Toggle sidebar

Kane Saga: Law & Order Episode V

Status
Not open for further replies.
CourtneyDagger50

CourtneyDagger50

Resident Pig Expert
Jan 11, 2014
13,198
4,318
Rockford
Im annoyed that we havent heard anything in a few days.
Seems things were happening in an avalanche before. Now it has all just stopped
 
OhCaptainMyCaptain

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,236
2,351
Earth
Long process, there will be ups and downs like that. I know, personally, I am rather excited not to have another complete 180 thrown at us like what happened previously.
 

MR2010

Registered User
Sep 4, 2015
177
0
EbonyRaptor said:
It never contained anything and was only sent home with the mother in order to be used to place the top into and then give it to the cops when they came by to get it.
Click to expand...

You can put together any scenario you wish, I thought maybe you didn't know the top was picked up not long after they left the hospital.
 

SnakePlissken

Registered User
Jun 16, 2015
412
220
MR2010 said:
You can put together any scenario you wish, I thought maybe you didn't know the top was picked up not long after they left the hospital.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought Cambria was totally wrong saying the accuser definitely knew about the bag because it had her clothes in it. I never heard the DA say she knew about the bag specifically and he definitely said there was never anything in the bag.

I do find it hard to believe that the accuser wouldn't have known about the bag at all, but at the end of the day I don't think it matters much. That whole circus was a PR disaster for the accuser.
 
abt424

abt424

Registered User
Apr 4, 2012
822
1
Austin
Blackhawkswincup said:
Sorry but in this country it is innocent until proven guilty. It isn't guilty until proven innocent

Its not up to Kane to prove his innocence it is up to DA to prove accusation. If no charges/trial then Kane is innocent and it is that simple

This continued need to say "Well he hasn't been proven innocent" is terrifying

Also it seems those who want to portray Kane in worst light seem to speculate away on what may of happened but if someone who supports Kane does same thing they are immediately attacked for "Speculating"
Click to expand...

Everything you said is true.

That said, I think what people mean is they want to know Kane didn't do anything that goes beyond their moral compass.

And, honestly, the U.S. Legal system is about proving beyond a reasonable doubt if something did/didn't happen.

No charges being filed means the DA doesn't think there's enough evidence to win the case. That's it.

Does it mean 100% Kane didn't do it ... Or course it doesn't. Just like the OJ verdict didn't mean OJ didn't do it.

I don't think Kane did it (DNA evidence is enough for me). I don't think he should be punished. But I also know that, unfortunately, I'll probably never know what really happened.

I'm okay with having those leftover questions because I realize that in this situation you're never going to get 100% of the facts. But the facts that have been revealed support Kane. That's good enough for me. It's not good enough for everybody and I get that. As long as people don't use incorrect facts, I think we all have to understand that our legal system is great, but it's not without its flaws.
 
sketch22

sketch22

Registered User
Jul 18, 2011
1,540
7
abt424 said:
And, honestly, the U.S. Legal system is about proving beyond a reasonable doubt if something did/didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Which means if he isn't even charged it would be reasonable to believe he is innocent.

abt424 said:
No charges being filed means the DA doesn't think there's enough evidence to win the case. That's it.
Click to expand...

Not at all. The bar for a grand jury is far less than a trial. If the DA thought he had enough to convince a grand jury Kane would have been charged by now. What that should tell you is that if this doesn't even make it that far there isn't even enough evidence to prove a crime was committed, let alone that Kane was guilty of said crime.

abt424 said:
Does it mean 100% Kane didn't do it ... Or course it doesn't. Just like the OJ verdict didn't mean OJ didn't do it.
Click to expand...

The OJ trial was a farce, but at least OJ was arrested, charged, and taken before the grand jury. None of which seems likely to happen to Kane right now.
 
UsernameWasTaken

UsernameWasTaken

Let's Go Hawks!
Feb 11, 2012
26,148
217
Toronto
sketch22 said:
Which means if he isn't even charged it would be reasonable to believe he is innocent.



Not at all. The bar for a grand jury is far less than a trial. If the DA thought he had enough to convince a grand jury Kane would have been charged by now. What that should tell you is that if this doesn't even make it that far there isn't even enough evidence to prove a crime was committed, let alone that Kane was guilty of said crime.



The OJ trial was a farce, but at least OJ was arrested, charged, and taken before the grand jury. None of which seems likely to happen to Kane right now.
Click to expand...

He wasn't taken before a grand jury. They proceeded through a probable cause hearing instead.
 
WaltWhitman

WaltWhitman

Registered User
Oct 18, 2010
942
1
rick hawk said:
Kane held her down while his friend raped her? Really? Really?


Are you really putting this out there as a possible theory at this point?
Click to expand...

Here's a theory: Maybe Kane turned her down or told her she was ugly and she got mad and wanted revenge.

That fits the evidence a lot more than some of these ridiculous theories why Kane might still be guilty.
 
Stu Grimson

Stu Grimson

Registered User
Apr 16, 2014
942
12
WaltWhitman said:
Here's a theory: Maybe Kane turned her down or told her she was ugly and she got mad and wanted revenge.

That fits the evidence a lot more than some of these ridiculous theories why Kane might still be guilty.
Click to expand...



[mod] You just want to believe what you want to. There are probably a 1000 scenarios on what might have happened. You seem to know what all the evidence leads to, are you part of the investigation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MR2010

Registered User
Sep 4, 2015
177
0
gobluejd said:
Obviously there is enough for DA to consider and knows more than you.
Click to expand...

But is that really true? The grand jury was set to go weeks ago and then was abruptly postponed. The DNA results were known around the same time. The likely connection is that the grand jury was postponed on account of the results, throwing the case into a tailspin (we all saw what followed afterwards).
 

wafflecones

Registered User
Sep 16, 2015
57
0
MR2010 said:
But is that really true? The grand jury was set to go weeks ago and then was abruptly postponed. The DNA results were known around the same time. The likely connection is that the grand jury was postponed on account of the results, throwing the case into a tailspin (we all saw what followed afterwards).
Click to expand...

We have no idea how much/what the DA has but I agree that the grand jury was most likely rescheduled for this reason. Cambria said last week that Sedita gave them the DNA two weeks earlier- this would match up almost exactly with the abrupt postponement of the grand jury proceedings. Based on everything that's happened so far, it seems pretty safe to assume the DNA findings have had a pretty significant impact on this case.
 

topnotch

Registered User
Oct 20, 2010
1,478
1
wafflecones said:
We have no idea how much/what the DA has but I agree that the grand jury was most likely rescheduled for this reason. Cambria said last week that Sedita gave them the DNA two weeks earlier- this would match up almost exactly with the abrupt postponement of the grand jury proceedings. Based on everything that's happened so far, it seems pretty safe to assume the DNA findings have had a pretty significant impact on this case.
Click to expand...

Just a point of clarification, the grand jury did NOT get re-scheduled. It got indefinitely postponed, and according to the DA, may not occur.

There is a very big difference between re-scheduled and indefinitely postponed.
 

wafflecones

Registered User
Sep 16, 2015
57
0
topnotch said:
Just a point of clarification, the grand jury did NOT get re-scheduled. It got indefinitely postponed, and according to the DA, may not occur.

There is a very big difference between re-scheduled and indefinitely postponed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder. Before everything that happened with the bag hoax, I do remember Cambria indicating in a comment to the Tribune that he had been told it the grand jury was slated to be rescheduled. But you're right that there's a big difference between rescheduled and postponed indefinitely. There were lots of rumors that it was supposed to be re-scheduled in 2 weeks, but as far as we know that never actually occurred.
 
CallMeShaft

CallMeShaft

Calder Bedard Fan
Apr 14, 2014
15,959
21,827
What if no DNA was found because Kane is part robot (think Inspector Gadget)? Would explain his inhuman dangling abilities....

In all seriousness, I'm glad the Hawks organization is moving on from the incident. They released a video on their site a day or two ago about Anisimov, and I was startled when they cut to Kane talking about him (the Hawks video department had seemingly kept a respectable distance away from Kane for the last few weeks).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom