2015-16 NHL thread

[RockRaines]

Don't confuse "not being charged" with "being the victim". In cases of sexual assault, the tables don't turn like that. If that girl did feel threatened, she was still the victim.

 

Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff knowingly and maliciously lied about her situation, you cannot call Patrick Kane the victim.

Her account is directly contradicted by her friend as well as several other witnesses as well as DNA evidence. As a last ditch effort her mother fraudulently tried to set up the police dept as the fall guy. How many other things need to happen to point to this being an outright lie?

[LDF]

"here" being the key word. But again, he put himself into position to embarrass his employer on national television AGAIN. Pretending this is the only incident is disingenuous at best. I don't buy into the frat boy mentality of boys being boys when it passes the line and repeatedly becomes national news. Even if you are totally right and this was a pure set up from the very beginning, it doesn't excuse the other incidents, and the fact that this has been a pattern of behavior for Patrick Kane to put himself into stupid situations.

 

 

dang it. i said i wanted this to be done, but you are making a compelling argument.

 

the discussion is of the kane and this supposedly fake accusation of rape. it is not about the culmination of all his misdeeds.

 

2 totally different things and some are trying to pigeonhole everthing into one

[Panerista]

Her account is directly contradicted by her friend as well as several other witnesses as well as DNA evidence. As a last ditch effort her mother fraudulently tried to set up the police dept as the fall guy. How many other things need to happen to point to this being an outright lie?

Can you prove that she knowingly and maliciously lied? Can you prove that her version of the story was not a result of her mental state?

 

Until you can, Kane isn't the victim.

 

Kane would be stupid to seek any retribution, anyway. He just wants the story to go away. Last thing he needs is the more left leaning news outlets running away with this.

Edited November 6, 2015 by AustinIllini

[LDF]

Don't confuse "not being charged" with "being the victim". In cases of sexual assault, the tables don't turn like that. If that girl did feel threatened, she was still the victim.

 

Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff knowingly and maliciously lied about her situation, you cannot call Patrick Kane the victim.

 

good point of the law.

 

however there is a fine line when the victim becomes perpetrator thus making kane the victim.

[LDF]

Can you prove that she knowingly and maliciously lied? Can you prove that her version of the story was not a result of her mental state?

 

Until you can, Kane isn't the victim.

 

by science.... the results of the DNA, which is the foundation of questioning her creditably.

 

when the DNA results came back, that was the domino effect in reverse.

[RockRaines]

Can you prove that she knowingly and maliciously lied? Can you prove that her version of the story was not a result of her mental state?

 

Until you can, Kane isn't the victim.

All evidence points to her lying but no, nobody can prove that because it was her word against everyone else including scientific evidence. All we know from what happened is Kane wasnt involved in any physical contact with her and she claimed he raped her.

 

Men who are falsely accused never get called a victim of the process for some reason.

Edited November 6, 2015 by RockRaines

[LDF]

All evidence points to her lying but no, nobody can prove that because it was her word against everyone else including scientific evidence. All we know from what happened is Kane wasnt involved in any physical contact with her and she claimed he raped her.

 

Men who are falsely accused never get called a victim of the process for some reason.

 

without the tech of finding out the truth, evidence is based on science of what is on hand and creditable accounts of what happen and who is doing the telling.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I just can't believe some of the responses on here. Every shred of evidence from eye witness to scientific contradicts this woman's story. Yet somehow Kane is still not the victim even though his reputation is ruined (what little good reputation he had left) and he lost substantial money over it. He also somehow embarrassed the Blackhawks because someone made up lies about him. How the hell does that work?

 

 

[Panerista]

by science.... the results of the DNA, which is the foundation of questioning her creditably.

 

when the DNA results came back, that was the domino effect in reverse.

Right, but someone who is not credible is not necessarily malicious.

[RockRaines]

Right, but someone who is not credible is not necessarily malicious.

What would be her motivation to make up that story then?

[Panerista]

I just can't believe some of the responses on here. Every shred of evidence from eye witness to scientific contradicts this woman's story. Yet somehow Kane is still not the victim even though his reputation is ruined (what little good reputation he had left) and he lost substantial money over it. He also somehow embarrassed the Blackhawks because someone made up lies about him. How the hell does that work?

I agree the situation is really difficult. But we're kind of arguing over something relatively moot. Kane shouldn't go after his accuser because it doesn't really achieve anything. All that would do is bring more press to the story he wants to go away.

 

The last thing Kane, the Blackhawks, or the NHL wants is for this thing to become any bigger. If Gawker, the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post, or any other left leaning news source caught wind of this, the backlash could be enough to make the NHL do something.

[LDF]

Right, but someone who is not credible is not necessarily malicious.

 

ahhhhh i love it.

 

that my friend is another fine line of logic which can be discussed endlessly.

 

for me this is like the chicken or the egg discussion.

 

b/c of the many tangible discussion that it will open.

 

my biggest comment against it.

 

an analogy, the boy who cries wolf.

Edited November 6, 2015 by LDF

[Panerista]

What would be her motivation to make up that story then?

She may have felt sexually violated. I'm not sure. All I'm saying is, backlash against these kinds of accusers are generally frowned upon, because most cases like these (rape) go unreported.

[LDF]

I agree the situation is really difficult. But we're kind of arguing over something relatively moot. Kane shouldn't go after his accuser because it doesn't really achieve anything. All that would do is bring more press to the story he wants to go away.

 

The last thing Kane, the Blackhawks, or the NHL wants is for this thing to become any bigger. If Gawker, the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post, or any other left leaning news source caught wind of this, the backlash could be enough to make the NHL do something.

 

totally off related.

 

i have to give the blackhawks org props for not abandoning Kan in the beginning.

[Panerista]

ahhhhh i love it.

 

that my friend is another fine line of logic which can be discussed endlessly.

 

for me this is like the chicken or the egg discussion.

 

b/c of the many tangible discussion that it will open.

 

my biggest comment against it.

 

an analogy, the boy who cries wolf.

The problem is, in the boy who cries wolf, the boy wasn't invited to the wolf's house.

 

You seem to be taking this so personally. It's over. Kane's not going after his accuser and he's not being charged.

 

totally off related.

 

i have to give the blackhawks org props for not abandoning Kan in the beginning.

 

It's completely related if you think Kane is interested in pressing charges against his accuser. Doing so would achieve nothing and instead cause problems.

[RockRaines]

She may have felt sexually violated. I'm not sure. All I'm saying is, backlash against these kinds of accusers are generally frowned upon, because most cases like these (rape) go unreported.

Sure, I understand being sensitive to someone who genuinely felt threatened or violated. But all evidence points to Kane not being involved in that situation which is what is hard here.

[lasttriptotulsa]

totally off related.

 

i have to give the blackhawks org props for not abandoning Kan in the beginning.

 

I'm sure their reason for not suspending or trading Kane is that they were privy to information that we were not and knew what the outcome was likely to be.

[LDF]

The problem is, in the boy who cries wolf, the boy wasn't invited to the wolf's house.

 

You seem to be taking this so personally. It's over. Kane's not going after his accuser and he's not being charged.

 

 

 

It's completely related if you think Kane is interested in pressing charges against his accuser. Doing so would achieve nothing and instead cause problems.

 

nah... i am really not, i thought my comments have to really mild compare to other issues i really rant on.

 

i was having fun in a really friendly debate of the law.

 

ref bold #2. i agree. but i am questioning some of the process that we as fan are not privy to ... but oh well.

 

again, i really hope you didn't take anything i said personally.

[RockRaines]

I'm sure their reason for not suspending or trading Kane is that they were privy to information that we were not and knew what the outcome was likely to be.

Most likely they heard his side of the story and believed him, which is probably a pretty decent leap of faith there.

[cabiness42]

I agree the situation is really difficult. But we're kind of arguing over something relatively moot. Kane shouldn't go after his accuser because it doesn't really achieve anything. All that would do is bring more press to the story he wants to go away.

 

The last thing Kane, the Blackhawks, or the NHL wants is for this thing to become any bigger. If Gawker, the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post, or any other left leaning news source caught wind of this, the backlash could be enough to make the NHL do something.

 

This. If the Buffalo DA wants to go after this woman criminally for the false accusation, then that's up to him and not Kane. If Kane wants to go after her in a civil suit, that would be dumb because he opens himself up to all sorts of risk and the woman probably doesn't have any money anyway.

[LittleHurt05]

All evidence points to her lying but no, nobody can prove that because it was her word against everyone else including scientific evidence. All we know from what happened is Kane wasnt involved in any physical contact with her and she claimed he raped her.

 

Men who are falsely accused never get called a victim of the process for some reason.

 

FYI, the DA said differently yesterday

 

While no criminal charges will be filed against Kane, there were indications from Sedita that there was some physical contact between him and the woman.

 

When asked by The Buffalo News if it was true that bite were marks found on the alleged victim’s shoulders, Sedita answered:

 

“There were bite marks or so-called ‘hickeys’ on her shoulders. Kane likely caused them.”

[shipps]

But nothing happened? Yeah okay.

[RockRaines]

FYI, the DA said differently yesterday

Ah I didnt see that.

 

I saw this piece quoted several times

 

“The totality of the credible evidence – the proof – does not sufficiently substantiate the complainant’s allegation that she was raped by Patrick Kane and this so-called ‘case’ is rife with reasonable doubt,” Sedita wrote in the statement released Thursday. “Accordingly, the Office of the Erie County District Attorney will not present this matter to an Erie County Grand Jury.”

 

Sedita listed findings of his own investigation: that there were “significant inconsistencies” between the woman’s accounts and those from other witnesses; that DNA tests did not support the claim that the woman was raped; that physical and forensic evidence contradicted the woman’s claim that she was raped in Kane’s bed and that Kane, who exercised his right to remain silent, never made incriminating statements to acquaintances or “engaged in any conduct consistent with a consciousness of guilt.”

 

Despite Sedita’s strong statement that “physical and forensic evidence … tend to contradict the complainant’s claims,” the accusation likely will continue to haunt Kane, affecting his reputation and potential for endorsements.

Edited November 6, 2015 by RockRaines

[DrunkBomber]

Kane is absolutely a victim. How does being falsely accused of one of the worst things a human being can do by some gold digger not warrant being a victim? This girl set real rape victims back 30 years, not Patrick Kane. Apparently trying to frame a rich athlete with rape isnt as bad as "what Kane did to the Blackhawks organisation" by going out with friends with security/driver during the offseason...

 

Its pretty hilarious to see the same people who were all over Kane before the facts came out pathetically trying to stick to their guns.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Kane is absolutely a victim. How does being falsely accused of one of the worst things a human being can do by some gold digger not warrant being a victim? This girl set real rape victims back 30 years, not Patrick Kane. Apparently trying to frame a rich athlete with rape isnt as bad as "what Kane did to the Blackhawks organisation" by going out with friends with security/driver during the offseason...

 

Its pretty hilarious to see the same people who were all over Kane before the facts came out pathetically trying to stick to their guns.

Yeah, I may still think that Kane is a douchebag overall, but it doesn't look like he did anything wrong in this case or even "put himself in a bad situation."