Pat Kane Investigation talk [MOD: Post #129]

[Zip15]

Except the evidence disproves that what she said happened, happened.

Maybe Kane did something else - sure. But what she said happened was proven to not be true based on the tests they did. To me, that doesn't say he may have done it but they can't prove it - it says he didn't do it. He's innocent - not just not proven guilty.

I think you need to recalibrate your definition of "proven." Kane has not been proven innocent. He also won't be proven guilty.

 

[Dingo44]

I think you need to recalibrate your definition of "proven." Kane has not been proven innocent. He also won't be proven guilty.

From the investigative findings:

* There are significant material inconsistencies between the complainant's accounts and those of other witnesses

In other words, she is lying - or at least very confused.

* The DNA results lend no corroaboration whatsoever to the complainant's claim of penetration, a required element of proof for a rape charge.

In other words, she says something happened but the evidence shows it didn't, unless something changed between the time of the alleged incident and when she was examined.

* The physical evidence and the forensic evidence, when viewed in tandem, tend to contradict the complainant's claim she was raped on Kane's bed

In other words, it's not that they can't prove she was raped - the evidence shows she wasn't raped. It didn't happen, according to the evidence.

There is no evidence to show she was, and there is evidence to show she wasn't. But if you want to hold out that she still could have been, in the name of sensitivity to rape victims or whatever, I suppose that is your prerogative. However, this is not the case on which to do that. Based on all the evidence she lied about what happened and the evidence proves she lied. This woman has hurt the cause of real victims of rape by lying about hers.

 

[Sabre Dance]

I think you need to recalibrate your definition of "proven." Kane has not been proven innocent. He also won't be proven guilty.

So all you need is an accusation to give you doubt about someone?

No actual proof, just someone saying it. I mean there is no chance someone could lie.

 

[Dingo44]

So all you need is an accusation to give you doubt about someone?

No actual proof, just someone saying it. I mean there is no chance someone could lie.

Apparently evidence she lied from contradicting statements from other witnesses isn't enough for some people.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[TehDoak]

Sadly, doesn't look like we'll ever see know what really happened. Really has highlighted the problems with the legal system when it comes to sexual assault cases. The victim shaming that has happened here is unreal. If a crime happened, the victim should be able to press charges without fearing repercussions, no matter who they are accusing. The opposite should also be true, a person being accused of something should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The system has failed both parties in this regard. Unfortunately, since the case will be dropped, the full truth will never come to light and both parties will be worse for it.

 

[Ralonzo]

Ah, back to victim blaming.

The victim shaming that has happened here is unreal

The controlling legal authority disagrees that there was a victim. When you begin with an incorrect premise, it invalidates the rest of the argument.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Sadly, doesn't look like we'll ever see know what really happened. Really has highlighted the problems with the legal system when it comes to sexual assault cases. The victim shaming that has happened here is unreal. If a crime happened, the victim should be able to press charges without fearing repercussions, no matter who they are accusing. The opposite should also be true, a person being accused of something should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The system has failed both parties in this regard. Unfortunately, since the case will be dropped, the full truth will never come to light and both parties will be worse for it.

It sounds like you didn't look at what the DA had to say regarding evidence that contradicts the complaint.

 

[Sabre Dance]

Sadly, doesn't look like we'll ever see know what really happened. Really has highlighted the problems with the legal system when it comes to sexual assault cases. The victim shaming that has happened here is unreal. If a crime happened, the victim should be able to press charges without fearing repercussions, no matter who they are accusing. The opposite should also be true, a person being accused of something should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The system has failed both parties in this regard. Unfortunately, since the case will be dropped, the full truth will never come to light and both parties will be worse for it.

In this case though it seems lack of evidence is the main reason.

 

[Husko]

From the investigative findings:

* There are significant material inconsistencies between the complainant's accounts and those of other witnesses

In other words, she is lying - or at least very confused.

* The DNA results lend no corroaboration whatsoever to the complainant's claim of penetration, a required element of proof for a rape charge.

In other words, she says something happened but the evidence shows it didn't, unless something changed between the time of the alleged incident and when she was examined.

* The physical evidence and the forensic evidence, when viewed in tandem, tend to contradict the complainant's claim she was raped on Kane's bed

In other words, it's not that they can't prove she was raped - the evidence shows she wasn't raped. It didn't happen, according to the evidence.

There is no evidence to show she was, and there is evidence to show she wasn't. But if you want to hold out that she still could have been, in the name of sensitivity to rape victims or whatever, I suppose that is your prerogative. However, this is not the case on which to do that. Based on all the evidence she lied about what happened and the evidence proves she lied. This woman has hurt the cause of real victims of rape by lying about hers.

There's a difference between lack of corroboration and contradiction.

 

[Dingo44]

There's a difference between lack of corroboration and contradiction.

Sure, of course. I know what those words mean. And in the statement, it uses both of them.

They could have very well said the evidence didn't corroborate what the victim claimed, but they also made the point to say the evidence contradicted what she claimed happened. They didn't need to say that, but they made a point to, which is about as must as they can say she was lying as they can.

The evidence both didn't corroborate what she said and contradicted what she said. What she said happened didn't not only agree with what she said, but it disagreed.

Again, you can be against victim-shaming and all that but in this case read the statements and look at the facts and then agree Kane didn't do what she claimed he did.

 

[Megaera]

There's a difference between lack of corroboration and contradiction.

There is, but the statement from the DA uses both in reference to claims by the complainant. We don't and can't know what happened that night, but I was surprised by the strength of the DA's statement here. It goes further than I would have expected in terms of implying that the DA's office didn't believe the complainant.

 

[Husko]

Ultimately, this comes down to the public's love for blood and love to hate. When you have a defendant the public loves to hate him. When you have a potential victim the defendant loves to hate her. They take turns dishing out the hate, they want answers, and at the end of the day they want someone to unleash their hate on in what they feel is a just matter.

I don't believe this should have been as public as it was and I don't believe Kane should have been judged the way he was. That said, shifting the hate to someone that, very likely, feels like she was wronged in some way doesn't accomplish anything. Let it go. Let your anger go. Let your curiosity go. Let your thirst for "justice" (what does that even mean?) go. Let it all go.

And no, we will never know exactly what happened. And you know what? That's okay with me. Is it really any of the public's business what happened in a bed room between tow adults, both of which are no longer pursuing any sort of legal action? I'm okay with not knowing what happened. Some would say the public at large has a right to this information. I won't, I still believe in a real of personal privacy trumping the "public good."


And fwiw, if I'm going to put my assumption cap on, I don't think Kane raped her. And I also definitely don't think he believes he raped her. But I also would guess that she does feel like she was sexually assaulted in some way. Different people. Different perspectives. Different stories. It's the way the world works.

 

[TehDoak]

The controlling legal authority disagrees that there was a victim. When you begin with an incorrect premise, it invalidates the rest of the argument.

It sounds like you didn't look at what the DA had to say regarding evidence that contradicts the complaint.

In this case though it seems lack of evidence is the main reason.

The problem I was pointing out was that both sides of this got their reputation sullied in the process. Irregardless of what actually happened, a criminal accusation shouldn't end with both sides getting smeared, especially if it never goes past the investigation phase. There needs to be better protection for the accuser and the accused.

 

[Ghills23]

The problem I was pointing out was that both sides of this got their reputation sullied in the process. Irregardless of what actually happened, a criminal accusation shouldn't end with both sides getting smeared, especially if it never goes past the investigation phase. There needs to be better protection for the accuser and the accused.

I don't know if that could ever happen unless things like this never get released until a criminal charge is made. Public opinion is hard to control especially in high profile cases.

 

[Dingo44]

The problem I was pointing out was that both sides of this got their reputation sullied in the process. Irregardless of what actually happened, a criminal accusation shouldn't end with both sides getting smeared, especially if it never goes past the investigation phase. There needs to be better protection for the accuser and the accused.

Well, I think everyone agrees with that. But the media live for this type of story. Guys like Wyshinski on Puck Daddy couldn't publish enough stories about women who are no longer Blackhawk fans because they let Kane practice and play with the team even though he hasn't even been charged, much less convicted.

In no way shape or form do I have any tolerance for any man who would hit or rape a woman. It's not about that. No decent man would or should. But I also hate jumping to conclusions or taking action without even a bit of proof just based on an accusation. People do make false accusations about all kinds of things.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Well, I think everyone agrees with that. But the media live for this type of story. Guys like Wyshinski on Puck Daddy couldn't publish enough stories about women who are no longer Blackhawk fans because they let Kane practice and play with the team even though he hasn't even been charged, much less convicted.

In no way shape or form do I have any tolerance for any man who would hit or rape a woman. It's not about that. No decent man would or should. But I also hate jumping to conclusions or taking action without even a bit of proof just based on an accusation. People do make false accusations about all kinds of things.

Good post.

 

[Megaera]

As someone who frequently represents clients before administrative agencies, Sedita's writing is not at all unusual. When an administrative agency issues a dismissal letter, for example, it's usually limited to the reasons for the dismissal without reference to the evidence supporting the claim. The EEOC and NLRB do not reference facts that may have suggested a violation when they are dismissing a claim, instead focusing on the reasons for dismissal.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I would have expected them to discuss facts that may have suggested a violation or suggesting such facts didn't exist. I'm saying that I would have expected something that stated that the investigation did not lead them to believe that a prosecution would be successful and not much more, which I understand is pretty standard following criminal investigations that are not pursued further. I think it's hard to read that statement and come away with any impression other than that the DA's office didn't find the claims believable. Eric Macramalla discusses that here.

Ultimately, this is all just unfortunate and sad. The media attention certainly did no one any good. And the end result will simply be to make people more skeptical of the claims of people who have been raped, even though most claims are true, rather than encouraging people to wait for actual evidence before reaching conclusions or accepting that they won't ever actually know what happened. It'll get tacked on to the list people love to pull out with the Duke lacrosse case, the Rolling Stone story, and the Kobe Bryant case as famous false claims. Everyone would have been better off if this story never made it to the media (or if the media had managed to show some restraint).

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Sadly, doesn't look like we'll ever see know what really happened. Really has highlighted the problems with the legal system when it comes to sexual assault cases. The victim shaming that has happened here is unreal. If a crime happened, the victim should be able to press charges without fearing repercussions, no matter who they are accusing. The opposite should also be true, a person being accused of something should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The system has failed both parties in this regard. Unfortunately, since the case will be dropped, the full truth will never come to light and both parties will be worse for it.

Sure, when bad things happen it's "the system's" fault for not making it all good. The girl was examined, was able to provide a statement, was afforded an investigation, and was allowed to back out without being outed and having her privacy intruded on. WTF else should "the system" have done after the case became obviously unprosecutable?

Back up your ignorance of criminal investigations with clear and specific options that are also within the law. Two people failed themselves here, the legal system did exactly what it is supposed to do.

 

[Beerz]

Sure, when bad things happen it's "the system's" fault for not making it all good. The girl was examined, was able to provide a statement, was afforded an investigation, and was allowed to back out without being outed and having her privacy intruded on. WTF else should "the system" have done after the case became obviously unprosecutable?

Back up your ignorance of criminal investigations with clear and specific options that are also within the law. Two people failed themselves here, the legal system did exactly what it is supposed to do.

Pretty much.

System worked perfectly from my eyes.

 

[sabrebuild]

Just a remark, but the statement made by Sedita is extreme by the standard of a DA dropping a case. It's about as close as you'll get to a district attorney saying it's alleged victim was a liar short of charging the person with perjury.