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

[deluca67]

Wait. So let me get you all straight: if this doesn't go to a grand jury and the case is dropped, some of you still want to believe Kane is guilty of something and the accuser's claim still has merit?

The case being dropped is not a proclamation of innocence. Cases of  he said/she said often don't go to trial.

 

It's not even insufficient evidence to proceed to trial; what the News is implying is that there's insufficient evidence to proceed to a grand jury.  Big difference in the quantum of proof necessary.  

 

Prosecuting the accuser would result in a chilling effect that I don't want to see.  Ever.  Unless there's Duke lacrosse levels of misconduct.

How does a woman prove that she said "no!" ? 

[Hoss]

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. 

Due process and filing a false report do just that. I'm not sure what more you and Freeman want.

In certain cases it's appropriate (I laid out a few above such as witnesses or the alleged attacker having a solid alibi).

 

In this case it wouldn't make sense. There's no way to prove it definitively didn't happen if they entered a separate room alone.

[Sabel79]

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

 

It depends upon what you mean by "this." What is it you're looking to prosecute for? Filing a false police report? The claims were taken seriously enough to be investigated, and the decision not to go forward was (I'm assuming from what I've read and the scant facts contIned therein) one of prosecutorial discretion. There's a lot of gray area between "I can't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt" and "outright lie." Everyone would do well to remember this. That, and the aforementioned scant nature of any available facts. I guess if the accuser came forward and confessed to making it all up you'd have that much, maybe obstruction of justice or the NY equivalent, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Perjury? Has the accuser made any statement under oath? Is anything the accuser said under oath demonstrably and beyond a shadow of a doubt untrue? Again, not being sure how exactly the process works in NY; I can only extrapolate from my state and surmise that no sworn statements or testimony were given prior to any formal proceeding in a felony case, so another non-starter.

 

Could Kane sue civilly? This is America and anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. I'd be willing to bet his attorneys advise him against it if he's thinking about it.

[Robviously]

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.

Maybe in this case.  But in other cases you could prove that there's no way the rape could happen taken place.  There could be surveillance footage.  You could prove the timeline doesn't work out.  Sometimes they can prove the wounds the supposed victim had were self-inflicted.

 

Yes, there are ways to prove accusations are false.  And in those cases, the person making the false accusations should be punished.  

 

We should punish false accusations both to protect people from having their lives ruined by a false accusation and to discourage false accusations from even happening.  In the long run, it'll help the legitimate victims.

[WildCard]

It depends upon what you mean by "this." What is it you're looking to prosecute for? Filing a false police report? The claims were taken seriously enough to be investigated, and the decision not to go forward was (I'm assuming from what I've read and the scant facts contIned therein) one of prosecutorial discretion. There's a lot of gray area between "I can't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt" and "outright lie." Everyone would do well to remember this. That, and the aforementioned scant nature of any available facts. I guess if the accuser came forward and confessed to making it all up you'd have that much, maybe obstruction of justice or the NY equivalent, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Perjury? Has the accuser made any statement under oath? Is anything the accuser said under oath demonstrably and beyond a shadow of a doubt untrue? Again, not being sure how exactly the process works in NY; I can only extrapolate from my state and surmise that no sworn statements or testimony were given prior to any formal proceeding in a felony case, so another non-starter.

 

Could Kane sue civilly? This is America and anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. I'd be willing to bet his attorneys advise him against it if he's thinking about it.

Thank you for the clarification  :beer:

Edited November 1, 2015 by WildCard

[deluca67]

Maybe in this case.  But in other cases you could prove that there's no way the rape could happen taken place.  There could be surveillance footage.  You could prove the timeline doesn't work out.  Sometimes they can prove the wounds the supposed victim had were self-inflicted.

 

Yes, there are ways to prove accusations are false.  And in those cases, the person making the false accusations should be punished.  

 

We should punish false accusations both to protect people from having their lives ruined by a false accusation and to discourage false accusations from even happening.  In the long run, it'll help the legitimate victims.

IMO, it does nothing more than give lawyers like Cambria something else to attack victims with. 

[WildCard]

Due process and filing a false report do just that. I'm not sure what more you and Freeman want.

In certain cases it's appropriate (I laid out a few above such as witnesses or the alleged attacker having a solid alibi).

 

In this case it wouldn't make sense. There's no way to prove it definitively didn't happen if they entered a separate room alone.

Well your initial post was against nfreeman's suggestion concerning false accusations in all rape cases, not specifically this one.

 

What I want, and what I'd wager nfreeman and some others want, is the accusation to have the same or equal weight as does the severity of it's punishment if convicted. 

Maybe in this case.  But in other cases you could prove that there's no way the rape could happen taken place.  There could be surveillance footage.  You could prove the timeline doesn't work out.  Sometimes they can prove the wounds the supposed victim had were self-inflicted.

 

Yes, there are ways to prove accusations are false.  And in those cases, the person making the false accusations should be punished.  

 

We should punish false accusations both to protect people from having their lives ruined by a false accusation and to discourage false accusations from even happening.  In the long run, it'll help the legitimate victims.

Agreed

[Hoss]

Maybe in this case.  But in other cases you could prove that there's no way the rape could happen taken place.  There could be surveillance footage.  You could prove the timeline doesn't work out.  Sometimes they can prove the wounds the supposed victim had were self-inflicted.

 

Yes, there are ways to prove accusations are false.  And in those cases, the person making the false accusations should be punished.  

 

We should punish false accusations both to protect people from having their lives ruined by a false accusation and to discourage false accusations from even happening.  In the long run, it'll help the legitimate victims.

I have clarified this multiple times and agree.

[LGR4GM]

yup, I'm out, nope.

[Hoss]

IMO, it does nothing more than give lawyers like Cambria something else to attack victims with. 

I agree.

 

Well your initial post was against nfreeman's suggestion concerning false accusations in all rape cases, not specifically this one.

 

What I want, and what I'd wager nfreeman and some others want, is the accusation to have the same or equal weight as does the severity of it's punishment if convicted. 

So you want the punishment for falsely accusing somebody of rape to be equal to somebody actually committing rape? Serious question, because it seems to heinous to be an actual position to hold. I think I'm just misreading.

[WildCard]

So you want the punishment for falsely accusing somebody of rape to be equal to somebody actually committing rape? Serious question, because it seems to heinous to be an actual position to hold. I think I'm just misreading.

The legal recourse doesn't exactly have the same weight; I'm not suggesting false accusations have the same legal punishment as rapes, but they should be considered as serious as one another. Rape is a serious crime, and falsely accusing somebody of such should warrant an equally serious moral weight. 

 

Probably poorly worded on my part, flipping between UML diagrams and this thread has me going insane. 

[shrader]

Even if Kane had a case against her, there's no way he would ever pursue it. His entire career is a public display and very much based on PR. He needs to get as far away from this whole ordeal as possible and never look back. That is exactly what will happen.

[Hoss]

Morally I do not find falsely accusing somebody as rape nearly as serious as raping somebody. Not even a little bit.

And I think falsely accusing people of rape (and other crimes) is heinous and inexcusable.

[WildCard]

Morally I do not find falsely accusing somebody as rape nearly as serious as raping somebody. Not even a little bit.

And I think falsely accusing people of rape (and other crimes) is heinous and inexcusable.

If someone falsely accuses somebody of rape, and that person is convicted, they get all of the punishments of a rapist despite being innocent. I think the morality behind falsely accusing anybody of any crime holds a linear relationship to the severity of the crime and its punishment 

[...]

shrader, on 01 Nov 2015 - 7:04 PM, said:

Even if Kane had a case against her, there's no way he would ever pursue it. His entire career is a public display and very much based on PR. He needs to get as far away from this whole ordeal as possible and never look back. That is exactly what will happen.

 

I think your logic is backwards.  The crowds at games are chanting "no means no" to him.  He HAS to pursue a defamation suit if he can to help clear his name. 

As this thread illustrates, just having the case dismissed won't be enough PR for Kane or the Blackhawks.

[TrueBlueGED]

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.   

 

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.  

 

1) I re-read, and definitely read more into JJ's post than what was literally there. Some of his previous posts in this thread have made it difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt on this topic. Hey, at least I'm honest about it.

 

2) Like I said, I just have a hard time believing this would be any more provable than a typical rape case. I'm not okay with false accusations going unpunished, but when trying to balance false accusations against the disincentive victims have from coming forward, I put more value on the latter since it's well know to be a much bigger problem than the former. It's not right in the cosmic justice sense, but rather, the lesser of two evils. I suspect we're not going to see eye to eye here, and that's fine--I don't think there's an especially good answer here.

 

3) I'll believe the damage to Kane's reputation is significant when I see it. A full trial ending in acquittal definitely could have been damaging, but I'm skeptical an investigation that doesn't even get sent to a grand jury will have any lasting impact. I think this is where it's important to keep in mind that his off-ice reputation wasn't especially good in the first place.

 

4) Going after the leakers is interesting, but so long as the information they were leaking was (to their knowledge) accurate, I'm not sure how you could legally go after them. I'd also be worried about secondary effects on whistleblowers throughout government.

 

 

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'm listening 

 

1) Agreed.

 

2) I shouldn't have even said anything, naming names and launching accusations will not lead to productive dialogue. My bad.

[Hoss]

I think your logic is backwards.  The crowds at games are chanting "no means no" to him.  He HAS to pursue a defamation suit if he can to help clear his name. 

They'll stop chanting that eventually. It won't happen any sooner if he drags this on. He should and probably will if he and Cambria have brains.

If someone falsely accuses somebody of rape, and that person is convicted, they get all of the punishments of a rapist despite being innocent. I think the morality behind falsely accusing anybody of any crime holds a linear relationship to the severity of the crime and its punishment 

Agree to disagree.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Hoss

[TrueBlueGED]

I think your logic is backwards.  The crowds at games are chanting "no means no" to him.  He HAS to pursue a defamation suit if he can to help clear his name. 

As this thread illustrates, just having the case dismissed won't be enough PR for Kane or the Blackhawks.

 

I feel like those inclined at this stage to assume guilt will continue to assume guilt even if he pursues, and wins, a defamation suit. Unless Sedita provides an astonishingly thorough summary, I feel the "didn't do its" the "did its" and the "don't knows" will remain wherever they are.

[JJFIVEOH]

This wasn't your intention.

 

Yup, thanks.

[inkman]

Yup, thanks.

You have had an agenda since day one. The outcome, as ambiguous as it is, leaves you feeling justified as your tiny brain can't understand that he may still have done some dubious but since it can't be proven in the court of law, we'll he's the best Damn dude you ever met. I'm sorry that guy and anyone who supports him. He's come off as a genuinely bad guy since entering the public eye. Why you and other fans boys jump to suck his dick at moment is beyond me.

[JJFIVEOH]

You have had an agenda since day one. The outcome, as ambiguous as it is, leaves you feeling justified as your tiny brain can't understand that he may still have done some dubious ###### but since it can't be proven in the court of law, we'll he's the best Damn dude you ever met. I'm sorry ###### that guy and anyone who supports him. He's come off as a genuinely bad guy since entering the public eye. Why you and other fans boys jump to suck his dick at moment is beyond me.

 

I haven't had an agenda, unfortunately I misread your post as agreeing that it wasn't my intention for any discussion to get out of hand. Sorry for giving you credit.

 

 Readng comprehension, try working on it. But thanks for the post, stay classy buddy.

Edited November 2, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[inkman]

I haven't had an agenda, unfortunately I misread your post as agreeing that it wasn't my intention for any discussion to get out of hand. Sorry for giving you credit.

 

Readng comprehension, try working on it. But thanks for the post, stay classy buddy.

Anyone using the terms "stay classy" and "buddy" = dick head

 

 

I'm begging to be suspended. do it already nfreeman

[JJFIVEOH]

I'm not going to stoop to your level. Have a great night.

[beerme1]

You have had an agenda since day one. The outcome, as ambiguous as it is, leaves you feeling justified as your tiny brain can't understand that he may still have done some dubious ###### but since it can't be proven in the court of law, we'll he's the best Damn dude you ever met. I'm sorry ###### that guy and anyone who supports him. He's come off as a genuinely bad guy since entering the public eye. Why you and other fans boys jump to suck his dick at moment is beyond me.

 

Kane wont be a guy I ever buy a drink for.

[shrader]

I think your logic is backwards. The crowds at games are chanting "no means no" to him. He HAS to pursue a defamation suit if he can to help clear his name.

 

As this thread illustrates, just having the case dismissed won't be enough PR for Kane or the Blackhawks.

It will fade. It always does. Going after her just keeps it in the spotlight and also brings up even more of the victim shaming stuff that people like to rant about.