Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
especially since Rusty Hardin doesn’t know how to use Adobe Acrobat to redact secret information.
And if it's really true that the government's entire case is (a) McNamee's direct testimony and (b) Pettitte's vague recollectons, then the only way the government possibly wins is by keeping all this info about McNamee from the jury.
This is getting to be more and more what it looks like, even for someone who hasn't been following the trial all that closely, and whose instincts up to now have leaned towards believing McNamee in spite of his shady past. That instinct is slowly beginning to evaporate, though I still want to see how Pettitte's testimony stands up under cross-examination.
Clemens's attorneys will get Pettitte to concede that it was possible he was mistaken, and then they will ask:
"How many years were you teammates with Roger?"
"How many years did you train with Roger?"
"In all of those years, did you ever witness Roger using HGH?" [No]
"In all of those years, did you ever witness Roger using sterods?" [No]
"Did Clemens ever tell you he had used steroids?" [No]
Yes. Unless Pettitte changes his story, this is going to be the most gentle cross-examination ever. He has no firsthand knowledge of anything, and has a hazy memory of a single sentence from a conversation a dozen years ago, which he admits he may have misremembered.
...especially since Rusty Hardin doesn’t know how to use Adobe Acrobat to redact secret information
Not exactly going out on a limb there, Ray. At the start of the hearing, Tom Davis (or was it Waxman? Cummings? I don't remember.) expressly announced that McNamee had lied to prosecutors - a felony - but they said "nevermind" and went ahead and put him on as their star witness anyway.
Have McNamee's syringes with Clemens' blood on them been thrown out of the trial? I thought that was the new evidence, however weak it may be.
I wonder why Hardin attempted to obscure the B&E, but not the tax fraud, DUI, loan fraud, rape, forgery, etc.
This article ...
McNamee's uncorroborated testimony isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. But, if they've got Clemens' DNA on steroid needles, Clemens better have a good theory on how that evidence was doctored.
I find it very hard to believe you could remove all traces of B12/lidocaine while keeping the DNA.
McNamee kept syringes tainted with steroids while he was being investigated for distributing steroids?
I guess, but that requires an awful lot of forethought. If Clemens wasn't using, why would McNamee have wanted evidence he was, way back then?
“He just said, ‘What are you talking about?’” Pettitte said. “I said, ‘Didn’t you tell me that, you used it?' ” He said Clemens told him, “I didn’t tell you that, I told you my wife Debbie used it.”
“Obviously, I was a little flustered because I thought he told me that he did,” Pettitte said. “I thought, it’s no good asking him or talking to him about this now and walked out.”
Did they argue? “There was nothing to argue about,” Pettitte said. “He said he didn’t use it.”
Or if the jury decides they believe McNamee anyway. Which is why you should always invoke the fifth, even if you're innocent.
Or cast doubt on the test results. "What does it mean that the dna is CONSISTENT with that of Mr. Clemens? Does it mean no one else can have it? How close is other people's DNA anyhow?
"What does it mean that the dna is CONSISTENT with that of Mr. Clemens? Does it mean no one else can have it? How close is other people's DNA anyhow?
Right. But that logic works only if he was supplying Clemens with steroids. In that case, it's perfectly logical.
But, if McNamee was dealing to other people, but was only injecting Clemens with legal stuff, what's the logic behind saving syringes, and doctoring them with steroids, and just holding on to them? Blackmail fails as a motive, b/c you'd do that right away; Clemens had much more to lose while he was playing.
The only way it possibly helps him is if he does it because _he_ would throw _Clemens_ under the bus. The government comes to him and says "We know you injected Roger. We'll cut you a deal if you finger him." Which is what happened. Now McNamee fingers Clemens, and Clemens denies it, and McNamee produces the syringes. But the problem is (a) it would be odd for McNamee to predict, years before the steroids issue erupts, that the government will go down the chain to target the users instead of the dealers. And (b) is McNamee is willing to save syringes to throw Clemens under the bus later, then he's probably willing to manufacture evidence to do the same, or for some other reason.
Blackmail fails as a motive, b/c you'd do that right away;
I was wondering why someone would keep old syringes. Either a scum bucket--or someone with great foresight and heightened sense of self-preservation?
T.J. Quinn tweeted that "Pettitte just said he's only 50% sure he understood Clemens correctly when he said he used HGH." I would think that pretty much eliminates him as a useful witness under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
he still needs some reason to save the stuff
What's the law where McNamee was at the time he saved the syringes on doing something like that without the consent of client? Can violation of privacy factor in?
T.J. Quinn tweeted that "Pettitte just said he's only 50% sure he understood Clemens correctly when he said he used HGH." I would think that pretty much eliminates him as a useful witness under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It seems like it's going to have to come down to the syringe.
The only way it possibly helps him is if he does it because _he_ would throw _Clemens_ under the bus. The government comes to him and says "We know you injected Roger. We'll cut you a deal if you finger him." Which is what happened. Now McNamee fingers Clemens, and Clemens denies it, and McNamee produces the syringes.
Defense asked to toss Pettitte's testimony because he's not sure of the HGH conversation. They're going to brief the issue tonight, but I'd be shocked if the judge agrees to strike it.
Blackmail, or something to give the Feds if you get caught.
Well, we all know McNamee is no genius.
T.J. Quinn ? @TJQuinnESPN
Judge: "We're driving this jury crazy." Sick of all the interruptions and waiting around. Judge has dr appt, calling lunch break until 2.
Well, we all know McNamee is no genius. I do think that, dealer or not, he would have a reasonable belief that a prosecutor would care about ROGER CLEMENS user, a lot more than Joe Schmo dealer.
Michael A. Scarcella ? @MikeScarcella
AG Eric Holder Jr., at press conference today, calls Roger #Clemens perjury case a "justified use of our resources." #DOJ #MLB
Is there somewhere we can talk about Junior Seau?
Q And what was your concern exactly? And how would retaining this stuff address that concern?
A My track record for trying to do the right thing for people . . .
Is there potential damage, then, in asking for it to be tossed? Is there a danger it comes off as "strenuously objecting", essentially giving the court the opportunity to state the value of the testimony and thus make it seem more crucial than it actually is?
Prosecutors did not expect Pettitte to say the very thing Clemens has maintained all along, that he "misremembers" the 2002 conversation.
When Clemens first spilled that word, everybody laughed. In a believability test of baseball players, Pettitte will always be chosen before Clemens. "Misremember" seemed to come from some fantasy world manufactured in Clemens's head. Now suddenly Pettitte was saying that Clemens might be right.
Once again, the government's attorneys who bungled the first Clemens trial last year are on their way to blowing the case.
...But how much does Pettitte know? It's hard to imagine his memory has turned hazy, yet Clemens is a hard man to defy.
...It must have been an intimidating sight for anyone there to send Clemens to prison: this vision of a staring Clemens listening to every word and taking notes. So when Attanasio tossed Pettitte a chance to escape the glare and come back to his old friend, Pettitte ran toward it.
Did Pettitte crack? Did he decide it was better to break the heart of the government than risk the ire of Roger Clemens? Or was this the plan all along: To answer the prosecutor's questions literally while hoping for something that could send him running back to Clemens's side?
Or maybe it was the ultimate act of friendship in a relationship broken by this case.
Whatever the reason, the man who came to put Roger Clemens in handcuffs, threw him a get-out-of-jail-free card instead.
It would be great if the writers would take this as a lesson, but more likely the story will be "and Clemens gets off anyway."
You'd think that a professional journalist would know that "misremember" is an actual word.
That's another thing that is bizarre about this whole thing. That reporters are so bad at their jobs that they don't understand that "misremember" is a word, and they make fun of Clemens for using it, mocking him for "making it up," when all the while the stupid is on them.
No matter how much goes Clemens's way here, I'm just assuming that, in the end, they'll manage to pin something on him. That just seems to be the way the whole affair has gone.
Re: #94 Clemens was subpoenaed to testify, so he didn't have a lot of choice.
One thing that is particularly striking when one steps back here is how awful an idea it was for Clemens to have the "I'm innocent" press conference, and then to testify. I have no idea of course what advice Hardin gave him about either of those, but in terms of protecting his client each of those separately (and certainly together) really come close to requiring walking away so that your client gets the message this is an awful idea, seems to me.
The lawyers can better handle the legal question, but from a reputational standpoint, Clemens is better off now than he was before he proclaimed his innocence. Obviously there are writers / fans who have their minds made up irrevocably and will refuse to consider what we've seen in the past few days,
and perhaps nothing will ever bring Clemens back to where he was before the government and McNamee came along. But for those of us who aren't in the camp of "accusation = certain guilt" or "no legal conviction = innocence", the way this trial has proceeded so far has gone a long way to move the narrative in the direction of Clemens' version of the story.
Again, some people grasped the shakiness of Pettitte's original testimony a lot faster than others. And it's certainly possible that Clemens is still lying. But with everything that's come out to date, it's hard for me not to think that Clemens has been vindicated.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.1028 seconds, 56 querie(s) executed