Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "" video.

  1. But the DNA not collaborating her story is not something he could have known when he gave his account.
    7
  2.  @bloomingdaemon  People get it wrong what happened to them and what they did without deliberately lying.
    5
  3. You are assuming she knows what actually happened. She may be mistaken about that. Why would a rapist in the age of DNA deny any sexual or physical contact at all? As it happened the DNA evidence supports him.
    5
  4.  @lenalena1683  Why did she not flee into the hotel corridor?
    5
  5. You don't have to be telling a deliberate untruth to be giving an inaccurate account.
    4
  6. He told the police when he was due to go back. He was within his rights to go earlier, and apparently was not told not to. That was prolly a police trap because they put him on a watch list. His story would be odd if he raped her because in that case he'd know there was loads of his identifiable DNA all over her. He said there was no contact whatever and she was never in his bed. A rapist would be much more likely to say there had been consensual sex. Hardly a reasonable expectation that someone is going to spend the night in a corridor just because his roommate got lucky. Was he supposed to get into bed with his pal? By her own account she knew that she was getting into the separate bed of a guy who had just stepped out to give them privacy (ie Cosbie's). That was preferable to giving the man she had just had sex with a shake and telling him to move over a bit? Obviously it was. You know what I think may have happened? He got into his bed with her. It is most unlikely he actually raped her because even if he had not completed, the DNA would have been all over the place and pinpointed him . The prosecution have nothing but tiny trace amounts that could be from any man. And DNA traces floating about in dust skin flakes get everywhere and this was a hotel room; lots of men's DNA was there on the floor where her clothes were, bathroom door handle. ect.
    3
  7. The DNA evidence supports his story that not only was there no sexual contact, but she was never in his bed at all.
    2
  8. She is a proven lawyer.
    2
  9. That is why this isn't a he said she said case at all. He said she was never in his bed and she had no contact with him at all. The DNA testing is extremely sensitive now and it just happens to support his version. He should not have been tried.
    2
  10. But the odds are long against Crosbie denying she was ever in his bed or that there was sexual contact with her and then having the DNA testing supporting his story, unless he is innocent.
    2
  11. St Patrick Day weekend in Boston
    2
  12. Ireland does not extradite its citizens.
    1
  13. He is being charged with rape. Not attempted rape. 'Something' is not good enough.
    1
  14. She got out one guys bed after sex with him, went to the toilets and got into a the bed of a second guy who she must have known would be back. What woman would do that for the reason she gave?
    1
  15. They are almost always guilty so i believe he likely did something, but he is being overcharged.
    1
  16. Hair and skin flakes would have his DNA especially is there was a struggle . Current forensic DNA testing is far more sensitive than just semen. If they couldn't find any kind of DNA from him on her or her clothes than that supports his story. His story that there was no contact between them at all and she was never in his bed would be a strange one for him to tell if he was guilty, because in the age of all these CSI dramas he'd have to expect DNA would prove otherwise. If he is a rapist he had world class luck. Which is the kind of hand waving at the lack of hard evidence that Italian prosecutors used to convict Amanda Knox.
    1
  17. Female lawyers especially. You can bet the police did a complete DNA swabbing not just for SAtraces. The SA result is negative, but more than that forensic DNA analysis is very sensitive nowadays, the lack of any kind of skin or hair from him is not even consistent with her story of sleeping in his bed.
    1
  18. There is no possibility of punishment for her. Unless she says she lied.
    1
  19. In most Western countries nowadays he would be charged on this evidence. I don't think he would be tried though.
    1
  20.  @geordiewishart1546 A certain amount of testing was done, but it was a lot more basic that one might expect from news stories about decades--old cases solved through DNA (perhaps because this is not a murder). It seems to me that the prosecution are presenting inconclusive results as 'DNA evidence' against the accused although when you look carefully it is barely evidence of anything at all.
    1
  21. In his bed with him, yes. His DNA (skin flakes body hairs) ought to be on her. The lack of that does not disprove her version of what happened, but it makes her version a little dubious.
    1
  22.  @lenalena1683  He surely was not tucked up in bed when his pal and the lady lawyer arrived. His bed would be made, no? If he came back in while she was in the bathroom it would be obvious someone had been sleeping in it. He was quite clear that she had not been in his bed after or while he was in it because he was adamant that none of his DNA could be on her from her being in his bed. It seems to me that denying there was any contact is an unlikely line to take for a r*pist, because how could he know the DNA collection would be badly bungled[See below for details.] The fact is when the swabs were tested none of his DNA was in fact found on her, which is consistent with his story, not hers. Anyway, if he is guilty he has world class luck. The DNA evidence on the balance of probability weakly supports his story about her never having been in his bed. As for her accusation that he r*ped her, which is what he is being tried there is a lack of DNA for that too. The guilters in this case seem to be falling back on the theory that the DNA collection from the complainant's genital area , which didn't even identify the DNA from the man everyone agrees she had sex with let alone the one she accused of raping her, was done wrong, but that is just speculation. If Boston wants to take these cases so seriously they ought to pay for much more professional CSI.
    1
  23. 2nd try at answering this. Yes, but that sort of comprehensive DNA testing of everything is usually only used for murders.
    1
  24. Forensic DNA testing is not just about semen . Nowadays it can pick up skin cells, hairs and saliva
    1
  25. Wish it was that simple! While it is very difficult to believe that a woman of her education and position in society would make up such a story, her telling the truth as she remembers it does not necessarily mean her testimony is accurate. We were not in court so can't judge how credible a witness she was. The police just supportively took her statement, but for a conviction the jury have to see her evidence tested under cross examination, and agree it is true in the sense of describing what actually happened.
    1
  26. The police were lying to him and saying his DNA was found on her, and how can he explain that? The police are allowed to lie in interrogations.
    1
  27. She could be telling the truth but she could be wrong, deluded about what she did while inebriated, have some preexisting borderline mental problem conected to attention seeking, or many other things. We know that false accusations (and even convictions) in such cases sometimes do happen. He may be sketchy but we don't know what skeletons in her closet she may have because her identity is protected. The problem with believing her over him is the medical and forensic evidence does not collaborate her story. Although she said he didn't wash, there was none of his DNA on her, which suggests there was no contact between them at all--just as he said from the begining. There was a two men and one female in a hotel room case in Britain where one of the defendants (who was a soccer star) got convicted and the woman later waived anonymity to tell her story. But then previous partners recognizing her came forward to reveal the details of their encounters in which she had urged them on in almost exactly the same words as the soccer player said she had used to consent. She was also asking for a certain position as he had testified. He appealed and was freed.
    1
  28. Ireland does not extradite its citizens.
    1
  29.  @robrobertson4964  Yes you are correct there is not a blanket ban in Irish law, but I am certain it would have been very difficult indeed to successfully extradite him, had he got home.
    1
  30. She might need a motive to make things up , but she may just have an inaccurate memory of what happened. And// or a personality disorder. He certainly could not know at the time he gave his version of what happened that the DNA would contradict her story not her's. So he is very lucky if he is guilty.
    1
  31. The lack of DNA evidence bears out his story: they had no contact whatsoever. But she is a lawyer and the police are wary of cases with such complainants.
    1
  32. But he said (and even in Ireland people know all about DNA) that she was never in his bed and they had no contact at all. Funnily enough the DNA can find nothing to support her story.
    1
  33.  @icturner23  The DNA evidence suggests that just as he has always said she was never in bed with him, lest alone SAed by him. If we are talking about the actual charge he was tried for (r*pe), the DNA evidence strongly suggests he is completely innocent of it.
    1
  34. That applies to most r*pe trials but not this one IMO. There was no counter--claim by the accused of consensual sex between him and the complainant. On the contrary he said there was not contact at all. Forensic DNA suggests there was no sex, so its a case of whether to believe the hard evidence over her. Not him over her.
    1