Patrick Kane Rape Investigation

[Guest]

Julie DiCaro didn't go to work at the Score today because of threats against her

 

i don't know why she keeps saying that she didn't expect this from hawks fans. hawks fans are sports fans. they are no different.

[Guest]

I hate that "you want this rape to have happened" narrative.

 

Well, lots of people would rather her have been actually raped than themselves be wrong.

Yeah, [expletive] like that is what I'm talking about.

 

That's despicable.

 

it is

[jersey cubs fan]

Julie DiCaro didn't go to work at the Score today because of threats against her

 

i don't know why she keeps saying that she didn't expect this from hawks fans. hawks fans are sports fans. they are no different.

you need to criticize her for that?

[Guest]

Julie DiCaro didn't go to work at the Score today because of threats against her

 

i don't know why she keeps saying that she didn't expect this from hawks fans. hawks fans are sports fans. they are no different.

you need to criticize her for that?

 

you really read that post as a criticism of her? it was a criticism of sports fans.

[jersey cubs fan]

Julie DiCaro didn't go to work at the Score today because of threats against her

 

i don't know why she keeps saying that she didn't expect this from hawks fans. hawks fans are sports fans. they are no different.

you need to criticize her for that?

 

you really read that post as a criticism of her? it was a criticism of sports fans.

Yeah, "I don't know why she keeps saying that" and they are sports fans sounds like it excuses those people while complaining about the way she's handle it. It's not a sports fan thing, it's a scumbag thing. There are lots of scumbags that lash out at accuser's and media. Perhaps she had previously experienced mostly positive interactions and is now blown away by the number of truly terrible men's right's douchebags and "don't ask questions if they ask you not to ask questions" idiots attacking her. Why wouldn't she be shocked by it if she's never experienced it?

[Brian707]

Yeah I saw someone actually tell her that she shouldn't offer an opinion on this matter because she was a rape victim and her views might be skewed. Society is just the worst.

[Guest]

Yeah I saw someone actually tell her that she shouldn't offer an opinion on this matter because she was a rape victim and her views might be skewed. Society is just the worst.

Sulley said that in this very thread

[Guest]

Julie DiCaro didn't go to work at the Score today because of threats against her

 

i don't know why she keeps saying that she didn't expect this from hawks fans. hawks fans are sports fans. they are no different.

you need to criticize her for that?

 

you really read that post as a criticism of her? it was a criticism of sports fans.

Yeah, "I don't know why she keeps saying that" and they are sports fans sounds like it excuses those people while complaining about the way she's handle it. It's not a sports fan thing, it's a scumbag thing. There are lots of scumbags that lash out at accuser's and media. Perhaps she had previously experienced mostly positive interactions and is now blown away by the number of truly terrible men's right's douchebags and "don't ask questions if they ask you not to ask questions" idiots attacking her. Why wouldn't she be shocked by it if she's never experienced it?

 

i think you're trying too hard to find faults in that post because i previously criticized her coverage. in general, i've seen a lot of people who follow the blackhawks express shock that this fanbase would have a large segment of people act this way. i just don't understand why people are surprised. yes it's a scumbag thing, but of course it's amplified when a popular sports figure is accused. it just adds another layer of bias.

[jersey cubs fan]

i think you're trying too hard to find faults in that post because i previously criticized her coverage.

 

I had no idea you previously criticized her coverage but knowing that fact now just backs up my previous assumption about the post in question.

 

You are shooting the messenger.

[Guest]

i think you're trying too hard to find faults in that post because i previously criticized her coverage.

 

I had no idea you previously criticized her coverage but knowing that fact now just backs up my previous assumption about the post in question.

 

You are shooting the messenger.

 

pretty sure that phrase doesn't work when it's the messenger's opinion. with the horrible developments on her twitter, it's a poor time to criticize the ultimately meaningless faults in her reporting, which is why i didn't. you're just trying really hard.

[jersey cubs fan]

i think you're trying too hard to find faults in that post because i previously criticized her coverage.

 

I had no idea you previously criticized her coverage but knowing that fact now just backs up my previous assumption about the post in question.

 

You are shooting the messenger.

 

pretty sure that phrase doesn't work when it's the messenger's opinion. with the horrible developments on her twitter, it's a poor time to criticize the ultimately meaningless faults in her reporting, which is why i didn't. you're just trying really hard.

That's a really dumb phrase you are using and it doesn't make any sense. I'm responding to some nonsense you are writing.

[Guest]

i think you're trying too hard to find faults in that post because i previously criticized her coverage.

 

I had no idea you previously criticized her coverage but knowing that fact now just backs up my previous assumption about the post in question.

 

You are shooting the messenger.

 

pretty sure that phrase doesn't work when it's the messenger's opinion. with the horrible developments on her twitter, it's a poor time to criticize the ultimately meaningless faults in her reporting, which is why i didn't. you're just trying really hard.

That's a really dumb phrase you are using and it doesn't make any sense. I'm responding to some nonsense you are writing.

 

well, of course you would think it's dumb. you constantly look for things to be mad at people about, even when there's not much there. it's what you do.

[apete6]

Might not matter at this point, but several tweets saying that the accuser intends to proceed with complying with police, has texts from that night saying she wanted to leave way earlier, and her friend, who was originally reluctant to testify because she is 19 and shouldn't have been in the bar in the first place, has now agreed to cooperate with police and testify if needed.

 

So, if the DA wants to proceed, that testimony could lead to a Grand Jury and/or indictment. But with all of this circus going on, he might decide to just end the whole thing.

 

Have to wonder about those tweets. Not to go on a rant about journalistic standards these days, but throwing a tweet out there is no substitute for double or triple sourcing your reporting. It's so much easier for people to manipulate a case, basically using the media as their mouthpiece. Have to wonder what the motivation is for talking. Same thing with Kane's side of course.

 

They were from Julie DiCaro (ex-lawyer who now works for 670 the Score), so I consider them relatively trustworthy.

[Guest]

i think you're trying too hard to find faults in that post because i previously criticized her coverage.

 

I had no idea you previously criticized her coverage but knowing that fact now just backs up my previous assumption about the post in question.

 

You are shooting the messenger.

 

pretty sure that phrase doesn't work when it's the messenger's opinion. with the horrible developments on her twitter, it's a poor time to criticize the ultimately meaningless faults in her reporting, which is why i didn't. you're just trying really hard.

That's a really dumb phrase you are using and it doesn't make any sense. I'm responding to some nonsense you are writing.

 

well, of course you would think it's dumb. you constantly look for things to be mad at people about, even when there's not much there. it's what you do.

 

Sometimes when you nitpick about the absolute accuracy of things, you can contribute to a larger problem than the one you're trying to fix.

[biittner77]

From the Committed Indian:

 

http://thecommittedindian.com/loseloselose/#more-14487

 

It is over the top because I think that he let his rage get the best of his nuance to express that rage. Someone mentioned a few pages ago that if this was David Backes there would be few, if any, Hawks fans taking a "wait for the facts" approach. So there is absolutely bias there.

 

Where he loses me is that "wait for the facts" does not equal "The victim is a big faker, liar, gold digger". At least for me it means that I hold out hope that it didn't really happen because the alternative is horrible. But the odds are against Kane being innocent. That he might get away with it makes me sick. That we'll never completely know what happened means I will never look at him the same way again.

[Guest]

i know this source is [expletive], but i saw this on twitter and thought it was crazy enough to post

 

http://sportsmockery.com/2015/09/kane-accusers-father-posts-haunting-picture-to-facebook/

 

wtf is going on

[Sammy Sofa]

These are some...determined parents.

 

Yikes.

[apete6]

i know this source is [expletive], but i saw this on twitter and thought it was crazy enough to post

 

http://sportsmockery.com/2015/09/kane-accusers-father-posts-haunting-picture-to-facebook/

 

wtf is going on

 

The "2 Minutes for Slashing" comment was pretty good.

[biittner77]

Just when you think this can't get any stranger...

[Ryne Ween]

What is the new strange development?

[Sammy Sofa]

I think he was reacting to Papa Juggalo.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Ha! Papa Juggalo. That should be someones nickname

[Banedon]

I think he was reacting to Papa Juggalo.

 

The worst Constantine villain.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think he was reacting to Papa Juggalo.

 

The worst Constantine villain.

 

Well played.

[Exile on Waveland]

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?

 

I'm late to this ball game, but...

 

This is a really good point. Harping on "circumstantial evidence" is a defense counsel trope (or trope for those that want to make a conviction/guilt seem less likely) that has very little meaning, in actuality, and is really an obfuscation of real-world/life practicalities. It's used, incorrectly, to sound like "bad" evidence; when it is no such thing. Almost everything is circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence can be very,very persuasive (and often times more convincing than "direct" testimony -- we all know about the issues with eye-witness testimony). "Circumstantial" should not be equated with "lesser" evidence; it merely means evidence that requires an inference to make the broader conclusion ("direct" requires no such inference). So: fingerprints at the scene are "circumstantial." DNA evidence is "circumstantial." As the saying goes, the infamous "smoking gun" is actually "circumstantial" evidence. The common example lawyers often give to jurors is that if you see rabbit tracks in the snow, that's "circumstantial" evidence that a rabbit ran through the snow. But guess what? If you see rabbit tracks in the snow, a rabbit ran through the [expletive] snow, you dunce, even if there's no "direct" evidence.

 

 

 

This ties into a point made in the politics thread regarding the Richard Glossip murder (which I really want to comment on many, many things wrong with that post but not sure I have the energy -- I worked on that case, though not at the guilt phase, only the Eighth Amendment phase). Most murders are going to be based on "circumstantial" evidence considering the main witness has been killed (duh) and most murders, shockingly, aren't caught on tape.