Not compelled? Are they not subpoenaed and under oath? Not sure I understand.
- Canada Cup

They are subpoenaed and must appear, and they are under oath, but there is no obligation to answer any questions. Anyone called can decline to answer any question for any reason they so choose. Anyone in that house who was aware of what was happening (if a crime was committed) can potentially be charged as an accessory, and therefore the fifth amendment applies anyway.

Edit: apparently under New York law, the witness can only decline to answer using fifth amendment rights. So I guess I was wrong about that part.

[quote=Wetbandit1]Taking their time? Real life isn't an episode of CSI. Someone a friend of mine knows just went to prison for armed robbery, menacing, and a host of other crimes. the whole thing took almost 4 months start to finish. He was arrested about an hour after the crime. And that's a cut and dried case with multiple witnesses. This, where there's a he said she said element and forensic evidence-DNA alone can take up to 6 weeks even if it's near the top of the pile- I think this case is cruising along pretty quickly.

/quote]

If that is the case, then she is the biggest idiot on the planet.

If this case goes to trial, and they can get a conviction, and that's a BIG if, he will most likely get some deal of probation, say five years. Rich people like Kane do not go to jail for these types of cases, especially on the first offense. She will not find that kind of justice in the criminal case.

From that point on in a civil suit, no jury on this planet, unless it is her family and friends, will award that sum.

At the end of the day, she will be kicking herself for turning down that amount.

And I want you all to a few things in mind:

1) If the DA's evidence was that strong, there would be no grand jury, no matter how high of profile this case is. They would have indicted him and we would be waiting for the court date to be announced.

2) If there is a "new" witness, and for he or she to matter, if he/she was not in the room, then it will be nothing more than speculation, just like the other people in the house at the time of the alleged crime.

3) If her claim was that he "overpowered" her, there would be evidence on her body - either on her neck or her wrists. I have worked for lawyers on cases like this - the evidence of force is pretty obvious. The areas a rapist holds a woman down are very susceptible to irritation and/or bruising. These types of marks usually are what make the case a slam dunk. We have not heard anything about these types of markings on her.

4) There were conflicting reports earlier in this case about whether or not she was the woman that wanted to return to his house. If she lied about this, it will be very damaging to her case without specific evidence. The only chance she has in a case without hard evidence is her credibility. If she lied about such a trivial point in this investigation, it will be very hard for her or her attorney to convince a jury that she is telling the truth.

I am not sure one way or the other about this case - they are very tricky. In the end, I suspect all that we will learn from this case is only two people will ever know what really happened in that room, the accuser and Patrick Kane.
- dahawks8819

There was/is evidence. That's why it took a month to get this far. There was DNA and whatever else from the rape kit, and bite marks as well.

They are subpoenaed and must appear, and they are under oath, but there is no obligation to answer any questions. Anyone called can decline to answer any question for any reason they so choose.
- Sandus

And then jailed on contempt. The only way you can legally decline to answer under oath is through the fifth amendment.

And then jailed on contempt. The only way you can legally decline to answer under oath is through the fifth amendment.
- Wetbandit1

Yeah, I looked up the New York statutes. I amended my post.

Taking their time? Real life isn't an episode of CSI. Someone a friend of mine knows just went to prison for armed robbery, menacing, and a host of other crimes. the whole thing took almost 4 months start to finish. He was arrested about an hour after the crime. And that's a cut and dried case with multiple witnesses. This, where there's a he said she said element and forensic evidence-DNA alone can take up to 6 weeks even if it's near the top of the pile- I think this case is cruising along pretty quickly.

/quote]

If that is the case, then she is the biggest idiot on the planet.

If this case goes to trial, and they can get a conviction, and that's a BIG if, he will most likely get some deal of probation, say five years. Rich people like Kane do not go to jail for these types of cases, especially on the first offense. She will not find that kind of justice in the criminal case.

From that point on in a civil suit, no jury on this planet, unless it is her family and friends, will award that sum.

At the end of the day, she will be kicking herself for turning down that amount.

And I want you all to a few things in mind:

1) If the DA's evidence was that strong, there would be no grand jury, no matter how high of profile this case is. They would have indicted him and we would be waiting for the court date to be announced.

2) If there is a "new" witness, and for he or she to matter, if he/she was not in the room, then it will be nothing more than speculation, just like the other people in the house at the time of the alleged crime.

3) If her claim was that he "overpowered" her, there would be evidence on her body - either on her neck or her wrists. I have worked for lawyers on cases like this - the evidence of force is pretty obvious. The areas a rapist holds a woman down are very susceptible to irritation and/or bruising. These types of marks usually are what make the case a slam dunk. We have not heard anything about these types of markings on her.

4) There were conflicting reports earlier in this case about whether or not she was the woman that wanted to return to his house. If she lied about this, it will be very damaging to her case without specific evidence. The only chance she has in a case without hard evidence is her credibility. If she lied about such a trivial point in this investigation, it will be very hard for her or her attorney to convince a jury that she is telling the truth.

I am not sure one way or the other about this case - they are very tricky. In the end, I suspect all that we will learn from this case is only two people will ever know what really happened in that room, the accuser and Patrick Kane.
- dahawks8819


There was/is evidence. That's why it took a month to get this far. There was DNA and whatever else from the rape kit, and bite marks as well.
- Wetbandit1[quote=Wetbandit1]There was/is evidence. That's why it took a month to get this far. There was DNA and whatever else from the rape kit, and bite marks as well.

That whole post you quoted is pointless beginning with point #1 (see bolded part). He says if the case was so strong there would be no grand jury and he would be indicted. How does he expect someone to get indicted without a grand jury? Makes no sense.

I see absolutely no good coming from allowing Kane to be at camp if this continues.
Can't see anyway it happens unless everything disappears.
My thinking is the only thing the front office is contemplating is how Kane's suspension happens...As in whether the NHL suspends him or the Blackhawks.

They are subpoenaed and must appear, and they are under oath, but there is no obligation to answer any questions. Anyone called can decline to answer any question for any reason they so choose. Anyone in that house who was aware of what was happening (if a crime was committed) can potentially be charged as an accessory, and therefore the fifth amendment applies anyway.

Edit: apparently under New York law, the witness can only decline to answer using fifth amendment rights. So I guess I was wrong about that part.
- Sandus

Fifth amendment can be waived in front of a grand jury. The prosecutor can offer amnesty in exchange for truthful testimony, because the person testifying is not on trial.

And, if the person still refuses, the judge can hold them in contempt indefinitely until they comply.

This happened to Sam Giancana many years ago.

There was/is evidence. That's why it took a month to get this far. There was DNA and whatever else from the rape kit, and bite marks as well.
- Wetbandit1

Your source???............

And for the record, bite marks on her shoulders do not prove rape in any way, shape or form. Nor would he have overpowered her by biting her on the shoulders.

The only thing bite marks may prove is assault and possibly sexual assault, but that is not what is being charged, and sexual assault is a much lesser charge than rape.

That whole post you quoted is pointless beginning with point #1 (see bolded part). He says if the case was so strong there would be no grand jury and he would be indicted. How does he expect someone to get indicted without a grand jury? Makes no sense.
- druryisclutch

I apologize for the wrong word. I meant to say he would have been charged.

I see absolutely no good coming from allowing Kane to be at camp if this continues.
Can't see anyway it happens unless everything disappears.
My thinking is the only thing the front office is contemplating is how Kane's suspension happens...As in whether the NHL suspends him or the Blackhawks.
- Al

For what it's worth (not much) I agree that Kane won't be anywhere near the NHL unless/until the matters (criminal and civil) are resolved one way or another. One of the articles I read - the Chicago Trib article - said something about Kane taking a leave of absence. Don't know if that's a option or not or what the cap implications would be but Kane requesting time away might be a way to side step a lot of things.

Your source???............

And for the record, bite marks on her shoulders do not prove rape in any way, shape or form. Nor would he have overpowered her by biting her on the shoulders.

The only thing bite marks may prove is assault and possibly sexual assault, but that is not what is being charged, and sexual assault is a much lesser charge than rape.
- dahawks8819

In many states sexual assault and rape are legally interchangeable. It just depends on the state's legal definitions of sexual offenses. It is not necessarily a much lesser charge than rape.

I see absolutely no good coming from allowing Kane to be at camp if this continues.
Can't see anyway it happens unless everything disappears.
My thinking is the only thing the front office is contemplating is how Kane's suspension happens...As in whether the NHL suspends him or the Blackhawks.
- Al

Yup. Leave of absence or suspension. And it doesn't really matter, although to me a suspension implies some suspicion of or placing of guilt on Kane.

The on ice TEAM must prepare without Kane, and as though Kane will be out a long time.

Having him in camp with this going on is both a huge distraction, inviting a constant media circus, but also bad in as much as he could be arrested and jailed at any time.

They won't go there, and there is not going be a magical poof of this thing disappearing any time soon.

If I had to bet, I believe it will eventually "go away" somehow, but Kane's life, his relationship with the Blackhawks (such as it will be), will be forever changed.

And we are going to find out a lot about Artemi Panarin, Marko Dano, Vikto Tikhonov and Teuvo Teravainen this fall. Very good for the Hawks that all four are talented, have pro experience, and 3 of the 4 have demonstrated something already at the NHL level.

I see absolutely no good coming from allowing Kane to be at camp if this continues.
Can't see anyway it happens unless everything disappears.
My thinking is the only thing the front office is contemplating is how Kane's suspension happens...As in whether the NHL suspends him or the Blackhawks.
- Al

I have to ask again, and I usually do once every week or so

Suspend him for what?

If you start suspending non arrested, non indicted players, you are opening a pretty big can of worms, not to mention setting a precedent that's hard to walk back from.

Also, I will remind everyone of judge Berman's ruling in the Brady case, no due process, league overstepping their bounds.

I see absolutely no good coming from allowing Kane to be at camp if this continues.
Can't see anyway it happens unless everything disappears.
My thinking is the only thing the front office is contemplating is how Kane's suspension happens...As in whether the NHL suspends him or the Blackhawks.
- Al

Exactly- a media circus not about hockey.

Hawks wait until the grand jury decides and then they grant a leave of absence if the don't know the league is not going to suspend at this point.

I have to ask again, and I usually do once every week or so

Suspend him for what?

If you start suspending non arrested, non indicted players, you are opening a pretty big can of worms, not to mention setting a precedent that's hard to walk back from.

Also, I will remind everyone of judge Berman's ruling in the Brady case, no due process, league overstepping their bounds.
- vabeachbear

The PA agreed to that can of worms. The CBA gives pretty wide authority to the League to suspend during a criminal investigation where the reputation of the League could be undermined by not doing so.

Unlike the NFL, there is an independent appeal process so there is due process.

Its two weeks from camp and we still have not seen the new rings design or the engraving of last years team on the cup . Isnt that strange ?

Felt like we got a look at the 2013 ring early that summer and the jamal mayers , "captain" thing about that teams engraving was done earlier that summer as well.

If anything kinda pissed Kane ruined the party , in addition to being a bad guy , werent the Blackhawks and Kane himself trying to sell us that he was a matured guy in a committed relationship ?

Exactly- a media circus not about hockey.

Hawks wait until the grand jury decides and then they grant a leave of absence if the don't know the league is not going to suspend at this point.
- wiz1901

What do they do if the Grand Jury is still at work when training camp opens which is a very real possibility?

I have to ask again, and I usually do once every week or so

Suspend him for what?

If you start suspending non arrested, non indicted players, you are opening a pretty big can of worms, not to mention setting a precedent that's hard to walk back from.

Also, I will remind everyone of judge Berman's ruling in the Brady case, no due process, league overstepping their bounds.
- vabeachbear

In this case you're not technically suspending him for wrongdoing. You're suspending him because you believe that his presence during such proceedings would be a detriment to your team and that he would be unable to play successfully under the circumstances. I would assume a suspension of this kind would be a paid suspension (which bears the question, how would it affect the salary cap?).

In this case you're not technically suspending him for wrongdoing. You're suspending him because you believe that his presence during such proceedings would be a detriment to your team and that he would be unable to play successfully under the circumstances. I would assume a suspension of this kind would be a paid suspension (which bears the question, how would it affect the salary cap?).
- Sandus

I would guess Kane would want this too, especially if it were a paid leave/suspension - he and his attorneys would not want him out in public every day, and he wouldn't be able to completely hide from the media every day.

In this case you're not technically suspending him for wrongdoing. You're suspending him because you believe that his presence during such proceedings would be a detriment to your team and that he would be unable to play successfully under the circumstances. I would assume a suspension of this kind would be a paid suspension (which bears the question, how would it affect the salary cap?).
- Sandus

Sets a precedent, that anyone can accuse you of anything, and even though nothing proven, your team can suspend you.

Just see this as a really, really slippery slope. If he is arrested, awaiting trial, ya no problem, but not even arrested?

Not taking any side in the specific Kane case, just in general.

Lets say they suspend him, the grand jury thing takes long enough that he misses first 6 weeks of the season. At the end of the grand jury proceedings its determined that he didn't do anything wrong.

So he missed 6 weeks for doing nothing wrong.

Sets a terrible precedent.

Sets a precedent, that anyone can accuse you of anything, and even though nothing proven, your team can suspend you.

Just see this as a really, really slippery slope. If he is arrested, awaiting trial, ya no problem, but not even arrested?

Not taking any side in the specific Kane case, just in general.

Lets say they suspend him, the grand jury thing takes long enough that he misses first 6 weeks of the season. At the end of the grand jury proceedings its determined that he didn't do anything wrong.

So he missed 6 weeks for doing nothing wrong.

Sets a terrible precedent.
- vabeachbear

Okay, let's look at the alternative. He goes to training camp and gets swamped with reporters who only want to talk about te case. The other players have to navigate the sea of media on a daily basis while trying to get ready for the season. Now once a week he has to fly out to Buffalo for regular meetings with his attorney. Also, his life is hanging in the balance here, so you know he's not going to be 100% focused on hockey. It doesn't make sense for him to be there.

Sets a precedent, that anyone can accuse you of anything, and even though nothing proven, your team can suspend you.

Just see this as a really, really slippery slope. If he is arrested, awaiting trial, ya no problem, but not even arrested?

Not taking any side in the specific Kane case, just in general.

Lets say they suspend him, the grand jury thing takes long enough that he misses first 6 weeks of the season. At the end of the grand jury proceedings its determined that he didn't do anything wrong.

So he missed 6 weeks for doing nothing wrong.

Sets a terrible precedent.
- vabeachbear

This can of worms as you put it together with JJ's notion that a suspension carries a connotation of suspicion/guilt together with the Trib article mentioning a leave of absence have me thinking that there will be a paid leave of some sort to allow Kane to manage the legal situation (criminal investigation and potential civil suit) and keep him away from team/league activities until there"s some sort of resolution. That is all unless the cap situation and needed relief dictate something else.

Your source???............

And for the record, bite marks on her shoulders do not prove rape in any way, shape or form. Nor would he have overpowered her by biting her on the shoulders.

The only thing bite marks may prove is assault and possibly sexual assault, but that is not what is being charged, and sexual assault is a much lesser charge than rape.
- dahawks8819

I never said bite marks proved "over powering" force, just that forensic evidence of any kind takes a lot longer than people think to process, nor is it as accurate/damning as most people think. DNA from hair? Good luck with that. A ton of cases where convictions were gotten solely on hair evidence were just thrown out because as it turns out prosecutors and scientists have been way over hyping the validity of hair evidence. And in some cases just plain making poop up to get a conviction.

Maybe a couple days after the story broke they came out and said that a woman went to the hospital and had a rape kit done. No where did they say it was bc of Kane. Just that an "incident" happened at his house and a woman went to the hospital. It's all semantics I know, but they can't come out and say Kane allegedly raped a woman and she went to the hospital. They can at trial, but not before, well I suppose they could, but it would poison the whole process.

Sets a precedent, that anyone can accuse you of anything, and even though nothing proven, your team can suspend you.

Just see this as a really, really slippery slope. If he is arrested, awaiting trial, ya no problem, but not even arrested?

Not taking any side in the specific Kane case, just in general.

Lets say they suspend him, the grand jury thing takes long enough that he misses first 6 weeks of the season. At the end of the grand jury proceedings its determined that he didn't do anything wrong.

So he missed 6 weeks for doing nothing wrong.

Sets a terrible precedent.
- vabeachbear

Grand jury can't prove anything, just whether there's enough evidence. If there's not that doesn't mean he's not even not guilty, let alone innocent, just that at the current time there's not enough evidence to indict.