JJFIVEOH

Sigh........................................

http://deadspin.com/lawyer-of-patrick-kanes-accuser-claims-rape-kit-was-tam-1732598494 Thomas Eoannou, the attorney for the woman accusing Patrick Kane of rape, held a press conference today and claimed that the rape kit, which had reportedly shown no signs of Kane’s DNA on the woman’s genital area or underwear, was tampered with. Eoannou discovered this because the rape kit’s evidence bag was left outside the accuser’s mother’s house.

I'm still looking for a reason why I would imply that she is a liar. I'd have a much easier time accepting your claims if there was one plausible reason why I would do it.

If you can't take my word for it, that's your problem. I really couldn't care less. Evidence is tampered with, what does that have to do with it showing up at her mother's door?

I agree, he's better suited for reporting.

Seems kinda pointless to accuse me of something (even though I've specifically stated otherwise several times) when you don't even have a reason why I would do such a thing. Why does it matter if she went to the hospital? Stop making pointless accusations if you can't even find a reason why I'd do it.

You're right. It's more like ridiculous, absurd................. lunacy? You've spent a good part of two pages trying to convince me to think what you want me to think, all because I used the word 'if'. I'll go with 'obsessive'. LGR, feel free to jump in.

Yeah, that's going to be what makes it difficult. Brady faced one of those defenses and racked up 34 points.

Tell me, what do I have to gain by implying she didn't go to the hospital? What would my motive be? Is there some sort of conspiracy I'm not aware of that involves her skipping out on the hospital? Would it make you two happy if I went back and edited my post to not include 'if'? You two seem to be awfully obsessed over a conditional statement................ bordering on obsessive.

Sigh............................ I'm not the one that keeps bringing it up, you might want to talk to LGR about that. I have no reason to imply that she didn't go to the hospital. It's equally as asinine for you to put words into my mouth and then bitch at me for what you hoped I said.

Well, you're certainly not obsessed.

When used as a conditional statement like 'If she went to the hospital then there was a rape kit exam' to confirm there is evidence to prove either side............ then yes it is normal. When used in reference to news stories in which NOBODY knows the exact details........... then yes it is normal. Should I lie and say there was a rape kit exam if she didn't go to the hospital? Should I lie and quote past news stories as fact when they are not?

See? You spend way too much time focusing on what you hope I'd say rather than on what I specifically say.

It's obvious you think I have some sort of agenda against this woman, no matter how many times I suggest otherwise. So why bother even continuing this discussion............................. You're not going to take my word for it.

Perhaps there wouldn't have been any failed lines of communication if you didn't have this obsession with this notion that I'm inferring she is a liar. You've been on my case from the beginning every time I give the slightest indication that maybe Kane isn't guilty. It's clouding your judgement when you won't be happy until I say what you want me to say. It really is as simple as saying IF she went to the hospital THEN there would be a rape kit which would indicate somebody has the evidence in their possession. Don't make it more difficult that it needs to be, because it's not.

You don't understand my point, and I don't understand why it's such a big deal to you that I brought it up. How about we just drop it and leave it at that.

The main focus of my point wasn't whether or not she went to the hospital.

No. I was suggesting that authorities would have (should have) evidence from the rape kit if she went to the hospital. I used the term 'if' and not 'since' because nobody knows for sure that she actually went.

That's also been my point all along. I fail to see the confusion from post 2089.

I'm not inferring one way or the other whether a hospital visit occurred. We've been given the impression that one did occur since a rape kit exam was performed. At the very least, a visit to her family doctor.

I really don't know where you're going with this. Again, I have no idea where you're going with this.

I say 'supposedly' because it has been inferred since day one.

Assuming this is a legitimate claim from her attorney, I'd like to know why the evidence bag had yet to be delivered after close to two months. And if it already had been delivered to a lab, why was is re-delivered to a private address? You mentioned an analysis had already taken place, why was the evidence bag re-delivered elsewhere? It would seem to me that the evidence would have one destination, and one destination only. To a lab where the evidence is to be secured. Just when you think there couldn't be any more 'what ifs'............................... this just gets crazier by the day. Perhaps...... If she didn't go to the hospital that would only diminish the legitimacy of her claim without substantial evidence. Who else would she have gone to besides her own doctor?

I would have to assume after more than six weeks that the lab would have received the evidence and have already completed testing. I'm not sure how the mother ended up with an empty evidence bag, but if the results have already been determined I'm sure they have been recorded and stored. In that case, an empty evidence bag isn't going to sway the story one way or the other. What is highly confusing is how and why she ended up with the evidence bag. Like I said earlier, there are way too many holes in this story.

I'm referring to the rape kit exam, that was performed on here (supposedly) the night of the incident. We're going on two months now. The evidence/results have already been determined, I would assume. Wasn't it announced recently?