Patrick Kane - Possible rape charge

[rdowdall]

I see what your saying.  But if the evidence was going to prove that Kane was innocent, and that was the evidence that was going to be admitted, and now all of sudden we have allegations that the evidence was tampered with, then that means that it casts doubt on the evidence supporting Kane's allegation.  Now no one can use the evidence, and there is no way to be certain who the evidence was going to support, and they can now cast doubt on the whole investigative process.  It's like the reverse O.J. Simpson.

That doesn't make any sense. An absence of evidence helps Kane. You need evidence to convict someone. You can't get a conviction with "Yeah, there's no evidence but the investigation was screwed up" when the government, the one who'd be prosecuting Kane, is in charge of the investigation.

If the evidence supports what Kane said though, and there wasn't going to be charges because the evidence supported what Kane said, then why wouldn't the lawyer for the accuser come out and cast doubt that the investigation and imply that it may not have been on the up and up (other than the fact that it is highly illegal and underhanded, not saying the lawyer tampered the evidence, but maybe it was someone close to the accuser)? If Kane actually didn't do anything wrong, then wouldn't it make more sense that the accuser is trying to rig the system rather than Kane? 

Yes, it makes the most sense that Kane, with all of his resources, was the one that had the evidence doctored.  But if the accuser has a friend of a friend somewhere that could have gotten to the evidence, and she has this scheme to get to Kane and make him pay for something ( maybe she is the distant third cousin of the cab driver he beat), then why couldn't she be trying to make Kane look bad no matter what? 

Don't get me wrong.  I am 80% sure Kane did it, in which case, yes it makes the most sense that someone on his side doctored the evidence.  However, ever since I watched Gone Girl, and Casey Anthony got acquitted, I'm really willing to believe anything is possible.

Basically whoever the evidence didn't support, was probably the one who messed with it.

 

[rdowdall]

The Law and Order episode based off this is going to be a lot of fun.

That show has been cancelled.

 

[Kin]

If the evidence supports what Kane said though, and there wasn't going to be charges because the evidence supported what Kane said, then why wouldn't the lawyer for the accuser come out and cast doubt that the investigation may not have been on the up and up (other than the fact that it is highly illegal and underhanded, not saying the lawyer tampered the evidence, but maybe it was someone close to the accuser)? If Kane actually didn't do anything wrong, then wouldn't it make more sense that the accuser is trying to rig the system rather than Kane? 

No. Because even if the evidence did support what Kane was saying, and as Potvin and I have said, there is no sort of DNA evidence that would have been conclusive of anything then tampering with the evidence gains nothing. A complete absence of evidence, for the purposes of obtaining a conviction, is basically the same as exonerating evidence. If there's a complete absence of evidence you probably can't even get a Grand Jury indictment outside of prosecutorial misconduct like you saw with the Duke case.

So this gains them nothing. There is no upside for them to risk committing these felonies.

Yes, it makes the most sense that Kane, with all of his resources, was the one that had the evidence doctored.  But if the accuser has a friend of a friend somewhere that could have gotten to the evidence, and she has this scheme to get to Kane and make him pay for something ( maybe she is the distant third cousin of the cab driver he beat), then why couldn't she be trying to make Kane look bad not matter what?

C'mon. 

Don't get me wrong.  I am 80% sure Kane did it, in which case, yes it makes the most sense that someone on his side doctored the evidence.  However, ever since I watched Gone Girl, and Casey Anthony got acquitted, I'm really willing to believe anything is possible.

Gone Girl is a movie.

 

[Kin]

The Law and Order episode based off this is going to be a lot of fun.

That show has been cancelled.

Law and Order: SVU then, if that makes you happy.

 

[rdowdall]

The Law and Order episode based off this is going to be a lot of fun.

That show has been cancelled.

Law and Order: SVU then, if that makes you happy.

This is the last season, and all the episodes have been shot.

 

[Kin]

This is the last season, and all the episodes have been shot.

The one time special they'll shoot then. Does that make my lame joke work for you? Have we fact-checked it enough?

 

[rdowdall]

No. Because even if the evidence did support what Kane was saying, and as Potvin and I have said, there is no sort of DNA evidence that would have been conclusive of anything then tampering with the evidence gains nothing. A complete absence of evidence, for the purposes of obtaining a conviction, is basically the same as exonerating evidence. If there's a complete absence of evidence you probably can't even get a Grand Jury indictment outside of prosecutorial misconduct like you saw with the Duke case.

So this gains them nothing. There is no upside for them to risk committing these felonies.

Does it have any bearing on the civil case?  How does guilt or innocence as declared by a judge in the criminal case impact the civil case?  Or does it have any bearing at all?

C'mon. 

Hell hath no fury.

Gone Girl is a movie.

My attempt at levity failed.  You have my apologies.

 

[rdowdall]

This is the last season, and all the episodes have been shot.

The one time special they'll shoot then. Does that make my lame joke work for you? Have we fact-checked it enough?

You're the one that won't let me use emoticons.

 

[Kin]

Does it have any bearing on the civil case?  How does guilt or innocence as declared by a judge in the criminal case impact the civil case?  Or does it have any bearing at all?

It doesn't. So, again, there's still no upside here because there's nothing that would have been conclusive about the evidence. The only thing DNA evidence could have established is that if Kane had said that they hadn't been together at all that he was lying. Outside of that, if he claimed they had consensual sex and her claim is rape, then there is no DNA evidence that proves or disproves either claim.

Hell hath no fury.

Yeah, ok.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Technically, SVU hasn't been cancelled. It just hasn't been confirmed for an 18th season yet (17th season is just starting now). But that's not out of the ordinary.

So, Nik wins.

 

[rdowdall]

It doesn't. So, again, there's still no upside here because there's nothing that would have been conclusive about the evidence. The only thing DNA evidence could have established is that if Kane had said that they hadn't been together at all that he was lying. Outside of that, if he claimed they had consensual sex and her claim is rape, then there is no DNA evidence that proves or disproves either claim.

So then it only makes sense for Kane to doctor the evidence if that was his claim.  Without knowing what he said to police it's hard to figure out why he would do this in this case.  If he said "Yeah I slept with her", why would he want someone to mess with the evidence.  Has it been reported what his story was?  If there is nothing conclusive either way, then why was it messed with?

 

[rdowdall]

Technically, SVU hasn't been cancelled. It just hasn't been confirmed for an 18th season yet (17th season is just starting now). But that's not out of the ordinary.

So, Nik wins.

For now.

 

[Kin]

So then it only makes sense for Kane to doctor the evidence if that was his claim.  Without knowing what he said to police it's hard to figure out why he would do this in this case.  If he said "Yeah I slept with her", why would he want someone to mess with the evidence.  Has it been reported what his story was?  If there is nothing conclusive either way, then why was it messed with?

No, again, because the absence of any evidence at all FAVOURS KANE. Before, DNA evidence under her fingernails is evidence that could be interpreted either way. It could be sign of a struggle or not but it would at least be admissible evidence for a Judge or Jury to consider. Now, if the chain of custody on the rape kit was indeed broken, then it most likely cannot be admitted and therefore considered.

Which, again, helps the accused.

 

[rdowdall]

So then it only makes sense for Kane to doctor the evidence if that was his claim.  Without knowing what he said to police it's hard to figure out why he would do this in this case.  If he said "Yeah I slept with her", why would he want someone to mess with the evidence.  Has it been reported what his story was?  If there is nothing conclusive either way, then why was it messed with?

No, again, because the absence of any evidence at all FAVOURS KANE. Before, DNA evidence under her fingernails is evidence that could be interpreted either way. It could be sign of a struggle or not but it would at least be admissible evidence for a Judge or Jury to consider. Now, if the chain of custody on the rape kit was indeed broken, then it most likely cannot be admitted and therefore considered.

Which, again, helps the accused.

Oooh.  Bolded text.  On the internet no less.  Will wonders never cease?

Now I understand that under no circumstance, is there any situation where the accuser in this case would want to cast doubt on the police investigation that took place.  I realize now that it was wrong of me to think that.  It is a mistake that I will never make again.  Thanks primarily to bolded text.

 

[Kin]

Now I understand that under no circumstance, is there any situation where the accuser in this case would want to cast doubt on the police investigation that took place.

There's a difference between wanting to cast doubt on an investigation and doing something that would make everything obtained in said investigation inadmissible. Her lawyer might very well have wanted to say "Patrick Kane has several friends on the Buffalo PD, people who have been in his employ" as a means of casting doubt on the investigation.

That's not committing the crime of tampering with evidence though.

  I realize now that it was wrong of me to think that.  It is a mistake that I will never make again.  Thanks primarily to bolded text.

I used it as a last resort.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Well, get ready for this to get even more interesting:

That's the Commissioner of Central Police Services saying they have the original rape kit.

The Erie County Medical Center apparently confirmed that the rape kit delivered to the victim was authentic though. So either they are wrong, or the Erie County Central Police Services have a fake/doctored rape kit.

And there's the rub. Now the question is, was the evidence doctored with prior to testing? From an outside perspective, it's possible that the original bag was torn, contents removed, and a new bag prepared with another kit, potentially not the original prior to testing. This would also, possibly, lend some credit to the prosecuting attorney's idea of a good samaritan, bringing to light the evidence tampering.

BTW SI, your arguments make my head spin. And not in a good way.

 

[L K]

Well, get ready for this to get even more interesting:

That's the Commissioner of Central Police Services saying they have the original rape kit.

The Erie County Medical Center apparently confirmed that the rape kit delivered to the victim was authentic though. So either they are wrong, or the Erie County Central Police Services have a fake/doctored rape kit.

And there's the rub. Now the question is, was the evidence doctored with prior to testing? From an outside perspective, it's possible that the original bag was torn, contents removed, and a new bag prepared with another kit, potentially not the original prior to testing. This would also, possibly, lend some credit to the prosecuting attorney's idea of a good samaritan, bringing to light the evidence tampering.

BTW SI, your arguments make my head spin. And not in a good way.

It could also be a malicious act by someone loyal to Kane would would replicate the evidence bag and then toss it as an intimidation tactic.  This could be an act that is completely independent of Kane himself.  Speculation is really just going to make for a bad time though because there is no correct answer at this point.

The other side of the coin is, just how much do we know about Thomas James Eoannou?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This could be an act that is completely independent of Kane himself.

I've been as hard on Kane as anybody here, and for the record I don't think for a second that Kane was behind or even has knowledge of any potential tampering here.

The other side of the coin is, just how much do we know about Thomas James Eoannou?

Gonna guess he has a better rep than Kane's lawyer.

 

[rdowdall]

Well, get ready for this to get even more interesting:

That's the Commissioner of Central Police Services saying they have the original rape kit.

The Erie County Medical Center apparently confirmed that the rape kit delivered to the victim was authentic though. So either they are wrong, or the Erie County Central Police Services have a fake/doctored rape kit.

And there's the rub. Now the question is, was the evidence doctored with prior to testing? From an outside perspective, it's possible that the original bag was torn, contents removed, and a new bag prepared with another kit, potentially not the original prior to testing. This would also, possibly, lend some credit to the prosecuting attorney's idea of a good samaritan, bringing to light the evidence tampering.

BTW SI, your arguments make my head spin. And not in a good way.

Sorry, I'll tone it down.  My intention is not to annoy anyone.  I was just trying to start up a conversation.  If you find it a waste of time I will stop doing it.

 

[rdowdall]

There's a difference between wanting to cast doubt on an investigation and doing something that would make everything obtained in said investigation inadmissible. Her lawyer might very well have wanted to say "Patrick Kane has several friends on the Buffalo PD, people who have been in his employ" as a means of casting doubt on the investigation.

That's not committing the crime of tampering with evidence though.

I said I was wrong.  What more would you like?

I used it as a last resort.

A position that I forced you in to.  Don't worry, I get it.