Patrick Kane Rape Investigation

[rocket]

well hopefully this means kane is just an ordinary douche and not a rapist

[Sammy Sofa]

DNA results are in. No traces of Patrick Kane DNA! [expletive] yeah! Innocent until proven guilty.

 

Might want to tap the brakes there.

 

Yeah, it doesn't prove innocence.

 

That said, like David said, it's probably the closest thing we'll get to proof of innocence, and probably means that most fans are going to give him a free pass.

 

Kane probably doesn't even need settle now. It's a case that prosecutors are probably going to be very hesitant to pursue.

 

They still found his DNA from the injuries/marks on her leg and shoulder where she said he bit and scratched her. People are acting like this is a slam dunk, but rape kits specifically look for DNA evidence from the accused on the victim elsewhere and not just the genitals since the accused could have used a condom or pulled out or penetration was actually minimal, which typically makes THAT kind of DNA evidence difficult or impossible to find down yonder.

[Guest]

Don't stop believin', there, mojo.

[Guest]

if your assertion that a rape accusation, statistically speaking, means that a rape probably happened, then does the lack of DNA evidence mean that it probably didnt?

[Sammy Sofa]

Nope. It basically just means they couldn't find DNA evidence of Kaner droppin' loads. Considering they DID find his DNA where she was injured he's nowhere near in the clear.

 

Here's a hypothetical: Kane forces her in a compromising position, penetrates her with his turgid little rat stump, disgustingly pumps his hips a couple times before deciding "[expletive] this" and pulls out. Is that not rape? Is that not sexual assault? That she was injured and those injuries link directly to him means, what, exactly? Why does that DNA evidence mean nothing, but the lack of [expletive] DNA mean everything?

 

There's a whole host of scenarios where Kane still assaults or rapes her without leaving behind that kind of DNA evidence, the most simple of which is that he used a condom. But I doubt you'd leap to the MRA touchstone of "rapists don't use condoms!" like the former DA laughably did in the article linked.

[Guest]

I'm just talking numbers, like you were. There are a lot of hypotheticals, like she made the whole thing up, Kane wouldn't let her in his house, she forced her way in, he bit her on the back and scratched her because she was attacking his friend. They finally found a broom and cleared her and her friend out of the house and she was pissed? Anything could have happened.

[Guest]

And condoms don't protect you from curly-wurlies.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just talking numbers, like you were. There are a lot of hypotheticals, like she made the whole thing up, Kane wouldn't let her in his house, she forced her way in, he bit her on the back and scratched her because she was attacking his friend. They finally found a broom and cleared her and her friend out of the house and she was pissed? Anything could have happened.

 

Sure, and they have to weigh the whole thing. With that I'd assume Kane has decent security setup and there'd be video or photos of something as obvious and dramatic as someone forcing their way into his house. Such a system likely would not extend to the bedrooms.

 

It's incredibly hard to sell people on the idea that something occurred without there being evidence of the accused ejaculating. Many people seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around the idea that assault or rape can occur without the accused getting their rocks off, or without them finishing in or on the victim. One could see it as very telling that only this very specific piece of information was leaked when rape kits are used to search for a whole host of physical evidence on the victim's body. This simply doesn't exonerate him at all; it simply means he didn't leave ejaculate DNA evidence in or on her genitals.

[Sammy Sofa]

And condoms don't protect you from curly-wurlies.

 

I doesn't sound like they're not talking about hair evidence; even the former DA crowing about this said it was in regard to vaginal swabs. This was, presumably, about checking her and her underwear for Kane's mutagen. Again, they DID find his DNA on her, where she was injured and said he injured her, and under her fingernails. Unless it's found that there's no evidence of sexual activity he's still in a lot of trouble.

 

Honestly, this is one of the reasons so many people accused of rape or sexual assault end up walking; there's this idea that they're automatically these out of control monsters just violently raw-dogging it and leaving a Jackson Pollock painting all over the place for CSI to slip on. The most likely and simple explanation is he used a condom, but there's this reluctance to see rape or assault as possible if a condom is involved.

[Guest]

And condoms don't protect you from curly-wurlies.

 

I doesn't sound like they're not talking about hair evidence; even the former DA crowing about this said it was in regard to vaginal swabs. This was, presumably, about checking her and her underwear for Kane's mutagen. Again, they DID find his DNA on her, where she was injured and said he injured her, and under her fingernails. Unless it's found that there's no evidence of sexual activity he's still in a lot of trouble.

 

Honestly, this is one of the reasons so many people accused of rape or sexual assault end up walking; there's this idea that they're automatically these out of control monsters just violently raw-dogging it and leaving a Jackson Pollock painting all over the place for CSI to slip on. The most likely and simple explanation is he used a condom, but there's this reluctance to see rape or assault as possible if a condom is involved.

 

i guess (this is serious) another possibility is he was shitfaced hammered and *couldn't* get his rocks off

[Guest]

I'm just talking numbers, like you were. There are a lot of hypotheticals, like she made the whole thing up, Kane wouldn't let her in his house, she forced her way in, he bit her on the back and scratched her because she was attacking his friend. They finally found a broom and cleared her and her friend out of the house and she was pissed? Anything could have happened.

 

Sure, and they have to weigh the whole thing. With that I'd assume Kane has decent security setup and there'd be video or photos of something as obvious and dramatic as someone forcing their way into his house. Such a system likely would not extend to the bedrooms.

 

It's incredibly hard to sell people on the idea that something occurred without there being evidence of the accused ejaculating. Many people seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around the idea that assault or rape can occur without the accused getting their rocks off, or without them finishing in or on the victim. One could see it as very telling that only this very specific piece of information was leaked when rape kits are used to search for a whole host of physical evidence on the victim's body. This simply doesn't exonerate him at all; it simply means he didn't leave ejaculate DNA evidence in or on her genitals.

 

so we're saying goodbye to the numbers now and embracing the inferential. ok, i guess one can easily infer that she saw Patrick Kane and saw an opportunity, he got a little bit rough before much happened and she thought it was enough to grab a settlement. If you're going to use Kane's history of douchebaggery, then you also have to acknowledge his penchant to attract absolutely [expletive] crazy women.

 

http://mit.zenfs.com/206/2011/05/AKNENNR.jpg

[Guest]

Also, i get a chuckle out of picturing some sort of superhuman succubus, yellow eyes filled with hate for any human thing, holding Kane's friend up by his throat while Kane desperately leaps onto her back, biting and scratching.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't know what you're talking about when you keep mentioning numbers.

[Guest]

I don't know what you're talking about when you keep mentioning numbers.

 

Your statement about how statistically speaking, if a woman accuses someone of rape, it's likely it happened. You aren't basing your whole argument on that?

[Banedon]

Nope. It basically just means they couldn't find DNA evidence of Kaner droppin' loads. Considering they DID find his DNA where she was injured he's nowhere near in the clear.

 

Here's a hypothetical: Kane forces her in a compromising position, penetrates her with his turgid little rat stump, disgustingly pumps his hips a couple times before deciding "[expletive] this" and pulls out. Is that not rape? Is that not sexual assault? That she was injured and those injuries link directly to him means, what, exactly? Why does that DNA evidence mean nothing, but the lack of [expletive] DNA mean everything?

 

There's a whole host of scenarios where Kane still assaults or rapes her without leaving behind that kind of DNA evidence, the most simple of which is that he used a condom. But I doubt you'd leap to the MRA touchstone of "rapists don't use condoms!" like the former DA laughably did in the article linked.

 

Sure he's not in the clear, but the point is that they can't prove it. I'm just spitballing here....but if Kane said something like "We had some rough sex. She scratched me a bit, I bit her shoulder...that kinda freaked her out and she left...," then unless they have some more evidence we haven't heard about, I just don't think we're gonna see much here.

 

Short of the victim coming out and admitting that she made the whole thing up, I don't think there's any way for this to be more "in the clear".

 

In fact, that's a good question....what would have to happen at this point to make him "in the clear"?

[Wilson A2000]

I wonder what the data is on accused rapists getting convicted if it's only a he said, she said and there is no DNA evidence on the woman's underwear or inside of her. Just seems like reasonable doubt will prevail nearly every time.

[KrisBryantisaBeast]

I wonder what the data is on accused rapists getting convicted if it's only a he said, she said and there is no DNA evidence on the woman's underwear or inside of her. Just seems like reasonable doubt will prevail nearly every time.

 

I would think any half way decent lawyer would be able to get their client off in these type of situations. And Kane can obviously afford good lawyers so he probably doesn't have anything to worry about.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't know what you're talking about when you keep mentioning numbers.

 

Your statement about how statistically speaking, if a woman accuses someone of rape, it's likely it happened. You aren't basing your whole argument on that?

 

No, I said if a woman accuses someone of rape *I* assume that it likely happened. Statistically I've talked about how few rape cases are even brought to trial, or how few incidents are reported, or how the accused ultimately rarely do much, if any, jail time, etc., etc..

[Sammy Sofa]

Nope. It basically just means they couldn't find DNA evidence of Kaner droppin' loads. Considering they DID find his DNA where she was injured he's nowhere near in the clear.

 

Here's a hypothetical: Kane forces her in a compromising position, penetrates her with his turgid little rat stump, disgustingly pumps his hips a couple times before deciding "[expletive] this" and pulls out. Is that not rape? Is that not sexual assault? That she was injured and those injuries link directly to him means, what, exactly? Why does that DNA evidence mean nothing, but the lack of [expletive] DNA mean everything?

 

There's a whole host of scenarios where Kane still assaults or rapes her without leaving behind that kind of DNA evidence, the most simple of which is that he used a condom. But I doubt you'd leap to the MRA touchstone of "rapists don't use condoms!" like the former DA laughably did in the article linked.

 

Sure he's not in the clear, but the point is that they can't prove it. I'm just spitballing here....but if Kane said something like "We had some rough sex. She scratched me a bit, I bit her shoulder...that kinda freaked her out and she left...," then unless they have some more evidence we haven't heard about, I just don't think we're gonna see much here.

 

Short of the victim coming out and admitting that she made the whole thing up, I don't think there's any way for this to be more "in the clear".

 

In fact, that's a good question....what would have to happen at this point to make him "in the clear"?

 

Inventing time travel and preventing this from even happening in the first place.

[Sammy Sofa]

I wonder what the data is on accused rapists getting convicted if it's only a he said, she said and there is no DNA evidence on the woman's underwear or inside of her. Just seems like reasonable doubt will prevail nearly every time.

 

I would think any half way decent lawyer would be able to get their client off in these type of situations. And Kane can obviously afford good lawyers so he probably doesn't have anything to worry about.

 

It's why so many rapists end up walking. Basically unless the victim is left a battered, shattered wreck from violent sex, it's ridiculously easy to convince a jury that it was "consensual enough."

[Guest]

I wonder what the data is on accused rapists getting convicted if it's only a he said, she said and there is no DNA evidence on the woman's underwear or inside of her. Just seems like reasonable doubt will prevail nearly every time.

 

I would think any half way decent lawyer would be able to get their client off in these type of situations. And Kane can obviously afford good lawyers so he probably doesn't have anything to worry about.

 

It's why so many rapists end up walking. Basically unless the victim is left a battered, shattered wreck from violent sex, it's ridiculously easy to convince a jury that it was "consensual enough."

No. It's ridiculously easy to create "reasonable doubt".

[Sammy Sofa]

I wonder what the data is on accused rapists getting convicted if it's only a he said, she said and there is no DNA evidence on the woman's underwear or inside of her. Just seems like reasonable doubt will prevail nearly every time.

 

I would think any half way decent lawyer would be able to get their client off in these type of situations. And Kane can obviously afford good lawyers so he probably doesn't have anything to worry about.

 

It's why so many rapists end up walking. Basically unless the victim is left a battered, shattered wreck from violent sex, it's ridiculously easy to convince a jury that it was "consensual enough."

No. It's ridiculously easy to create "reasonable doubt".

 

Which right now can be sold right now simply via the idea he used a condom or didn't bust his nut inside of her or on her. Look at how many comments here and on articles about there where people act like this completely exonerates him. THAT'S the uphill battle with prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases; unlike so many other criminal cases, the expectation of ironclad evidence vs. circumstantial evidence is skewed hugely to the former. Too many people are looking for any and every reason to dismiss it.

 

So what happens when the rest of this investigation is released and it almost certainly shows that the rape kit showed that she had sex that evening. Then basically the difference before and after the info leak is that people assumed that he must have jizzed his mind out all over her? How does that exonerate him?

[kujay]

Of course this doesn't exonerate him.

 

And sorry if this has been discussed, but the issue is whether this squares with his or her statements to police. One of them may have told a story that doesn't square with the DNA test results.

[Ryne Ween]

Basically everything except for being accused points to him not doing anything wrong.

[biittner77]

Basically everything except for being accused points to him not doing anything wrong.

 

Other than the lack of DNA evidence, everything points to him having done something wrong.

Edited September 21, 2015 by biittner77