Updates to the Kane situation

[DMelt36]

New SI article that says to hurry up and wait. Offering no new facts, at least they got to write "Kane" and "rape" in the same sentence 100 more times, including the big headline. Oh, and a lot of speculation on how she could sue Kane if no charges are filed.

Interesting that they say the scratch mark on the accuser's leg was "large". That wasn't initially reported, just "scratch marks". Commenters calling them out, wonder if they assumed or that's new. I guess if they edit soon, we'll know.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/08/21/patrick-kane-rape-case-investigation

I have no idea how someone reads that article and gets offended or defensive about what's in it.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I have no idea how someone reads that article and gets offended or defensive about what's in it.

I mean... consider the poster.

:drama:

 

[winos5]

I have no idea how someone reads that article and gets offended or defensive about what's in it.

Agree seemed pretty impartial.

 

[ClydeLee]

So they're calling her fat? I.. I didn't read it

 

[italianbeef]

I have no idea how someone reads that article and gets offended or defensive about what's in it.

I'm sure McDonough and Wirtz are thrilled every time they see a major sports rag with a headline containing the words "Kane" and "rape", especially when it's not adding anything new in the way of facts.

 

[DMelt36]

I'm sure McDonough and Wirtz are thrilled every time they see a major sports rag with a headline containing the words "Kane" and "rape", especially when it's not adding anything new in the way of facts.

Well, it is a "rape case," so I don't get your issue there.

And I thought they did a good job of laying out all of the legal paths this situation can take. At the very beginning of their first point, they mention that Kane has not been charged with a crime. I see no bias here.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I have no idea how someone reads that article and gets offended or defensive about what's in it.

Because it doesn't fit his "Kane is innocent" agenda.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I'm sure McDonough and Wirtz are thrilled every time they see a major sports rag with a headline containing the words "Kane" and "rape", especially when it's not adding anything new in the way of facts.

 

[italianbeef]

Well, it is a "rape case," so I don't get your issue there.

And I thought they did a good job of laying out all of the legal paths this situation can take. At the very beginning of their first point, they mention that Kane has not been charged with a crime. I see no bias here.

Did I say it was biased?

Because it doesn't fit his "Kane is innocent" agenda.

Um, he is, dumbass, until proven guilty. For someone calling out anyone who disagrees with you as "having an agenda", you make yours clearer with every post.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Um, he is, dumbass, until proven guilty. For someone calling out anyone who disagrees with you as "having an agenda", you make yours clearer with every post.

My agenda has been since day one that nobody knows what happened, so I've called out everyone who's shown support one way or another. You've made it clear that you don't think he's done it and many of us have called you on it. Some are more blatant with it then others. If someone claims he did do it, I'd reply back to them in the same manner. Expect nobody has gone that far, it's just the typical meatballs that think Kane didn't do shit (same meatballs who give Bobby Hull a standing "O").

Now, I can't get back on this crazy train of discussion with you as I've ran out of tickets and I sure as hell ain't buying more.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[italianbeef]

BTW, I tweeted McCann about the "large scratch" thing asking if there were new facts or it was just an assumption, and he has since edited it to "a noticeable scratch or scratches on her leg".

Isn't it cool playing "the telephone game" with someone's reputation and possibly freedom?

Neat.

 

[DMelt36]

BTW, I tweeted McCann about the "large scratch" thing asking if there were new facts or it was just an assumption, and he has since edited it to "a noticeable scratch or scratches on her leg".

Isn't it cool playing "the telephone game" with someone's reputation and possibly freedom?

Neat.

The size of that scratch is borderline irrelevant in this whole fucking thing, man. Yeah, it's shitty journalism on his part. But you're making a huge deal out of something that just isn't that big.

 

[italianbeef]

My agenda has been since day one that nobody knows what happened, so I've called out everyone who's shown support one way or another. You've made it clear that you don't think he's done it and many of us have called you on it. Some are more blatant with it then others. If someone claims he did do it, I'd reply back to them in the same manner. Expect nobody has gone that far, it's just the typical meatballs that think Kane didn't do shit (same meatballs who give Bobby Hull a standing "O").

Now, I can't get back on this crazy train of discussion with you as I've ran out of tickets and I sure as hell ain't buying more.

You've certainly called out anyone who doubts Kane's guilt by throwing around your 2-8% statistics. You're the one making this ride crazy trying to pretend that you're unbiased when in point of fact, you're 92-98% sure he did, by your own numbers.

 

[italianbeef]

The size of that scratch is borderline irrelevant in this whole fucking thing, man. Yeah, it's shitty journalism on his part. But you're making a huge deal out of something that just isn't that big.

Exaggerating one of the few reported facts of this case in a major rag seems pretty big, but this is coming from someone who isn't 92-98% sure he's guilty.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

You've certainly called out anyone who doubts Kane's guilt by throwing around your 2-8% statistics. You're the one making this ride crazy trying to pretend that you're unbiased when in point of fact, you're 92-98% sure he did, by your own numbers.

See I can take anything you say as well and spin them around to make a false point.

No, I said that out of all rape accusations, my guess would be a very small portion are "fake" unlike how you and Rask were making it seem like crying wolf was as common as catching a cold.

What I really think? I think as a society we need to stop being judgmental of the victims saying "they deserved it" or "what did she expect going back to his place" because that's bullshit and one of the reasons why so many sexual assaults go unreported. If this woman knowingly lied about being raped, then yeah, she's a piece of shit who basically just furthers the stereotype. If she didn't lie and is telling the truth, then I'm sorry that it happened to her and I'm glad she's getting closure.

If she lied, then I hope Kane goes after her in court. If she didn't lie then I hope Kane gets punished.





Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Sunbiz1]

In a related story:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7804...ng-cleared-rape-charges-temple-de-finds-peace

"Martin-Oguike said his attorney James Funt pushed for prosecutors to review the accuser's cellphone. When they finally did, text messages to friends indicated she was not truthful about being raped and the case was dismissed."

Apparently their rape kit didn't work very well.

 

[Samurai]

The size of that scratch is borderline irrelevant in this whole fucking thing, man. Yeah, it's shitty journalism on his part. But you're making a huge deal out of something that just isn't that big.

It is somewhat irrelevant, but printing assumptions leads to a bias of perception, which does nothing but further damage someone who has not yet been charged. Much of what has been "published" may prove to be correct, but for now, it's all tabloid drivel...much like the majority of this thread...and to a lesser degree...this post. :farley:

 

[DMelt36]

Exaggerating one of the few reported facts of this case in a major rag seems pretty big, but this is coming from someone who isn't 92-98% sure he's guilty.

For the 2340987258th time, I have made no presumption of anyone's guilt or innocence. Stop this.

In a related story:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7804...ng-cleared-rape-charges-temple-de-finds-peace

"Martin-Oguike said his attorney James Funt pushed for prosecutors to review the accuser's cellphone. When they finally did, text messages to friends indicated she was not truthful about being raped and the case was dismissed."

Apparently their rape kit didn't work very well.

And for every article like this that you post, I can post a story like the one of Lizzy Seeberg. That's just about the epitome of confirmation bias right there. So far the only parallel that we know of between your story, my story, and Patrick Kane's story, is that an investigation happened/is happening. That's it.

It is somewhat irrelevant, but printing assumptions leads to a bias of perception, which does nothing but further damage someone who has not yet been charged. Much of what has been "published" may prove to be correct, but for now, it's all tabloid drivel...much like the majority of this thread...and to a lesser degree...this post. :farley:

They didn't assume shit. They just laid out the different legal routes this could go which, for someone like me without a ton of knowledge of the legal system, I found very informative. It also cited historical evidence suggesting that this entire situation could take months and perhaps even a year or two. But that's not what you and IB wanted to read, so you didn't read that.

 

[Samurai]

They didn't assume shit. They just laid out the different legal routes this could go which, for someone like me without a ton of knowledge of the legal system, I found very informative. It also cited historical evidence suggesting that this entire situation could take months and perhaps even a year or two. But that's not what you and IB wanted to read, so you didn't read that.

The crux of my statement was only about the big scratch theory...if in fact it was amended. If that is true, he either assumed or embellished, otherwise there would have been no changes.

I said nothing about the historical nor general information, as I understand how that can be helpful. I'm also not sure why you're giving me grief, unless you think my last line was referring to you...which it was not...it was self depreciation. By "this post" I meant MY post.

 

[DMelt36]

The crux of my statement was only about the big scratch theory...if in fact it was amended. If that is true, he either assumed or embellished, otherwise there would have been no changes.

I said nothing about the historical nor general information, as I understand how that can be helpful. I'm also not sure why you're giving me grief, unless you think my last line was referring to you...which it was not...it was self depreciation. By "this post" I meant MY post.

Oops. Misinterpreted that part.