Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"

[TrueBlueGED]

I am reading this differently, I think. It seems like the article's focus is on the fact that charges are unlikely THEN it goes on to say the three sources believe it's unlikely to go to a grand jury. So it seems like they're saying it's doubtful Sedita will levy charges himself and, as a secondary matter, it's also unlikely he sends it to a grand jury.

So it seems like they're saying both.

Felony charges cannot be brought without a grand jury.

[WildCard]

Do we know she knowingly accused him falsely?

We don't, hence the "if". 

[Weave]

Do we know she knowingly accused him falsely?

The DA might be in a position to know. And i dont think it is difficult tp read into it that he meant the royal we.

[WildCard]

I can't find a single word in nfreeman's two sentences I disagree with. My only question is to whether it is, in fact, a crime under statues in the books today. I'd guess it is.

Slander?

[TrueBlueGED]

I am totally fine with prosecuting an accuser where there is credible evidence that it was a shakedown or payback for being scorned. A knowingly false rape accusation is a criminal act that deserves punishment.

"Prosecuting" and "credible evidence" are the key words here. For one, I didn't get any sense from JJ's post that he was interested in prosecution; I read it as he wanted de facto punishment if no charges are brought. Secondly, I have a hard time imagining many scenarios (this case or otherwise) where false accusations will be provable in criminal court. My guess is most of them would fall prey to the same pitfalls rape accusations themselves struggle with. I'm with Eleven: given the chilling effects on coming forward, I don't think it balances the scales of justice well enough to be societally beneficial.

Edited November 1, 2015 by TrueBlueGED

[Neo]

Do we know she knowingly accused him falsely?

I don't think nfreeman's concluded she did, in this particular instance. No one has, as far as I can tell.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't think nfreeman's concluded she did, in this particular instance. No one has, as far as I can tell.

I can come up with at least a few names who have made it clear they think the accusations are pure extortion, and have from the start.

[Weave]

I can come up with at least a few names who have made it clear they think the accusations are pure extortion, and have from the start.

 

I think there was enough wiggle room in those statements that you'd never get solid admission.   :)

 

But, yeah, I got the same sense as well.

[LGR4GM]

I don't think she should be prosecuted.

[WildCard]

"Prosecuting" and "credible evidence" are the key words here. For one, I didn't get any sense from JJ's post that he was interested in prosecution; I read it as he wanted de facto punishment if no charges are brought. Secondly, I have a hard time imagining many scenarios (this case or otherwise) where false accusations will be provable in criminal court. My guess is most of them would fall prey to the same pitfalls rape accusations themselves struggle with. I'm with Eleven: given the chilling effects on coming forward, I don't think it balances the scales of justice well enough to be societally beneficial.

There's the rub of it. It gets dangerous prosecuting the initial accuser because of how slippery that slope is. All of the sudden it becomes a defense mechanism; you claim my client raped you then I'll prosecute you for false accusations no matter if we win, and we very well might win. I think the only time it should be permissible is in Eleven's aforementioned Duke Lacrosse case scenarios

 

In saying that, if it is as evident as that case, then they should be prosecuted. 

 

I can come up with at least a few names who have made it clear they think the accusations are pure extortion, and have from the start.

I'm listening 

Edited November 1, 2015 by WildCard

[LGR4GM]

I'm listening 

There's 64 pages of thread here. If you want to find the pattern all you need to do is look.

Edited November 1, 2015 by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

More than 2,500 posts, plenty of them with valuable insight into society and its attitudes about sexual assault.

Not one with any information credible enough to pass any judgement on the actions of either Kane or his accuser.

[WildCard]

There's 64 pages of thread here. If you want to find the pattern all you need to do is look.

I'm interested in his opinion 

[Neo]

I can come up with at least a few names who have made it clear they think the accusations are pure extortion, and have from the start.

Thank you --- correction --- in today's conversation.

 

I will be more careful. This emotionally charged issue's conflated a few different concepts and a few posters have been on the receiving end of criticism.

 

I truly don't recall anyone concluding it was pure extortion. I do recall people exploring the possibility that it was and the possibility that it wasn't. My "recall" - there's no thinner ice.

[...]

TrueBlueGED, on 01 Nov 2015 - 5:56 PM, said:TrueBlueGED, on 01 Nov 2015 - 5:56 PM, said:TrueBlueGED, on 01 Nov 2015 - 5:56 PM, said:TrueBlueGED, on 01 Nov 2015 - 5:56 PM, said:

"Prosecuting" and "credible evidence" are the key words here. For one, I didn't get any sense from JJ's post that he was interested in prosecution; (1) I read it as he wanted de facto punishment if no charges are brought. (2) Secondly, I have a hard time imagining many scenarios (this case or otherwise) where false accusations will be provable in criminal court. My guess is most of them would fall prey to the same pitfalls rape accusations themselves struggle with. I'm with Eleven: given the chilling effects on coming forward, I don't think it balances the scales of justice well enough to be societally beneficial.

 

 

1) He didn't say that.  He said "If the woman's claims are false...".  That's a not in the same universe as "if no charges are brought".  And, then, what happens...JJ gets beat down again because his statement is being twisted and the board goes to hell for a day because of it.  Let's not go there.

 

2) Whether you can imagine it or not, nfreeman's point was predicated on a situation where it's provable the accusations WERE (known to be) false. 

 

I will add to nfreeman's and, I think, wildcard's thoughts by saying if Kane's legal team determines they have a shot at winning a defamation suit, then they should go in with both barrels blazing.  The damage done to Kane's reputation is disgusting.  The target of the suit doesn't have to be the accuser, either, just the source of the leaks.  If this weren't leaked, no one would have known about the charges and impending dismissal, Kane would still be the NHL's favorite party boy, and the accuser wouldn't have to live with the public discussion weighing on her.   

N'eo, on 01 Nov 2015 - 6:07 PM, said:N'eo, on 01 Nov 2015 - 6:07 PM, said:N'eo, on 01 Nov 2015 - 6:07 PM, said:

I truly don't recall anyone concluding it was pure extortion. I do recall people exploring the possibility that it was and the possibility that it wasn't. My "recall" - there's no thinner ice.

 

I think exploring the possibility of extortion is just as valid as considering the possibility the accusations are true...until we have the facts to steer us in the right direction.  

Edited November 1, 2015 by SiZzlEmeIsTEr

[LGR4GM]

Have we ever heard that the accuser wanted money from Kane?

[Hoss]

Sure, just skip the part where it says "knowingly false rape accusation" 

 

Why should she not be prosecuted if she knowingly falsely accused him? 

I didn't. It simply doesn't matter. The only way you can prove knowingly false is with a confession which you won't get. Otherwise all the woman/man has to say is "I think he/she raped me" and it's impossible to prosecute without a doubt. It'd be a waste of time, money and further hinder victims coming forward.

 

The IDEA is good on its face, but the idea falls on its face. That's why there's the option of a civil suit. If Kane wants to file a civil suit he can do it.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Hoss

[WildCard]

I didn't. It simply doesn't matter. The only way you can prove knowingly false is with a confession which you won't get. Otherwise all the woman/man has to say is "I think he/she raped me" and it's impossible to prosecute without a doubt. It'd be a waste of time, money and further hinder victims coming forward.

Lawyers here, help me out. Is a confession the only manner in which to prove this? 

[Hoss]

Also, there are already laws against false reporting. And it happens.

Making it "mainstream" to go after women because you didn't feel there was enough evidence of rape is bad, though. Even with NO evidence of rape it's a bad idea IMHO.

 

You could "prove" it if the alleged attacker wasn't at a time or place or with witnesses. But in a case where two individuals entered a room alone you're not getting a conviction. I'm not lawyer, but this just seems like common sense.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Hoss

[WildCard]

Also, there are already laws against false reporting. And it happens.

What happens? False reporting or the dissuading of victims coming forth?

[inkman]

The last time we (collectively) had this discussion it didn't go very well. I saw a new update so I figured I would share it. I'll leave it at that.

This wasn't your intention.

[Neo]

 

I think exploring the possibility of extortion is just as valid as considering the possibility the accusations are true...until we have the facts to steer us in the right direction.

 

I read exploring and speculation all around. I don't think all exploring and all speculation was held to the same standard.

[...]

N'eo, on 01 Nov 2015 - 6:22 PM, said:

I read exploring and speculation all around. I don't think all exploring and all speculation was held to the same standard.

 

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

What happens? False reporting or the dissuading of victims coming forth?

 

Both!  Duh.

[Hoss]

What happens? False reporting or the dissuading of victims coming forth?

False reporting happens. But I'm sure if somebody watches the news at 11 p.m. and sees "person arrested for falsely accusing" then gets raped that's going to be on their mind. I just don't think making it something that consistently happens in cases where it'd be next to impossible to improve without a confession is a good idea. At all. This is an example of a case such as that.

[WildCard]

False reporting happens. But I'm sure if somebody watches the news at 11 p.m. and sees "person arrested for falsely accusing" then gets raped that's going to be on their mind. I just don't think making it something that consistently happens in cases where it'd be next to impossible to improve without a confession is a good idea. At all. This is an example of a case such as that.

I just think there should be a method of defense against false accusations, and just because rape is a sensitive subject and difficult to prove doesn't mean it should be immune from the criticisms other accusations are subjected to

 

Your logic works in reverse too, btw.