Updated Evander Kane Cleared in Sex Offense Investigation

[That Aud Smell]

Exactly, and i'm not sure how to craft a rule prohibiting such things, since the exceptions would almost certainly swallow any new rule.

Two good points. In a row.

[Doohicksie]

I'm not talking about the report of the leak, but the leak itself.  The information about the investigation should be considered privileged and that prematurely disclosing that information should be subject to prosecution.  I understand "defamation" itself is difficult to establish, but I don't believe the legal understanding of defamation covers situations like these and needs to be amended/reconsidered/redefined. 

 

It's simply ridiculous to accept the current reality of the seriousness of the charge out-weighing the nature of the evidence and/or the facts.  I thought we might have learned from Salem witch trials.

It's not news-worthy; it's sensationalism with the only real purpose being to draw readers/viewers.  What interest would you or I or anyone else have in this case had the investigation remained under wraps and went no-where like P. Kane's did?  Little, especially after the fact.

 

If all we had heard about P. Kane was that someone accused him of rape but the DA felt there wasn't a case worth pursuing, what would the public opinion of P. Kane be then?  I would think it would be FAR less vitriolic and divisive than it is now, and ultimately less interesting.  It would be a minor footnote to the P. Kane story than a major pock-mark.

 

I am not a lawyer, and only occasionally claim to be a rocket scientist, but the leak itself *might* be grounds for dismissal for the source who leaked the info, if the Buffalo PD could establish with certainty who did it, and if the BPD clearly established (either specifically or by policy) that such information is not to be shared by BPD employees with the public. 

 

As for Salem witch trials comparisons, no one is trying to execute Kane based on sketchy information; that comparison is kind of ridiculous.

 

It *is* newsworthy.  Compare this with Watergate.  The journalists who broke that story did so based on their own investigation, not something the police did.  They had even less official information to go on than TBN.

 

As for the effect on Kane's reputation, let's let this play out and see what happens.

Having said that, from the BPD's perspective, once it received the leaked info, I think it's undeniably newsworthy. 

 

You mean TBN?

But the BPD has no obligation  to keep the information confidential to begin with.  It could have held a press conference and announced it, if it wanted to.

 

Not sure about that.  Do they have "classifications" of information?  I would expect that there are policies about what can be released and what cannot, and more importantly, WHO is allowed to divulge the information (i.e., most BPD employees are not allowed to divulge information regarding investigations to the press or public without specific authorization).  I would think that unless the person was specifically authorized to reveal the information, they would be at risk of losing their job or other discipline.

Edited December 28, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[darksabre]

A good police department would have internal policy about divulging information related to investigations. Ideally we shouldn't know anything about this until a official statement is released. 

The BPD is not a good police department. 

Such is the case in most rust-belt cities. Underfunded, understaffed, and poorly staffed. 

[Eleven]

I am not a lawyer, and only occasionally claim to be a rocket scientist, but the leak itself *might* be grounds for dismissal for the source who leaked the info, if the Buffalo PD could establish with certainty who did it, and if the BPD clearly established (either specifically or by policy) that such information is not to be shared by BPD employees with the public. 

 

As for Salem witch trials comparisons, no one is trying to execute Kane based on sketchy information; that comparison is kind of ridiculous.

 

It *is* newsworthy.  Compare this with Watergate.  The journalists who broke that story did so based on their own investigation, not something the police did.  They had even less official information to go on than TBN.

 

As for the effect on Kane's reputation, let's let this play out and see what happens.

 

You mean TBN?

 

Not sure about that.  Do they have "classifications" of information?  I would expect that there are policies about what can be released and what cannot, and more importantly, WHO is allowed to divulge the information (i.e., most BPD employees are not allowed to divulge information regarding investigations to the press or public without specific authorization).  I would think that unless the person was specifically authorized to reveal the information, they would be at risk of losing their job or other discipline.

 

I certainly think the leaker could be subject to discipline.

[Doohicksie]

A good police department would have internal policy about divulging information related to investigations. Ideally we shouldn't know anything about this until a official statement is released. 

 

The BPD is not a good police department. 

 

Such is the case in most rust-belt cities. Underfunded, understaffed, and poorly staffed. 

 

Oh, I would think they have the policies in place.  Whether they expend the resources to enforce them is another matter.  Given that this is the second high profile leak though, they might investigate this time.

[nfreeman]

But the BPD has no obligation  to keep the information confidential to begin with.  It could have held a press conference and announced it, if it wanted to.

Exactly, and i'm not sure how to craft a rule prohibiting such things, since the exceptions would almost certainly swallow any new rule. 

 

These are indeed good points.  I think they beg the question:  should it be OK for a police department to disclose that person X is under investigation for a crime?  I haven't really thought about it before, so I'm not sure what the right answer is. 

 

I do think, though, that there is a problem with asymmetrical disclosure -- i.e. all we know now is that EK is under investigation for a pretty awful crime -- but we don't know any of the other facts surrounding the accusation, e.g. the identity of the accuser, her version of events, his version of events, any external evidence, the identities of the investigating cops, their historic level of competence, etc. 

 

In other words, it doesn't seem right that the only fact we know is the one that puts EK in a very bad light, while everything else is hidden from public consideration.  Maybe the right answer is not to disclose anything until they disclose everything.

[Eleven]

These are indeed good points.  I think they beg the question:  should it be OK for a police department to disclose that person X is under investigation for a crime?  I haven't really thought about it before, so I'm not sure what the right answer is. 

 

I do think, though, that there is a problem with asymmetrical disclosure -- i.e. all we know now is that EK is under investigation for a pretty awful crime -- but we don't know any of the other facts surrounding the accusation, e.g. the identity of the accuser, her version of events, his version of events, any external evidence, the identities of the investigating cops, their historic level of competence, etc. 

 

In other words, it doesn't seem right that the only fact we know is the one that puts EK in a very bad light, while everything else is hidden from public consideration.  Maybe the right answer is not to disclose anything until they disclose everything.

 

I have a problem with asymmetric disclosure, too.  I mean, it's one thing if the paper says that Joe Smith is arrested for robbing the Tops on Niagara Street.  We know the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim.

 

Disclosing just one of the parties isn't fair.

 

It seems like BPD recognizes this, though, otherwise it wouldn't be a "leak," right?

[Patty16]

I have a problem with asymmetric disclosure, too.  I mean, it's one thing if the paper says that Joe Smith is arrested for robbing the Tops on Niagara Street.  We know the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim.

 

Disclosing just one of the parties isn't fair.

 

It seems like BPD recognizes this, though, otherwise it wouldn't be a "leak," right?

 

True, but rape/sexual assault is different than robbery of a store. Many time people who are robbed aren't identified either. And it's my understanding that the BPD confirmed an investigation, it's not like they held a PC to announce it.  Yes i kow they are the likely source of it anyway.....

 

Do you think mandatory disclosure of alleged rape victims names does more good than harm?  Would it not then prevent rape victims from coming forward especially in high profile cases knowing they will become celebrities and endure tons of hate mail/social media backlash? 

 

Those are the issues to be balanced, and there's def no perfect way to do that. 

[bob_sauve28]

No way to ever prevent a leak, just ask Nixon. They are going to happen in any organization

[Robviously]

Sorry if these are dumb questions, but I've seen "No report has been filed at this time" on Twitter a couple times.  I understand what "no charges at this time" means but what does "No report" mean?  What has to be filed or done to start this investigation?  And how does the report fit in?  

[bob_sauve28]

Sorry if these are dumb questions, but I've seen "No report has been filed at this time" on Twitter a couple times.  I understand what "no charges at this time" means but what does "No report" mean?  What has to be filed or done to start this investigation?  And how does the report fit in?  

He beat her up so badly while raping her that they could not take a statement? Or something like that. Just wild speculation on my part but good question

[ubkev]

He beat her up so badly while raping her that they could not take a statement? Or something like that. Just wild speculation on my part but good question

I am probably sick and demented, but this made me laugh hysterically and I don't know why. Can't explain it. Just struck me as funny at the time.

[Doohicksie]

These are indeed good points.  I think they beg the question:  should it be OK for a police department to disclose that person X is under investigation for a crime?  I haven't really thought about it before, so I'm not sure what the right answer is. 

 

I do think, though, that there is a problem with asymmetrical disclosure -- i.e. all we know now is that EK is under investigation for a pretty awful crime -- but we don't know any of the other facts surrounding the accusation, e.g. the identity of the accuser, her version of events, his version of events, any external evidence, the identities of the investigating cops, their historic level of competence, etc. 

 

In other words, it doesn't seem right that the only fact we know is the one that puts EK in a very bad light, while everything else is hidden from public consideration.  Maybe the right answer is not to disclose anything until they disclose everything.

 

I don't think what the public knows has any bearing on the case, up to the point that a jury is seated.  And then if you can't seat a jury that doesn't know anything about the case you change venues.

 

I agree with your last statement though.  We shouldn't even know this is going on.

Disclosing just one of the parties isn't fair.

 

Disclosing the identity of a rape victim isn't exactly fair either.

[#freejame]

He beat her up so badly while raping her that they could not take a statement? Or something like that. Just wild speculation on my part but good question

You aren't serious with this, right? 

[Doohicksie]

You aren't serious with this, right? 

 

I'm guessing not, since he labeled it "wild speculation."

[Patty16]

Sorry if these are dumb questions, but I've seen "No report has been filed at this time" on Twitter a couple times.  I understand what "no charges at this time" means but what does "No report" mean?  What has to be filed or done to start this investigation?  And how does the report fit in?  

 

The BPD was made aware of the situation by someone who came forward. This likely means it was not the victim, who would typically file a report/complaint.  its been reported they have his vehicle in custody so likely the incident took place in there. 

[MattPie]

No way to ever prevent a leak, just ask Nixon. They are going to happen in any organization

 

Complete stop? Probably not. But if you make the penalty enough the leaks will slow down. If the penalty for leaking is "hey, don't do it again" there will be more leaks than summary dismissal and some misdemeanor charge (something that sounds like "mishandling official information").

[#freejame]

I'm guessing not, since he labeled it "wild speculation."

I figured as much, but I thought it best to make sure before commenting on it one way or the other. 

[Patty16]

Complete stop? Probably not. But if you make the penalty enough the leaks will slow down. If the penalty for leaking is "hey, don't do it again" there will be more leaks than summary dismissal and some misdemeanor charge (something that sounds like "mishandling official information").

 

Yet to prove a case against that person you would need a smoking gun email text etc.  Most reporters wont divulge their sources either since they are protected by a NY reporter's shield law. (it does have exceptions). 

[bob_sauve28]

You aren't serious with this, right? 

nope

[Eleven]

True, but rape/sexual assault is different than robbery of a store. Many time people who are robbed aren't identified either. And it's my understanding that the BPD confirmed an investigation, it's not like they held a PC to announce it.  Yes i kow they are the likely source of it anyway.....

 

Do you think mandatory disclosure of alleged rape victims names does more good than harm?  Would it not then prevent rape victims from coming forward especially in high profile cases knowing they will become celebrities and endure tons of hate mail/social media backlash? 

 

Those are the issues to be balanced, and there's def no perfect way to do that. 

 

 

I don't think what the public knows has any bearing on the case, up to the point that a jury is seated.  And then if you can't seat a jury that doesn't know anything about the case you change venues.

 

I agree with your last statement though.  We shouldn't even know this is going on.

 

Disclosing the identity of a rape victim isn't exactly fair either.

 

Of course not.

[Patty16]

Of course not.

 

 

As i reread the bolded part, i think my tone wasn't conveyed properly.  I was trying to be more academic/professorial than insinuating those were your thoughts.  

 

My bad eleven.

[#freejame]

nope

Between some peoples opinions of E.Kane and some of the things said during the P.Kane ordeal, you can never be too sure. 

[bob_sauve28]

Between some peoples opinions of E.Kane and some of the things said during the P.Kane ordeal, you can never be too sure. 

It is a message board so I understand.

[Norcal]

For all involved I hope this is all a big misunderstanding and no further info about either party is leaked during the remainder of the investigation. Its not fair to form opinions either way nor should it be allowed to "leak" info about either party involved. By the time the investigation is complete the "court" of public opinion will have solved this case umpteen thousand ways.