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

[That Aud Smell]

The News story is pretty thin right now. What "misrepresentations"?

No specifics yet.

[nfreeman]

This is starting to sound like some clumsy attempt to get money from Kane. Who's the Jeff Gillooly in this case?

If the assertion about no Kane DNA below the waist is true, that plus her attorney resigning = increasing likelihood that you are right.

[WildCard]

Wait is that confirmed? Another guys DNA was found?

[...]

As best I can tell: The bag itself was associated with the accuser, but it likely never have ever contained the rape kit. It probably didn't. It may have contained her clothes, maybe?

 

Eoannou is adamant that the accuser didn't lie to him. Pretty clearly saying the Mom did.

 

Possible that accuser lives with her Mom, and had this bad in her possession all along?

 

Sheesh.

That makes sense. She likely went home in scrubs, and whatever wasn't considered evidence at the time was put in an "extra" evidence bag for her to take with her.

[JJFIVEOH]

Let's just hope it doesn't end like Contact did

 

I'd love to be in the desert staring at the sky in a '68 Impala convertible.

[...]

Wait is that confirmed? Another guys DNA was found?

I think it was Cambria who said it outright yesterday. I think he said two other males.

[TrueBlueGED]

I love how the mother's dishonesty apparently means the accuser herself is a gold digging fraud. C'mon people.

[nfreeman]

I love how the mother's dishonesty apparently means the accuser herself is a gold digging fraud. C'mon people.

If you're referring to me, I only said the likelihood is increasing -- and I based that on the DNA plus the attorney resigning, which is a highly unusual situation.

[That Aud Smell]

Not as an evidentiary matter.

 

But people will think: Apple, tree.

[...]

I love how the mother's dishonesty apparently means the accuser herself is a gold digging fraud. C'mon people.

I haven't gone there, but the "other males' DNA" found inside her, while Kane's was not; a lying mother; and a high-profile lawyer quitting because of, essentially, integrity issues, are not painting a pretty picture of a lily-white doe.

[pastajoe]

There's certainly enough reasonable doubt.

[LTS]

I don't think this logically follows.  If the "kit" was sealed in the bag, it would have to have been opened at some point to be examined.  Whether the bag was considered part of the "kit" would lend question to the completeness of the evidence, but not necessarily impugn the remaining items.  Not disagreeing with the remaining discourse just pointing out that the initial premise may not be true. 

 

I see what you are saying. I think my assumption also included that the the original bag would not have been discarded, but you are correct.  If the protocol does not require that the original bag be kept as part of the evidence chain then it could be true. (That's what you were pointing out right?)

 

I love how the mother's dishonesty apparently means the accuser herself is a gold digging fraud. C'mon people.

 

 

I haven't gone there, but the "other males' DNA" found inside her, while Kane's was not; a lying mother; and a high-profile lawyer quitting because of, essentially, integrity issues, are not painting a pretty picture of a lily-white doe.

 

I'm not there yet either (although I did hypothesize about that before).  Still, I am kind of at the same point as sizzle.  It seems plausible that the Mother found some way to try and discredit the initial reports about DNA by possibly suggesting that rape kit was tampered with.

 

This is going to get a bit stranger before it becomes clear.  The lawyers involved have the ability to act quickly whereas the DA has to be a bit more cautious.  So, I am sure they will find something out.  

 

I love the accuser's lawyer quitting though.  I mean, he pretty much said the mother cannot be trusted on the story of how she obtained the bag.  

[TrueBlueGED]

If you're referring to me, I only said the likelihood is increasing -- and I based that on the DNA plus the attorney resigning, which is a highly unusual situation.

 

My post was unfairly strong because some of the pure idiocy I'm seeing on twitter got me all riled up, so I apologize for that. That said, I don't know how you or anyone else can conclude increasing (or decreasing, really) likelihood of anything without actually knowing what the accuser's claim is. I think it's pretty obvious a couple of people here (not you) have made up their minds, which is kinda nutty based on the limited and spotty information we have about the case.

 

Regarding the attorney resigning, if Tim Graham is to be believed (I have a healthy skepticism of everything coming out of TBN regarding this case at this point) Mr. Eoannou was representing the family as a whole in an advisory role because someone in his offices knows the family. If that's the case, it makes at least a little (and I stress a little) sense that he'd drop out if a part of the family misled him. In any event, I think it's safe to say his resignation hurts the accuser's credibility in the court of public opinion, regardless of how fair or valid such a result may be.

 

 

I haven't gone there, but the "other males' DNA" found inside her, while Kane's was not; a lying mother; and a high-profile lawyer quitting because of, essentially, integrity issues, are not painting a pretty picture of a lily-white doe.

 

Was "other males' DNA" actually confirmed, or something spouted by Cambria? I read that the specific test Cambria referenced in his presser is not used to identify a specific person. I have it quoted here: 

 

 

First, the DNA test conducted on fluid taken from the "below the waist"---vaginal area, ###### area, or both---was a Y-STR analysis. (Kane's attorney butchered the type of test---I think he mistakenly called it "Y Cell.") This type of DNA analysis tests male lineage. Kane's attorney said it indicated that Kane's DNA was not found below the waist, but this type of test couldn't prove that his DNA WAS below the waist. Instead, the best it could do would be to define a class of males of the same lineage who could have contributed the DNA. So if the People used this type of test it could be that Kane's attorney spoke accurately when he said that Kane has not been identified as the contributor of the "below the waist" DNA, but I suppose it's possible that Kane could still be part of the group of males from which that DNA came.

 

I don't know as to the accuracy of this, but I haven't heard the "other male DNA" stuff outside of Cambria, so it's plausible the information I quoted is accurate and Cambria is just doing his job. It's just getting back to my general sense that we have no flippin' idea what's going on because of the limited information we have, and reinforces my view that the manner in which information has leaked (and TBN's decision to publish as such) is pretty awful.

 

Edit: I hope Sedita gives us something useful tomorrow, that it's limited to clearing up the cluster of the evidence bag, and everyone involved shuts the hell up until the grand jury process is complete. I expect, at the very least, my last wish there is a pipe dream.

Edited September 25, 2015 by TrueBlueGED

[beerme1]

And now Cambria is holding court. These are all billable hours. These are all billable hours.

And I think it wraps up tomorrow with Sedita saying no charges being laid.

[Sabresince70]

If the bag did contain a piece of clothing (hers) or another item of hers, and it was determined that it held no value in evidence, I could see it being returned to her. That would fit with her name on the label, the bar code for it being entered into the property/evidence room (the last entry would be "returned to owner") and if something was "missing" from the label (returned to owner) it would fit without any LE misconduct (and would also allow the DA to show the evidence was accounted for (that bag would have its own number - they would know exactly what was contained inside). 

 

We wouldn't give the item back in the bag, but I could see it happening. Not sure that the nurse's name would have been on it, but maybe an ear ring or like item would have been removed, by a nurse, in which case it, too, would fit. Seemed like a large bag for that, but hard to size the picture, and you never know what bags they had available.

[...]

Was "other males' DNA" actually confirmed, or something spouted by Cambria? I read that the specific test Cambria referenced in his presser is not used to identify a specific person. I have it quoted here: 

 

 

I don't know as to the accuracy of this, but I haven't heard the "other male DNA" stuff outside of Cambria, so it's plausible the information I quoted is accurate and Cambria is just doing his job. It's just getting back to my general sense that we have no flippin' idea what's going on because of the limited information we have, and reinforces my view that the manner in which information has leaked (and TBN's decision to publish as such) is pretty awful.

It's been over 24 hours since this was confirmed by Cambria, and longer since the original leak/rumour manifested. If it weren't true, you can bet Eoannou would have been all over it only because it would influence a potential jury. Even the DA might interject if it weren't accurate because of the potential damage to the case it could lay. It's a big deal if this is to become a jury trial.

 

Also, Eoannou, was definitely representing the accuser. He went before the world speaking on behalf of the accuser.

 

From WGRZ:

 

"From the statements Mr. Eoannou made tonight," Cambria said, "somebody attempted to use him to fabricate or obstruct and undermine the science. He obviously now has made a clear statement that, ethically, he had to withdraw. To me that means, and I think logically it means, that the integrity of the accusations has been completely undermined."

[TrueBlueGED]

It's been over 24 hours since this was confirmed by Cambria, and longer since the original leak/rumour manifested. If it weren't true, you can bet Eoannou would have been all over it only because it would influence a potential jury. Even the DA might interject if it weren't accurate because of the potential damage to the case it could lay. It's a big deal if this is to become a jury trial.

 

Also, Eoannou, was definitely representing the accuser. He went before the world speaking on behalf of the accuser.

 

From WGRZ:

 

"From the statements Mr. Eoannou made tonight," Cambria said, "somebody attempted to use him to fabricate or obstruct and undermine the science. He obviously now has made a clear statement that, ethically, he had to withdraw. To me that means, and I think logically it means, that the integrity of the accusations has been completely undermined."

 

I'm just not so sure about that. Cambria just tonight in his presser claimed that the biting leak from what, three weeks ago, was untrue and potentially harmful to Kane's case. Do we have any reason to believe Eoannou would move at light speed to deny this particular claim when Cambria didn't with something else, and Eoannou himself had been silent until the evidence bag fiasco? And Sedita has been totally silent on every leak to this point, so I disagree that this particular leak would be shouted down from the rooftops.

 

On a lighter note, every time I type "Eoannou" I think I'm spelling it wrong...and at least 50% of the time I actually am.

[Eleven]

♫ We're having a ###### show, a tropical ###### show ... ♫

Edited September 25, 2015 by Eleven

[That Aud Smell]

Eleven, 3putt, et al.:

Eoannou cited his ethical obligation to withdraw.

Need he "withdraw" when there had been no appearance?

Also, was it unethical of him to place his former client's (clients'?) interests in a negative light like that? Why not just issue a press release stating: "I no longer represent the accuser in the Pat Kane matter. Owing to my obligation to maintain client confidences, I will have no further comment on this matter."

 

Edit: I've looked again at some of these rules. I think he did actually have a basis for saying what he said last night. He'd been made the mouthpiece of a fraud; he was probably entitled to withdraw what he said and explain why.

I mean, I think I know *why* he did what he did, but ... didn't seem right to me.

Finally, did you see the statement from the family? It read to me like they have civil counsel.

Edited September 25, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[sicknfla]

If this plays out the way it appears it is going to I think Kane has a stronger civil suit than the accuser.

[shrader]

I haven't gone there, but the "other males' DNA" found inside her, while Kane's was not; a lying mother; and a high-profile lawyer quitting because of, essentially, integrity issues, are not painting a pretty picture of a lily-white doe.

 

Have we ever actually heard anything credible stating that the accusation was against Kane and Kane alone?

[LGR4GM]

If this plays out the way it appears it is going to I think Kane has a stronger civil suit than the accuser.

I think we should hold off on that line of thought for now.  I heard the DA is supposed to speak at 11am today so let's see what he has to say.  We don't have enough facts yet.  A lot of hearsay in the last couple of pages. 

 

I haven't gone there, but the "other males' DNA" found inside her, while Kane's was not; a lying mother; and a high-profile lawyer quitting because of, essentially, integrity issues, are not painting a pretty picture of a lily-white doe.

Again we don't know that for sure. 

 

Patience for now. Let's see what Sedita says.

Have we ever actually heard anything credible stating that the accusation was against Kane and Kane alone?

We haven't heard anything about who the accusation is formally against because the DA hasn't said.  We just know what the news as reported from its sources and from Kane's presser.  I would say Kane is clearly involved with the allegations but you make a valid point. 

[shrader]

We haven't heard anything about who the accusation is formally against because the DA hasn't said.  We just know what the news as reported from its sources and from Kane's presser.  I would say Kane is clearly involved with the allegations but you make a valid point. 

 

We all know that Kane is involved.  And I know that the DA hasn't said anything, they can't.  I just wonder if any of the leaks ever mentioned anyone else.  I haven't clicked on every story, so I don't know what so called information is out there.

[shrader]

If the bag did contain a piece of clothing (hers) or another item of hers, and it was determined that it held no value in evidence, I could see it being returned to her. That would fit with her name on the label, the bar code for it being entered into the property/evidence room (the last entry would be "returned to owner") and if something was "missing" from the label (returned to owner) it would fit without any LE misconduct (and would also allow the DA to show the evidence was accounted for (that bag would have its own number - they would know exactly what was contained inside). 

 

We wouldn't give the item back in the bag, but I could see it happening. Not sure that the nurse's name would have been on it, but maybe an ear ring or like item would have been removed, by a nurse, in which case it, too, would fit. Seemed like a large bag for that, but hard to size the picture, and you never know what bags they had available.

 

I'm sure it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I just noticed now that it was in fact a paper evidence bag.  That's what I get for skimming through video clips, the lawyer had the paper bag inside of a plastic one at his press conference a few days back.

[That Aud Smell]

Have we ever actually heard anything credible stating that the accusation was against Kane and Kane alone?

 

Fair point.

 

The police had confirmed the investigation of an incident at his home, but did not say who was the subject of the investigation.

 

Kane's the only one who's had a retained lawyer speaking out about the matter. But that doesn't rule out the idea that someone else (or others) might be implicated.