Patrick Kane Wins Again

rapeculture

Just a few convenient days after his election as Supreme Court Justice, outgoing DIstrict Attorney Frank Sedita issued an unusual statement explaining that his office was not going to prosecute Patrick Kane for allegedly raping a young woman in August. The case has been plagued from the very beginning by strategic leaks of information seemingly from people with something to promote or defend. The vast majority of these leaks seemed to assail the alleged victim, accusing her of being a liar or a gold-digger or that there was a lack of forensic evidence to corroborate the allegation. The best that the alleged victim’s friends could do was leak to the News that she’s a really good person.

To recap: the first article I published explained why club owner Mark Croce engaged in blatant slut-shaming to the Buffalo News. I followed that up with a Kane case FAQ, and a further analysis of the victim blaming that was taking place in the press from literally the moment this news hit. Kane had an off-duty cop on his payroll, and he also told the News tales about the alleged victim and Kane supporters took that all at face value. Paul Cambria argued with me about the case on Facebook, and that made a bit of news, the leak about a lack of DNA evidence happened, and then the alleged victim’s mother attempted to perpetrate a fraud on her daughter’s lawyer, the public, and the system with an evidence bag. District Attorney Sedita held a dramatic press conference where he quite clearly expressed his personal prejudices about the case, indicating that a prosecution was going to be unlikely and explaining that he had exchanged exculpatory Brady material with the popular and wealthy alleged perpetrator’s legal team during the investigatory stage – something unprecedented, according to criminal lawyers with whom I spoke.

Over the course of this past week, we learned that the alleged victim was no longer going to cooperate with this District Attorney’s office, citing the “stress” of this investigation, and the case was ended two days after election day.

Here are some points to consider:

1. Kane isn’t “innocent”: Nothing’s Changed

He’s not even “not guilty”. Despite Mr. Sedita going miles out of his way to cast aspersions on the alleged victim and protecting the alleged perpetrator, no one knows what, if anything, happened between Kane and the alleged victim that night in August. One thing is for sure, because the alleged victim won’t cooperate, we’re unlikely to find out in a court of law what happened. I heard several male commentators take to the air over the last few days, including half of “Cellino & Barnes”, explaining that even a civil lawsuit was unlikely.

There was no trial—no jury, no nothing—to determine Kane’s guilt of lack of guilt. I haven’t seen anywhere that the alleged victim had recanted.

Sedita’s statement about what he characterized as, “this so-called ‘case’” added that it was, “rife with reasonable doubt.” But that’s not the standard at this stage – the D.A. was assembling evidence to present to a grand jury, which would be tasked with determining whether there exists probable cause that a crime occurred. Reasonable doubt is a job not even for the grand jury, but the trial jury. Sedita seems to have skipped all of those steps for one of two reasons; 1. he doesn’t believe the alleged victim and doesn’t want to trouble Kane with this anymore; and/or, 2. His office is notorious for being selective about prosecuting high-profile cases only where there exists a strong likelihood of success.

As a disinterested observer of this entire case, my impression was that the D.A.’s office was more interested in protecting the alleged perpetrator than the alleged victim; more worried about the hockey star’s reputation than whether something wrong may have happened one August night. I’m not saying that’s what happened—only that it is the impression that they left. 

2. Sedita’s Statement Raises More Questions than it Answers

I can’t recall another case of any sort where the D.A. so openly vocalized his sympathy with an accused, where law enforcement bent so far over backwards for an accused. Well, at least not since Antoine Garner allegedly murdered then stuffed Amanda Wienckowski in a garbage tote. Sedita told us that the, “physical and forensic evidence … tend to contradict the complainant’s claims.” Well, why have trials if we can just ask the District Attorney to find facts and assess credibility for us? You can see the entire statement and the News‘ reporting here. It sounds like a report of a trial that never took place; that took place only within the District Attorney’s office. The details that Sedita revealed raised more questions than they answered.

“The physical evidence and the forensic evidence, when viewed in tandem, tend to contradict the complainant’s claim that she was raped on Kane’s bed,” Sedita’s statement said.

Could she have been wrong? Whatever happened—could it have taken place in someone else’s bed? Room? On a couch? This was her first time in Kane’s house.

Sedita wrote that Kane “exercised his constitutional right to remain silent.” Sedita also wrote that Kane made “no known incriminating statements to any civilian.” Sedita also said Kane didn’t engage in “any conduct consistent with a consciousness of guilt.”

He was represented and advised by a competent and experienced criminal lawyer who, according to a radio interview this week, specifically advised him to conduct himself normally.

The DNA results “lend no corroboration whatsoever to the complainant’s claim of penetration.”

Perhaps there was no completion. Perhaps there was a condom. Perhaps it was a lesser included offense.  “Kane’s DNA was found under her fingernails and on her shoulders where there were bite marks.”

All of these factual inconsistencies exist in any case—large or small—and that’s why we have prosecutions and trials and arrests and presentments to grand juries.

3. A Big Win for Rape Culture

We’re already seeing articles explaining how Patrick Kane can rebuild his prior reputation of being a stumbling drunk who punches out cab drivers over pennies in change. Not satisfied with an end to the prosecution, Cambria made sure to mock the young accuser, “[s]tress and strain? Every week, my office would get pictures sent to us of this young woman at parties and social occasions, living it up…I do not believe she was suffering stress and strain.” Did Cambria produce these pictures to the News? Did the News follow up on that? Then why print it? Cambria is being paid to represent a client, he makes a statement accusing a young woman of having a social life, and the News prints it, verbatim, without even checking to see if it’s true. James Brown was right: This is a man’s world.

As all the Kane fans take to social media and condemn Kane’s accuser for being a gold-digging whore who should be sued—or worse—I have no doubt that something happened on August 2nd at Kane’s house that deeply troubled the alleged victim to the point where she accused Kane of rape. It might not have risen to the level of rape—she’s not a lawyer—but there exists absolutely no evidence that she was just out for a big payday, or that she concocted this entire story out of whole cloth as part of a grand scheme to extort money. The young college graduate and former cheerleader probably doesn’t need the grief that’s ensued.

Kane wins, and gets to carry on with his life, at least until the next drunken escapade or assault. The criminal justice system is the real victim here—it’s exceedingly difficult to prove and prosecute rape cases, and this entire freakshow hasn’t made it any easier. It hasn’t given women any assurance that they’ll be treated with respect or fairness if they accuse a powerful and influential man of an assault. It certainly didn’t do any favors for the victims of rape and sexual assault, or the people who make their lives helping them. It hasn’t done a stitch of good in terms of battling back against the rape culture pervasive not just in the fraternity of sports, but in our society overall.

Powerful males in law, law enforcement, Buffalo’s bar scene, and media pulled out all the stops to protect Kane and make the accuser’s life a living hell. The odds were stacked against her from the moment she called the cops in August. The leaks to the media—almost all of which were antagonistic to the accuser—were well-coordinated and devastating. The reaction on social media that I’ve seen is troubling. Quite honestly, from what I can tell, the truth and justice never had a chance.

4 comments

  • It is sad that a young ladies life has been torn apart for simply telling the truth. She never had a chance at justice. The legal system failed in this circumstance. It absolutely failed. It failed every woman who has been forced to do something she ” said no ” to.

  • Give it up already Alan. The case is over. Kane was exonerated by DNA evidence and Mr. Sedita stated as emphatically as he possibly could while still remaining within professional standards that the accuser is basically a liar. A filthy little gold-digger slut who would willingly attempt to destroy an innocent man’s reputation and essentially his life for some extra money. She failed in her scheming and as a result has hurt more women out there, true rape victims and others than Patrick Kane ever possibly could.

    More true rape victims will now be even more afraid to come forward as a result of this case because of the extra scrutiny they will face thanks to the possibility of them being of the same breed as this little skank who went after Patrick Kane. You want to claim this is Kane’s fault for being the VICTIM of a false rape accusation, but in reality it is the fault of the young lady who perpetrated the false rape accusation. Did you actually get all the way through law school while believing that victims were at fault for any damaging after effects on members of the public following high profile cases?

    Since it is very clear that you are banking on the naivete of the masses reading what you write, believing that you have a credible opinion because of your profession and failing to observe the sheer idiocy of your blog for that reason (and also because you did get Cambria’s attention that one time perhaps for similar reasons), I will take the time to adress ALL of your nonsense.

    RE: point #1:
    Despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you believe Kane is guilty and are grasping for absolutely anything you can possibly cling to in order to try and convince others of this as well. The most prominent of which is you accusing Mr. Sedita of corruption. STOP BEATING AROUND THE BUSH JUST FRICKIN’ SPELL IT OUT BUD! It doesn’t take a genius to know how to read between the lines of something written by an idiot. You state “Kane isn’t ‘innocent’, he’s not even ‘not guilty'”. So if those are off the table, then the only option left is for him to be guilty. Correct? But you also state “nothing’s changed”, which if true would mean that he is in fact innocent. Because he would have to first be guilty in order for his being innocent or not guilty to be a “change”. Correct? It has to be. Unless despite being a lawyer yourself, you are saying that you do not believe in the innocent until proven guilty system, but favor the opposite line of thinking and are rather blatantly encouraging others to do the same.

    Yes, the DA was assembling evidence to present to a grand jury. AAAAND he just couldn’t find enough EVIDENCE for even that step to be worth the trouble. As he said in his interview: rumor, opinion and innuendo is not evidence. The profound LACK of evidence to support the accuser’s claim is why he said the case was “rife with reasonable doubt”.

    The above is also the reason why he “doesn’t believe the alleged victim and doesn’t want to trouble Kane with this anymore”, because it became clear that the alleged victim was not the true victim at all. So why does Kane deserve to be troubled anymore by such a serious allegation made against him after it is apparent that the allegation is completely false? Kane, like all victims of false criminal accusations (rape or otherwise)is a human being. This is what makes your use of the word “notorious” to describe Sedita’s office “being selective about prosecuting high-profile cases only where there exists a strong likelihood of success” extremely disturbing. Sounds more like exactly the way every DA office in the nation should be. As Sedita touched on in his interview, the DA signing an indictment against someone is as “serious as serious can be”. Such a thing most often rules a person’s life until it is resolved, and likely has an everlasting effect afterward as well if they were charged with a crime they did not commit. Maybe things would be different if a trial took place later the same week as the indictment. But you know very well the system does not work that way.

    Then your next quote…

    “As a disinterested observer of this entire case, my impression was that the D.A.’s office was more interested in protecting the alleged perpetrator than the alleged victim; more worried about the hockey star’s reputation than whether something wrong may have happened one August night. I’m not saying that’s what happened—only that it is the impression that they left. ”

    It is worrisome that as a lawyer you would actually be so naive as to get THAT impression about the way the case was handled. The impression I got was that the DA’s office was very much worried about whether something wrong may have happened on the night in question. That is why they took 3+ months to deliberate everything in spite all of the reasonable doubt that the case was rife with. Not the least of which concerning perhaps the worst hoax on law enforcement in history attempted by the accuser’s mother, which caused even a lawyer as shady as Tom Eoannou to drop his client. Still Sedita continued to deliberate the case for more than a full month following that incident AND even longer following the results of the rape kit showing no trace of Kane’s DNA.
    Do you actually expect anyone to believe that you are a “disinterested observer”? Sorry but your interest is about as concealed as it would be if you were to write it down in all the dirrefent ways you could think of and then post it on the internet for months on end for the world to see… Oh wait… That’s exactly what you’ve done.

    RE: point #2:
    First off, what evidence do you have to show that law enforcement “bent over backwards” for Kane? Or do you have any? Because you kind of provided none whatsoever in your article. Perhaps they just bent over backwards in general to do a thorough investigation and when the facts came out not favoring the accuser, they were then presented as they were to the DA, and he sympathized with Kane because it was very clear that Kane was the true victim in the case and the accuser was in truth a con artist who also happened to be the spawn of two other con artists?

    You continue on to say:

    “He was represented and advised by a competent and experienced criminal lawyer who, according to a radio interview this week, specifically advised him to conduct himself normally. ”

    And:

    “Perhaps there was no completion. Perhaps there was a condom. Perhaps it was a lesser included offense. Kane’s DNA was found under her fingernails and on her shoulders where there were bite marks.

    So the fact that he had a good lawyer is evidence of guilt? so too is Cambria advising him to conduct himself normally? Sorry but all that means is that Cambria did not want Kane doing anything out of the ordinary that someone out to get him could try and spin. But we both know you know that. Come on Alan!
    Another thing you know very well is that there does not need to be completion in order for penetration to be proven, also how actual rapists hardly EVER use condoms. Now your viewers know too!

    Oh but there still could have been a lesser included offense. OH! OH! but the ACCUSER’s claim was that Kane “OVERPOWERED AND RAPED” her!

    Oh also btw, Sedita confirmed, the “bite mark” that your crusade’s leader Tim Graham milked to death was in truth, nothing but a hickey. But if that was all there was, where does that even belong in the argument at this point? also I truly think it’s time you defined that term “disinterested observer” for us.

    RE: point #3:
    The outcome of the case is not a win for rape culture, but the continued use of “rape culture” as an argument at the most inappropriate times, such as after this case has been scrapped and all facts revealed favoring Kane and not the accuser – leading to the term “rape culture” being associated more with that idiocy than anything else, and resulting in even more people not taking it seriously, or believing it doesn’t exist, which I doubt is the goal of people who preach about rape culture. THIS most certainly would be a win for rape culture.

    Honestly Alan if you truly believe the stuff you write I don’t know how the hell you ever managed to become a lawyer. I’m guessing daddy must have had alot of money to send you through law school and hire people to do alot of your work there and in your career that followed for you. Something like that anyway. The naivete and idiocy you have shown through your opinions of the Kane situation since the day it began is simply mind blowing.

    But I do believe it’s more likely that you actually do know better but have an agenda against Kane and are using a persona in this blog to spread your propaganda. But in case you weren’t aware, you are still doing a terrible job at being convincing even then. That said I doubt anyone else could do any better in a case like this in trying to sway public opinion to something that is so far from the truth and while having so little material to work with in an effort to do such a thing. It’s impossible not to sound like an idiot in the end I suppose.

    But c’mon maaan! are you just doing this because Tim Graham said it was cool? Yeah there plenty of morons out there who wanted Kane to be guilty. But newsflash bro! that does not mean you have to be one of them!

  • I haven’t even heard of this until now. Thanks for sharing. I hope justice is served.

Leave a Reply