Patrick Kane - Possible rape charge

[Bullfrog]

I really don't know. I honestly haven't been reading anything about this case other than what's in this thread. If the majority of people are giving Kane the benefit of the doubt, I suspect it's because as he's a major star people are mostly hoping that it's not true. I'm with tmlfan on this one; I just really have no way of making any judgement. Due to the nature of the accusations, the alleged victim needs the benefit. At the same time, I'm leery of passing judgement without any real knowledge of the situation.

I think both here and elsewhere on social media the most common reaction has been "Kane's innocent until proven guilty". Which basically by definition is giving Kane the benefit of the doubt.

I've seen first-hand a situation where someone has pretended to be a victim solely out of vindictive reasons (full disclosure: the event was a faked pregnancy and not an assault). This doesn't cloud my understanding that most sexual assault victims are denied justice, but it does remind me that not all accusations have merit.

Hey, I was jokingly accused of rape earlier today by someone whose opinions I no longer care about regarding this topic. I know it happens. Did the situation you're talking about result in a 6-week criminal investigation that led to the prosecution feeling it had enough evidence to move forward with a grand jury? I feel like we're way past the point where one could suggest the victim is just in this for the money.

I agree we're passed that point. But a warranted investigation isn't enough to give me confidence to pass judgement. And while I respect your fervour behind victim's rights, I also sense that you've made a judgement on the accused. I suspect something wrong's been done; but that's as far as I'm willing to commit at this time.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Because public opinion is much less flawed and faulty...

Again, I've been through all this before. If you want to take the word of an accused rapist over the word of an accused rape victim just because a system that is more beneficial towards accused rapists says so, know yourself out.

I'm not taking anyone's word. I'm admitting that I don't know, which is something the court of public opinion never does.

Also, I just told everyone you raped me, you rapist. You're a rapist. See my point, rapist?

:

I'm assuming a name change to CarltonTheRapist is forthcoming.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

And while I respect your fervour behind victim's rights, I also sense that you've made a judgement on the accused. I suspect something wrong's been done; but that's as far as I'm willing to commit at this time.

Yeah I mean I don't think that Kane's a serial rapist or anything like that, but to use your phrasing I suspect some form of rape took place. And you know I think maybe even in Kane's mind he doesn't think what he did was rape, but that wouldn't classify as a defence.

 

[Kin]

I agree we're passed that point. But a warranted investigation isn't enough to give me confidence to pass judgement. And while I respect your fervour behind victim's rights, I also sense that you've made a judgement on the accused. I suspect something wrong's been done; but that's as far as I'm willing to commit at this time.

None of us are going into this fresh though. Patrick Kane is pretty clearly someone with a history of getting drunk and thinking the normal rules of society don't apply to him. That's not in and of itself incriminating here but when you combine it with what we know of the likelihood of false accusations...I'm pretty comfortable with the position I've taken. Contrary to what's been said here by some, I'm not under any obligation to use the same standard of proof as the legal system.

But at the same time, I understand why the legal system has that higher standard. So is what I know about this enough to put Kane in jail? Obviously not. Is it enough for me to be reasonably confident in what I think happened. I think so. 

 

[Bullfrog]

...
But at the same time, I understand why the legal system has that higher standard. So is what I know about this enough to put Kane in jail? Obviously not. Is it enough for me to be reasonably confident in what I think happened. I think so.

I think that's a good way of putting it. I'm probably a little less confident at this point in any assertion.

 

[rdowdall]

I agree we're passed that point. But a warranted investigation isn't enough to give me confidence to pass judgement. And while I respect your fervour behind victim's rights, I also sense that you've made a judgement on the accused. I suspect something wrong's been done; but that's as far as I'm willing to commit at this time.

None of us are going into this fresh though. Patrick Kane is pretty clearly someone with a history of getting drunk and thinking the normal rules of society don't apply to him. That's not in and of itself incriminating here but when you combine it with what we know of the likelihood of false accusations...I'm pretty comfortable with the position I've taken. Contrary to what's been said here by some, I'm not under any obligation to use the same standard of proof as the legal system.

But at the same time, I understand why the legal system has that higher standard. So is what I know about this enough to put Kane in jail? Obviously not. Is it enough for me to be reasonably confident in what I think happened. I think so.

But isn't that a problem though?  I mean his past is working against him, so there isn't really a way for this to be resolved in a way where people think he isn't guilty.  I know that his past is squarely on him as he has made bad choices, but it means that there is no way for people to feel he is going to change.

Even if the accuser comes out and says "I made it all up", I think there would still be people out there who think that she was coerced in to saying it. 

 

[Kin]

But isn't that a problem though?

Is what a problem?

 

[rdowdall]

But isn't that a problem though?

Is what a problem?

That a person can have the court of public opinion view them in a harsh and negative light based largely on their past.  I realize that it's probably human nature and that there isn't really anything that can be done about it.  But does it cause an issue where something like this causes people to take up sides, even though neither side really has the whole story.  It would probably be better if the situation could be resolved through the proper process and that an outcome could be determined, and that outcome would then be actual true outcome.

The problem is that in no way shape or form, can there ever be a true result in this case.  There are to many variables that could come in to play that could be used as motives for one side or the other saying something. 

It seems like somewhere we lost sight of what justice was supposed to mean.  People murder people and get off on a technicality and then they feel that they can claim that they aren't a murderer.  At the end of the day, does the legal system define who we are, or do our actions define who we are?  And in the case of public figures, what defines them?  Take the P.K. Subban thing.  He's donated a lot of money for a good cause.  Lets say a negative situation occurs throughout this season that involves him.  How is he going to be viewed at that point?  Even if he is innocent, his reputation could be tarnished forever. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I agree we're passed that point. But a warranted investigation isn't enough to give me confidence to pass judgement. And while I respect your fervour behind victim's rights, I also sense that you've made a judgement on the accused. I suspect something wrong's been done; but that's as far as I'm willing to commit at this time.

None of us are going into this fresh though. Patrick Kane is pretty clearly someone with a history of getting drunk and thinking the normal rules of society don't apply to him. That's not in and of itself incriminating here but when you combine it with what we know of the likelihood of false accusations...I'm pretty comfortable with the position I've taken. Contrary to what's been said here by some, I'm not under any obligation to use the same standard of proof as the legal system.

But at the same time, I understand why the legal system has that higher standard. So is what I know about this enough to put Kane in jail? Obviously not. Is it enough for me to be reasonably confident in what I think happened. I think so.

Getting drunk and thinking the normal rules of society don't apply to then could be applied to a huge segment of 17 to 20-something's.  I think there's a huge leap to connecting that to being more likely to rape (or murder or something else heinous). Same as why I agree that prior sexual history of a complainant is irrelevant in most cases.

 

[Kin]

That a person can have the court of public opinion view them in a harsh and negative light based largely on their past.

No, I really don't think that's a problem. What's a more valid way to judge someone than by the things they've done?

 

[rdowdall]

That a person can have the court of public opinion view them in a harsh and negative light based largely on their past.

No, I really don't think that's a problem. What's a more valid way to judge someone than by the things they've done?

No agreed.  I think you should judge a person on their actions.  I guess that if Kane didn't do anything, then he really only has himself to blame if people feel he did do it, because of what he has done in the past.  If you don't want people to think that you make poor choices when you are drunk, then don't make poor choices when you are drunk.

 

[Kin]

Getting drunk and thinking the normal rules of society don't apply to then could be applied to a huge segment of 17 to 20-something's.  I think there's a huge leap to connecting that to being more likely to rape (or murder or something else heinous). Same as why I agree that prior sexual history of a complainant is irrelevant in most cases.

I think there's a massive difference there that you're overlooking. The reason prior sexual histories are irrelevant is because typically they're used in an entirely illogical way that really only speaks to the double standard we have in society for male and female sexuality. As in, because this is a woman who has frequently consented to sex in the past, the genuineness of her ever refusing consent is therefore suspicious. It's not establishing a consistent pattern of behaviour, it's doing the opposite. It's saying "Because a woman might have enjoyed sex in the past, can she really object to being raped?".

Conversely, Patrick Kane is someone with a history of getting drunk and committing crimes and being said to have done things that really aren't that far away from this. It is establishing a pattern of behaviour.

 

[L K]

No DNA evidence was found from Kane in the genital region/vaginal swabs taken as part of the rape kit.  It doesn't entirely exonerate Kane but that's not a typical result when someone goes to report a rape almost immediately after the event. 

 

[bustaheims]

No DNA evidence was found from Kane in the genital region/vaginal swabs taken as part of the rape kit.  It doesn't entirely exonerate Kane but that's not a typical result when someone goes to report a rape almost immediately after the event.

Definitely a big help for his case from the legal perspective. If charges are laid, will make it a lot harder to prove guilt.

 

[rdowdall]

No DNA evidence was found from Kane in the genital region/vaginal swabs taken as part of the rape kit.  It doesn't entirely exonerate Kane but that's not a typical result when someone goes to report a rape almost immediately after the event.

Would the use of protection not greatly reduce the amount of DNA transfer?

I get that the argument could be made "How did he have time to put on protection?", but it is in the realm of possibility though.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Would the use of protection not greatly reduce the amount of DNA transfer?

I get that the argument could be made "How did he have time to put on protection?", but it is in the realm of possibility though.

Yeah, it was brought up in an article that I read. The use of a condom could potentially explain that. It's said that in the majority of most rape cases a condom isn't used, but you never know.

The big thing here is that like busta says, it'll make proving the case a lot more difficult.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This is the original report on that: http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2015/09/19/dna-test-results-spur-questions-in-kane-case/

Kane's DNA was however found underneath the woman's fingernails, which could at least potentially indicate that a struggle took place.

 

[L K]

No DNA evidence was found from Kane in the genital region/vaginal swabs taken as part of the rape kit.  It doesn't entirely exonerate Kane but that's not a typical result when someone goes to report a rape almost immediately after the event.

Would the use of protection not greatly reduce the amount of DNA transfer?

I get that the argument could be made "How did he have time to put on protection?", but it is in the realm of possibility though.

Yes and no.  DNA evidence isn't just semen, the body contact from a rape can very often leave traces of DNA elsewhere from skin/other body fluids in the area (blood usually).  I'm not a forensic pathologist so I don't really do these sorts of things outside of the rare initial presentation to the ER (where you really don't mess around with anything unless there is trauma that requires immediate intervention) but while a condom would greatly reduce the likelihood of having DNA evidence it would still be somewhat unusual to not find anything at all.

 

[TML fan]

If it started off consensual, that would explain the condom.

 

[rdowdall]

If it started off consensual, that would explain the condom.

Which would really start to go down a slippery slope.  If she says stop, then he has to stop, but then it becomes a did he not stop as soon as she would have liked him to have sort of scenario.