Kane Incident 'Blown Out of Proportion', says taxi driver's attorney

wprager wrote:So, quick question, with NHL 10 slated to launch next month, how does that affect the cover label?

The EA Cover Curse lives on!

Remember back in 2004? Thornton was the original choice... then he got arrested... so they switched to Heatley... then he had the car accident and they switched finally to Sakic.

Coincidence... or curse?

shabbs wrote:What does that have to do with the incident? Sounds like a smear campaign to me... as we've seen... people make mistakes. Can't have it both ways.

You obviously haven't read the article. Read it.

Radecki was driving without a valid license at the time. That's illegal, and totally relevant to the case.

Was he intoxicated as well? That question would probably arise in court.

The other question revolves around Radecki locking the two Kanes inside his cab, which in legal terms, can be characterized as unlawful imprisonment.

You want to know why Radecki's lawyer doesn't want this to go to court? There are a number of reasons. One being because his client would possibly lose his cab license.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:What does that have to do with the incident? Sounds like a smear campaign to me... as we've seen... people make mistakes. Can't have it both ways.

You obviously haven't read the article. Read it.

Radecki was driving without a valid license at the time. That's illegal, and totally relevant to the case.

Was he intoxicated as well? That question would probably arise in court.

The other question revolves around Radecki locking the two Kanes inside his cab, which in legal terms, can be characterized as unlawful imprisonment.

You want to know why Radecki's lawyer doesn't want this to go to court? There are a number of reasons. One being because his client would possibly lose his cab license.

What's Kanes excuse for wearing that ridiculous looking mouthguard? Shouldn't that be a felony?

This can be viewed from many different angles.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:What does that have to do with the incident? Sounds like a smear campaign to me... as we've seen... people make mistakes. Can't have it both ways.

You obviously haven't read the article. Read it.

Radecki was driving without a valid license at the time. That's illegal, and totally relevant to the case.

Was he intoxicated as well? That question would probably arise in court.

The other question revolves around Radecki locking the two Kanes inside his cab, which in legal terms, can be characterized as unlawful imprisonment.

You want to know why Radecki's lawyer doesn't want this to go to court? There are a number of reasons. One being because his client would possibly lose his cab license.

They're rubbing each other's backs now... hoping to get this out of the press/courts and have a settlement on the side so that the mistakes made by BOTH SIDES don't make it any worse than it already is and they can both move on.

Just another day in the legal world...

Radecki's prior DUI and driving without a valid license do not have direct relevance on this case, unless it comes out that he was drinking that night as well. In that case several things can be argued -- that his interpretation and recollection of the events were/are clouded by his level of blood alcohol; and that he may have been the aggressor rather than the victim.

Until his blood alcohol level at the time of the incident in question is known (if ever -- I don't believe he was administered a test) his history has no direct relevance.

And, yes, Shabbs is right -- attacking the cabbie's credibility in print by bringing up his piors is just as relevant as mentioning how much Kane earns, in comparison to the $13.80 cab fare he is alleged to have kept. All it does is color the story one way or another.

And now, 48 hours after the incident, the mea culpa in the media is taking place. ESPN, Sportsnet, and The Hockey News, just to name a few, are now presenting their attempts at a 'balanced' view...here is one:

LAWYER: KANE DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME
ESPNChicago Staff/ESPN.COM, August 10, 2009

Patrick Kane's attorney said on Tuesday that the Chicago Blackhawks star did not assault or rob the cab driver who claimed he was attacked early Sunday in Buffalo, N.Y.

Paul Cambria, speaking on "The Waddle and Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000, said Kane, 20, and his cousin James, 21, were trapped inside the car when cab driver Jan Radecki, 62, wouldn't unlock the doors.

"[Patrick Kane is] devastated that anybody would accuse him of a crime," Cambria said. "He's not that sort of person.

"He wanted nothing to do with the cab driver in any way, shape or form. He simply wanted to get out of the cab. It's been revealed today that the cab driver admitted he locked these two guys in the car and wouldn't permit the one guy to stand up and simply reach for his wallet. There's more and more being developed about this."

The Kanes are facing felony robbery and misdemeanor counts of theft and criminal mischief. Patrick Kane has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for a court hearing Monday in Buffalo.

"[Radecki] said he wasn't going to let the one fellow out to get his wallet," Cambria said during the radio interview. "He said that in an interview that I heard.
"Apparently he said that's his MO. Anytime he takes young people, college kids or whatever, any place at night he locks them in the cab until he pays. His lawyer said this morning in an interview I heard that in the past many of his passengers have become upset because they're angry that they're being trapped in a car and not being trusted to stand up and get their money out."

Cambria was asked if Kane did anything wrong or anything he regretted.

"He regrets that he was there, obviously, who wouldn't?" Cambria said on "The Waddle and Silvy Show." "On the other hand, did he do anything wrong? Did he violate the law? Everything we have demonstrates no, and he emphatically said, 'No.' I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him and every reason to believe him."

Cambria was asked on the show if Kane touched Radecki. "He did not assault the cab driver. He did not rob the cab driver. He did not cheat him out of his fee. None of those things. He tried to get out of a locked cab," Cambria said.

As far as Kane's cousin, Cambria would not elaborate.

"I'm not blaming or defending his cousin," Cambria said. "He has an attorney, and his attorney can speak for him. I think it's clear there is no question the cousin is the one who was involved in the financial transaction with the cab driver. The police claim they found a partially torn bill or something in the cousin's pocket. He his own attorney, and his attorney can speak for him."

Radecki's lawyer, Andrew LoTempio, said on WGN radio on Monday that he didn't believe the case would end up as a felony, and that the incident had been blown out of proportion.

"There was a dispute over the fee and it just kind of escalated from there," LoTempio told WGN. "It was not really a robbery. That is probably a large distortion of what happened."

"I think we should be able to work things out," LoTempio added.

Cambria also addressed a report in Tuesday's edition of the Buffalo News that Radecki had two drunken driving convictions and had no valid driver's license at the time of the incident.

The Buffalo News said Radecki hung up the telephone when a reporter tried to talk to him Monday. LoTempio told the News he had represented Radecki in one, unspecified DWI case, but would not comment on the license issue.

"That's a matter that's going to be used to make a credibility determination concerning this guy," Cambria said on "The Waddle and Silvy Show." "Apparently, he's had other skirmishes with people in the past, and other difficulties, and all that will play out in the courtroom."

As far as Kane's demeanor, Cambria said: "Pat is like, 'Why me? I didn't hit the guy. I didn't assault the guy. I wasn't involved in pay or not paying for the fare. I can't believe I'm in this.' "

---

Beyond the relatively civil parameters of the GMHockey Forum, I have personally addressed and challenged a number of reporters, bloggers and fans on the entire issue of Kane being tried and judged without all of the facts having been presented.

The hostility towards Kane--and the hostility towards me, in some cases--has been fascinating in its intensity.

It makes one stop and wonder where our society is at, when the feeding frenzy for gossip and scandal has reached such a point where people cannot agree to disagree.

The most bizarre aspect in all of this, is that, IF Patrick Kane HAD assaulted Mr. Radecki, I would have concurred wholeheartedly that he should be dealt with accordingly to the full extent of the law.

But Kane was simply accused of a crime...and I believe that he deserves to be given the legal right to have his case heard in a proper legal manner.

I also believe it is tragic that Jan Radecki, whose living as a cab driver may be threathened by the revelations now coming out, could end up being even more of a victim...duped into spilling his story, so the media and scandal-starved fans could feed on it.

All in all, a sad tale.

Looks like a couple of things are playing out here. A cash settlement and/or blaming the cousin. :^^^^:

SSF>you seem to have made up your mind about this one already...

And if it were James Kane who punched Jan Radecki, what would your opinion be?

You be the judge.

davetherave wrote:SSF>you seem to have made up your mind about this one already...

And if it were James Kane who punched Jan Radecki, what would your opinion be?

You be the judge.

If the attorney really wanted to leave it up to James Kanes attorney to defend James Kane why would they mention the torn money in James Kanes pocket and not just shut the hell up?

Come on, Dave, you're smarter than that.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

davetherave wrote:SSF>you seem to have made up your mind about this one already...

And if it were James Kane who punched Jan Radecki, what would your opinion be?

You be the judge.

If the attorney really wanted to leave it up to James Kanes attorney to defend James Kane why would they mention the torn money in James Kanes pocket and not just shut the hell up?

Come on, Dave, you're smarter than that.

SSF, thanks for the compliment.

I don't know that I'm so smart, that I can know why these lawyers say what they do. Most of them are much smarter than me.

I do read, though, that Paul Cambria is one of the best in the legal business. And for that matter, Andrew LoTempio is reputed to be an excellent lawyer as well.

So I'll defer to the smart people...and see what happens.

Just another kid with money who thinks he owns the world.

I hope he's punished fully.

wprager wrote:Radecki's prior DUI and driving without a valid license do not have direct relevance on this case, unless it comes out that he was drinking that night as well. In that case several things can be argued -- that his interpretation and recollection of the events were/are clouded by his level of blood alcohol; and that he may have been the aggressor rather than the victim.

Until his blood alcohol level at the time of the incident in question is known (if ever -- I don't believe he was administered a test) his history has no direct relevance.

And, yes, Shabbs is right -- attacking the cabbie's credibility in print by bringing up his piors is just as relevant as mentioning how much Kane earns, in comparison to the $13.80 cab fare he is alleged to have kept. All it does is color the story one way or another.

Prager, bear in mind the report on Radecki was written by The Buffalo News, the same newspaper that broke the original story on the incident.

So, please point out to me how The Buffalo News article citing Radecki's history is an attack on him, as you suggest.

Furthermore, if Radecki was driving without a valid licence, it raises the possibility that should this case ever go to court, questions about how the taxi company could allow him to drive a cab without a valid licence could lead to a dismissal of the entire case. A lawsuit against Radecki and the taxi company might even follow.

Mr. Radecki does not deserve to have his life exposed in public, no more than Patrick Kane deserves to be tried in the media and the 'court of public opinion'.

But that is what we have, and the Pandora's Box has been opened because of the rabid rush to judgement that characterizes contemporary North American society.

Tuk Tuk wrote:Just another kid with money who thinks he owns the world.

I hope he's punished fully.

And you too, shall be judged...as you judge others.

davetherave wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Just another kid with money who thinks he owns the world.

I hope he's punished fully.

And you too, shall be judged...as you judge others.

Hallelujah!


I've got no criminal record, I've got a job as a roofer, and a bright future in country music songwriting.

What exactly shall I be judge for oh mighty one?

Tuk Tuk wrote:

davetherave wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Just another kid with money who thinks he owns the world.

I hope he's punished fully.

And you too, shall be judged...as you judge others.

Hallelujah!


I've got no criminal record, I've got a job as a roofer, and a bright future in country music songwriting.

What exactly shall I be judge for oh mighty one?

You have already judged Patrick Kane, my friend, have you not?

Here's one for you and your uncle, wherever he may be...

Må även den andra parten höras.

It is being suggested, don't know the validity of this, may have been brought up on PTI, but JR (driver) may have purposely locked the Kane's in his cab because he was dissatisfied with the tip and wanted more. Whether he knew who (Kane) was and felt he could do better, is unknown.

I gotta say, it sounds like P. Kane's lawyer threw his cousin under the bus with those comments. These guys keep giving sound bites to the media. If they wanted to get this cleared up, they should all just shut up. But they're doing damage control and trying to direct this to not be a felony charge.

DTR... you ask why we're so skeptical about all this... I'd say it's because anytime you have a situation where the paths of a "superstar" and a "regular civilian" cross like this... the usual result is the civilian getting paid off to keep quiet/drop charges/go away...

If this goes to court... I guess we'll get some hint at the truth... but I'm not holding my breath.

And no one is denying P. Kane his right to have his day in court... he shall have his day... unless he buys his way out of it.