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

[Eleven]

I'm grateful to you all for your work both reportorial and around the important topic, individuals notwithstanding. While there've been dozens of volleys around victim shaming and the benefit of the doubt, I come away with a sense that we all have an enlightened concern for both. Awesome points of view from the ladies who live lives outside of my experience.

 

Of the dozens of paths this story may ultimately take, I see classic Greek tragedy with hubris, the Gods, and fate.

 

Special thanks to Hoss for educating me on the industry and protocol. I see your struggle with balance. Special thanks to Eleven for important legal and procedural context.

 

Anyone besides me think the Buffalo News and Tim Graham have been particularly professional?

 

Hey, Aud Smell has been spreading at least as much misinformation as I have been.

 

Outside of today's article, I do think the News has been professional.  But that was this morning.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Look at his quote.  It implies nothing other than she was interested in him--and we don't even know if it's the same young woman.  I guess if that's the "looking for something" that you're deriving, fine, but I'm guessing you mean more.

I respectfully disagree with your take on the quote in question ... see below.

 

But Croce told The News that he and several of his employees noticed a young woman “hanging all over” Kane at SkyBar for at least two hours that night, putting her hands on his arms and “being very forward, very flirtatious with him.” He said he does not know the woman and does not know her name.

[Hoss]

Hey, Aud Smell has been spreading at least as much misinformation as I have been.

 

Outside of today's article, I do think the News has been professional. But that was ###### this morning.

Completely agreed about their coverage. Today's article screamed of "we're the authority of news coverage in the area and need to show it."

It's been relatively silent, so they broke the silence. The Croce interview was trash. I'm not sure that revealing the circumstances around her allegations is as bad as I currently feel that it is, or if I'm just disgusted that it came out in an article centered around Croce's comments.

[Eleven]

I respectfully disagree with your take on the quote in question ... see below.

 

 

I don't like the guy and I still can't interpret it that way, but oh well.

Voyeuristic.  That's the word I've been looking for.  That's what the News article was.

[JJFIVEOH]

This is where you prove you've missed the point people are making. Posters know nothing about her. They're not trying to make her anything but the alleged victim she is. We're not trying to make her anything.

 

You're not trying to make her anything but the vast majority seem to dismiss any possibility out of fear of sounding cold hearted.

[deluca67]

You're not trying to make her anything but the vast majority seem to dismiss any possibility out of fear of sounding cold hearted.

What is the percentage of false accusations compared to legitimate complaints in sexual assault/rape cases? 10%, if that? I think everyone realizes it is a small possibility in this case.

 

Right now, the important thing is for the process to play it's self out and for investigators to vigorously pursue all leads and facts and get to the truth.

 

Posting of rumored hockey trades is one thing, posting rumors in regards to this case is pointless. WNY is a small community and I am sure we have all heard "rumors" regarding Patrick Kane, most of which would be highly unflattering. What would be the point. Posting rumors regarding the complainant is pointless and disrespectful to a possible rape victim.  The Buffalo News article is both pointless and embarrassing for the Buffalo News as well as the owner of Sky Bar. For this man to say anything to reporters during an open investigation can only be meant to be self-serving.        

[Hoss]

It would've been just as relevant and less stupid to throw Jim Croce lyrics in the middle of the article. The only Croce they should be listening to.

[sicknfla]

How this guy didn't just say "no comment " is unbelievable.

[Brawndo]

This could be the explanation why Croce went to the News

 

It matters because he doesn’t want the authorities or the victim to come after SkyBar for any liquor law violations or “dram shop” liability. Specifically, under New York law, if a bar serves an obviously intoxicated person who goes on to injure some third party, that injured third party may sue the bar for money damages. Croce is covering his own ass here, and the News didn’t even comment on his motive to provide these speculative details to its reporters. I mean, let’s just start the portrayal of Kane’s accuser as a -who-had-it-coming so that she thinks twice about suing SkyBar.

http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/08092015/why-mark-croce-went-news-about-pat-kane

 

it was a sloppy piece of reporting by TBN

Edited August 9, 2015 by BRAWNDO

[Beukebamboom]

Didn't Mark Croce see what happened at his bar with his own eyes?  I would think it is relevant.  I respect anyone's right to be skeptical, but to dismiss it entirely or try to silence him, I'm not so sure about.  Marc Croce owns the Chop House, the Buckin' Buffalo, and a number of different restaurants, bars and developments downtown.  I worked at one of his restaurants once, when it was called the Buffalo Smokehouse.  It's was the ground floor of the building that the Skybar is at. 

 

He's not my cup of tea, exactly, but I don't have much reason to doubt what he said in the Buffalo News article.  He could be self-serving by coming down hard in defence of the alleged victim too.  It's just one testimony.  I doubt that he can put pressure on his employee to say this or that, because it's too competitive a workforce and he's got many competitors.  He couldn't strongarm the situation, so I really think he's just giving his viewpoint, is my perspective.

[Hoss]

Tim Graham slammed Croce's comments on twitter. Also made an important note: Croce says SkyBar has no skin in the fight, yet SkyBar catered Kane's cup party yesterday (AP reported it, but it is true. There were multiple cars loaded up with SkyBar food that swung by Kane's house yesterday).

 

Kane also shot off some fireworks at his house late last night while playing some outdoor hockey.

[Beukebamboom]

Didn't know that there was SkyBar food.  I thought it was just a nightclub.  I'm positive that the SkyBar doesn't do catering.

[Beukebamboom]

The parties are catered through Croce's restaurants.  It may be that the party was catered by a Croce establishment.

[JJFIVEOH]

What is the percentage of false accusations compared to legitimate complaints in sexual assault/rape cases? 10%, if that? I think everyone realizes it is a small possibility in this case.

 

Right now, the important thing is for the process to play it's self out and for investigators to vigorously pursue all leads and facts and get to the truth.

 

Posting of rumored hockey trades is one thing, posting rumors in regards to this case is pointless. WNY is a small community and I am sure we have all heard "rumors" regarding Patrick Kane, most of which would be highly unflattering. What would be the point. Posting rumors regarding the complainant is pointless and disrespectful to a possible rape victim.  The Buffalo News article is both pointless and embarrassing for the Buffalo News as well as the owner of Sky Bar. For this man to say anything to reporters during an open investigation can only be meant to be self-serving.        

 

Duke, Jameis Winston, Drew Doughty............  All accused with no convictions. I can't think of any athlete that's in prison for rape. 

 

Of course it's important to let this all play out, it hasn't stopped most from considering the fact that there are possibilities that she might be doing this for money. Case in point,  I'll get chastised for even bringing it up but nobody would say one thing if I said Kane was guilty. Bringing up trade rumors is different from discussing trade possibilities. I'm not bringing up trade rumors. 

 

I watched the movie Demolition Man 15—20 years ago whenever it came out and though it was a crazy movie. Now I watch it and think, man this movie is playing out eerily accurate. When will it get to the point where we have disclaimers and third party mediators to set up a sequel encounter? We've got people saying that getting flirty and hands at a bar isn't a sign they want to sleep with you. And now we know that this girl voluntarily went back to his house. Of course a lot can happen  from that point to the point where they got physical. She may have changed her mind, he may have forced himself on her knowing she changed her mind. But short of brokering a sexual encounter with forms and a 3rd party, what kind of impression is somebody supposed to get? Did she think she was going over to clean his pool? We don't know what happened after they got to his house. He could be completely guilty. But at some point the woman needs to say to herself maybe I shouldn't be going back to his place. 

 

That part we're not assuming because we know she went back to his place. 

 

And I'm not going to reiterate that I'm not condoning his actions or placing blame on her. I've mentioned it enough times already.  :flirt:

[Beukebamboom]

The catering job and SkyBar patronage just istn't enough for Croce to care about, I don't think.  Maybe there's more that I'm not seeing. 

[Hoss]

The catering job and SkyBar patronage just istn't enough for Croce to care about, I don't think.  Maybe there's more that I'm not seeing. 

There is no way Croce can claim he has no skin in this when something that happened allegedly started from an encounter at his bar and was followed up with catering to the home. He has skin in this. He has a reason to say certain things.

[Beukebamboom]

Oh I grant you that point.  When people say, "I've got no skin in this," is like when people say, "I'm just being honest."  It's to spin a situation in one's favor. 

 

I'm skeptical of Croce, and I don't particularly like the guy, but I wouldn't just throw his testimony out of court.  It should be heard, just not taken as the honest truth.  The alleged incident didn't take place at the SkyBar, as you know, so it would just be a piece in the puzzle, and would need to be evaluated.  I just wouldn't toss it out yet, but I don't know the whole facts, and am not very close to the situation.  Still, no rush to judgement.  The wheels of justice turn slow, but they'll grind whatever needs grinding.

[deluca67]

Duke, Jameis Winston, Drew Doughty............  All accused with no convictions. I can't think of any athlete that's in prison for rape. 

 

Of course it's important to let this all play out, it hasn't stopped most from considering the fact that there are possibilities that she might be doing this for money. Case in point,  I'll get chastised for even bringing it up but nobody would say one thing if I said Kane was guilty. Bringing up trade rumors is different from discussing trade possibilities. I'm not bringing up trade rumors. 

 

I watched the movie Demolition Man 15—20 years ago whenever it came out and though it was a crazy movie. Now I watch it and think, man this movie is playing out eerily accurate. When will it get to the point where we have disclaimers and third party mediators to set up a sequel encounter? We've got people saying that getting flirty and hands at a bar isn't a sign they want to sleep with you. And now we know that this girl voluntarily went back to his house. Of course a lot can happen  from that point to the point where they got physical. She may have changed her mind, he may have forced himself on her knowing she changed her mind. But short of brokering a sexual encounter with forms and a 3rd party, what kind of impression is somebody supposed to get? Did she think she was going over to clean his pool? We don't know what happened after they got to his house. He could be completely guilty. But at some point the woman needs to say to herself maybe I shouldn't be going back to his place. 

 

That part we're not assuming because we know she went back to his place. 

 

And I'm not going to reiterate that I'm not condoning his actions or placing blame on her. I've mentioned it enough times already.  :flirt:

There is where I think you are wrong, I don't see anyone saying "Kane is guilty." There just hasn't been any evidence made available to substantiate that conclusion. All we have is a filed complaint and a NHL player with a history of poor decisions and a complainant we know absolutely nothing about.

 

Just because a woman goes off with a man it's not an automatic invitation for sex. Apparently this woman didn't go to Kane's house alone, if the reports are true. When a girl brings a friend it's usually means nothing is going to happen.  

 

And please remember, a failure to prosecute or convict is not the equivalent to innocence/a false report. The burden of proof in cases like this is enormous, unless there is overwhelming physical evidence it is very tough to prosecute or convict. Unfortunately, prosecutors know it would be difficult to find 12 jurors without strong physical evidence and a victim of impeccable character.  As you asked, is it the woman's responsibility to know better than to go to the man's home, it takes only one juror to feel that way to through a wrench into the prosecutions case.    

[Hoss]

Oh I grant you that point.  When people say, "I've got no skin in this," is like when people say, "I'm just being honest."  It's to spin a situation in one's favor. 

 

I'm skeptical of Croce, and I don't particularly like the guy, but I wouldn't just throw his testimony out of court.  It should be heard, just not taken as the honest truth.  The alleged incident didn't take place at the SkyBar, as you know, so it would just be a piece in the puzzle, and would need to be evaluated.  I just wouldn't toss it out yet, but I don't know the whole facts, and am not very close to the situation.  Still, no rush to judgement.  The wheels of justice turn slow, but they'll grind whatever needs grinding.

His testimony is circumstantial at best. And it wasn't a testimony, it was comments to a journalist.

If the defense calls him to the stand after reading that article it's because they want to provide witness evidence that Kane wasn't that drunk. Nothing else he said has value to them because he admitted he has no clue who the girl was or if she was the alleged victim. He's a celebrity. Of course human beings gravitate toward him when he/she enters their territory. Croce did it, too.

 

Disclaimer: I'm probably wrong. I don't have a wide base of knowledge when it comes to law and the court systems.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Hoss

[deluca67]

Oh I grant you that point.  When people say, "I've got no skin in this," is like when people say, "I'm just being honest."  It's to spin a situation in one's favor. 

 

I'm skeptical of Croce, and I don't particularly like the guy, but I wouldn't just throw his testimony out of court.  It should be heard, just not taken as the honest truth.  The alleged incident didn't take place at the SkyBar, as you know, so it would just be a piece in the puzzle, and would need to be evaluated.  I just wouldn't toss it out yet, but I don't know the whole facts, and am not very close to the situation.  Still, no rush to judgement.  The wheels of justice turn slow, but they'll grind whatever needs grinding.

What Croce saw, or thinks he saw, is irrelevant unless part of the complaint is that Kane took the women to his home against her will. I doubt Croce is a mind reader or qualified in any way to determine what the woman who filed the complaint was thinking.   

His testimony is circumstantial at best. And it wasn't a testimony, it was comments to a journalist.

If the defense calls him to the stand after reading that article it's because they want to provide witness evidence that Kane wasn't that drunk. Nothing else he said has value to them because he admitted he has no clue who the girl was or if she was the alleged victim. He's a celebrity. Of course human beings gravitate toward him when he/she enters their territory. Croce did it, too.

 

Disclaimer: I'm probably wrong. I don't have a wide base of knowledge when it comes to law and the court systems.

Have you watched Law & Order? If so, no disclaimer needed.  :thumbsup:

[That Aud Smell]

Eleven. Agreed it's a tenuous claim. I'd still be naming them, if there were a colorable basis.

 

Hoss. I love the Jim Croce lyric drop.

 

Glad to hear Graham slammed Croce's take.

[tom webster]

I'm no big fan of Croce but to say that his catering a party equates to him having "skin" in the game is ridiculous. I would be surprised if he even knew that one of his places was doing the catering unless he was invited to the party. He surely doesn't wake up in the morning thinking his financial well being hinges on his profit from one catering gig.

[JJFIVEOH]

There is where I think you are wrong, I don't see anyone saying "Kane is guilty." There just hasn't been any evidence made available to substantiate that conclusion. All we have is a filed complaint and a NHL player with a history of poor decisions and a complainant we know absolutely nothing about.

 

Just because a woman goes off with a man it's not an automatic invitation for sex. Apparently this woman didn't go to Kane's house alone, if the reports are true. When a girl brings a friend it's usually means nothing is going to happen.  

 

And please remember, a failure to prosecute or convict is not the equivalent to innocence/a false report. The burden of proof in cases like this is enormous, unless there is overwhelming physical evidence it is very tough to prosecute or convict. Unfortunately, prosecutors know it would be difficult to find 12 jurors without strong physical evidence and a victim of impeccable character.  As you asked, is it the woman's responsibility to know better than to go to the man's home, it takes only one juror to feel that way to through a wrench into the prosecutions case.    

 

You're right, nobody is saying Kane is guity. And I never said anybody did. But, very few are willing to acknlowledge that this women might have an ulterior motive. In fact throughout this entire thread, any time the direction turns in favor of Kane the majority have come to her defense like a motive isn't even a possibility.

 

I agree with you that just because she goes to his house isn't an invitation for sex. But there is such thing as common sense and personal responsibililty. Are you going to feel bad for me if I go to Overtown at 4AM with $5,000 in my wallet, my laptop under my arm, cell phone in pocket and come back empty handed with my throat slit? You shouldn't because it was stupid on my part for doing it. There are some things you just don't do if you know there might be consequences that you won't like. That doesn't give Kane the right, but this never would have happened if she used some common sense. It seems like nowadays nobody is ever held accountable for not using common sense.

 

A failure to prosecute isn't the equivalent of innocence...... nor is it the equivalent of guilt. People abuse the system every single day to make a buck. People make millions every day with frivilous lawsuits and settlements. Companies aren't willing to spend the money and time on a lawsuit if somebody tries to him them up for $5,000,000 for tripping on a curb. If Kane didn't do anything but doesn't want to drag this out, of course he'll settle just to get it over with. Why? Because he can.

 

I'm not implying that this is the case, that this woman is looking to make a buck. I just wish people here would admit that it just might be a possibility. Like somebody said earlier, the older I get, the less I trust society to do the right thing.

[Hoss]

I'm no big fan of Croce but to say that his catering a party equates to him having "skin" in the game is ridiculous. I would be surprised if he even knew that one of his places was doing the catering unless he was invited to the party. He surely doesn't wake up in the morning thinking his financial well being hinges on his profit from one catering gig.

Considering Kane was to have a private party at SkyBar last night before this all came out and after Croce and Kane spent time together a week ago, he knew. Do you REALLY think that a rich business owner in a city with little in the way of "celebrities" isn't aware when his business has the opportunity to cater to (more than just food) a millionaire? Come on now.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Hoss

[3putt]

His testimony is circumstantial at best. And it wasn't a testimony, it was comments to a journalist.

If the defense calls him to the stand after reading that article it's because they want to provide witness evidence that Kane wasn't that drunk. Nothing else he said has value to them because he admitted he has no clue who the girl was or if she was the alleged victim. He's a celebrity. Of course human beings gravitate toward him when he/she enters their territory. Croce did it, too.

 

Disclaimer: I'm probably wrong. I don't have a wide base of knowledge when it comes to law and the court systems.

when it comes to witness testimony or any evidence, the first threshold is relevance. Is the evidence supportive of the truth of the matter asserted. If relevant, it must pass a second test and be admissible. Certain evidence can be relevant but lack credibility to the point that introduction would be unfair to the party against whom it is introduced. Hearsay is the classic example because the offering witness lacks first hand knowledge. If evidence is inadmissible, there are exceptions such as effect on the Listener etc. In your example, I can see little relevance in Croce's testimony in a criminal trial. A civil matter maybe. Keep digging.

I'm no big fan of Croce but to say that his catering a party equates to him having "skin" in the game is ridiculous. I would be surprised if he even knew that one of his places was doing the catering unless he was invited to the party. He surely doesn't wake up in the morning thinking his financial well being hinges on his profit from one catering gig.

it is more about brand equity than cash for services. He was tweeting about the cup coming to his establishment before the incident broke. He was leveraging media, albeit social, to leverage celebrity to his advantage. After the news broke he had the choice to distance himself or put more chips in the pot. He tried to do both.