What? I took the position that no one knows what the facts are, and our personal bias will in the meantime fill in the blanks as to what we 'think' happened. That is called having an open mind before the actual trial starts where they present the facts.
It seems that you have already assumed Kane is guilty, and that anything anyone says contrary is messed up to you. That, my friend is your bias, and exactly what I am referring to.
Any more messed up than thinking that a woman who reported a crime is a money hungry liar (as quite a few around here have not so subtly insinuated)?
This woman has done NOTHING to have her character called into question. She reported an alleged crime, and obeyed the directives of the legal system thereafter.
What should she have done differently in order to be taken seriously?
Not talked to the media...oh wait, she didn't.
Reported the crime immediately...oh wait, she did.
Refuse to settle the case out of court...Yep, did that too.
Apparently, if you're a woman (and you want to be taken seriously when reporting a sexual crime), you better have never been drunk or horny in your life because god knows you can't be raped if you made out with a guy in a bar earlier in the night.
This is shameful. What if you reported a stolen car and everyone assumed you were lying in order to defraud the insurance company? Oh, that's right, it woudn't happen because nobody is insane enough to assume that kind of thing regularly occurs. Unless you're a woman, and you report a rape...then you're obviously weaving a nefarious web of deceit.
The most obnoxious thing about this is that nobody actually believe the b.s. they're spewing.
If your daughter, or sister, or girlfriend, or wife, or mother reported an alleged sexual assualt, nobody here would think "well she was hitting on that guy at the bar, so I've got to consider the possibility that maybe she just wants his money".
Nobody. Would. Think. That.