Wednesday, Thomas Eoannou claimed the bag was evidence from his client's case and that he had it because somebody had left it on the doorstep of his client's mother.
But in a news conference on Thursday, he said that the facts surrounding the evidence bag had been misrepresented. “In keeping with my ethical obligations as an officer of the court,” Mr. Eoannou said, “I can no longer represent my client effectively and am withdrawing effective immediately.”...
In his own conference on Thursday, Kane’s lawyer, Paul Cambria, said... “It’s obvious to me that Eoannou dropped out of the case because someone in this woman’s family lied to him about the evidence... I told you yesterday that this was a hoax, and now it’s obvious.”
I first read about the Kane story yesterday in The Nation, where the headline was:
"The Patrick Kane Case Marks a New Low in the Long History of Rape Accusations Against Athletes/After a rape kit was dumped at the door of his accuser’s mother, the NHL can no longer be silent." That concluded:
We know that way too many of your sport’s “fans” are taking this opportunity to effectively merge their love of Patrick Kane with their cheerleading of rape. Put Patrick Kane on paid leave until the charges are cleared or he is convicted. Show the world you take this seriously, at least more seriously than the police in Hamburg.
There's no update on that story now, even though there's a postscript that says: "We will update this story as evidence comes to light." But there is now a new article (by the same author, Dave Zirin):
"Lawyer for Patrick Kane’s Accuser Quits After Saying Rape Kit Was Compromised/The decision will cast public doubt on her claims in a society already disinclined to believe women who come forward." Zirin writes that he found the Eoannou's Thursday press conference "confusing" and "maddeningly vague" and proclaims it "a tragedy"...
... because anytime a rape trial is turned into a circus it only benefits those who want to keep women silent in the face of sexual violence. It’s a tragedy because there are now masses of Patrick Kane fanboys getting “lulz” over a rape case, wallowing in their misogyny publicly and proudly, like a grinning baby in a full diaper.
Posts
50 comments:
Lets hazard a guess here: it didn't happen and the accuser's lawyer realized he might be getting in trouble.
wallowing in their misogyny
No wonder men are called pigs.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Wallow is related to vulva, just doing the words.
That would make it a sort of Tom Swifty.
Babies aren't misogynists. Quite the contrary.
I know nothing about the case.
But it appears that a Prog journalist considers it a "tragedy" if false accusations and fabricated evidence get exposed.
...because anytime a rape trial is turned into a circus it only benefits those who want to keep women silent...
This way to egress.
Is Dave Zinn related to Howard Zinn? It would fit the way he reports. Right now there is no rape trial. There is a sexual assault investigation. If Mr. Zinn decries this circus, Mr. Zinn might want to ask himself why he's juggling turds.
I feel so old. I was taught that you should get the facts before you reach a conclusion.
Now it is possible that Mr. Kane is guilty of sexual assault. That's why the police collect evidence.
My mistake. Dave Zirin, not Dave Zinn.
"Thou shalt no bear false witness against thy neighbor" is included in the ten commandments because people lie. Perjury is a crime because people lie. Not all allegations are false, but the author at The Nation seems to believe that blackmail and extortion are only crimes we see on TV.
If you can get a guy like Patrick Kane to settle out of court in exchange for dropping charges, you've got a pretty big payday coming.
Dave Zirin seems to pretty much hate male athletes. Why is he a sports writer?
The woman is BSC, right?
@Ken B, I know what you mean
Yeah, it is Z-I-R-I-N.
And Dave Zirin is only a "sportswriter" in the vaguest sense. He's a hard-left polemicist who works from the platform of "sports." Hell; he works for The Nation. There are a lot of lefty sportswriters; John Feinstein, Howard Bryant, etc., etc. Too many to list, really. But Dave Zirin is in a class by himself.
The thing about sports; so many sports fans read nothing but the sports pages, they will think of Dave Zirin as just another reporter, and will give Dave Zirin the credence that they might otherwise accord to a real reporter.
"We know that way too many of your sport’s “fans” are taking this opportunity to effectively merge their love of Patrick Kane with their cheerleading of rape."
NOBODY cheers for rape. Dave Zirin is an asshole.
In these situations, all anybody wants is the truth.
What's this investigation nonsense? Everyone knows that only an accusation is necessary followed immediately by the public hanging.
"will give Dave Zirin the credence that they might otherwise accord to a real reporter"
You were joking, right?
MikeR; I was not joking. Dave Zirin is not a real reporter. He is an activist. He wanted a boycott of Arizona over the state's SB 1070 controversy. He wanted to boycott Israel's mens national soccer team. He wanted to boycott the NFL over comments made by Hank Williams Jr. (Monday Night theme song singer) over. He's the dead-ender defender of Barry Bonds (Bonds, he says, is the victim of racism).
You can accept all of those things, and continue to think he's a reporter. My greatest gripe is with all of the sports fans who think he is an ordinary reporter, instead of an extremist political ideologue.
I've only read other accounts of the case, not written by Zirin. It's not clear where the case is heading based on subjective reporting, but Zirin clearly comes from The Rolling Stone school of journalism. I think the DA and grand jury will get it right.
I've only read other accounts of the case, not written by Zirin. It's not clear where the case is heading based on subjective reporting, but Zirin clearly comes from The Rolling Stone school of journalism. I think the DA and grand jury will get it right.
"MikeR; I was not joking. Dave Zirin is not a real reporter." Heh - I wasn't complaining about your claim that he is not a real reporter, but about your claim that reporters have credibility. Scientists do, or they used to before they became political activists. Reporters - none.
This article is almost incomprehensibly bad. To answer the question, the accuser's attorney withdrew because the actual evidence was apparently still in, and never left police custody.
Which means he beclowned himself and was apparently very gullible. And... there are several other crimes going on even if there wasn't a sexual assault. Apparently that doesn't fit the narrative though.
According to the DA's press conference today, the accuser's mom perpetrated the hoax. This comes a week after the DA informed the accuser and Kane's attorney that the DNA tests performed on the rape kit did not match Kane.
The real problem is that the rest of the Sportsworld has been cowed into silence regarding the veracity of these claims, because they don't want to be attacked by the SJW crowd.
And trust me, I'm no rape apologist.
I call Big Ben The Rapist. I think Kobe probably did something too. Jameis Winston, on the other hand, most likely innocent.
Sorry MikeR; I misunderstood.
I'll reiterate, in light of your clarification. Sportsfans are even more prone to what you rightly suggest; ignoring any hint of political ideology on the part of those reporting the news. And I do think a lot of people will read excerpts of Dave Zirin's writing (because only about one in a million sportsfans ever pick up a copy of The Nation) and think that he is a real, straight sports reporter.
The rape kit, incidentally, is still in the evidence room and has never left it.
What the hell is this hockey, of which you speak?
Meanwhile, I have been reliably informed that bicycles rape fish at rates of nearly 635% a day.
Because men are evil.
Birches brings up Jameis Winston at FSU, just above. The sports world was working hard to declare him guilty. At hundreds of college football blogs, lots of educated (alumni fans) folks had simply presumed guilt.
Stuart Taylor Jr., who [co-]wrote the book on the Duke Lacrosse case, has done some superb eye-opening writing on the Winston allegations and has debunked them with nearly the same vigor and rigor as what he did in the Duke case. There are some questions in the Winston cases. Questions which, Taylor and I would agree, only belong in a court of law where Winston has due process rights and a right to confront witnesses.
because anytime a rape trial is turned into a circus it only benefits those who want to keep women silent in the face of sexual violence.
Perhaps Dave Zirin should start counseling these high profile rape accusers to stop lying. That might help the real victims credibility...
We live in a crazy doublespeak world where even the UVA girl is still presumed to be honest by the Authorities, because "Survivor."
It’s a tragedy because such behavior has a ripple effect that they either are oblivious to or could just care less about.
That should be, "could NOT care less about."
This writer writes the way morons speak. He's riffing in drama queen fashion. It's performance art with a keyboard. That is, it's not worth anything.
I am of the opinion that, when it comes to putdowns, "fanboy" is pretty good.
Men are sometimes guilty of rape. Women are sometimes guilty of lying about being raped. If I were playing the probabilities,, I would even say that men are more likely to be guilty of rape than women are guilty of to be lying about it. This does not obviate the need for due process.......An awful lot of rape cases have turned out to be hoaxes. You would think that that would cause journalists to tread carefully in such cases, but you would be mistaken. You have to make a real effort to believe anything written in Nation.
Who are the people who want to keep women silent about rape? I mean, in this country, at this point in time.
What about what this allegation has done to Patrick Kane? He was accused when he was at the top of the world- when he had just won the Stanley Cup. He didn't get his day with the cup, and his reputation was picked apart regularly on the Chicago news and sports channels.
Other women are not the only victims here. Why disregard what false rape accusations do to the accused? Do we think men are such non-people that they can just grin and bear it?
Birches, I think it's highly likely that Roethlisberger was not guilty. People assume there's fire because there's smoke from two cases, but the first was a blatant cash grab in a civil suit, and the second had many markings of consent followed by regret spurred by her two friends who were horrified by what she consented to (a tawdry tryst in a bar's restroom).
With Kobe Bryant, I feel there's very little to go on as far as guessing what happened from outside the room. Either way is plausible.
Birkel said...
What the hell is this hockey, of which you speak?
Meanwhile, I have been reliably informed that bicycles rape fish at rates of nearly 635% a day.
Because men are evil.
9/25/15, 12:16 PM
Would that be "rape" or Whoopi Goldberg "rape rape"?
Henry said...
Is Dave Zinn related to Howard Zinn? It would fit the way he reports.
Maybe not by blood, but...
"Zirin is also the author of A People’s History of Sports in the United States, part of Howard Zinn’s People’s History Series for the New Press."
http://www.edgeofsports.com/bio.html
Todd,
Everybody knows bicycles deserve no civil rights protections. Therefore, the mere accusation is enough to convict a bicycle not only of rape, but also rape-rape and felony criminal manliness.
This madness has to stop!!
Protect the fish from these murdering, raping bicycles!!!!
Eleventy!#!!#
Birkel said-- "bicycles rape fish at rates of nearly 635% a day."
Apparently Birkel is bigoted against bicyxuals.
At colleges the mere accusation by a woman of sexual assault without any investigation at all (in fact before investigation begins) means that the man has to move out of the dorm.
So does this mean that coed dorms and this regulation together create a hostile learning environment for men. Should there be coed dorms?
Think about it. At Ivy League colleges now, thanks to Obama, more of his legacy - there are over a hundred accusations a year of sexual assault at each college. A hundred men have to move suddenly immediately before any investigation - leave their dorm, their friends, try to find a room in the middle of the year while rumors they are rapists circulate. Isn't this mega-hostile climate - since it could happen to any man at any time if any woman chose to do it. His behavior and his choice of friends is irrelevant to his potential for being disgraced and compelled to move thanks to Title IX administrators and their so-called law. Non-coed dorms by next year or the men sue.
As a practical matter, unless there is obvious trauma, given the DNA evidence of sexual contact with 2 others not the suspect in this allegation, the claim of rape against Kane is dead on arrival in terms of a criminal case. There will always be a lawyer willing to take a civil case to trial, no matter how weak, when the defendant is rich and famous and the plaintiff's attorney stands to reap publicity even if he loses. From his POV, who cares if in his dog of a case the plaintiff is exposed as a scheming, promiscuous bimbo looking for a free payday, if he gets a good book deal or a great gig on TV, something like that?
So Kane's ordeal is not over by any means. The need for caution when choosing one-night party-mates works in both directions.
At least the woman's ex-lawyer had the decency to quit when he realized the woman and her family were not trustworthy, or perhaps when he realized that the untrustworthiness was now public knowledge.
All that righteous indignation from the previous press conference wasted.
Just read the New York Times story on this foofaraw. It keeps referring to the "victim." And I can only think: Kane?
Lying about rape should carry actual penalties. The people who lie about rape are doing serious damage to people who are actually raped as well as the people they falsely accuse.
Unfortunately, in a case like Kane's, you probably can't prove the actual rape allegation is false any more than you could prove the rape allegation is true. It remains a one-on-one, with no supporting or contradicting evidence. Maybe true, maybe not. Remains a mystery and people can be free to assume their preconceptions.
This presupposes nothing else become known, especially reliable statements by either party.
fivewheels,
I might believe that, but they went and found a cop right after they left the bar, not a couple of days later. She either had to have planned the whole thing or she was telling the truth. That's how I see it.
Again, we'll never know for sure, but it's not an either or. Her friends were the ones who dragged her to the cop, because they just knew that she would never have consensual sex in a seedy bathroom just because the guy is a rich, tall, famous athlete whom they followed bar to bar. Never!
Except maybe she did. I don't know. The police seemed not to be convinced he raped her. She would have been under a lot of pressure in that moment to agree with her friends that she was not, you know, a tramp. And after googling the case, I'm reminded that she "initially told the cop that she was 'sexually assaulted or sexually manipulated.' "
If they ask what happened to you, and you start with "Officer, I was sexually manipulated" instead of "raped," I reserve the right to at least suspect that you are stretching the facts just a tad.
"The police seemed not to be convinced he raped her."
To prove the crime, there has to be - as a practical matter - some element of force, or some proof of intoxication to the degree the ostensible victim can no longer resist or make a decision. So when you have a one-on-one situation, with no independent witnesses, and no evidence of force, not even evidence of intercourse with the suspect but definite evidence of intercourse with multiple other males, and apparently, a victim who was walking and talking immediately afterwards...well, the possibility of proving a crime is zero. The police don't necessarily disbelieve the victim, but they almost certainly believe the chance of a prosecution is non-existent. The cops may actually think the woman was raped. Or not. They won't say. They may not have an opinion. But all that matters really is what they can prove in a courtroom. And that is nothing.
Post a Comment