|
Aphrodite posted:So uh, what actually happened? Mother was given a bag by the hospital to put the clothes the Accuser took off before she went in for the rape kit. That Bag was the one that the mother gave to the Attorney and represented it as the Rape Kit bag. Police put the clothes in an actual evidence bag rather than the hospital's bag when they came to pick up the clothing.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Aphrodite posted:So uh, what actually happened? the accuser was at her mother's house before she went to the hospital and changed her top. when they went to the hospital, the nurse was going to give the mother a brown paper bag to collect the top in. the police showed up and collected the shirt at some point, and did not take the paper bag. the mother is denying that she ever took possession of the brown paper bag, but the DA made it very clear he thinks she is lying about that, and now they're going to investigate the hoax about this paper bag
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Its got to seem by now that the balance of evidence is in Kanes camp. Cant say I was surprised that the rape kit left at the residence was a hoax by the accusers family. Wouldnt make any sense to do it that way by some kind of Defence goon squad, would just end up hurting their case by having an attempt intimidation that public. Looks like no trial, no settlement. Wonder if there will even be a counter-suit or if Kane will just drop it. There is like zero chance of Kane opening himself up to that if he gets out of this without a court case otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Mother was given a bag by the hospital to put the clothes the Accuser took off before she went in for the rape kit. That Bag was the one that the mother gave to the Attorney and represented it as the Rape Kit bag. Police put the clothes in an actual evidence bag rather than the hospital's bag when they came to pick up the clothing. Ok, but who brought the bag to the mother's house? Or did the mom invent the story of "finding the bag"? Did they do this with the intent of making it seem like the victim was being intimidated?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Aye Doc posted:the accuser was at her mother's house before she went to the hospital and changed her top. when they went to the hospital, the nurse was going to give the mother a brown paper bag to collect the top in. the police showed up and collected the shirt at some point, and did not take the paper bag. the mother is denying that she ever took possession of the brown paper bag, but the DA made it very clear he thinks she is lying about that, and now they're going to investigate the hoax about this paper bag Prosecutor also straight up suggested that someone would do this to cast doubt on DNA evidence, for whatever purpose. e: The mother invented the whole finding the bag story. Also calling it a rape kit. Also the attorney Eoannou is an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
If I'm Kane I'm taking that no indictment and running the gently caress away. No way am I counter suing as that means details of that night will come out. And that has literally zero chance of helping him. Even if he wins, chances are the small amount of money the family could pay wouldn't be worth the information getting out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Duro posted:Ok, but who brought the bag to the mother's house? Or did the mom invent the story of "finding the bag"? Did they do this with the intent of making it seem like the victim was being intimidated? The mother originally said she thought it was dropped off by a good Samaritan, so that couldn't have been the intent. The rumors about the DNA evidence had leaked before that, I suppose her plan could have been that revealing a damaged evidence bag could cast doubt on those? I mean we're never going to get an answer there, she's never going to admit what happened. ...And then it turns out they did the rape kit improperly anyway This case is messed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Duro posted:Ok, but who brought the bag to the mother's house? Or did the mom invent the story of "finding the bag"? Did they do this with the intent of making it seem like the victim was being intimidated? The Mom brought the bag to the mother's house she was given it by the Hospital. She did apparently invent that story, and either that, or implying that the contents were tampered with destroying the credibility of DNA evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
It really is like a Law and Order episode at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:So uh, what actually happened? The bag was a hoax perpetrated by the accuser. her mother and lawyer. Nothing about it was real. The DA seems to be a very, very sharp guy. He laid out exactly what happened and basically shut down nonsense quickly. There were a lot of other little interesting tidbits in there including: The accuser has had two lawyers since the beginning, which has made in incredibly hard to talk/question her. He also stated that it is very unusual for this to happen. They likely can not charge the mother or lawyer with any crime because they can't find a law that they broke which is very sad. The accuser did not go directly to the hospital as had been reported and originally said. Evidently she had gone home first and changed her shirt at least. Only days later did the mother report this and decide to turn over the original shirt as evidence. And now the last and probably most important... "The question in my mind is not when this case goes a grand jury. The question in my mind is IF this case goes to a grand jury." -- Frank Sedita.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Djarum posted:The bag was a hoax perpetrated by the accuser. her mother and lawyer. Nothing about it was real. The DA seems to be a very, very sharp guy. He laid out exactly what happened and basically shut down nonsense quickly. There were a lot of other little interesting tidbits in there including: Not so much the Accuser. They don't know and are investigating if the accuser had anything to do with this hoax or if it was the mother acting on her own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
I don't like this "changing the shirt" story Does this mean she didn't hand in whatever shirt she wore that night?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Not so much the Accuser. They don't know and are investigating if the accuser had anything to do with this hoax or if it was the mother acting on her own. Well she is included since her lawyer is representing her. By proxy she was perpetrating a hoax.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Duro posted:I don't like this "changing the shirt" story Not until later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:It really is like a Law and Order episode at this point. McCoy would have found a way to nail Kane to the wall. Somehow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Duro posted:I don't like this "changing the shirt" story the DA said that the police took possession of the shirt she wore that night
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:McCoy would have found a way to nail Kane to the wall. Somehow. This would be SVU, and McCoy isn't on that show. That's probably why Kane isn't in the hoosegow as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
WGN's female morning host is proclaiming Kane's innocent, since the woman is a slut who was asking for it with her sexy top. Kane is the victim. Just like exonerated victim Ben Roethlisberger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Duro posted:I don't like this "changing the shirt" story That's what the Bag was for and she did hand in the shirt she wore that night. It just wasn't in that bag, and was given and currently in possession of the police that picked it up. If you were completely violated would you not want to at least change out of old clothing. She did comply and submit it for testing though. The problem is the mother seemingly tried to move things along and say someone left this bag on her front porch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Stabler would have Kane's girlfriend outside the courtroom door to slap him in the face as soon as he walked out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:WGN's female morning host is proclaiming Kane's innocent, since the woman is a slut who was asking for it with her sexy top. Kane is the victim. Just like exonerated victim Ben Roethlisberger.  If this is a fabrication I can't wait for this to go right alongside the Duke Lacross case as the goto for slut-shaming and assuming the accuser is lying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Stabler would have Kane's girlfriend outside the courtroom door to slap him in the face as soon as he walked out. this is undersellling detective stabler's commitment to the force. he would have walked into the room where kane was waiting for questioning and choked him against the wall and slammed him through a table, and if that didn't work, he'd have gone undercover as a serial rapist to try to gain access to patrick kane's secret rape van so that he could bust him
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Dexo posted:
When I was Googling the Kane cab driver incident (I had never heard the thing about being unlicensed Paulo mentioned) I found this: http://blackhawkup.com/2009/08/11/report-kanes-cabbie-a-drunken-bafoon/ It's just a fansite and not legitimate news, but god drat. AsInHowe posted:WGN's female morning host is proclaiming Kane's innocent, since the woman is a slut who was asking for it with her sexy top. Kane is the victim. Just like exonerated victim Ben Roethlisberger. WGn also used Nazi symbols in their Yom Kippur report earlier this week. Maybe it's time for that network to take a break. Aphrodite fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Wasn't there an SVU episode where one of the lawyers or someone essentially set up multiple child honey pots to try and set up a dude who just got out of jail for child molestation or something who wanted nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
The only SVU episode I remember is the retarded girl who worked at the grocery store getting raped by her boss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
If this was football, basketball or baseball it actually probably would end up being an SVU episode next season.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Dexo posted:
Also, when Kane inevitably commits future drunken crimes, everyone will proclaim false allegations again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:If this was football, basketball or baseball it actually probably would end up being an SVU episode next season. Instead of ripped from the headlines, SVU is predicting the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Harlock posted:There was a hockey player rape episode. The girl was coerced into lying by her professor that she was gang raped by multiple members of the team. Her lies and testimony were not taken seriously by the jury and charges were dismissed. However, she was intoxicated and did not consent - one guy actually did rape her and went free. That was the Duke Lacrosse case episode. Aphrodite posted:If this was football, basketball or baseball it actually probably would end up being an SVU episode next season. Nah, will definitely be one. Especially with this whole Mother hoax angle. They will change the sport from Hockey tho. SVU version will probably do, Flashy Soccer player, with drinking problem, many high profile blowups publicly, he beat up a bus driver once, is accused of rape. SVU version's will probably be a legit evidence bag though. Probably play up the fact the player has a police officer friend body guard Dexo fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:The mother originally said she thought it was dropped off by a good Samaritan, so that couldn't have been the intent. Yeah if I had a hunch for motive, that would probably be it. I can't think of another that makes sense?? But yeah what a loving moron. Honestly this whole thing just counts a massive amount of doubt on this entire story, even if the victim may be truthful about what happened. But frankly, you can't just separate those two thoughts. She could have been doing it out of desperation because her daughter's legit case is in danger, or because their ruse was falling apart. Assuming this goes to trial, how would that work in court? Can a judge order the jury to not consider that or something? That prosecutor was not having people's bullshit. Check the ned of the video here haha http://deadspin.com/prosecutors-believe-supposed-tampered-evidence-in-patri-1733015962 THE MACHO MAN fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
I would assume that since it does not ultimately affect Kane in any way and that the trial would be The People vs. Kane and not The Accuser vs. Kane, it wouldn't be admissible. But my legal knowledge literally comes from TV shows and Phoenix Wright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
my favorite svu episode is the one where benson does something that is morally just, but questionable ethically from a purely professional standpoint
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Oh one more thing that I kinda missed the first time I watched it because of all the other nonsense. The prosecutor is saying they found evidence that could trigger the Brady rule.quote:"The Brady Rule, named for Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused-- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule Hope nobody misses this. This is huge news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Listening to Kane's lawyer's presser. I know it's an attorney's job to advocate for his client, but still: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Oh one more thing that I kinda missed the first time I watched it because of all the other nonsense. The prosecutor is saying they found evidence that could trigger the Brady rule. You mean like the hunting scene from My Cousin Vinny? "Boy, I'd sure like to get a look at your files."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Listening to Kane's lawyer's presser. He's a good rear end lawyer though. He's going about as close as you can to linking the mother and the daughter to doing this hoax without actually saying it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Oh one more thing that I kinda missed the first time I watched it because of all the other nonsense. The prosecutor is saying they found evidence that could trigger the Brady rule. Explain, please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Explain, please. If the prosecutor, during the course of their investigation, discovers evidence that could be good for the accused's (Kane's) side, they have to give that evidence to the accused, even if that hurts their case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Oh one more thing that I kinda missed the first time I watched it because of all the other nonsense. The prosecutor is saying they found evidence that could trigger the Brady rule. I guess criminal law is vastly different in the US, because in Canada the government/prosecutor always has to disclose all of its evidence to defendant, whether it's exculpatory or not. You have a right to know the case be met against you and to make a full answer and defense. There is nothing that "triggers" this rule Edit: ok, as I thought, this is automatic in the States too. I figured as much. Just poorly worded by the prosecutor Duro fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Explain, please. Brady rule essentially means if the prosecutor or accuser finds information that aids the defendant and their case in anyway, the defendant must be notified of it. If they aren't notified of it and they find out about it later the evidence would be considered suppressed and which means the final decision and outcome would be called into question. It's not something that's triggered it's always in effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:48
|
|