Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

Just.

 

Just when you thought -- just when you thought this thing could not get any weirder, or more shady.

 

Holy mother of the living God.

 

This is unreal.

Yeah, this is like, systematic police corruption levels of shady.

 

For what its worth, the attorney thinks the bag was put there by a whistleblower trying to tell the accuser about the tampering, not as intimidation. Who knows.

Posted (edited)

For what its worth, the attorney thinks the bag was put there by a whistleblower trying to tell the accuser about the tampering, not as intimidation. Who knows.

 

I think that's the fair inference. Maybe the only one.

Edited by That Aud Smell
Posted

Yeah, this is like, systematic police corruption levels of shady.

 

Well, wait a second. This is more likely a rogue actor of some kind.

 

Also relevant: The DA was involved with this matter almost from the outset. That may be why Eoannou was calling for the State Police and/or AG and/or the FBI/DOJ to get involved. Because if the evidence was compromised, it was probably under the DA's watch that it happened.

It is for a fact then? That the bag exhibited signs of tamper? 

 

Well, that's what the attorney said. Also: The fact that the evidence bag was anywhere but with law enforcement officials is a HUGE frickin' deal.

Posted

Well, wait a second. This is more likely a rogue actor of some kind.

 

Also relevant: The DA was involved with this matter almost from the outset. That may be why Eoannou was calling for the State Police and/or AG and/or the FBI/DOJ to get involved. Because if the evidence was compromised, it was probably under the DA's watch that it happened.

 

Well, that's what the attorney said. Also: The fact that the evidence bag was anywhere but with law enforcement officials is a HUGE frickin' deal.

 

So, about Sedita's bid for State Supreme Court...

Posted (edited)

Well, wait a second. This is more likely a rogue actor of some kind.

 

Also relevant: The DA was involved with this matter almost from the outset. That may be why Eoannou was calling for the State Police and/or AG and/or the FBI/DOJ to get involved. Because if the evidence was compromised, it was probably under the DA's watch that it happened.

 

That doesn't sound like a rogue actor to me. If you're referring to the bag being dropped off I agree, but if the tampering was under the DA"s watch that seems pretty corrupt to me.

 

Obviously I dont KNOW thats the truth, but if it takes some lone wolf whistleblower to anonymously report drop off the bag they're not just doing it to avoid a scolding from the boss. They feel they can't go to the higher ups about it or else they would have. Either this person knows that the brass knows about it, or that they wouldn't care if they did. Either is bad.

 

EDIT:Again, that's a assuming that it was whistleblowing and not intimidation. THAT could certainly be some idiot cop or lab worker trying to scare the accuser into silence. If that's the case, it sure didn't work.

Edited by sabills
Posted

Despite who did what, now that the evidence has been tampered with, I assume that it is inadmissible. So unless they can show that Kane was involved with the tampering, it's down to circumstantial evidence at best.

Posted

Despite who did what, now that the evidence has been tampered with, I assume that it is inadmissible. So unless they can show that Kane was involved with the tampering, it's down to circumstantial evidence at best.

I would guess the lab that did the DNA tests and such would have duplicates of results.

Posted

Despite who did what, now that the evidence has been tampered with, I assume that it is inadmissible. So unless they can show that Kane was involved with the tampering, it's down to circumstantial evidence at best.

The first question is whether or not the evidence was tampered with prior to testing, it it was tampered with at all. And who would have figured that out? The lab tech? Is the forensics lab blowing the whistle here? 

 

So many questions. 

Posted

Despite who did what, now that the evidence has been tampered with, I assume that it is inadmissible. So unless they can show that Kane was involved with the tampering, it's down to circumstantial evidence at best.

 

I would guess the lab that did the DNA tests and such would have duplicates of results.

 

Really depends on if the tampering occurred before or after it was processed, no?

The first question is whether or not the evidence was tampered with prior to testing, it it was tampered with at all. And who would have figured that out? The lab tech? Is the forensics lab blowing the whistle here? 

 

So many questions. 

 

Beat me by that much. 

 

And yea, so many questions now. I think the FBI investigating would be a logical step (the agency furthest removed from those involved), although I expect it to be the state police.

Posted

Despite who did what, now that the evidence has been tampered with, I assume that it is inadmissible. So unless they can show that Kane was involved with the tampering, it's down to circumstantial evidence at best.

 

Depends on if Kane said he was with the girl when he met with the police. If he said that they slept together but that she consented, the rape kit doesn't do much more than prove that they slept together. Then its up to the lawyers to prove consent or no.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...