is for felony sentences (sentences greater than one year).

 

[BroadwayJay*]

They, meaning the authorities?

Still haven't figured it out. I hope it wasn't the DA and was just the Detectives who arrested my guy on a fake warrant and then questioned him until they had enough for the flimsy probable cause they needed to hold him in jail for four years.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Thanks for your insight Jay but being arrested and indicted on the word of the complaintant alone? This is not good, i wonder how many are in prison that never committed a crime?

I mean it isn't "not good" necessarily.

Imagine someone gets robbed at knife-point, one-on-one, at night in a city street. No cameras, no witnesses, just the robber and the robbee. All you can ever have is the word of the complainant.

This is just how it is sometimes. The bar for an arrest is very low.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Did you read the article (link below), BroadwayJay? The headline and lead paragraph says resolution, then the rest of the article goes from formal agreement to civil resolution to settlement. Given what you said above, do you read between the lines something I must be blind to?

I'll read that when I'm in court today and get back to you.