#caseqs

YUP, all this.

Imagine how he must have felt. He was basically on house arrest for who knows how long, didn't even skate till right before he went to training camp...

She hasn't ruined it. She tarnished it. A great deal. And it will forever follow him around, just as the cabbie story that got so twisted everyone thinks HE punched the cabbie when in fact it was his cousin who did the punching.

But that is why we're here.

We have all the facts, we have the DA interviews, and every single time someone mentions this, we will send them the facts and evidence.

I don't know him and i'm not a lawyer so I cannot answer that in any kind of way that is not actually pure uninformed speculation from my part, only based on my knowledge of like, american procedural and law shows.

It is his right not to say anything, and he was probably advised by his lawyer to remain silent. It is not an indication of guilt.

And because i am Jon Snow when it comes to REAL law, i asked a friend who is a lawyer in the US to tell us more about this. (feel free to hit her up for any law related questions, she'll be happy to answer!)

so a quote from a real life lawyer, kristin:

bottom line: cambria told kaner not to speak to the DA. so he didn’t. no lawyer worth hiring would *ever* let their client answer the police’s questions in this kind of case (in many cases, actually). it’s simple criminal law 101. 

 when you’re the subject of an investigation, there’s almost never a situation where you should be assisting the police because they will twist your words and use them against you. even if you’re innocent, as was the case here.  

it’s the DA’s job to prove they have a case. 

the suspect - kaner - can’t disprove a negative and if he answers questions and gets confused or misspeaks, he could inadvertently help them. it annoys DAs and investigators because they like to ask questions. reporters like to point to this as a sign of guilt, but if they were interviewed by the police about the identity of their sources, they wouldn’t speak to the cops, either, and it’s not a sign of guilt or innocence then any more than it is now. 

 to be clear, there’s nothing suspicious about not speaking to the police if you’re innocent. there’s nothing suspicious about not speaking to the police if you’re guilty. it’s literally the only smart thing to do. the police are not your friend. they aren’t inclined to believe you. so you never want to ‘assist’ them. it’s almost always a trap. 

Take all the time you need.

Watch the interviews if you haven’t already, those eradicated any lingering doubts i might’ve had before.

He did not do it. The evidence, witness accounts, forensics, surveillance video absolutely do not support her claim.

Give yourself time to mull all this over. It’s hard on everyone, we’ve all wanted to support and believe the victim so much and is a blow to that, to us doing the right thing, or what we though was the right thing, and supporting the accuser in her fight.

Your brain needs time to get used to the idea that women do lie, in 2-10-to who knows how many % of cases. Women do lie, period. Men lie too, of course. Everyone does (anyone here who used to watch House MD? raise your hands). And in this case especially it’s so hard to wrap your mind around the fact that a woman would apparently indeed make something like this up, with signs pointing to her possibly doing it for money [her camps reaching to Kane during the investigation and trying to persuade him to settle it then and there]. That is something that makes my skin crawl.

He could have gone to jail for 25 years.

That is what he was facing.

And i am all for being a feminist and in support of the victim and in furthering the fight against rape culture but CHRIST. People.

AN INNOCENT PERSON COULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO JAIL FOR TWENTY FIVE YEARS.

We should not automatically assume the victim is lying. No. But we should also not automatically think they are being truthful. Judge each case on its own merits.

Her claim was taken as seriously as it could have been - a very very thorough investigation was launched and it has reached its conclusion now.

The authorities did believe her. They believed her. They got a search warrant for Kane’s home, they did five rounds of DNA testing, they got their phone records, they interviewed witnesses, they interviewed her, not Kane because he did exercise his right to remain silent. They did all they could to prove her claim was true, was enough for charges to be brought.

It took me a couple of weeks, some time off social media altogether, to just get to the mindset that we did not know actually, well, at that point in time, any facts. Now, you have the facts and can read over them and let your brain process. 

Take all the time you need. I don’t think there is a sure way to get back into being his fan again. You might never be able to, which would be a shame but understandable. Or it might happen suddenly, when your brain finally clicks.

I only yesterday fully realized that this was over. There will be no charges, he did not do it. It took my brain almost three days to understand that. I cried. Because it’s over. It’s done. He didn’t do it. We have evidence straight from the DA himself that supports his innocence. 

Give your brain the time to adjust. Just being calm and rational enough to go look at the facts is a good sign, I would say :)

And if you need or want to? I’m here if you want to talk.

As far as was revealed by Sedita, who seemed to be very open about discussing the facts of the case in those interviews, the only claim that could be proven true was the hickeys - those did happen, and were made by Kane indeed, but from what i was able to gather from the interview (the newest one, not the one n three parts, there was ONE MORE i know, this is INSANE, so much info), because Sedita did not say in so many words - it looks the accuser claimed she got them during the act, against her will, but witness statements/possibly surveillance video did not confirm that, so my suspicion is those happened at the bar and people saw.

Here it is, he basically gets asked your question at the 3 minute mark, transcript:

Q: ”Was there anything true [...] about her story?”

Sedita: “My job is not to ultimately conclude was is the truth and what is false. My job is to determine whether there is sufficient amount of credible, reliable evidence to go forward with criminal prosecution.

The answer to that question is No.

Are there aspects of the complainants accounts which are credible and reliable? Uhm, yes, but there are also significant aspects particularly with respect to the allegation of sexual assault which are either nor corroborated by the other evidence or contradicted by the other evidence, which i think would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that there is a lot of reasonable doubt here and there is a lot of questions as to the credibility or veracity of those claims.”

If you are really interested in this case and have 30 minutes of free time, watch either this interview or the first one, the one in three parts [link is in my post here, whee i cited some facts/evidence]. If you have an hour? Watch both please.

If you want to make an informed decision about this case and have the chance to have all the facts straight from the District Attorney? Why go to articles written by people who make mistakes (as was the case even if the great DiManno article - she wrote that none of KANE's DNA was on the bedding, which is not true. His was, as was another woman's, just not the accuser who claims she was raped there.).

Please go to the source. Go to the source and listen for yourself. Or read actual transcripts that are available online now, one of them can be found here, don't rely on reporters to give you the abridged version or something. We all know how the reporting here worked, that sport's reporters are NOT actually investigative journalists and do not even know how to vet an anonymous source...