Patrick Kane Subject of Police Investigation

[goon attack]

I didn't realize that about NY. It's not like that in MO. That probably doesn't bode well for Kane then. I read that this prosecutor has a really high conviction rate. So, if he thinks he has a case . . .

I'm not really sure what this means. Would this guy feel comfortable saying, "I don't think we have enough" and then facing some backlash, or is he just going to move forward and then say, "hey, the grand jury decided not to move forward"?

Which scenario causes the least flack for the prosecutor?

Or yeah... it could mean that an indictment is highly likely so he's moving forward as he should.

This shall be interesting.

[Kerfuffle]

The problem with a grand jury is the burden of proof is low to indict. How would you like to be charged still with a crime if 48% of the grand jury thinks there's not enough to charge? A man's career and life could be ended if this is all a big money play. We'll have to see the evidence and facts to know but this could be a huge trial.

[goon attack]

Granted, the burden of proof is lower and the prosecutor controls the entire process, but at least it's one more level of scrutiny than just one person deciding, "hey, let's go after this person."

Once you're in front of a trial jury, that's it, other than an appeal later if convicted.

[cprice12]

The problem with a grand jury is the burden of proof is low to indict. How would you like to be charged still with a crime if 48% of the grand jury thinks there's not enough to charge? A man's career and life could be ended if this is all a big money play. We'll have to see the evidence and facts to know but this could be a huge trial.

And how would you feel if your daughter were the one raped and it had to take, say, 75% of a grand jury to vote in favor of a trial to actually go to trial...and then if "only" 60% of them voted in favor of a trial...so it didn't then go to trial.

You're comments imply that you are assuming he is innocent...which may not be the case. We don't know. You need to also look at it like this...a woman's life could be ruined if he did in fact rape her...possibly to the point where she may commit suicide, which happens far too often. I think every consideration has to be given to the accuser, especially if there is evidence that backs up her story.

I think if over half of a Grand Jury feels it needs to go to trial, then that is more than enough reason to go to trial to try to make sure justice is served.

[cardsfan04]

I didn't realize that about NY. It's not like that in MO. That probably doesn't bode well for Kane then. I read that this prosecutor has a really high conviction rate. So, if he thinks he has a case . . .

I'm not really sure what this means. Would this guy feel comfortable saying, "I don't think we have enough" and then facing some backlash, or is he just going to move forward and then say, "hey, the grand jury decided not to move forward"?

Which scenario causes the least flack for the prosecutor?

Or yeah... it could mean that an indictment is highly likely so he's moving forward as he should.

This shall be interesting.

That was basically my point. Look at what happened in the Michael Brown case. McCulloch went to the grand jury solely for the optics of it, so he could say, "I tried, they didn't think there was enough to indict." I don't think it would be totally shocking if another prosecutor did that in another high-profile case.

[goon attack]

I've read in several articles that the prosecution does NOT have to go to a grand jury in New York? This is contrary to what I've read on websites published by the state of New York. Anyone know for sure?

[Kerfuffle]

And how would you feel if your daughter were the one raped and it had to take, say, 75% of a grand jury to vote in favor of a trial to actually go to trial...and then if "only" 60% of them voted in favor of a trial...so it didn't then go to trial.

You're comments imply that you are assuming he is innocent...which may not be the case. We don't know. You need to also look at it like this...a woman's life could be ruined if he did in fact rape her...possibly to the point where she may commit suicide, which happens far too often. I think every consideration has to be given to the accuser, especially if there is evidence that backs up her story.

I think if over half of a Grand Jury feels it needs to go to trial, then that is more than enough reason to go to trial to try to make sure justice is served.

Only 52% of a grand jury have to vote 'yes' to indict - so it's not 75% as you stated above.

And I didn't say he's innocent. Since none of us have any of the facts and evidence it's all just speculation at this point. But with most reported rapes it comes down to a he-said/she-said and that's tough to prove. Physical evidence doesn't really do much either - so they find his semen - one side will say it was consensual while the other claims it's rape. The bite mark rumors are making a lot of press but that doesn't mean anything - fine so he bit her - they can spend a lot of time proving it's his teeth that did it but again that doesn't mean rape - perhaps they just had rough sex.

[ecbm]

I've read in several articles that the prosecution does NOT have to go to a grand jury in New York? This is contrary to what I've read on websites published by the state of New York. Anyone know for sure?

Those I've asked at my firm tell me (a few worked in the DA's office) that in NY, a prosecutor can not bring a case on evidence. A grand jury has to indict.

That was basically my point. Look at what happened in the Michael Brown case. McCulloch went to the grand jury solely for the optics of it, so he could say, "I tried, they didn't think there was enough to indict." I don't think it would be totally shocking if another prosecutor did that in another high-profile case.

Yes, this happens a lot. But it doesn't apply in NY, where a grand jury has to indict.

The problem with a grand jury is the burden of proof is low to indict. How would you like to be charged still with a crime if 48% of the grand jury thinks there's not enough to charge? A man's career and life could be ended if this is all a big money play. We'll have to see the evidence and facts to know but this could be a huge trial.

So, 50+% of jury of randoms says the accusation is solid enough to be considered by a court but we should leave the accuser hanging for what? 60%? 75%? Why? Because Kane has a lucrative career? You know, most people would be damaged in some way by being charged with rape. It's not a reason to assume that nobody does it, especially those that are accused, especially considering that the vast majority people have no trouble going through life never being accused of rape.

[cprice12]

And how would you feel if your daughter were the one raped and it had to take, say, 75% of a grand jury to vote in favor of a trial to actually go to trial...and then if "only" 60% of them voted in favor of a trial...so it didn't then go to trial.

You're comments imply that you are assuming he is innocent...which may not be the case. We don't know. You need to also look at it like this...a woman's life could be ruined if he did in fact rape her...possibly to the point where she may commit suicide, which happens far too often. I think every consideration has to be given to the accuser, especially if there is evidence that backs up her story.

I think if over half of a Grand Jury feels it needs to go to trial, then that is more than enough reason to go to trial to try to make sure justice is served.

Only 52% of a grand jury have to vote 'yes' to indict - so it's not 75% as you stated above.

I know. I was trying to make a point... for example, if your wife or daughter was raped and if it did indeed take a greater percentage to indict (like you seem to want) like 75%, but only 60% of the jury (over half) voted to indict...the guy would walk free with no trial. How is that fair?
I think if over half of the jury feels it should go to trial, then it should absolutely go to trial.

And I didn't say he's innocent. Since none of us have any of the facts and evidence it's all just speculation at this point. But with most reported rapes it comes down to a he-said/she-said and that's tough to prove. Physical evidence doesn't really do much either - so they find his semen - one side will say it was consensual while the other claims it's rape. The bite mark rumors are making a lot of press but that doesn't mean anything - fine so he bit her - they can spend a lot of time proving it's his teeth that did it but again that doesn't mean rape - perhaps they just had rough sex.

I didn't say you said he was innocent. But your example states how much it would suck if 48% felt it shouldn't go to trial but it still did. Why would that suck? Who would that suck for? Kane? Well how much would it suck for the alleged victim if 52% (over half) felt it needed to go to trial, but it didn't?

And you keep saying "only 52%". That's over half. What percentage should it be to indict in your opinion? And why isn't a majority enough to make this go to trial?

[WaukeeBlues]

My first thought when I heard that a grand jury was involved was that the prosecutor is trying to detach themselves a bit from the process. Like with Ferguson, MO, if the grand jury says not to indict then the prosecutor can shrug and tell the victims "hey, it's not my fault."

I have no experience with grand juries since they're not required here and nor am I a NY attorney so there's that.

[Kerfuffle]

It's not a reason to assume that nobody does it, especially those that are accused, especially considering that the vast majority people have no trouble going through life never being accused of rape.

The vast majority of people don't have $84M contracts. If u don't think that makes pro athletes a target you're kidding yourself.

[theohall]

It's not a reason to assume that nobody does it, especially those that are accused, especially considering that the vast majority people have no trouble going through life never being accused of rape.

The vast majority of people don't have $84M contracts. If u don't think that makes pro athletes a target you're kidding yourself.

Pro athletes that put themselves repeatedly in stupid situations deserve what they get

[Kerfuffle]

It's not a reason to assume that nobody does it, especially those that are accused, especially considering that the vast majority people have no trouble going through life never being accused of rape.

The vast majority of people don't have $84M contracts. If u don't think that makes pro athletes a target you're kidding yourself.

Pro athletes that put themselves repeatedly in stupid situations deserve what they get

No, they don't. They deserve a presumption of innocence just like everyone else that the law protects.

[cprice12]

It's not a reason to assume that nobody does it, especially those that are accused, especially considering that the vast majority people have no trouble going through life never being accused of rape.

The vast majority of people don't have $84M contracts. If u don't think that makes pro athletes a target you're kidding yourself.

Pro athletes that put themselves repeatedly in stupid situations deserve what they get

No, they don't. They deserve a presumption of innocence just like everyone else that the law protects.

There are many athletes in many other sports that make way more than Kane does...yet the vast majority of them don't have recurring issues like this.
Kane is the common denominator in these run-ins with the law.
He brings this shit on himself and I don't feel sorry for him one bit. 98% of the other multi-millionaire athletes understand this...I don't know why he doesn't...and if they end up settling and it doesn't even go to a grand jury, it's going to likely cost him millions. You just don't hear about that with other athletes very often. Yes, it happens, but it's not common.

Yes, he is absolutely innocent until proven guilty...but that's just stuff people say to be politically correct. People are going to base their opinions on his history. That's just human nature...and his history makes you think he is guilty of doing something stupid and wrong that night.

[theohall]

No, they don't. They deserve a presumption of innocence just like everyone else that the law protects.

So if you were to repeatedly put yourself in bad situations and bad things happened to you, you wouldn't deserve the bad things that happened as a result of your behavior?? Reallly????

Simple example.

You are repeatedly late to work. The boss warns you to knock that shit off. You continue to be repeatedly late to work. You get fired. But somehow this wouldn't be your fault????

Same thing with Kane putting himself in bad situations. Deny it all you want, but that's just homerism blinding you again.

[APOD]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 05286.html

They could be settling and I hate to say it because I don't know what the evidence looks like but this looks bad on the alleged victim. I know if any of my family were raped I would not be looking to settle this, even if if didn't look like we would win I would still want it brought to trial. That said if they do settle I'm on Kanes side of this for sure.

[Kerfuffle]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 05286.html

They could be settling and I hate to say it because I don't know what the evidence looks like but this looks bad on the alleged victim. I know if any of my family were raped I would not be looking to settle this, even if if didn't look like we would win I would still want it brought to trial. That said if they do settle I'm on Kanes side of this for sure.

I see it the opposite way - if a settlement is reached I believe it means he was guilty and was settling to avoid jail and to save his career. It would be spun by his side that he 'just wants this all behind him' but to me it would look like he bought her off.

[APOD]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 05286.html

They could be settling and I hate to say it because I don't know what the evidence looks like but this looks bad on the alleged victim. I know if any of my family were raped I would not be looking to settle this, even if if didn't look like we would win I would still want it brought to trial. That said if they do settle I'm on Kanes side of this for sure.

I see it the opposite way - if a settlement is reached I believe it means he was guilty and was settling to avoid jail and to save his career. It would be spun by his side that he 'just wants this all behind him' but to me it would look like he bought her off.

I can see that, I just feel that if he did it wouldn't you(the victim) want to see him punished for it. If you take the money it makes it look like that's what it was all about in the first place. IMO

[cprice12]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 05286.html

They could be settling and I hate to say it because I don't know what the evidence looks like but this looks bad on the alleged victim. I know if any of my family were raped I would not be looking to settle this, even if if didn't look like we would win I would still want it brought to trial. That said if they do settle I'm on Kanes side of this for sure.

I see it the opposite way - if a settlement is reached I believe it means he was guilty and was settling to avoid jail and to save his career. It would be spun by his side that he 'just wants this all behind him' but to me it would look like he bought her off.

I've seen some legal commentary on the delay in the start of the grand jury proceedings, and they all seem to think this is because they are discussing a settlement...and if they do settle, this looks bad for the alleged victim because it looks like a money grab.

And a settlement is in Kane's best interest, as that will more quickly put all of this behind him and the charges will be dropped...even though to the general public, it may come off like he is guilty. But that beats being found guilty in court.

If she is being offered something like $5 million to settle...that is a lot to walk away from just to see a guy punished even if Kane really do the deed. But a settlement, in my mind, makes it look more like a money grab...but if they do settle, we'll never know for sure because I'm sure it will be written in to the settlement that Kane did nothing wrong, and the victim isn't to speak publicly about it or risk forfeiting the settlement...if that is even a thing in the legal world.

[Kerfuffle]

I can see that, I just feel that if he did it wouldn't you(the victim) want to see him punished for it. If you take the money it makes it look like that's what it was all about in the first place. IMO

True - I would want him punished, but I would also have to weigh my chances of actually trying to win a he-said/she-said case against a celebrity in front of a jury. So if I refuse to settle and go to court he could be found not guilty and I get nothing. Vs. the other option of letting him walk but setting myself up for life where I never have to work again. I think I would have to choose the settlement option too - bird in the hand.