Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III released a statement announcing that he won’t prosecute NHL hockey star Patrick Kane. Sedita’s statement offers new details about the investigation.
1. The woman claimed the rape took place on Kane’s bed, the first time that detail has surfaced.
“The physical evidence and the forensic evidence, when viewed in tandem, tend to contradict the complainant’s claim that she was raped on Kane’s bed,” Sedita’s statement said.
2. Patrick Kane never gave a statement to police.
Sedita wrote that Kane “exercised his constitutional right to remain silent.” Sedita also wrote that Kane made “no known incriminating statements to any civilian.” Sedita also said Kane didn’t engage in “any conduct consistent with a consciousness of guilt.”
Kane did give a DNA sample to investigators to be used to compare with evidence from the rape kit.
3. The DNA results “lend no corroboration whatsoever to the complainant’s claim of penetration.”
Sedita explained that is “a required element of proof for a rape charge.”
The Buffalo News previously reported that the DNA tests from the sexual assault forensic examination did not support the woman’s allegation she had been raped but that Kane’s DNA was found under her fingernails and on her shoulders where there were bite marks.
4. The Buffalo News reported Tuesday that the woman had signed a “non-prosecution affidavit.”
Sedita’s statement Thursday included the language for part of the affidavit:
“That after fully discussing all the circumstances with my attorney, I have decided I do not wish to criminally prosecute the charges which stem out of this investigation. I do so of my own free will and without any promises or compensation.”
5. Sedita appears to be suggesting in his statement that the complainant’s reluctance to go forward with the case was not necessarily a part of his decision not to prosecute. He wrote that a complainant’s cooperation is “an important factor in determining whether a criminal prosecution … will go forward.” But he also said that a complainant’s cooperation is not a “decisive” factor.
He wrote: “… a complainant’s allegations, standing alone, do not trigger a criminal prosecution; nor does a complainant’s wish to withdraw charges, standing alone, determine whether a criminal case will be terminated.”
6. A “confidential correspondence” has been sent to Hamburg police and the lawyers representing Kane and the complainant that goes into “greater detail” about why Sedita decided against criminally prosecuting the case.
7. Sedita said: “this so-called ‘case’ is rife with reasonable doubt,” using case in quotations, apparently emphasizing his skepticism of the accusation.