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

[josie]

Now I think you're just toying with me. :D

 

I have to actively work to not let our past disputes fuel new ones. We disagree a lot. But it challenges me to dig deeper into my thoughts. 

 

I want to take an opportunity to cede my contention a while back about Ryan Miller being elite. I worked really hard to get numbers to work in my favor and I couldn't. You were right. He wasn't. :bag:

But really, glad to see the respect, guys. There are few topics out there that rile people up quite like rape. 

[That Aud Smell]

The subject of this thread is due for a refreshing, innit?

 

I'm named as the thread's starter. Do I have that power? I always forget how to edit the thread's title.

[wjag]

Our job was not to determine guilt or innocence but rather if there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. To answer your question, though, there were two cases that I felt strongly should have been sent to trial that weren't.

 

I got pulled into my first and only jury trial a couple of years ago.  I loved every moment of it.  And yet, it was extremely maddening as pretrial agreements between the lawyers and judge denuded the prosecution's case.  I got the judge so pissed off at me because I kept asking/insisting we be shown other evidence that was deliberately and obviously held out of the case as presented to us.  He actually threatened me to shut up or else.  I had him so piqued that he was turning red in the face.  I could see the prosecuting lawyer smiling as I was grilling the judge over the missing information.

 

I so envy Arizona where jurors can asked questions.

[Stoner]

I'm named as the thread's starter. Do I have that power? I always forget how to edit the thread's title.

Edit your first post and click on Full Editor. You'll see that the subject box is editable. (Editing any of your posts in the thread might lead you to that option; not sure.) Edit: Nope, has to be the first post.

Edited August 7, 2015 by PASabreFan

[wjag]

NHL.com had a link to a Kane story this AM.  It was a 10m radio interview with Tim Graham where he discussed the goings on.  Reasonably informative.  He kept saying the news media knows more but they are still fact checking.

 

AND NOW ITS GONE FROM THE SITE.

 

Probably because he said rumors were afloat that PK was going to surrender by days end to Hamburg PD..  Not sure now if it was recorded yesterday or today.  My sense was it was yesterday though.  And if it was yesterday, then the surrender bit was wrong.

Edited August 7, 2015 by wjag

[That Aud Smell]

Edit your first post and click on Full Editor. You'll see that the subject box is editable. (Editing any of your posts in the thread might lead you to that option; not sure.)

 

Thanks. How's that?

[wjag]

Thanks. How's that?

 

Maybe it should be, Patrick Kane:  KNOWING WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW, BUT KNOWING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW, DO YOU STILL WANT HIM ON THE SABRES?

[That Aud Smell]

Maybe the 'Hawks could've done with a visit from Coach Taylor?

 

Relevant part starts at :56

 

 

p.s. I'm not posting this to suggest Kane's guilt. The sketch is excellent, though, and does artfully (and somehow hilariously) shed light on the issues and problems with how women get viewed and treated by revered athletes.

And the guy who speaks last (2:09) may deserve specific attention.

[X. Benedict]

The reality is that she is being re-victimized in the media, well at least by many on this board, even if she ends up not being a "victim" in terms of the law.

There are shield laws.

[deluca67]

If it's a sworn complaint (and I don't know if it is, but that's what Aud is saying), she is under oath and it does apply.

 

She is. Verification = the taking of an oath.

 

S 100.15 Information, misdemeanor complaint and felony complaint;

               form and content.

  1.  An information, a misdemeanor complaint and a felony complaint

must each specify the name of the court with which it is filed and the

title of the action, and must be subscribed and verified by a person

known as the "complainant."  The complainant may be any person having

knowledge, whether personal or upon information and belief, of the

commission of the offense or offenses charged.  Each instrument must

contain an accusatory part and a factual part.  The complainant`s

verification of the instrument is deemed to apply only to the factual

part thereof and not to the accusatory part.

 

 

My bad. Sorry. I read you as prescriptive, not predictive.  :oops:

By way of example, here's the form of a misdemeanor complaint in NYS:

 

http://www.cnycentral.com/uploadedFiles/wstm/News/Stories/HeatherLacey3.pdf

(Affirmed under penalty of perjury, etc.)

And here's an exemplar of the felony variety.

 

http://archive.pressconnects.com/assets/pdf/CB159903621.PDF

Thanks for the Info. 

[That Aud Smell]

Thanks for the Info. 

 

As a practical matter: Can you imagine if people could lodge criminal complaints without being subject to the penalties of perjury?

[Hoss]

Tim Baffoe of CBS Chicago with an interesting take...

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/08/07/baffoe-patrick-kane-is-not-your-friend/

[TrueBlueGED]

If anyone wants to see some disgusting human beings, go ahead and read a 'Hawks forum right about now. One actual comment, presumably from a human being: "I have heard some things I am confident are true that I obviously cannot post here...but it's not good. Hopefully money makes it go away." Talk about a broken moral compass.

[That Aud Smell]

Tim Baffoe of CBS Chicago with an interesting take...

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/08/07/baffoe-patrick-kane-is-not-your-friend/

 

Thanks for that.

 

For those who didn't get the distinctions I was trying to make, there's this:

 

It also suggests that should an outcome conclude in favor of Kane, the rape culture we live in and unbalanced system of law enforcement and judicial process in sexual assault cases does not mean he did nothing wrong.

I want you to realize that right now and acknowledge it and give it the credence it deserves. A lack of charge, prosecution, or guilty verdict over sexual assault does not mean sexual assault did not occur. It’s entirely possible no wrongdoing on Kane’s part went on, but innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them

[Eleven]

Tim Baffoe of CBS Chicago with an interesting take...

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/08/07/baffoe-patrick-kane-is-not-your-friend/

 

That is the most well thought and well written piece on this topic that I have seen so far.

 

On another point, I haven't heard anything more about cameras, video, etc.  I would think that if there was anything especially damning or especially exculpatory, we'd know about it by now.

[MattPie]

IF she is/was underage and she presented false evidence of her age, from what has been stated in this thread, that wouldn't mitigate culpability in NY.

 

Makes sense why the law is (apparently) written that way. It removes 1 he said/she said from the equation. (Or perhaps even he & she said / the parents said from the equation.) IF she was a minor AND she passed herself off as being at least 21 to get into the establishment AND she appeared to be 21 AND paased herself off to jim as being 21 AND everything that the 2 parties did was otherwise consensual; it would seem that something that far beyond simply stating "oh of course you're not with a minor" should be mitigating; but I wouldn't expect to see a change of that nature to the law anytime soon and it apparently isn't mitigating in NY.

This all has to go through a jury (Grand and Petit), right, unless PKane accepts a deal? I suppose jury nullification could happen.

 

She is not under oath so perjury does not apply.

Others have answered the oath question, but I'm not sure it's perjury though, isn't there a "Filing a false police report" charge?

[That Aud Smell]

Others have answered the oath question, but I'm not sure it's perjury though, isn't there a "Filing a false police report" charge?

 

The form itself states that it's being made subject to the penalties of perjury.

[tom webster]

That is the most well thought and well written piece on this topic that I have seen so far.

 

On another point, I haven't heard anything more about cameras, video, etc.  I would think that if there was anything especially damning or especially exculpatory, we'd know about it by now.

 

I was wondering about the timeline. If in fact she went to the hospital, had the rape kit  done and gave a sworn statement accusing him, is it normal that no charges have been filed yet?  I know its never as fast as on tv, but ....

Edited August 7, 2015 by tom webster

[Eleven]

This all has to go through a jury (Grand and Petit), right, unless PKane accepts a deal? I suppose jury nullification could happen.

 

 

Others have answered the oath question, but I'm not sure it's perjury though, isn't there a "Filing a false police report" charge?

 

1.  It does not have to go through a jury; the DA can arraign rather than indict, but I personally have no idea what the criteria are for using arraignment rather than indictment.  None whatsoever.

 

2.  There is, but perjury is another level.

[That Aud Smell]

On another point, I haven't heard anything more about cameras, video, etc.  I would think that if there was anything especially damning or especially exculpatory, we'd know about it by now.

 

Good point. I'm not so sure that we'd have heard about it by now, though. Would we have, typically?

Edited August 7, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Stoner]

Tim Baffoe of CBS Chicago with an interesting take...

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/08/07/baffoe-patrick-kane-is-not-your-friend/

That's some awful dreck right there.

[Eleven]

I was wondering about the timeline. If in fact she went to the hospital, had the rape kit  done and gave a sworn statement accusing him, is it normal that no charges have been filed yet?  I know its never as fast as on tv, but ....

 

I don't know.  The fact that this investigation is now in its sixth day (yesterday, I thought the investigation began yesterday) has me thinking that something serious happened and that they're concentrating on whether they have enough on Kane, trying to get more, etc.

[That Aud Smell]

I was wondering about the timeline. If in fact she went to the hospital, had the rape kit  done and gave a sworn statement accusing him, is it normal that no charges have been filed yet?  I know its never as fast as on tv, but ....

 

I'm not sure, TBH.

 

But this, of course, is not a normal case. If they're going to lay charges, they're gonna want their ducks in a muhfuggin' row.

[Eleven]

Good point. I'm not so sure that we'd have heard about it by now, though. Would we have, typically?

 

If the video clearly showed rape or clearly showed consensual sex, the investigation would be over, is what I inartfully was trying to  convey.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Eleven

[That Aud Smell]

That's some awful dreck right there.

 

Sod off with that.

If the video clearly showed rape or clearly showed consensual sex, the investigation would be over, is what I was trying to inartfully convey.

 

I don't really want to think about whether and how home security cameras would convey whether any sex was forcible or consensual.

 

But I take your point. Is there is footage, my bet is it would be perhaps arguably and/or circumstantially corroborative of the charges. Not unlike the Hernandez case.