Jump to content

2015-16 NHL thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 01:45 AM)
Just speculating, what kind of return can you expect for Kane acct for current circumstances?

 

imho, it will not be full value. many will try to take advantage of the hawks salary crunch at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 03:39 PM)
Kevin Matthews

1 hr · Twitter ·

 

Source: Hawks haven't asked Patrick Kane about waiving no-move clause - via @ESPN App

 

thanks for this update,

 

i suspect that the hawks will ride this out with Kane this yr, but he might be trade bait later.

Edited by LDF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 01:35 PM)
The friend of the victim is going to be interviewed before they decide to press charges or not

Would it be normal to have to issue a subpoena/compel testimony from a witness in a case like this? Generally that seems weird to me, I'd figure they'd just normally ask a witness to speak to the investigators, but I'm not certain how things go in this type of case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 12:36 PM)
Would it be normal to have to issue a subpoena/compel testimony from a witness in a case like this? Generally that seems weird to me, I'd figure they'd just normally ask a witness to speak to the investigators, but I'm not certain how things go in this type of case.

 

I have no idea what is normal in these cases, but it seems like everything about the investigation has been abnormal from the get go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 12:36 PM)
Would it be normal to have to issue a subpoena/compel testimony from a witness in a case like this? Generally that seems weird to me, I'd figure they'd just normally ask a witness to speak to the investigators, but I'm not certain how things go in this type of case.

IIRC Doughty's and Winston's cases never even got to a grand jury. This to me means that there is enough evidence against Kane to charge, but this friend hasn't been cooperating. This is a way to get her to cooperate and be a witness against Kane. If it works this could be Kane's nail in the coffin in terms of actually charging him for the rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 05:22 PM)
IIRC Doughty's and Winston's cases never even got to a grand jury. This to me means that there is enough evidence against Kane to charge, but this friend hasn't been cooperating. This is a way to get her to cooperate and be a witness against Kane. If it works this could be Kane's nail in the coffin in terms of actually charging him for the rape.

Why would the friend not cooperate with her friend in supporting her story of what happened that night? That's not much of a friend if their testimony has to be compelled, at least to me. If someone had hurt a friend of mine and I was asked by police to testify to what I'd seen I don't think I'd need to be subpoenaed to tell them what I'd seen. If it were standard procedure fine, give me the document and I'll tell you that anyway.

 

OTOH, if I see one of my friends do something and then lie about it later, such that my testimony disagrees with my friend's claim, that would seem to me to be a case where it is much more likely that my testimony under oath would need to be compelled with a subpoena.

 

Again, I don't know that, it could be standard procedure in these cases to compel testimony for whatever reason, but the latter makes more sense to me than the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 09:24 AM)
Comcast SportsNet ‏@CSNChicago 7m7 minutes ago

 

Report: Friend of alleged victim subpoenaed in investigation of #Blackhawks Patrick Kane -- http://bit.ly/1LZSbVa

 

At this point, he's not gonna be at training camp in two weeks and he's most likely doubtful for the banner raising October 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 11:03 PM)
At this point, he's not gonna be at training camp in two weeks and he's most likely doubtful for the banner raising October 7.

 

i agree.

 

wouldn't he not be allowed to leave the state until the whole investigation is over????

 

esp if it mean leaving the usa borders, regulation and restriction are still in play here.

Edited by LDF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LDF @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 06:12 PM)
i agree.

 

wouldn't he not be allowed to leave the state until the whole investigation is over????

 

esp if it mean leaving the usa borders, regulation and restriction are still in play here.

 

That doesn't even matter. The Blackhawks and/or the NHL will not let him play while a grand jury investigation is going on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 11:16 PM)
That doesn't even matter. The Blackhawks and/or the NHL will not let him play while a grand jury investigation is going on.

 

now i am not saying this is wrong, but you are prob right.

 

but i am talking about the law and nothing is going to over ride the law.

 

the nhl would be secondary to the law of the land.

 

but you are correct. this is going to be a huge pr and media productions. they, the nhl official are going to be under the magnifying glass on every step they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2015 -> 04:33 PM)
Why would the friend not cooperate with her friend in supporting her story of what happened that night? That's not much of a friend if their testimony has to be compelled, at least to me. If someone had hurt a friend of mine and I was asked by police to testify to what I'd seen I don't think I'd need to be subpoenaed to tell them what I'd seen. If it were standard procedure fine, give me the document and I'll tell you that anyway.

 

OTOH, if I see one of my friends do something and then lie about it later, such that my testimony disagrees with my friend's claim, that would seem to me to be a case where it is much more likely that my testimony under oath would need to be compelled with a subpoena.

 

Again, I don't know that, it could be standard procedure in these cases to compel testimony for whatever reason, but the latter makes more sense to me than the former.

Maybe she either doesn't want to be the one to put Kane behind bars or maybe she feels like her friend is lying but doesn't want to be the one to end the case for her friend. Regardless if she had to be subpoenaed it means she didn't want to give out much information to the police initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...