Patrick Kane being investigated by police

[B21]

The problem is that the "rapist" label against him will never go away if there is even the slightest perception that he "bought himself out of it". There will be activists and "fans" in every city who will bring it up. Who will shout it from the stands. FOR THE REST OF HIS CAREER. Hell, we still hear about the "cabbie" incident.

 

 

As silly as it sounds, it goes away a lot faster if there is a settlement now versus a season's worth of legal procedures.  Every step along the way in the leal process (if this goes the distance) is another set of questions after a game.  If he "settles" now, he holds a press conference, takes all questions (with a lot of coaching from his lawyers) and it goes away.  You're 100% right though that the label never goes away but that's nothing more than fodder for bloggers and hockey forums.

 

And, for the accuser, the idea "she was in it for the money" will never go away if she takes money to drop the accusation. And that perception will continue to (wrongly, IMO) extend to every other victim of a rich, entitled attacker.

 

True - but she's not a public figure.  Would her name even be released to the public at any point? Even if it is, Kane has a lot more to lose than she does in that regard.

[radoran]

As silly as it sounds, it goes away a lot faster if there is a settlement now versus a season's worth of legal procedures. Every step along the way in the leal process (if this goes the distance) is another set of questions after a game. If he "settles" now, he holds a press conference, takes all questions (with a lot of coaching from his lawyers) and it goes away. You're 100% right though that the label never goes away but that's nothing more than fodder for bloggers and hockey forums.

 

I don't buy that even a little bit. Again, the whole "cabbie" incident is brought up almost immediately whenever Kane's name is mentioned. And this is far, far worse that that incident, which even the cabbie says was blown way out of proportion.

 

I'd be shocked if he does a press conference and answers unscripted questions, doubly so if his lawyers thought it was a good idea. Maybe a one-on-one interview with a Bob Costas-type.

 

True - but she's not a public figure. Would her name even be released to the public at any point? Even if it is, Kane has a lot more to lose than she does in that regard.

 

I'm not worried about her specifically at this point. I'm talking about the impact on the perception of future accusers of rich and powerful men - that "they're in it for the money." And the perception of rich and powerful men that they can do whatever they damn well please and buy their way out of it.

 

Yes, one can say "that's the way it is" - but that doesn't make it right or mean that we should simply accept it.

 

That's one of the main reasons that Cosby is getting villified these days - that the dozens of women speaking out against him aren't asking for any money.

[J0e Th0rnton]

As silly as it sounds, it goes away a lot faster if there is a settlement now versus a season's worth of legal procedures.  Every step along the way in the leal process (if this goes the distance) is another set of questions after a game.  If he "settles" now, he holds a press conference, takes all questions (with a lot of coaching from his lawyers) and it goes away.  You're 100% right though that the label never goes away but that's nothing more than fodder for bloggers and hockey forums.

 

 

 

 

True - but she's not a public figure.  Would her name even be released to the public at any point? Even if it is, Kane has a lot more to lose than she does in that regard.

I dunno. The label went away pretty fast with Doug Gilmour and he supposedly statutory raped a a 13 year old.

[radoran]

I dunno. The label went away pretty fast with Doug Gilmour and he supposedly statutory raped a a 13 year old.

 

And no one brings that up today!

 

Especially not since the Grand Jury declined to indict him (the accusations were solely based on the girl's diary entries) while the girl's family's lawyer was indicted for a felony for trying to extort money from the Blues to keep the case quiet. Then her parents dropped the civil suit as well. Gilmour, maintaining his innocence throughout, never paid dime one to the girl or her family.

 

Aside from that, it's almost exactly the same.

[jammer2]

  Just suppose for one minute that Kane is innocent, and is being shook down for some cash. Even though he knows he is innocent, there is a chance that the pay off could cost about equal to the lawyer fees.....AND, all chances of his being convicted (no matter how slim the chance) are gone....which gives him access to his hefty new contract and a chance to play the game he loves. Think about that, regardless of public perception, his 10 mill a year is safe, his life is safe, the threat of jail is gone....no judge or jury holding his fate in their hands. If he was innocent, I could see why he would pursue the settlement. Just say'in.

[radoran]

If he was innocent, I could see why he would pursue the settlement. Just say'in.

 

I completely understand why he might seek a settlement.

 

I completely disagree with the entire concept that because someone has money, they should be able to buy themselves out of a criminal prosecution if a crime was committed.

 

And the idea that a prosecutor for the State of New York (or any other jurisdiction) would allow a rich person to simply buy off their accuser.

[B21]

I don't buy that even a little bit. Again, the whole "cabbie" incident is brought up almost immediately whenever Kane's name is mentioned. And this is far, far worse that that incident, which even the cabbie says was blown way out of proportion.

 

Brought up immediately where though?  Sure - forums like this when some idiot wants to take a shot at Kane or the Hawks.  It's in the news now (the cabbie incident) because it's relevant as there another off-season issue for Kane.  It's not mentioned during games. ("What a shot by Patrick Kane who 5 years ago pleaded guilty to assaulting a cab driver...).  It's not mentioned in articles online or in the papers about the Hawks' game the night before. ("Patrick Kane, who 5 years ago pleaded guilty to assaulting a cab driver, scored two goals to lead the Hawks...").  I've never heard it mentioned during in-game analysis.  ("The Hawks need to get Kane more involved in the PP. Kane, who 5 years ago pleaded guilty to assaulting a cab driver, has no PP shots after two periods...").  

 

 

 

I'd be shocked if he does a press conference and answers unscripted questions, doubly so if his lawyers thought it was a good idea. Maybe a one-on-one interview with a Bob Costas-type.

 

Good point.  On the off chance there was some kind of press conference I could see a lot of cliched answers ("I want to put this behind me and get back to hockey...") and a lot of "Due to the terms of the settlement I can't comment...").

 

 

 

I'm not worried about her specifically at this point. I'm talking about the impact on the perception of future accusers of rich and powerful men - that "they're in it for the money." And the perception of rich and powerful men that they can do whatever they damn well please and buy their way out of it.

 

Yes, one can say "that's the way it is" - but that doesn't make it right or mean that we should simply accept it.

 

That's one of the main reasons that Cosby is getting villified these days - that the dozens of women speaking out against him aren't asking for any money.

 

I agree with you but if this is a money grab it wouldn't be the first.  The impact on future accusers will be the same regardless of what Kane's accuser does.  Jerome Bettis. Duke La Crosse. Roethlisberger (the first accuser). Edit: Doug Gilmour.  All in it for the money.  It's not like Kane's accuser is screwing things up for those who really were assaulted (assuming she's in it for the money").  

 

As for Cosby, I thought a handful of the accusers had filed civil suits but I could be wrong.  In any event, I think the sheer number of accusers is the most damning evidence against him.

[radoran]

Brought up immediately where though?

 

Well, Doug Gilmour's name was just brought up - and he obviously didn't do anything wrong. Yes, it will be internet chatter, etc. - but internet chatter, etc. is more and more visible every day. Gilmour's name was completely cleared and he obviously still has that follow him around.

 

This incident - like the cabbie incident - will follow him around forever and it will (IMO) be worse if, unlike Gilmour, he's not completely cleared but rather has "bought his accuser's silence" attached to it. Kane's name has been attached to "off ice issues" since before he got into the league and this is just fuel to the fire, grist for the mill. And the media loves grist

 

I agree with you but if this is a money grab it wouldn't be the first. The impact on future accusers will be the same regardless of what Kane's accuser does.

 

There's always the stigma attached to accusations such as this.

 

Bettis? http://old.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021016jerome1016p1.asp

The Steelers' Jerome Bettis will not faces charges after all on an allegation that he sexually assaulted a woman he met at a bar in Greensburg this summer.

Westmoreland County District Attorney John W. Peck said there was not "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" to proceed. "Only Mr. Bettis and the victim, the young woman, know what happened in that car," Peck said.

But Peck went on to say there was "clear" evidence that the accuser's uncle planned to use the allegation to extort money from Bettis.

 

Bettis didn't buy her off - he was cleared.

 

Roethliesberger, likewise, wasn't charged and didn't buy anyone off.

 

If the accuser simply wants this whole thing "to go away" that's one thing (that's what Big Ben's second accuser did). But if Kane is giving her money to make it go away - that's where I have a problem. YMMV

 

As for Cosby, I thought a handful of the accusers had filed civil suits but I could be wrong. In any event, I think the sheer number of accusers is the most damning evidence against him.

 

There were a few civil cases (one involving a woman from Temple University is where some of the more salacious details have come out), but the vast majority of the women now corroborating the accusations aren't seeking money.

[B21]

Well, Doug Gilmour's name was just brought up - and he obviously didn't do anything wrong. Yes, it will be internet chatter, etc. - but internet chatter, etc. is more and more visible every day. Gilmour's name was completely cleared and he obviously still has that follow him around.
 

 

Well sure - relevant to this discussion.  It's not like this was a thread about (random example) where Gilmour ranks among the greatest centers ever to play and someone threw it out there.

 

As for everything else you wrote - fair points - though Roethlisberger did settle the 2008 suit (it was a civil suit - she never filed criminal charges or alerted authorities).  

 

 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/steelers/story/2012-01-20/ben-roethlisberger-settles-lawsuit/52702798/1

 

He wasn't charged after the incident in 2010 in Georgia.  

 

He's still "Rapistberger" to anyone who's not a Steelers fan.

 

To me that's proof that no matter what Kane does - settles, no charges or goes to trial and is exonerated - the label will follow him (as you have been pointing out).  So why not settle?  I can at least understand what his rationale might be.

[radoran]

My initial reaction was the reported link between a "settlement negotiation" and the postponement of the Grand Jury.

 

If there's no evidence beyond "he said/she said" then the case likely isn't going anywhere on a criminal level anyway. If there is evidence of a physical assault - as there clearly was in the Voynov case - then IMO they should still prosecute. Yes, regardless of the victim's wishes (as, again, in the Voynov case).

 

Throwing around "rape" accusations should not be taken lightly. As you note, Ben is "Rapistberger" to many, many people (despite never actually being convicted of the crime).

 

 

 

To me that's proof that no matter what Kane does - settles, no charges or goes to trial and is exonerated - the label will follow him (as you have been pointing out). So why not settle? I can at least understand what his rationale might be.

 

As I clearly said above, I completely understand his rationale.

 

However...

 

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/09/09/patrick-kane-rape-case-settlement-suspension

 

 

“The criminal proceeding is managed by the prosecutor and not the alleged victim,” attorney Eric Macramella wrote in Forbes. “Accordingly, any settlement that is brokered between Kane and the complainant does not bind the prosecutor. The prosecutor may still proceed with a criminal case against Kane, which includes sending it back to a grand jury. So the criminal matter and the civil matter are not directly connected.

 

“That being said, a civil settlement between Kane and the complainant may result in the complainant changing her mind and electing not to cooperate with the prosecution. While she may still be called to testify at a criminal trial, anything less than entirely convincing testimony would likely be fatal to the prosecution’s case unless there is other compelling evidence of wrongdoing. If the complainant elects not to cooperate or is an unwilling participant, the likelihood of a conviction is low particularly in cases of he said, she said. Remember, a rape prosecution relies heavily on the complainant’s testimony. If the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the matter, the prosecutor may drop the case.”

 

A settlement wouldn’t necessarily clear a path for a smooth transition back to hockey, either. If it got to that point, the NHL would likely pursue its own investigation into the alleged events with an eye on determining the extent of the damage that has been done to the league’s reputation. A suspension could be in order. But that’s tricky ground.

As Macramella notes, a settlement would certainly include a confidentiality agreement that precludes the alleged victim from cooperating with the investigation. And Kane conceivably could sue the NHL for defamation, “taking the position that his reputation was tarnished by the league by way of an unsubstantiated suspension."

....

 

 

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has a similar Personal Conduct Policy to rely on, and it’s one he’s been very proud of in the past.

“Our code of conduct is we expect you to do the right things and if you don’t we hold you accountable,” Bettman has said. “More important than that is I believe you need to be proactive.”

 

GIlmour filed a countersuit against his accusers and that's when they backed down.

 

Rothliesberger settled the case, but there was no report of monetary compensation (and as you note, the accuser didn't file a criminal complaint). Of course, the terms of the settlement were locked.

[B21]

However...
 
http://www.si.com/nh...ment-suspension

 

Good read. Two takeaways...

 

1) If there is a settlement - and provided the law allows - there still could be a criminal trial though if the evidence is "he said/she said" no prosecutor worth their salt is going to try that case.

 

2) There is precedent to a major sports league suspended a player who was not charged and/or settled the case.  Roethlisberger again.  6 games later reduced to 4...which I had no problem with as he put himself into a bad position even if "nothing happened" (28 year old QB at a college bar??).   

[Polaris922]

Good read. Two takeaways...

 

1) If there is a settlement - and provided the law allows - there still could be a criminal trial though if the evidence is "he said/she said" no prosecutor worth their salt is going to try that case.

 

2) There is precedent to a major sports league suspended a player who was not charged and/or settled the case.  Roethlisberger again.  6 games later reduced to 4...which I had no problem with as he put himself into a bad position even if "nothing happened" (28 year old QB at a college bar??).   

 

Something to keep in mind though...  Roethlisberger's first accuser's best friend spoke out in defense of Roethlisberger saying she knew it was consensual and she also had a conversation with the accuser where the accuser specifically said she was doing a money grab.  Roethlisberger's second accuser admitted to police it was consensual but only filed a complaint after friends made her feel like a whore for being with him.  I've read all of the reports on Roethlisberger, and I defend him non-stop as a result.  Guy just got slandered to all hell...

 

Kane has neither of those types of defenses popping up.  His best chance is no victim no crime.  Prosecutors can rage against it all they want, it's an extremely important part of the Constitution.  If the victim doesn't prosecute, Kane walks. 

[radoran]

1) If there is a settlement - and provided the law allows - there still could be a criminal trial though if the evidence is "he said/she said" no prosecutor worth their salt is going to try that case.

 

If there isn't any more to this whole thing than "he said/she said" then this is a tremendous disservice to Patrick Kane.

 

And if he wasn't "Patrick Kane" no prosecutor would have even looked twice at it, much less gotten to the point of a Grand Jury.

 

Something to keep in mind though...  Roethlisberger's first accuser's best friend spoke out in defense of Roethlisberger saying she knew it was consensual and she also had a conversation with the accuser where the accuser specifically said she was doing a money grab.  Roethlisberger's second accuser admitted to police it was consensual but only filed a complaint after friends made her feel like a whore for being with him.  I've read all of the reports on Roethlisberger, and I defend him non-stop as a result.  Guy just got slandered to all hell...

 

Kane has neither of those types of defenses popping up.

 

He does, actually. He has an off duty police officer who was hired "for security" that drove the "party" to Kane's house and is an eyewitness up to that point. And there are questions as to the veracity of the accuser - there were other people in the house when the alleged assault occurred.

 

In the absence of a rape kit (she did go to the hospital, so there should be one) and some indication of actual trauma (as in the Voynov case) the case will likely be incredibly difficult to prosecute, which is likely why a Grand Jury was called to make the determination.

 

If I'm Kane, I don't want the Grand Jury to be delayed into Training Camp. I want this moving along apace.

 

Assuming Kane didn't actually do what he's accused of, of course.

 

If he did, hang him high.

[Polaris922]

If there isn't any more to this whole thing than "he said/she said" then this is a tremendous disservice to Patrick Kane.

 

And if he wasn't "Patrick Kane" no prosecutor would have even looked twice at it, much less gotten to the point of a Grand Jury.

 

 

He does, actually. He has an off duty police officer who was hired "for security" that drove the "party" to Kane's house and is an eyewitness up to that point. And there are questions as to the veracity of the accuser - there were other people in the house when the alleged assault occurred.

 

In the absence of a rape kit (she did go to the hospital, so there should be one) and some indication of actual trauma (as in the Voynov case) the case will likely be incredibly difficult to prosecute, which is likely why a Grand Jury was called to make the determination.

 

If I'm Kane, I don't want the Grand Jury to be delayed into Training Camp. I want this moving along apace.

 

Assuming Kane didn't actually do what he's accused of, of course.

 

If he did, hang him high.

 

I was referring to the difference in that Roethlisberger's accusers both made statements that cleared him.  Kane doesn't have that going for him.  Comments direct from the accuser. 

[murraycraven]

so there should be one)

 

there is one from what I read this morning...

[hf101]

@ScottLevinWGRZ

SOURCE: Still NO talks have taken place AT ALL between #patrickkane lawyers and alleged rape victim. @WGRZ Despite reports to the contrary

 

So which source is most believable ??

[B21]

So which source is most believable ??

 

Neither.  They are all lawyers. 

[B21]

Something to keep in mind though...  Roethlisberger's first accuser's best friend spoke out in defense of Roethlisberger saying she knew it was consensual and she also had a conversation with the accuser where the accuser specifically said she was doing a money grab.  Roethlisberger's second accuser admitted to police it was consensual but only filed a complaint after friends made her feel like a whore for being with him.  I've read all of the reports on Roethlisberger, and I defend him non-stop as a result.  Guy just got slandered to all hell...

 

Interesting.  I didn't know that about the second accuser.  Makes it even more outlandish then that the sheriff who announced the acquittal took it upon himself to really admonish Roethlisberger.  I still do have an issue with the suspension (he shouldn't have been trolling a college bar) but everything else does smell of a huge smear campaign.

[Polaris922]

Interesting. I didn't know that about the second accuser. Makes it even more outlandish then that the sheriff who announced the acquittal took it upon himself to really admonish Roethlisberger. I still do have an issue with the suspension (he shouldn't have been trolling a college bar) but everything else does smell of a huge smear campaign.

That's the amazing thing.. It wasn't even an acquittal. He was never even charged because she admitted in an interview with police she only filed a report because her friends made her feel so bad about it.

I don't care that he's at a college bar when he's still in his 20's himself. Lol

[murraycraven]

The thing is that Kane is forever tagged w/ being a dirtbag in the court of public opinion.   I find it hard to believe that Kane is not culpable to some degree here.   How this shakes out is anyone's guess.

[jammer2]

@murraycraven  The mindless assault on the cab driver a few years back assured that Patrick would ALWAYS be guilty in the court of public approval....and that's on him, if the assumption is correct or not.

[radoran]

@murraycraven The mindless assault on the cab driver a few years back assured that Patrick would ALWAYS be guilty in the court of public approval....and that's on him, if the assumption is correct or not.

You mean the "assault" that EVEN THE CABBIE says was blown out of proportion?

[jammer2]

@radoran  I dunno, he struck another human being over a damn dime....for an average Joe or a millionaire....that is off the charts inappropriate.

[radoran]

@radoran I dunno, he struck another human being over a damn dime....for an average Joe or a millionaire....that is off the charts inappropriate.

that's not actually what anyone said happened and certainly not wh at he pled guilty to.

That's not to say Kane doesn't have a rep and doesn't deserve it

I know many people who know Kane personally from South Buffalo.

He's no angel, but he's not the delinquent he's made out to be either.

[hf101]

 

Attorneys for the parties have been in communication for weeks, though they had not reached a formal agreement by Wednesday afternoon that would potentially end the criminal investigation. To the contrary, the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described a fluid situation in which both Kane and his accuser have refused at times to acquiesce because they both view themselves as the wronged party.

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/09/16/report-tenuous-talks-of-resolution-in-kane-case/

 

Kane is expected to attend training camp.