Jump to content

Patrick Kane--sexual assault allegations--


Guffalo

Recommended Posts

I'm so confused by this

 

1) Why would a lawyer with 30 yrs experience go rouge and hold a press conference stating he had the actual rape kit from the case that was left in the mother's door without following up with the authorities first to confirm whether they no longer were in possession of the kit. This is just common sense. It is insane

 

2) How in the world would the mother think she could actually get away with the hoax when she knew the real rape kit still existed. Or is it that she knew it would come out as fake, but thought it would help gain sympathy if it looked like they were being harassed ? (if that's the case then she really did hang the attorney out to dry - although he deserved it with his unbelievable stupidity not to follow up with the authorities on whether they had the kit in their possession)

Edited by stevewin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 449
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm so confused by this

 

1) Why would a lawyer with 30 yrs experience go rouge and hold a press conference stating he had the actual rape kit from the case that was left in the mother's door without following up with the authorities first to confirm whether they no longer were in possession of the kit. This is just common sense. It is insane

 

2) How in the world would the mother think she could actually get away with the hoax when she knew the real rape kit still existed. Or is it that she knew it would come out as fake, but thought it would help gain sympathy if it looked like they were being harassed ? (if that's the case then she really did leave the attorney out to dry - although he deserved it with his unbelievable stupidity not to follow up with the authorities on whether they had the kit in their possession)

 

 

1) Rightly or wrongly, he had to have lost faith in the authorities, their ability to be objective and whether something had been compromised. He had to have wanted to go public first and work backwards so it didn't all get swept under the rug.

 

2) Something is way, way off there and I can't figure it out.

 

3) Although the lawyer may have lost faith in the authorities, why didn't he look at the claim with at least a little skepticism and dug at the clients' mom story a bit? What "great lengths" did he go to to verify authenticity?

Welp

 

@JulieDiCaro: Sedita: This office is not responsible for this . . . circus.

Me me me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1) Rightly or wrongly, he had to have lost faith in the authorities, their ability to be objective and whether something had been compromised. He had to have wanted to go public first and work backwards so it didn't all get swept under the rug.

Even if he had lost faith in them - he had to be able to trust the system enough to think he would be able to get an honest answer to "BTW - do you guys still have the rape kit?" It would be insane for them to lie about that? At a minimum he wouldn't have as much egg on his face if he could say - "I did contact them and they said they didn't have the kit anymore" To not follow up at all with them is just bat **** crazy

Edited by stevewin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he had lost faith in them - he had to be able to trust the system enough to think he would be able to get an honest answer to "BTW - do you guys still have the rape kit?" It would be insane for them to lie about that? At a minimum he wouldn't have as much egg on his face if he could say - "I did contact them and they said they didn't have the kit anymore" To not follow up at all with them is just bat **** crazy

 

 

Well....if he really was worried who/what to trust.....then simply asking the question would let them know that something was up. It is a weird question to ask for sure, If the rape kit was missing and he asked they would have said: "Why are you asking that"?....he could have been setting up his client for questioning just because she ended up with the thing. If he asks and they say "Of course we still have it." what does he do next? Doe he ask to go see it? Wouldn't that be strange? The whole thing is weird. I feel pretty bad for this guy whose reputation got shot down all in one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well....if he really was worried who/what to trust.....then simply asking the question would let them know that something was up. It is a weird question to ask for sure, If the rape kit was missing and he asked they would have said: "Why are you asking that"?....he could have been setting up his client for questioning just because she ended up with the thing. If he asks and they say "Of course we still have it." what does he do next? Doe he ask to go see it? Wouldn't that be strange? The whole thing is weird. I feel pretty bad for this guy whose reputation got shot down all in one day.

He held a PC when he thought he had the real thing, so it's not like he wasn't setting his client up for questioning anyway. If they say of course we have it - then he decides how he wants to play the harassment angle (either low key it, or still hold the PC but show how they were being harassed). I still think it is inexcusable to come out firing (with a PC!) without doing even some basic due diligence to see if what you have is real or fake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's a difference between what he says on camera and what he actually thinks. The PC crowd would be up in arms if he said he didn't believe the victim of an alleged rape.

 

I guess that's what I'm really saying. He doesn't seem to believe the accuser, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He held a PC when he thought he had the real thing, so it's not like he wasn't setting his client up for questioning anyway. If they say of course we have it - then he decides how he wants to play the harassment angle (either low key it, or still hold the PC but show how they were being harassed). I still think it is inexcusable to come out firing (with a PC!) without doing even some basic due diligence to see if what you have is real or fake

I don't totally disagree with you at all. I agree on 90% and I think the PC was obviously a mistake. I'm only guessing that he somehow wanted that thing in the public view so that its existence could never be a he said she said between him and law enforcement. I'm not saying it was a good idea...but it could have been the idea. It's still bizarre though because he could have done the same thing by taking pictures before going to the police.

Edited by 4merper4mer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JulieDiCaro: Sedita: Accuser changed her top at mother's home before she went to hospital for rape kit.

 

@JulieDiCaro: Sedita: SANE nurse provided brown paper bag to accuser's mother to collect accuser's top. Mother last known person to have brown bag.

 

 

Do they categorize them as sane and insane nurses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ByTimGraham: Sedita says Eoannou and a civil-claims attorney began representing accuser early in case and prevented DA's office from speaking with her.

 

So, it looks like Eoannou was telling the truth that he wouldn't be the person to go to to look for a civil suit, but it turns out that she had two lawyers? So, I guess he wasn't lying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so confused by this

 

1) Why would a lawyer with 30 yrs experience go rouge and hold a press conference stating he had the actual rape kit from the case that was left in the mother's door without following up with the authorities first to confirm whether they no longer were in possession of the kit. This is just common sense. It is insane

 

2) How in the world would the mother think she could actually get away with the hoax when she knew the real rape kit still existed. Or is it that she knew it would come out as fake, but thought it would help gain sympathy if it looked like they were being harassed ? (if that's the case then she really did hang the attorney out to dry - although he deserved it with his unbelievable stupidity not to follow up with the authorities on whether they had the kit in their possession)

 

 

(1) He screwed up or he doesn't trust the authorities, or both. I'm leaning more toward a screw up.

 

(2) I'm thinking that the alleged settlement negotiations may have involved the mother and maybe the daughter didn't want to hear about $$ (or else she wanted $$ and wanted the prosecution to go forward). Maybe it was Kane's people and the mother colluding to screw up the case in exchange for the payout that the mother negotiated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

(1) He screwed up or he doesn't trust the authorities, or both. I'm leaning more toward a screw up.

 

(2) I'm thinking that the alleged settlement negotiations may have involved the mother and maybe the daughter didn't want to hear about $$ (or else she wanted $$ and wanted the prosecution to go forward). Maybe it was Kane's people and the mother colluding to screw up the case in exchange for the payout that the mother negotiated.

1) 30 years in the bi and a massive blowup like this? Seems pretty weird.

 

2) Pretty interesting theory.....seems almost impossible but so does all the stuff that has happened so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://sportsmockery.com/2015/10/philadelphia-flyers-fans-taunt-patrick-kane-with-she-said-no-chants/

 

 

Here too... Who says Philly fans have no class? They are alright in my book taking a stand against misogyny!

 

Flyers went on to win 3-0... Maybe rattled the 'Hawks a little... Interesting go see what the rest of the arenas will do. Kane a liability, even on the ice? Hockey fans are brutal! :-O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...