If this is settled before going to a grand jury it makes both look terrible.

_________________

Maybe I'm too dumb to understand it all, but before there can be a "settlement", doesn't there actually have to be a civil suit filed first? Otherwise, there is nothing to "settle". I dont know who keeps saying there are "settlement talks" when no suit has been filed.

A criminal complaint and a civil complaint requesting damages are mutually exclusive, no?

_________________
Not a mult.

If I feel like you did something wrong to me, and we decide to drop the whole thing including you paying me a dollar to not pursue it further, then we "settled" my complaint, didn't we?

_________________

So I explained the whole Kane thing to a female this evening...

her take was interesting....

The friend who came to Kaners house, only to accompany her friend, ends up having sex with Kane. She now feels bad she banged Kaner when her friend wanted to?

Very well could be something to it...to some degree....

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Idk. When you cock block you don't leave the friend you are trying to protect. Her going to another room doesn't make sense, I don't know the room either.

I'd like to know if she was screaming so her friend would know if she was being raped. What was the friend doing during the rape?

I could see Kane not taking too long.

But why would I do that if there was no legal muscle behind it?

_________________
Not a mult.

Because you want money, because you don't want to go thru a trial or have your sex life public. A couple of reasons.

You only have to have a civil court case if the party isn't willing to pay. If he thinks he can beat it. If Kane agrees to pay her then there doesn't need to be a trial.

Why would Kane do it? To avoid the details of the case that he doesn't want known.

[warning: wild, mostly baseless speculation follows]

The bogus "settlement" talks rumor came from the Buffalo News; which has been quoting Sports Mockery as a legit source.

Reading btw the lines of the Buffalo News reporting, they only claim source confirmed "the possibility of ongoing settlement talks between attorneys for Kane and the alleged victim"

The reporter probably asked, "is it possible the delay is due to settlement talks?" and the source could have said "sure, anything's possible, it's possible aliens abducted the grand jury; so it's possible this delay is due to settlement talks"

My guess is that, based on the lateness of the postponement and that no one reports seeing the first witness [supposedly the luvved up molly-taking friend] anywhere near the courthouse, the DA's first witness didn't show up. [kind of not surprising that a party girl might miss an appt the day after Labor day weekend, if that's what happ'd]. and the DA realizing that that means he can't start his case until she does--and he wants her to lead his presentation of witnesses--has to push every other witness. which overall schedule change, if he's an anal i-dotter and t-crosser, means a new batch of subpoenas to all witnesses with their new date and time--and since you prolly need some sort of minimum days of notice to appear [either de jure or de facto], he's kicked it 2 weeks to issue those new subpoenas to all witnesses with their new date and time.

Its fairly obvious that Kane contacted Richie Daley for advice .

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

But it's not always that easy when a crime has been committed. I don't think it's up to the alleged victim to "settle" a criminal complaint. Once you accuse someone of a crime, it's not really acceptable to say, "I didn't mean it". The point of a criminal prosecution is to get the rapist off the street, not simply to get justice (or revenge) for the injured party. It's the State of New York v. Kane, not Jane Doe v. Kane.

I realize that without the victim's cooperation it's a hard case to make. Hell, it's a hard case to make anyway. But there is the matter of the other witness here. And just because Kane throws some money at this doesn't necessarily mean the prosecutor has to stop prosecuting.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

This is bizarre. Seems everywhere else a Perp buying off a Vic would be called WITNESS TAMPERING and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

_________________
There goes one over the fence..Tru Link Fence..Beauty, Privacy Security....Call Tru Link.
Murph's Union 76 Truck Stop....A great Thanksgiving Tradition!!!!

WOO LIFE!!!!

Even so, doesn't the complainant have to at least file in order for the process to run its course? Or, can the parties just communicate an agreement and then formalize through the legal system.

The reason I am asking in this particular case is that it seems like the DA/prosecutors have moved so far along that they could still present a case, regardless of whether there is a settlement or not. Sure, the alleged victim could back out and decline to press forward with the criminal proceedings, but the prosecution could still press on if they think they have enough collected evidence (i.e., interviews, witnesses, what does the medical exam/rape kit say?). Which is why at this time I can't see why there would even be any kind of settlement rumors until charges are/are not filed.


EDIT: JORR beat me to it

_________________
Not a mult.

The way I understood the night is the victim and her friend are partying it up with Kane and his friend(s). At a certain point they decide to go back to Kane's place for an after party. The friend is eager to go as it sounds like she is going to hook up with one of Kane's friends. The victim didn't want to go back to his house but did so because she didn't want her drunken friend to go by herself.

They get back to Kane's place (which is not a tiny place) and the friend goes off hooking up with Kane's friend. THe Victim and Kane are left alone. Maybe he gives her a tour of the place and they end up in a bedroom. It could start as simple as making out and some feeling up, but maybe when a drunken Kane got a little too aggressive she put up the stop sign but he continued to go at it. Whatever happened in the room, her first inclination was to go to the hospital...not to sleep or take a nap, but to report what happened.

Regarding the settlement. She can take money and informs the prosecution that she isn't cooperating anymore. The DA can still go ahead w/ the case. He could still present his case and still call her as a witness. He could treat her as a hostile witness and have her give her story. The victim gets no 5th amendment protection. She would have to answer the questions truthfully. This wouldn't be done as a DA doesn't want to put a rape victim on the stand that doesn't want to be there. Plus, the 'settlement' would be seen as protecting the victim from having to go through a stressing ordeal as a trial.

If it happened, I think it was probably something like this.


Its the difference between Higher Learning rape and The Accused rape

Sure, there are a lot of practical issues that make it impossible to proceed without the victim. The problem is, the rapist is still on the street and it suddenly appears that maybe this was just a shakedown after all.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

The latter perspective makes me doubt the DA in this case would proceed with the prosecution if the victim actually engaged in any "settlement talks". Also suggests the "settlement talks" rumors floated weekly are likely coming from Kaner's camp--either a deliberate tactic on the part of his team or a tactic carried out by folks on the periphery of Kaner's circle, perhaps responding to dog-whistle suggestions from his inner circle/defense team.

In either case, most people just hear the initial report of "settlement talks" and cluck and shake their heads and think "she's just out to get paid". Kaner's defense atty / agent whomever denying the existence of settlement talks after the fact does far less to counter that impression than the impression the initial report created. Kaner's lawyers want to have the "she just wants money" seed firmly planted in as many potential jurors as possible.

To be clear (and to shit on SportsMockery), The Buffalo News is a legit source (of which SM is 'feuding' with), you're thinking of the 'Niagara Falls Reporter' (http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/)

I believe SM and Buffalo News have both used each other as a legit source. Kinda funny for the S Side kids, sad for the News source

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Your personal fantasies should have nothing to do with this.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Kane should hire 312player as an attorney. Get the settlement boiled down to an apology and call it a day.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

you spelled, "wrongfully" incorrectly.

There are definitely reasons an innocent person in Kane's shoes would agree to a monetary settlement rather than wait for his day in court.

For one thing, no one is assured of a specific verdict when you put the decision in the hands' of 12 morons. Even if he didn't do it, knows he didn't do it and thinks the other side won't be able to prove otherwise he could still want to settle to avoid the possibility of a jury doing something crazy. This is the kind of option that isn't available to most people because most people don't have the resources to settle a claim like this.

Also, even if he is innocent, he might have to miss an entire season while the trial drags out. I doubt the league would let him play while he is charged with rape. IN that scenario, giving away a couple million dollars makes a lot of sense rather than go through a long painful trial.

Getting rid of this thing now for $$ rather than going through a long and sensational trial complete with lost income from his job and possibly more endorsements makes the decision to settle a no brainer. Get rid of it now, he's never charged with rape, and in no time at all the majority of the people will believe that this was nothing more than a consent-no consent he said she said situation at worst. As opposed to going through a trial where all the evidence would be leaked to the press, there would be daily stories about Kane and what he did, his reputation would take a tremendous hit even with an eventual not guilty verdict. Makes much more sense to settle now, take a few hits over the course of the season and then it all blows over vs spending a year in the limelight during a highly publicized trial.

_________________

I don't think that's true. It's just one-sided that the Buffalo News is getting targeted by those idiots for ethics in rape journalism.

So you are saying that the trial would make him look horrible, and it could also conclude with him being convicted of rape, so he would settle to move past that.

Not a strong counterpoint against thinking he is likely a rapist if he settles. Giving a woman money to go away who is accusing you of rape is a good way to get out of jail but it should be viewed for exactly what it is. He would be thinking there is a good chance he is going to jail for it and he wants to avoid that.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You don't need to have a civil suit on file to settle a civil claim. I settle civil claims all the time without filing suit. If we can't work out a settlement, then we file the suit.

Even after you agree to a settlement, you don't need to then file it with the civil court. A simple release stating that the complaining party agrees to not file suit in consideration for accepting the settlement is sufficient.

_________________

Your first sentence is correct, a trial is not a sure thing.

Your second sentence doesn't make any logical sense. Let's try again...

Rape trial = long ugly process where neither party comes out looking good

settling = avoiding the rape trial unpleasantness and the uncertainty of the jury system.

Settling = some uncertainty as to what actually happened, but no daily trial press dragging Kane's name through the mud based on each day's testimony.


Not sure how you took all that to mean that settling = he's a rapist.


Just look at the last month. There has been zero evidence, yet we've had daily stories and rumors and several attacks on Kane (and on the alleged victim as well). Just imagine how that would intensify if there was actual evidence to talk about. Imagine the talking heads on all the news channels disecting the trial every night on the news? Kane would be crazy to let that happen if he can avoid it.

Plain and simple: THe damage done to Kane's reputation as a result of settling is far less than the damage that would be done by a lenghtly trial that resulted in a not guilty verdict.

_________________

It's cheaper to keep her quiet?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!