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

[Thwomp!]

Excuse you, but this kind of post is disgusting.  So you decided to come in here and shame people based on positions you are clearly misrepresenting. 

 

You like stats and data?  Provide some data yourself: who is victim shaming in this thread?  And what is your evidence?

 

Who is "crowing over their 'victory'" in this thread?  State your evidence.

 

If you want to be the moral bully, at least have the courage to call people out directly.

 

And here's a question that's sure to make you apoplectic: how do they know 68 in 100 rapes go unreported if they are, in fact, unreported? 

 

I expected this.  It's not worth my time to "state my evidence".  It's all here for everyone to see if they want.  Posters know where they stand and everyone else who has read this thread does too.

 

I listed the chart and the references.  I'm sure the Justice Department and FBI know what they're doing when it comes to gathering crime data.

 

The simple fact of the matter is Patrick Kane had a 98% chance of victory even if he did the crime.  Knowing the American criminal justice system his chance of victory was likely 100% considering how much money he has.

 

 

65 full pages of conversation, 40 posts/page, 2600+ posts, and East comes in guns blazing, throwing accusations around about posters.

 

Have you read the whole thread, East?

 

I've read every post in this thread.  I've been a complete observer until it caught me at a bad moment and I jumped in head first for some reason, even though I know the outcome.

 

 

Nobody is celebrating anything, stop being so dramatic.

 

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in your thread, mainly calling people victim-shamers and speculators all while being guilty of the exact same thing.

 

What victim am I shaming?  Poor Patty Kane? (He'll be fine)  Poor posters? (they'll be fine too)

 

I am speculating that based on the DATA and crime statistics that something very well could have happened, and happens to many women in America, and yet the perpetrator will walk free, so this situation is not unusual.  Patrick Kane always had at least a 98% chance of victory.  It does not mean the potential victim should be charged with a crime, was out for money, or that she was acting in bad faith in any way.

 

 

Well, I suppose this thread was due for a hand grenade...it's been awhile, after all.

 

It needed/needs a hand grenade.

[deluca67]

Excuse you, but this kind of post is disgusting.  So you decided to come in here and shame people based on positions you are clearly misrepresenting. 

 

You like stats and data?  Provide some data yourself: who is victim shaming in this thread?  And what is your evidence?

 

Who is "crowing over their 'victory'" in this thread?  State your evidence.

 

If you want to be the moral bully, at least have the courage to call people out directly.

 

And here's a question that's sure to make you apoplectic: how do they know 68 in 100 rapes go unreported if they are, in fact, unreported? 

Why so defensive?

 

East lays the numbers right out in front of everybody. It's the numbers posters should be angry with not East. Even in 2015 when it comes to sexual crimes against women it continues to be one of the easiest crimes to get away with.  

[deluca67]

I expected this.  It's not worth my time to "state my evidence".  It's all here for everyone to see if they want.  Posters know where they stand and everyone else who has read this thread does too.

 

I listed the chart and the references.  I'm sure the Justice Department and FBI know what they're doing when it comes to gathering crime data.

 

The simple fact of the matter is Patrick Kane had a 98% chance of victory even if he did the crime.  Knowing the American criminal justice system his chance of victory was likely 100% considering how much money he has.

 

 

 

I've read every post in this thread.  I've been a complete observer until it caught me at a bad moment and I jumped in head first for some reason, even though I know the outcome.

 

 

 

What victim am I shaming?  Poor Patty Kane? (He'll be fine)  Poor posters? (they'll be fine too)

 

I am speculating that based on the DATA and crime statistics that something very well could have happened, and happens to many women in America, and yet the perpetrator will walk free, so this situation is not unusual.  Patrick Kane always had at least a 98% chance of victory.  It does not mean the potential victim should be charged with a crime, was out for money, or that she was acting in bad faith in any way.

 

 

 

It needed/needs a hand grenade.

It's a horrible combination of the need to protect a local sports hero and a country's attitude towards women. We still live in a country where being a woman is considered the lessor by many. Be it the attitude that a woman must have "wanted it" or is "out for money" when it comes to situations like the Kane situation or if it is the desire to control reproductive rights or even inequality in the workplace. Crimes and slights against women are just not taken seriously. It's hard to believe in this day and age it is the case, but we are dealing with centuries of religious influence where in most religions women are basically property of their husbands and fathers.

 

It shouldn't be difficult for anyone to believe how easy it is to get away with a sexual crime against women. Bill Crosby was able to rape dozens of women over decades. Sexual crimes are not like other crimes, the life long scaring and damage caused often will drive a woman to move past the situation as quickly as possible especially when they know the chances are slim that justice will every be served. I'm sure this went into this woman's decision to move on. Why allow herself to be assaulted again through the process when chances of justice are so low.   

[qwksndmonster]

Why so defensive?

 

East lays the numbers right out in front of everybody. It's the numbers posters should be angry with not East. Even in 2015 when it comes to sexual crimes against women it continues to be one of the easiest crimes to get away with.

Why so defensive? Did you read east's post?

 

To East, I'm awed by your ability to throw yourself onto the sharp points of our posts. You are a noble message board martyr. Bleed for us all, nay, bleed for the truth!

[Eleven]

1.  It likely remains that no one on this board has any idea what happened that night.  If you think you do, whether based on statistics, his reputation, her reputation, reports citing anonymous sources, tainted evidence bags, golddigger theories, letters to the editor, comments on deadspin, or anything else, please check yourself.  You get a pass if you're with the DA's office, with the Hamburg police department, or were involved in whatever medical procedures she endured.

 

2.  I have learned that a local weekly may be publishing her father's facebook posts.  Reprehensible.

[TrueBlueGED]

1. It likely remains that no one on this board has any idea what happened that night. If you think you do, whether based on statistics, his reputation, her reputation, reports citing anonymous sources, tainted evidence bags, golddigger theories, letters to the editor, comments on deadspin, or anything else, please check yourself. You get a pass if you're with the DA's office, with the Hamburg police department, or were involved in whatever medical procedures she endured.

 

2. I have learned that a local weekly may be publishing her father's facebook posts. Reprehensible.

Are they Facebook posts pertaining to the case?

[Eleven]

Are they Facebook posts pertaining to the case?

 

I don't want to describe it.  The one post that I saw could be susceptible of that interpretation.  It also could be unrelated.  My point is, though, that her family is now being harassed.  

[woods-racer]

I don't want to describe it.  The one post that I saw could be susceptible of that interpretation.  It also could be unrelated.  My point is, though, that her family is now being harassed.  

 

The flip side of that coin his her father posted on face book something pertaining to the case. Two wrongs never make a right, but stupid is as stupid does. Do not use social media if you don't want it used back.

[Hoss]

The flip side of that coin his her father posted on face book something pertaining to the case. Two wrongs never make a right, but stupid is as stupid does. Do not use social media if you don't want it used back.

Fathers like to protect their daughters. I don't know the exact posts Eleven is referencing, but I do know I wouldn't mess with the guy (and I'm willing to bet the one or two posts I've seen were direct responses to some type of threat).

[JJFIVEOH]

I expected this.  It's not worth my time to "state my evidence".  It's all here for everyone to see if they want.  Posters know where they stand and everyone else who has read this thread does too.

 

I listed the chart and the references.  I'm sure the Justice Department and FBI know what they're doing when it comes to gathering crime data.

 

The simple fact of the matter is Patrick Kane had a 98% chance of victory even if he did the crime.  Knowing the American criminal justice system his chance of victory was likely 100% considering how much money he has.

 

 

 

I've read every post in this thread.  I've been a complete observer until it caught me at a bad moment and I jumped in head first for some reason, even though I know the outcome.

 

 

 

What victim am I shaming?  Poor Patty Kane? (He'll be fine)  Poor posters? (they'll be fine too)

 

I am speculating that based on the DATA and crime statistics that something very well could have happened, and happens to many women in America, and yet the perpetrator will walk free, so this situation is not unusual.  Patrick Kane always had at least a 98% chance of victory.  It does not mean the potential victim should be charged with a crime, was out for money, or that she was acting in bad faith in any way.

 

 

 

It needed/needs a hand grenade.

 

What does his money have to do with anything? This wasn't a civil trial, it was (would have been) a criminal trial. She had an entire team of lawyers, she had the county on her side, and there is zero evidence of any money being involved; not to mention the fact it would have been  highly illegal. 

 

If you legitimately looked at the data and facts then you might consider that Kane could actually be innocent. Even the people that you generalize as 'crowing about their victory' have openly admitted, and strongly considered the fact that she is a victim and Kane is guilty. You on the other hand are completely unwilling to accept that Kane just might be innocent no matter how much the evidence supports him. Especially when it can't even make it to a grand jury. Where is the victim shaming? Emotionally charged rants lead to irresponsible use of the media's favorite catch phrases like 'victim shaming'  and 'rape culture' all while completely ignoring the facts. 

Edited November 4, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[Hoss]

I think East has danced very well and his posts were fairly supported with facts generally related to cases such as this. He hasn't made any definitive statements about the case itself, only general comments and statements about the nature of this board's conversation.

 

JJ - what facts is he ignoring about this case? We have next to no facts out in the open right now.

[That Aud Smell]

I don't want to describe it.  The one post that I saw could be susceptible of that interpretation.  It also could be unrelated.  My point is, though, that her family is now being harassed.

 

That's been going on for some time, apparently.

 

Fathers like to protect their daughters. I don't know the exact posts Eleven is referencing, but I do know I wouldn't mess with the guy (and I'm willing to bet the one or two posts I've seen were direct responses to some type of threat).

 

Agreed.

[woods-racer]

Fathers like to protect their daughters. I don't know the exact posts Eleven is referencing, but I do know I wouldn't mess with the guy (and I'm willing to bet the one or two posts I've seen were direct responses to some type of threat).

 

That's been going on for some time, apparently.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Agreed what?

 

It's social media.

 

Some one in Europe can mess with him for poops and giggles. What's he going to do?

 

And there's always some one bigger, stronger, meaner in the real world that would love to set him up for a real world beating. Why? Just because. 

 

As soon as he (or anyone that has been in a situation like this) logged into some form of social media and responded to anything or anyone about any aspect of the case, he lost. If PK's father did it, he would have been attacked also. There are no winners but those that get off on a good social media beat down and the hordes  of followers that find it funny.

 

The last thing to turn to when privacy is the only saving grace in a situation is social media.

 

Heck, look at the attorneys for both sides. They each thought they where smart, tough guys. They both looked like losers as soon as they opened their social media mouths. I have no sympathy for them either.

[LGR4GM]

If Kane has anything resembling this I can't imagine why the case wasn't dismissed ages ago.

Stop using logic Blue, this isn't a place for it as evidence by the conversations that have been had.

What does his money have to do with anything? This wasn't a civil trial, it was (would have been) a criminal trial. She had an entire team of lawyers, she had the county on her side, and there is zero evidence of any money being involved; not to mention the fact it would have been  highly illegal. 

 

If you legitimately looked at the data and facts then you might consider that Kane could actually be innocent. Even the people that you generalize as 'crowing about their victory' have openly admitted, and strongly considered the fact that she is a victim and Kane is guilty. You on the other hand are completely unwilling to accept that Kane just might be innocent no matter how much the evidence supports him. Especially when it can't even make it to a grand jury. Where is the victim shaming? Emotionally charged rants lead to irresponsible use of the media's favorite catch phrases like 'victim shaming'  and 'rape culture' all while completely ignoring the facts. 

You don't have evidence either way that either exonerates or condemns Kane.

65 full pages of conversation, 40 posts/page, 2600+ posts, and East comes in guns blazing, throwing accusations around about posters.

 

Have you read the whole thread, East?

I have. Every post. East isn't wrong. The accuser should not be charged, and according to the DA Kane will not be charged.

 

Time for us all to just let this go. We will never know what happened or who did what.

I still want to know how view would have changed if this topic was Evander Kane and not Patrick Kane.  Just for my own morbid curiosity.

Edited November 4, 2015 by LGR4GM

[That Aud Smell]

Agreed what?

 

That her Dad is not someone to trifle with, from what I can tell.

[LTS]

I don't want to describe it.  The one post that I saw could be susceptible of that interpretation.  It also could be unrelated.  My point is, though, that her family is now being harassed.  

 

Is it any surprise?  Look at the McDavid thread for a more localized sample of the lack of compassion and understanding in this world.  Even if you don't want to be compassionate or understanding there is still the desire to waste energy wishing ill on someone else.  I don't understand it.  I never will.  I guess that's how people roll but it sure as hell doesn't help society.

 

My question for the legal minded in here.  If she knowingly made a false accusation then would we expect that the DA would charge her with anything?  Not a case of it may have happened or it may be hard to prove but more or less they knew it did not happen.  

 

I'd think they would.  I think, when the case is closed there might be a few statements.  Also, once the case is closed, does the moratorium on not publishing her name get lifted since she's (by the letter of the law) not a victim?

 

Curious..

[TrueBlueGED]

I expected this.  It's not worth my time to "state my evidence".  It's all here for everyone to see if they want.  Posters know where they stand and everyone else who has read this thread does too.

 

I listed the chart and the references.  I'm sure the Justice Department and FBI know what they're doing when it comes to gathering crime data.

 

The simple fact of the matter is Patrick Kane had a 98% chance of victory even if he did the crime.  Knowing the American criminal justice system his chance of victory was likely 100% considering how much money he has.

 

 

 

I've read every post in this thread.  I've been a complete observer until it caught me at a bad moment and I jumped in head first for some reason, even though I know the outcome.

 

 

 

What victim am I shaming?  Poor Patty Kane? (He'll be fine)  Poor posters? (they'll be fine too)

 

I am speculating that based on the DATA and crime statistics that something very well could have happened, and happens to many women in America, and yet the perpetrator will walk free, so this situation is not unusual.  Patrick Kane always had at least a 98% chance of victory.  It does not mean the potential victim should be charged with a crime, was out for money, or that she was acting in bad faith in any way.

 

 

 

It needed/needs a hand grenade.

 

Even if we were to take those numbers at face value (not necessarily a safe thing to do, for a variety of reasons such as they don't take into account local differences in how the cases proceed through the system, and I'm pretty sure the "convicted" number excludes plea bargains...I don't want to get into great detail because the gist of the numbers are right, but the specifics are probably off), you have to know that the 98% chance of getting off is about rape events in general, and includes those which never get reported to the police. Kane's accuser, of course, did report them to the police, and the DA's office ended up assuming control of the investigation. Does that count as "referred to a prosecutor" according to that graphic? Who knows. My point is that the conviction chance, just using those numbers, was not 2/100 because the rape was reported...so it's at least 2/32, and could easily be higher depending on what in the hell some of those categories actually mean when applied to the Erie County process and NY law. If guilty, was it more likely from the start he'd walk away than face any meaningful (see: jail time) criminal penalty? Sure, but the chance of walking away was quite a bit lower than 98%.

[...]

EastsideOasis, on 04 Nov 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

I expected this.  It's not worth my time to "state my evidence".  It's all here for everyone to see if they want.  Posters know where they stand and everyone else who has read this thread does too.

 

 

 

That's funny, I expected this to be your reply.  Weird how that works.

[Eleven]

Is it any surprise?  Look at the McDavid thread for a more localized sample of the lack of compassion and understanding in this world.  Even if you don't want to be compassionate or understanding there is still the desire to waste energy wishing ill on someone else.  I don't understand it.  I never will.  I guess that's how people roll but it sure as hell doesn't help society.

 

My question for the legal minded in here.  If she knowingly made a false accusation then would we expect that the DA would charge her with anything?  Not a case of it may have happened or it may be hard to prove but more or less they knew it did not happen.  

 

I'd think they would.  I think, when the case is closed there might be a few statements.  Also, once the case is closed, does the moratorium on not publishing her name get lifted since she's (by the letter of the law) not a victim?

 

Curious..

 

First para.:  I haven't looked at that thread in a few hours, but I still think it's mainly someone screwing around.

 

Second para.:  I don't think that's likely to happen here.  But I don't know what the DA knows.

 

Third para.:  The moratorium is entirely voluntary, so media outlets can do what they choose now, later, etc.  As I mentioned, there is at least one media outlet--not a big one or a mainstream one, more like a blog--that has named her.

[JJFIVEOH]

Stop using logic Blue, this isn't a place for it as evidence by the conversations that have been had.

You don't have evidence either way that either exonerates or condemns Kane.

I have. Every post. East isn't wrong. The accuser should not be charged, and according to the DA Kane will not be charged.

 

Time for us all to just let this go. We will never know what happened or who did what.

I still want to know how view would have changed if this topic was Evander Kane and not Patrick Kane.  Just for my own morbid curiosity.

 

You're right, I don't. What I do have is reasonable doubt based on what has been presented to us, including the fact that there was no DNA to be found from Kane but there was DNA from two other men. Another factor I do have to go by is the fact that the DA's office and the county have had months to work on this case, with much more evidence (or lack thereof) than we have to go by, and they can't even come up with enough for a grand jury much less a criminal case. In reality. The person I was replying to, his only defense is 'so many others get away with it so naturally Kane must be guilty' based on a chart in which many question the validity to begin with. The 'this is the case because it's happened before' defense applies in many situations.

 

All of us agree there is the posibility that Kane is guilty, why can't all of us agree that she might have had an ulterior motive until she found out she had no chance? Political correctness? Compassion? Why should we have compassion for somebody that was POSSIBLY trying to extort money out of a highly paid athlete? I have compassion for people that have been put in that situation, includng this woman if she is a legitmate victim. But I also have to look at other possibilities when her story begins to have more and more reasonable doubt.

Edited November 4, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[Thwomp!]

Where to start? So much to catch up on.

 

1.  It likely remains that no one on this board has any idea what happened that night.  If you think you do, whether based on statistics, his reputation, her reputation, reports citing anonymous sources, tainted evidence bags, golddigger theories, letters to the editor, comments on deadspin, or anything else, please check yourself.  You get a pass if you're with the DA's office, with the Hamburg police department, or were involved in whatever medical procedures she endured.

 

2.  I have learned that a local weekly may be publishing her father's facebook posts.  Reprehensible.

 

I agree with your #1.  I don't know anything about the case, but of the bolded I'm going to trust verifiable statistics much more than anything else on that list.

 

 

The flip side of that coin his her father posted on face book something pertaining to the case. Two wrongs never make a right, but stupid is as stupid does. Do not use social media if you don't want it used back.

 

From what Eleven posted this is not accurate.  What he posted may have or may not have been related to the case.  There's very few instances that I could see where harassment of anyone would be warranted.

 

 

 

I still want to know how view would have changed if this topic was Evander Kane and not Patrick Kane.  Just for my own morbid curiosity.

 

There's plenty of statistics compiled for that too, although I'm not digging into it. Nuh uh.  

[LGR4GM]

You're right, I don't. What I do have is reasonable doubt based on what has been presented to us, 1) including the fact that there was no DNA to be found from Kane but there was DNA from two other men. Another factor I do have to go by is the fact that the DA's office and the county have had months to work on this case, with much more evidence (or lack thereof) than we have to go by, and they can't even come up with enough for a grand jury much less a criminal case. In reality. 2) The person I was replying to, his only defense is 'so many others get away with it so naturally Kane must be guilty' based on a chart in which many question the validity to begin with. The 'this is the case because it's happened before' defense applies in many situations.

 

All of us agree there is the posibility that Kane is guilty, 3) why can't all of us agree that she might have had an ulterior motive until she found out she had no chance? Political correctness? Compassion?3) Why should we have compassion for somebody that was POSSIBLY trying to extort money out of a highly paid athlete? I have compassion for people that have been put in that situation, includng this woman if she is a legitmate victim. But I also have to look at other possibilities when her story begins to have more and more reasonable doubt.

1) Link? Source? I think I have asked you to prove this statement before.

 

2) If he said that Kane must be guilty because of the statistics than I missed it.  We don't have evidence to judge Kane.

 

3) There has been nothing submitted yet to this board, unless you have something, that suggests she wanted money from Kane. Therefore using your own logic about his innocence to begin with (he's innocent because we have seen no proof), I have reasonable doubt that she did want money (we don't have proof she went after money). If we have a report that says she wants money from Kane than sure we can discuss ulterior motives all we want. Until someone produces something that ties her to wanting money from Kane than I am not prepared to contemplate ulterior motives. "Why should we have compassion for somebody that was POSSIBLY trying to extort money out of a highly paid athlete?" We shouldn't have compassion for that person, but we have negative amounts of proof currently that that is the case here.

 

 

 

It appears some on this board have made the leap from Kane will not be charged to she was "possibly" in it for money or is guilty of lying etc... We don't have the facts to make that leap and we probably never will. If you are going to argue the lack of an indictment means Kane is innocent, you can not then turn around with the same lack of evidence and say therefore she POSSIBLY wants money or lied. That is a double standard. I can't say Kane possibly raped her at this point, because there are not enough facts for that statement even with a qualifier. We don't know what happened.

Edited November 4, 2015 by LGR4GM

[Thwomp!]

Even if we were to take those numbers at face value (not necessarily a safe thing to do, for a variety of reasons such as they don't take into account local differences in how the cases proceed through the system, and I'm pretty sure the "convicted" number excludes plea bargains...I don't want to get into great detail because the gist of the numbers are right, but the specifics are probably off), you have to know that the 98% chance of getting off is about rape events in general, and includes those which never get reported to the police. Kane's accuser, of course, did report them to the police, and the DA's office ended up assuming control of the investigation. Does that count as "referred to a prosecutor" according to that graphic? Who knows. My point is that the conviction chance, just using those numbers, was not 2/100 because the rape was reported...so it's at least 2/32, and could easily be higher depending on what in the hell some of those categories actually mean when applied to the Erie County process and NY law. If guilty, was it more likely from the start he'd walk away than face any meaningful (see: jail time) criminal penalty? Sure, but the chance of walking away was quite a bit lower than 98%.

 

My point was that if he or any other person who commits a sexual assault, from that point forward in time that the assault is committed, has a 98% chance of no conviction.  Even 2/32 after being reported is far too low.  Add in a few other factors and his chances were always greater than the general statistics if he did indeed commit the crime.  He wasn't arrested so he never made the next category.

 

 

You're right, I don't. What I do have is reasonable doubt based on what has been presented to us, including the fact that there was no DNA to be found from Kane but there was DNA from two other men. Another factor I do have to go by is the fact that the DA's office and the county have had months to work on this case, with much more evidence (or lack thereof) than we have to go by, and they can't even come up with enough for a grand jury much less a criminal case. In reality. The person I was replying to, his only defense is 'so many others get away with it so naturally Kane must be guilty' based on a chart in which many question the validity to begin with. The 'this is the case because it's happened before' defense applies in many situations.

 

All of us agree there is the posibility that Kane is guilty, why can't all of us agree that she might have had an ulterior motive until she found out she had no chance? Political correctness? Compassion? Why should we have compassion for somebody that was POSSIBLY trying to extort money out of a highly paid athlete? I have compassion for people that have been put in that situation, includng this woman if she is a legitmate victim. But I also have to look at other possibilities when her story begins to have more and more reasonable doubt.

 

Liger pretty much replied for me on this one.  

 

Go ahead and question the validity of the chart.  Provide better sources than the FBI and Dept. of Justice.  What exactly are your "validity" questions?

 

The chart and many, many other resources show that America has a rape problem, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.  It exists.  This case is just a small microcosm of the big picture.  Whether he did it or not, there are several disturbing questions the public's response to this case raises regarding how Americans think about rape and potential rape victims.  

Edited November 4, 2015 by EastsideOasis

[JJFIVEOH]

1) Link? Source? I think I have asked you to prove this statement before.

 

2) If he said that Kane must be guilty because of the statistics than I missed it.  We don't have evidence to judge Kane.

 

3) There has been nothing submitted yet to this board, unless you have something, that suggests she wanted money from Kane. Therefore using your own logic about his innocence to begin with (he's innocent because we have seen no proof), I have reasonable doubt that she did want money (we don't have proof she went after money). If we have a report that says she wants money from Kane than sure we can discuss ulterior motives all we want. Until someone produces something that ties her to wanting money from Kane than I am not prepared to contemplate ulterior motives. "Why should we have compassion for somebody that was POSSIBLY trying to extort money out of a highly paid athlete?" We shouldn't have compassion for that person, but we have negative amounts of proof currently that that is the case here.

 

 

 

It appears some on this board have made the leap from Kane will not be charged to she was "possibly" in it for money or is guilty of lying etc... We don't have the facts to make that leap and we probably never will. If you are going to argue the lack of an indictment means Kane is innocent, you can not then turn around with the same lack of evidence and say therefore she POSSIBLY wants money or lied. That is a double standard. I can't say Kane possibly raped her at this point, because there are not enough facts for that statement even with a qualifier. We don't know what happened.

 

1) It's out there, I'm on my phone right now so I'm not going to hunt down a link. There was no DNA found from Kane. 

 

2) He didn't say it. But he has done nothing but support her no matter how the story continues to fall out of her favor, he has turned to calling anybody that questions it victim shamers and he has posted data that supports the notion that so many rapists get away with their crimes. I'm really not sure what other conclusion you want Mt to form.

 

3) I haven't posted evidence, the lack of evidence supporting her case is a telling tale. Lack of evidence often times implies a false accusation and/or an ulterior motive. All of a sudden she just wants nothing to do with this case, is it coincidence that it just happens to come around the same time the county said there are doubts about her allegations? So, no DNA, tampering of evidence, and she wants to stop the case right after there are doubts about her allegations. Sorry, I may say the sky is blue and you can tell everybody I never said the sky isn't green........ You may be right but guess what, the sky is still blue. 

 

The double standard is criticizing those that have made the leap to saying she's in it for the money when  there is no proof all while for the vast majority of this thread most haven't thought twice about taking her side without any valid evidence. 

My point was that if he or any other person who commits a sexual assault, from that point forward in time that the assault is committed, has a 98% chance of no conviction.  Even 2/32 after being reported is far too low.  Add in a few other factors and his chances were always greater than the general statistics if he did indeed commit the crime.  He wasn't arrested so he never made the next category.

 

 

 

Liger pretty much replied for me on this one.  

 

Go ahead and question the validity of the chart.  Provide better sources than the FBI and Dept. of Justice.  What exactly are your "validity" questions?

 

The chart and many, many other resources show that America has a rape problem, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.  It exists.  This case is just a small microcosm of the big picture.  Whether he did it or not, there are several disturbing questions the public's response to this case raises regarding how Americans think about rape and potential rape victims.  

 

There is a lack of credibility of any chart that claims percentages of ANYTHING that is unreported. 

[Hoss]

The DNA bit came from the defense and the defense only... And it was a pretty disgusting maneuver to say the least. Possible DNA of other individuals does not make somebody more or less likely to be raped. Unfortunately the public doesn't understand this so the defense was attempting to sway opinions.