Mark on Kane left by public’s rush to harsh judgment
Patrick Kane was accused of rape.
Patrick Kane was never charged with rape.
Patrick Kane will forever be tainted with the detestable allegation of rape.
Everything about this case has done a disservice to both one young man’s reputation and the countless women who have been victims of sexual assault, weighing whether to risk a police complaint that might see their character battered in both the court of public opinion and a court of law.
Few women falsely cry rape. But some do, for a variety of unpalatable reasons — from revenge to extortion. Academic studies analyzing crime records consistently conclude that provably false rape allegations occur at a rate of 2 to 10 per cent. That’s a huge swing margin, but it should also be noted that provably false means ironclad.
Kane’s accuser hasn’t recanted. She has signed a “non-prosecution affidavit” stating she no longer wishes to pursue a criminal prosecution. She also declines to cooperate further in a matter which the District Attorney now describes as “rife with reasonable doubt.”
Kane has never professed that he wasn’t there, at his Buffalo-area lakefront mansion, on that August evening when the 21-year-old claimed the Chicago Blackhawks star attacked her. Indeed, Kane has said nothing to investigators, exercising his constitutional right not to incriminate himself.
What we do know, since Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita announced on Thursday that the rape case against Kane has been closed: DNA tests “lend no corroboration whatsoever to the complainant’s claim of penetration, a required element of proof for a rape charge.”
Specifically, Kane’s DNA was not present on the woman’s genital area or in her undergarments, though it was found on the woman’s shoulders and fingernails. This is strongly suggestive that Kane had no sexual contact with his accuser.
There was no Kane DNA retrieved from the bed on which the woman said the rape was committed.
There were myriad inconsistencies and, of course, the notorious “hoax” perpetrated by the woman’s mother, who claimed an evidence bag was left at her door, which ultimately prompted the complainant’s lawyer to abandon his representation.
This case was clearly never headed for a grand jury. It was instead endlessly dissected in mainstream media and the social media river of vomit, the no-indictment outcome decried by women’s advocates.
But the details of this specific case are severely unfavourable to the complainant. The rush to judgment, if any, demonized Kane from the start, with too many commentators denying the player what everyone is entitled to under law: a presumption of innocence.
Here’s the thing about Kane, idolized as an Irish-Catholic workingclass son of south Buffalo: He was the perfect patsy. An infamous party-boy whose drinking and carousing had scandalized and exasperated the Blackhawks organization — misbehaviour that provided a displeasing counterpoint to his MVP bona fides on the ice.
There was the 2009 alleged punchin-the-nose to a cab driver following a fare dispute with Kane and a cousin, which drew a raft of charges but in the end resulted in a plea of guilty only to non-criminal disorderly conduct and a conditional discharge.
There was the Kane who apologized for photographs, during the 2009-10 season, that showed him shirtless, beer bottle in hand, in the back of a limousine accompanied by (clothed) women and a couple of teammates.
More photos surfaced after the ’Hawks were eliminated from the 2012 playoffs, with Kane booze-binging and behaving like a complete tool during a Cinco de Mayo weekend at the University of Wisconsin.
All of it embarrassing, as Kane admitted; none of it felonious or particularly beyond the pale of frat-house behaviour.
Yet the clear implication, among Kane’s detractors, is that he was somehow predisposed to a crime of sexual violence.
In a courtroom, judges are careful about allowing even similar-fact character evidence because of its potentially prejudicial effect. Juries are routinely directed not to draw inferences: Just because an accused did that on a previous occasion doesn’t mean he or she is more likely to have done this in the accusation at hand. (The flaw, in sexassault trials, is that a clever defence lawyer can persuade a judge to allow character evidence involving the victim’s previous conduct.)
In the cacophony of public denunciation, however, it’s an opinion free-for-all.
Thus Kane was pre-emptively cast as sexual deviant and all but conclusively condemned.
No charge, no prosecution, no case. But the stench of “rapist” will always cling to his name. Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.