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

[Eleven]

If she ends up with the gold, I don't think that will bother her much.

 

 

Didn't someone post upthread that one of the Roethlisberger accusers still suffers greatly?

Why?

 

 but even if she does settle, that doesn't look like a gold digger, it looks like something happen. 

 

Unless he did rape her and then she has to carry that pain for the rest of her life while Kane just loses some money. 

 

Yeah that part.

 

Not jumpin' on you Robin, that's just what first came to mind.

[Doohicksie]

It's a tough call: being set for money for years vs. a 50/50 shot at putting someone away.

 

Which side really provides justice for the victim?  This turns into a philosophical discussion, but which actually provides more "justice" to the victim?  A large settlement that sets her up for life, or the satisfaction of knowing the guy who assaulted her spends time in jail?  It's hard to put yourself in that situation, but personally I think I'd take the money.

[K-9]

My guess is that the deposed witness's testimony convinced Cambria to convince Kane to make an offer too good to refuse. Gold digger or not, something uncovered in the Grand Jury proceedings brought the accuser back to the bargaining table. I doubt that something was favorable to Kane, given the DA's decision to convene the jury in the first place.

[Stoner]

I am struggling to understand how Kane, and not the criminal justice system, is driving this bus. She wants the money? Fine? Charge Kane and haul both their onto the witness stand.

Which side really provides justice for the victim?  This turns into a philosophical discussion, but which actually provides more "justice" to the victim?  A large settlement that sets her up for life, or the satisfaction of knowing the guy who assaulted her spends time in jail?  It's hard to put yourself in that situation, but personally I think I'd take the money.

Yeah that trip to Cozumel will be awesome. While you're stirring your beach drink, you can think about the next woman. Bottoms up.

[Eleven]

I am struggling to understand how Kane, and not the criminal justice system, is driving this bus. She wants the money? Fine? Charge Kane and haul both their ###### onto the witness stand.

 

No DA, ever, anywhere in the US, is going to force a rape accuser to testify.  And of course he can't put Kane on the stand.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Eleven

[K-9]

I am struggling to understand how Kane, and not the criminal justice system, is driving this bus. She wants the money? Fine? Charge Kane and haul both their ###### onto the witness stand.

 

Yeah that trip to Cozumel will be awesome. While you're stirring your beach drink, you can think about the next woman. Bottoms up.

Like it or not, deal making is at the heart of our criminal justice system.

 

That is if you have the resources to make a deal.

[MattPie]

Why?

 

 but even if she does settle, that doesn't look like a gold digger, it looks like something happen. 

 

Unless he did rape her and then she has to carry that pain for the rest of her life while Kane just loses some money. 

Which side really provides justice for the victim?  This turns into a philosophical discussion, but which actually provides more "justice" to the victim?  A large settlement that sets her up for life, or the satisfaction of knowing the guy who assaulted her spends time in jail?  It's hard to put yourself in that situation, but personally I think I'd take the money.

 

I thought about going here. There's a lot of ways people cope and how they're affected. Travelling the world for a year might be better therapy than "well, they guy is in jail". I think it's up to the individual to make that call, and judging on it is in the same league as judging other people relationships. You can't tell me what should make me happy. That being said, I'd think she could also file a civil suit either way, right?

 

I am struggling to understand how Kane, and not the criminal justice system, is driving this bus. She wants the money? Fine? Charge Kane and haul both their ###### onto the witness stand.

 

I think, realistically, there are a lot of crimes that require someone to press charges. The DA *could* go ahead without the victim, but as mentioned upthread it's rare and really difficult to win that case.

[Stoner]

No DA, ever, anywhere in the US, is going to force a rape accuser to testify.  And of course he can't put Kane on the stand.

What if it's a DA who's fed up, knows the guy did it and maybe has a wife or daughter who's been a victim of rape? (And doesn't care about getting re-elected.)

I thought about going here. There's a lot of ways people cope and how they're affected. Travelling the world for a year might be better therapy than "well, they guy is in jail". I think it's up to the individual to make that call, and judging on it is in the same league as judging other people relationships. You can't tell me what should make me happy. That being said, I'd think she could also file a civil suit either way, right?

Tell Kane to shove the money and start a gofundme. I honestly don't know how a rape victim can possibly spend that money and not be tortured by where it came from.

[That Aud Smell]

I am struggling to understand how Kane, and not the criminal justice system, is driving this bus. She wants the money? Fine? Charge Kane and haul both their ###### onto the witness stand.

No DA, ever, anywhere in the US, is going to force a rape accuser to testify.  And of course he can't put Kane on the stand.

 

Um, yeah. 

 

What if it's a DA who's fed up, knows the guy did it and maybe has a wife or daughter who's been a victim of rape? (And doesn't care about getting re-elected.)

 

The who know?

Edited September 8, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Eleven]

What if it's a DA who's fed up, knows the guy did it and maybe has a wife or daughter who's been a victim of rape? (And doesn't care about getting re-elected.)

 

 

Sedita doesn't have to worry about re-election.

 

If a hypothetical DA has a loved one who has been a victim of rape, even more reason why that DA is not going to force the accuser to testify.  It is incredibly sensitive stuff.  It is nearly mental torture for rape victims to recount their stories on the witness stand.  It's just not going to happen unless the accuser wants to testify.

[Stoner]

How is all this not conspiracy to cover up a crime? Where does the protection of society play into it? A rich guy can be a serial rapist who just pulls out his checkbook and moves on to the next victim? The criminal justice system is powerless to do anything about it?

[LGR4GM]

I thought about going here. There's a lot of ways people cope and how they're affected. Travelling the world for a year might be better therapy than "well, they guy is in jail". I think it's up to the individual to make that call, and judging on it is in the same league as judging other people relationships. You can't tell me what should make me happy. That being said, I'd think she could also file a civil suit either way, right?

Absolutely.  I think immediately labeling her a gold digger as some other posters have done is disgusting. 

[Eleven]

How is all this not conspiracy to cover up a crime? Where does the protection of society play into it? A rich guy can be a serial rapist who just pulls out his checkbook and moves on to the next victim? The criminal justice system is powerless to do anything about it?

 

We've gone over this a couple of times in this thread.  It's just the way it is.  DAs do not force rape accusers to testify.

 

Maybe here's another way to look at it:  The rape really happened, but the victim, for whatever reason (some combination no witnesses, or Kane has hired the best lawyer money can buy, or she can't think of reliving the nightmare on the stand, she thinks Sedita isn't very good, etc.) really thinks the DA won't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Shouldn't she be able to obtain some justice as opposed to none?

[Stoner]

We've gone over this a couple of times in this thread.  It's just the way it is.  DAs do not force rape accusers to testify.

 

Maybe here's another way to look at it:  The rape really happened, but the victim, for whatever reason (some combination no witnesses, or Kane has hired the best lawyer money can buy, or she can't think of reliving the nightmare on the stand, she thinks Sedita isn't very good, etc.) really thinks the DA won't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Shouldn't she be able to obtain some justice as opposed to none?

I don't see how money=justice.

[That Aud Smell]

How is all this not conspiracy to cover up a crime? Where does the protection of society play into it? A rich guy can be a serial rapist who just pulls out his checkbook and moves on to the next victim? The criminal justice system is powerless to do anything about it?

 

Good to have a reminder that the PA really stands for Pangloss.

 

Eleven covered the essence of the thing. I'll add this: This is an intersection of public policy and personal liberty. In an alleged crime like this, it's damn near impossible to compel the accuser to do anything (or, at least, anything helpful to the prosecution). If the accuser prefers to resolve the matter outside of the criminal justice system, and speak of it no more, then that's almost certainly the end of it (barring some truly unusual evidence).

[LGR4GM]

I don't see how money=justice.

How do you define justice? 

[That Aud Smell]

I don't see how money=justice.

 

Not necessarily in the criminal system, sure. But in the civil setting, money does = justice.

How do you define justice? 

 

Lord help us.

[thewookie1]

I could see this from two possible scenarios, either the case has borderline evidence which could potentially create a long judicial process which Kane wants to avoid. Or the evidence isn't a lock this the accuser wishes to get something over nothing. Potentially he could also be a Gold digger but I'm still on the fence in that regard.

It's just in the end, it seems strange that the accuser who originally said she would follow through to the end is certainly willing to negotiate negotiate.

 

There is also the chance they are both guilty and that Kane had aggressive sex with the accuser that hurt her, And although she had given consent she's decided to seek monetary compensation all the while technically dragging them both through PR mud. So I'm saying that both could be crooked for all we know.

[Stoner]

Good to have a reminder that the PA really stands for Pangloss.

 

Eleven covered the essence of the thing. I'll add this: This is an intersection of public policy and personal liberty. In an alleged crime like this, it's damn near impossible to compel the accuser to do anything (or, at least, anything helpful to the prosecution). If the accuser prefers to resolve the matter outside of the criminal justice system, and speak of it no more, then that's almost certainly the end of it (barring some truly unusual evidence).

Dude, no one gets the reference. Stop.

 

Here's an unusual scenario! A rich industrialist (and maybe even bicyclist), announces that he will randomly rape one woman a day for a year. He will stream it live using Periscope. After the rape, he will offer the woman $10 million to not press charges. This too will be streamed. Let's say the first 10 woman take the offer. Are you saying there is nothing a civilized society can or should do to stop this atrocity?

[LGR4GM]

I could see this from two possible scenarios, either the case has borderline evidence which could potentially create a long judicial process which Kane wants to avoid. Or the evidence isn't a lock this the accuser wishes to get something over nothing. Potentially he could also be a Gold digger but I'm still on the fence in that regard.

It's just in the end, it seems strange that the accuser who originally said she would follow through to the end is certainly willing to negotiate negotiate.

 

There is also the chance they are both guilty and that Kane had aggressive sex with the accuser that hurt her, And although she had given consent she's decided to seek monetary compensation all the while technically dragging them both through PR mud. So I'm saying that both could be crooked for all we know.

Or Kane is guilty and there is strong evidence to imprison him, so he is trying to pay her off because his lawyer doesn't like their chances in court. 

[Eleven]

Dude, no one gets the reference. Stop.

 

Here's an unusual scenario! A rich industrialist (and maybe even bicyclist), announces that he will randomly rape one woman a day for a year. He will stream it live using Periscope. After the rape, he will offer the woman $10 million to not press charges. This too will be streamed. Let's say the first 10 woman take the offer. Are you saying there is nothing a civilized society can or should do to stop this atrocity?

 

If he streams it live, what do you have that the DA apparently does not have here?

[Stoner]

 

Lord help us.

off.

[LGR4GM]

If he streams it live, what do you have that the DA apparently does not have here?

Call on me I know!   Video evidence. 

[Stoner]

If he streams it live, what do you have that the DA apparently does not have here?

In exchange for the money, the woman signs a statement saying it was all role-playing, just an act for the camera.

[Johnny DangerFace]

In exchange for the money, the woman signs a statement saying it was all role-playing, just an act for the camera.

Then what is your hypothetical trying to prove in the normal realistic situation...? You might as well add aliens.

 

I liked your point, but go back to it

Edited September 8, 2015 by Johnny DangerFace