Patrick Kane Investigation

[brewcity77]

WTF


http://deadspin.com/patrick-kanes-lawyer-is-arguing-with-people-on-facebook-1724570340

How stupid is that guy? Why argue with randomers on Facebook? And his lack of punctuation and any remote control of the English language, especially for a lawyer who will presumably be representing the client the article refers to, is awful. The "speak text" is a weak excuse. If you use voice-to-text, you can easily insert all appropriate punctuation simply by saying it. "This is not an essay contest comma I am traveling period" will give you "This is not an essay contest, I am traveling."

What an idiot.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Regardless of whether Kane is guilty or totally innocent, this hits his image hard. The law needs to be adjusted to keep the identity of the accused as well as the victim throughout a full and complete trial.

[wadesworld]

Regardless of whether Kane is guilty or totally innocent, this hits his image hard. The law needs to be adjusted to keep the identity of the accused as well as the victim throughout a full and complete trial.

When you do the things Kane does you kind of bring this upon yourself. Kane is not a victim here.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

When you do the things Kane does you kind of bring this upon yourself. Kane is not a victim here.

That's like saying someone deserved to be raped because of the clothes they were wearing. I'm not saying Kane is innocent but you can't automatically assume he sexual assulted someone just because he used to party a little too hard.

[wadesworld]

That's like saying someone deserved to be raped because of the clothes they were wearing. I'm not saying Kane is innocent but you can't automatically assume he sexual assulted someone just because he used to party a little too hard.

If "professional athlete chokes college girl" = "used to party a little too hard" then I guess you have a point.

Patrick Kane is not a victim here.

[JWags85]

If "professional athlete chokes college girl" = "used to party a little too hard" then I guess you have a point.

Patrick Kane is not a victim here.

Were the 3 guys from the Duke Lacrosse team victims?

[wadesworld]

Were the 3 guys from the Duke Lacrosse team victims?

Again, they don't have a history of going out and being violent towards women.

[GGGG]

Were the 3 guys from the Duke Lacrosse team victims?

Yes.  If you are falsely accused you are a victim.  However false accusations are rare.  And yeah maybe Kane is being falsely accused.  We will see.

[wadesworld]

Regardless of whether Kane is guilty or totally innocent, this hits his image hard. The law needs to be adjusted to keep the identity of the accused as well as the victim throughout a full and complete trial.

That's like saying someone deserved to be raped because of the clothes they were wearing. I'm not saying Kane is innocent but you can't automatically assume he sexual assulted someone just because he used to party a little too hard.

Were the 3 guys from the Duke Lacrosse team victims?

Yes.  If you are falsely accused you are a victim.  However false accusations are rare.  And yeah maybe Kane is being falsely accused.  We will see.

I guess my point is this.  Regardless of whether these specific allegations turn out to be false or not (and if we're being honest, this will probably be settled outside of court and we'll never really know), forgive me for not crying afoul regarding Kane's image.  He has a well documented history of becoming belligerently drunk and acting with violence towards women.  There are numerous first hand accounts of the same story about him choking a female when she would not go home with him.  He has brought this image (or ruining of his image) upon himself.  When someone is being accused of this type of action for a first time then they absolutely may be the victim of someone looking to make some money or to take down the big time celebrity.  But when there are multiple instances from different times of the same type of behavior, chances are that women across America didn't all come together and decide, "We're going to ruin Patrick Kane's image."  Where there's smoke, there's fire.  Maybe this particular case turns out to be untrue.  But somewhere along the way...

[GGGG]

Yeah, I don't disagree with you at all wades....

[brewcity77]

I guess my point is this.  Regardless of whether these specific allegations turn out to be false or not (and if we're being honest, this will probably be settled outside of court and we'll never really know), forgive me for not crying afoul regarding Kane's image.  He has a well documented history of becoming belligerently drunk and acting with violence towards women.  There are numerous first hand accounts of the same story about him choking a female when she would not go home with him.  He has brought this image (or ruining of his image) upon himself.  When someone is being accused of this type of action for a first time then they absolutely may be the victim of someone looking to make some money or to take down the big time celebrity.  But when there are multiple instances from different times of the same type of behavior, chances are that women across America didn't all come together and decide, "We're going to ruin Patrick Kane's image."  Where there's smoke, there's fire.  Maybe this particular case turns out to be untrue.  But somewhere along the way...

Excellent post. And as far as his image...well, that's just part of what comes with being a celebrity. Charles Barkley can spout his "I'm not a role model" BS all he likes, but living in the public eye is a choice. If Kane didn't want to be a famous hockey player, he could have been a banker or a construction worker or an IT guy. But as soon as you reach for that brass ring and manage to grasp it, all the negatives of fame come along with all the accolades.

Bottom line, if you want to have a famous job and avoid fame, you need to choose to be a recluse. When you go out on the town, partying and living it up, doing things that get you into trouble and putting yourself into situations where trouble is likely to find you, that's your own fault. Any damage done to Kane's reputation, even if this is COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED is his own fault. He chose his profession and he chose how he comports himself in public. These are the repercussions of those decisions.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Just talked to my Blackhawks contact. It's not looking good for Kane.

[JuniorCardigan]

Just talked to my Blackhawks contact. It's not looking good for Kane.

You should put #DoneDeal at the end of a post as vague as this

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

You should put #DoneDeal at the end of a post as vague as this

That's because that's all the vague info I got.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

That's because that's all the vague info I got.

Then why bother posting it?

[JuniorCardigan]

That's because that's all the vague info I got.

Your contact must have some pretty good info when he knows the outcome of an investigation where a potential suspect hasn't even been charged yet.

Not saying Kane is innocent or guilty here, but come on man. There are enough news sources posting stories about this that are barely worthwhile already.

[wadesworld]

Was Derrick Rose hanging out with Patrick Kane?

(Now THIS one seems like it very well could be a money grab)

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Was Derrick Rose hanging out with Patrick Kane?

(Now THIS one seems like it very well could be a money grab)

Yea, that Derrick Rose one is really odd, and I like Kane a lot more then I like Rose. We'll see how it plays out but gang rape seems a little excessive.

[NavinRJohnson]

Bears fans everywhere crossing fingers that accusations against Jay Cutler happen soon.

[GGGG]

Was Derrick Rose hanging out with Patrick Kane?

(Now THIS one seems like it very well could be a money grab)

Yeah suing two years after the fact, versus going to the police the very next day, makes the story a tad less credible.

[wadesworld]

Yeah suing two years after the fact, versus going to the police the very next day, makes the story a tad less credible.

Absolutely.  Plus the whole, "We were able to escape his place, but then they broke into my place, but I only remember bits and pieces of it."

You never know.  Just seems a bit less credible to me, even without considering the reputations/past actions of each of the accused.

[Pakuni]

Yeah suing two years after the fact, versus going to the police the very next day, makes the story a tad less credible.

Having read the complaint, that's one of several bits of incredulity.
Who knows what happened, but, man, there are tons of gaps in credibility and red flags there.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Off to the grand jury?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Warming up the checkbook.....


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-patrick-kane-met-20150916-story.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

Kane, Blackhawks Execs Evasive In First Public Remarks On Sexual Assault Investigation
Published September 18, 2015

 
About 100 reporters attended Kane's press conference at Blackhawks training camp
There are "public-relations missteps and corporate misjudgments, and then there is what the Blackhawks produced in a clumsy 45-minute news conference" to open training camp Thursday amid the ongoing sexual assault investigation involving RW Patrick Kane, according to David Haugh of the CHICAGO TRIBUNE. It was "an exercise in embarrassment for the Hawks, Chicago and the NHL." The most "somber season-opening session ever for an NHL defending champion awkwardly began" with Kane sitting alongside Blackhawks President & CEO John McDonough, GM & VP Stan Bowman and coach Joel Quenneville. He began the press conference by "apologizing for the distraction caused to his family, teammates, fans and the Hawks without mentioning the accuser." He then "proclaimed his innocence." Following Kane's statement, the team "invited questions for Kane but, as he constantly reminded everybody, only about hockey." He "prefaced every inquiry" that was not hockey related "with a respectful, 'I appreciate the question but ...'" After nearly a dozen questions, Kane "left the dais, mercifully." The "tone-deaf, 10-minute farcical Kane portion of the news conference served as Exhibit A why Kane never should have been allowed to practice until the conclusion of the criminal legal process." No sports exec "manages perception better than McDonough," but missing Thursday was the "human element that makes McDonough so effective, a graceful eloquence replaced by stern ambiguity." The Blackhawks on Thursday "resembled everybody else in professional sports; evasive, defensive and occasionally combative in the wake of crisis, cowering to controversy rather than addressing it head-on the way a proud, classy organization should," and the way the Blackhawks "typically have" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/18). In Buffalo, Mike Harrington in a front-page piece notes it was a "surreal scene" on the campus of Notre Dame, where the Blackhawks' training camp is taking place. About 100 reporters "sat on four rows of risers with 16 television cameras taping the proceedings at the top of the room." The press conference was "televised live across Canada on TSN, replayed coast-to-coast in the United States on ESPNews and was also shown live in both Chicago and Buffalo" (BUFFALO NEWS, 9/18).

ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE: CBSSPORTS.com's Chris Peters noted Kane "was excused" after taking questions to allow the execs and Quenneville to "proceed with the rest of the press conference." McDonough then "launched into his statement talking about the team's prior success, its excitement for the year ahead and defending their title." He also praised Blackhawks Chair Rocky Wirtz "for the culture he has created within the organization, which seemed like a weird venue for that remark." Kane's name "wasn't said again as the press conference transitioned abruptly and uncomfortably." What the Blackhawks did -- with McDonough's "lengthy statement about being glad the team had a short summer because it meant they won, with Stan Bowman saying how glad he was to be back on campus at his alma mater, with Joel Quenneville wishing the Fighting Irish football team luck Saturday" -- was make things "even more uncomfortable." It "reflected poorly" on the three "highly-respected, smart individuals that have earned their place among the league's best at what they do." It "could have been avoided" (CBSSPORTS.com, 9/17). The BUFFALO NEWS' Harrington notes McDonough was "defiant when asked if he was being tone-deaf to Kane's situation by moving into hockey talk." He replied, "I can assure you that I am anything but tone-deaf" (BUFFALO NEWS, 9/18).

DEFLECTED SHOTS: In Chicago, Steve Rosenbloom writes the Blackhawks "shouldn't have bothered taking questions if they wouldn't be answered." Kane and McDonough "should have read their statements and called it a news conference." If the Blackhawks were "going to bring Kane to camp, then the Hawks were going to lose this press conference." But where the Blackhawks "got routed was following the statements regarding the criminal investigation with the usual pre-camp happy talk of a returning champion." It was "tone deaf for an organization that always seems to play the right notes" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/18). SI.com's Allan Muir wrote Thursday's press conference "seems destined to leave a permanent black mark on many reputations." If Kane's prepared remarks were "all he was going to say" about the case -- "and honestly, given the circumstances, no one should have expected anything else -- Kane probably should have been excused from the dais at that point." Instead, an "epic PR disaster" resulted by him taking questions "with the stipulation that they be 'hockey only.'" Kane appeared "clearly shaken by the failed exercise." Then, the three men remaining on the stage "began speaking and turned the event into a total garbage fire" (SI.com, 9/17). SPORTING NEWS' Sean Gentille wrote the team made a "bad situation worse" by inviting Kane to camp. Having him take questions "was tone-deaf, stupid and served no purpose other than to illuminate how tone-deaf and stupid the Blackhawks, at this particular moment, seem to be" (SPORTINGNEWS.com, 9/17). In Chicago, Mark Potash writes the "only real message of the day was an unspoken one: the Hawks aren’t worried about losing the press conference as long as they can still win the Stanley Cup" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 9/18).

WHY BOTHER? In Toronto, Bruce Arthur writes the Blackhawks competitively are a "model organization." Arthur: "But opening a season like this? Trot out Kane, who can’t answer questions about being a distraction because of the legal situation that is providing the distraction, and presto, time to start up the band." The press conference "was an embarrassment not just to the Blackhawks," but to the NHL (TORONTO STAR, 9/18). In Chicago, John Dietz writes the Blackhawks' strategy of "bringing Kane out to field questions, only to say very little, left many media members wondering why the Hawks didn't limit him to a quick statement." Dietz: "Why bring him out to say almost nothing?" (Chicago DAILY HERALD, 9/18). The NATIONAL POST's Scott Stinson writes the press conference was "an utter farce, and displayed exactly why Kane should not be anywhere near training camp at this point." Stinson: "Why offer him up to the media? Why bring him to training camp at all, when this process is not yet completed?" (NATIONAL POST, 9/18).

WHERE HAS BETTMAN BEEN? In Chicago, Barry Rozner writes while McDonough and Bowman "ushered in a new era of Hawks hockey Thursday," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman was "nowhere to be found and the Hawks were left to say, well, nothing." Bettman could have taken the decision of whether Kane should be allowed at training camp "out of their hands and made the call himself, as he clearly has the power to do so, but he left Hawks brass dangling in front of the media and gritting their teeth." Now, the team's Stanley Cup celebration "has turned to disgust." Rozner: "Not exactly how you want to raise the banner." The Blackhawks' brand "has stood for class and excellence" since Wirtz took the helm, but right now all anyone "can think of or talk about" is Kane (Chicago DAILY HERALD, 9/18).