Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Nailing Bonds on perjury charges doesn't get them any close to this "ring."
1) regardless, if he lied under oath. because they may not learn anything from it, they shouldn't pursue a prosecution? is that really what you're saying? that would be great for our judicial system. people getting away with lying under oath knowing that as long as they are consistent and effective in not talking, they won't be prosecuted. hmm...
2) if he decides to talk after realizing the evidence against him will put him in jail...then they will get closer wouldn't they?
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
1) regardless, he lied under oath. because they may not learn anything from it, they shouldn't pursue a prosecution? is that really what you're saying?
No, I was just responding to this:
Quote:
So in short...if they believed you lied under oath about putting a needle in your a$$ and they had some type of evidence that led them to believe you not only lied but have knowledge of that bigger 'ring', then I believe they'd put quite a bit of resources into your pricked a$$ as well."
The article I linked to previously sums up my view perfectly, so there's really nothing more I can say beyond what that article said. As the author concluded, I think the effort and resources used so far on Bonds has exceeded the public good of a successful prosecution.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Eh, dont care either way about this anymore.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
The article I linked to previously sums up my view perfectly, so there's really nothing more I can say beyond what that article said. As the author concluded, I think the effort and resources used so far on Bonds has exceeded the public good of a successful prosecution.
I dunno...i just disagree with the authors conclusion then and feel its down right dangerous. So just because effort and resources are expensive, we should not pursue a prosecution? Who's to judge what the dollar amount is going to be to ensure "the public good" gets fair value?
What about the cases where "public good" is arguably at a loss even before the investigation? One could make the claim that watergate, the JFK investigations, and many others were costly and did little for the "public good" and even hurt the "public good" by weakening our perceptions of govt.
In the end....if someone commits a crime as serious as perjury, they should be fully investigated and prosecuted IMO. "The public good" comes out of protecting the integrity of our judicial system....and its hard to put a value on that.
If they end up not getting enough information to pursue a prosecution, then the investigation should be dropped. At that point however, those investigating have to account for the money they spent. For all they have spent, they had better have something.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
Eh, dont care either way about this anymore.
i think thats the bigger issue. many are just tired of hearing of it and want it to go away. its easier for many just to let bonds walk to satisfy their desire not to hear of it any longer. thankfully...our judicial system can't just drop charges and investigations because they are lengthy and tiring.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
That's the thing...they don't have the evidence to prove it...which is why they're continuing to pour unnecessary amounts of money into it.
Letting him slide now also reinforces the already prevalent public perception that celebrities can buy their way out of anything.
I hope they stay on him until he's convicted or in his grave.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Let me just ask this question, why isn't Rafael Palmeiro being investigated for perjury?
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Let me just ask this question, why isn't Rafael Palmeiro being investigated for perjury?
They did investigate and then dropped it due to insufficient evidence. Your answer is here;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111000852.html
We don't exactly know what the govt. believes they have as evidence against bonds, or what supposed lies they are pursuing. is it about never knowingly doing steroids, or is it about claiming he never received them from balco/anderson/ etc. I'm assuming there is evidence on Bonds that they didn't have on Palmeiro.
if you don't like that one, you can read this one;
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs...ro_Case_Peroid
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
It's that he never knowingly took steroids. They have to prove that he took steroids AND knew that it was steroids, and that's why they need Greg Anderson. Without him, they have no case.
They're sure as hell putting a lot more time, effort, and taxpayer money into Bonds than they did Palmeiro, though.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
It's that he never knowingly took steroids. They have to prove that he took steroids AND knew that it was steroids, and that's why they need Greg Anderson. Without him, they have no case.
They're sure as hell putting a lot more time, effort, and taxpayer money into Bonds than they did Palmeiro, though.
Read the second link. They put less time into Raffy because there was far less evidence. I also don't believe they "need" anderson but am not going to speculate and lead others to believe I know one way or another what evidence they have or need.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
They need to prove Bonds knew he took steroids. The only way to do that that I can think of, short of a confession from Bonds himself, is a confession from his trainer. That they're now going after Anderson's family to pressure him to testify indicates to me that they're desperate for his testimony. As Craig Calcaterra said in one of the above links I gave, "If the case against Barry Bonds was as good as everyone says it is, why are the feds scorching the Earth in order to try and get the testimony of someone they've know ain't talking for years?"
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
I lol at the fact that someone can say I didnt knowingly take something and its ok. How do you not know what is being injected in you? Its so funny. So next time you get in trouble for something, I have these full proof lines that will get you out of trouble.
When you get pulled over for speeding:
"Im sorry Officer, but I did not knowingly speed and went through that light."
You are late to work:
"Im sorry Boss, I did not knowingly slept in which caused me to be late."
You stink up the bathroom:
"Im sorry, I did not knowingly drop a stinky duece in the toilet which cause WW3 to occur in the bathroom."
Your wife catches you cheating:
"Im sorry honey, I did not knowingly have anal sex with that stripper."
With these great lines, you can be sure to avoid any sticky situation.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
They need to prove Bonds knew he took steroids. The only way to do that that I can think of, short of a confession from Bonds himself, is a confession from his trainer. That they're now going after Anderson's family to pressure him to testify indicates to me that they're desperate for his testimony. As Craig Calcaterra said in one of the above links I gave, "If the case against Barry Bonds was as good as everyone says it is, why are the feds scorching the Earth in order to try and get the testimony of someone they've know ain't talking for years?"
There's more than one way to prove that he knowingly took steroids. Other witnesses, documentation, this mystery calendar code, etc.
As for going after Andersons family, if they find another crime throughout the course of the investigation, are they supposed to ignore it? How can you so quickly exonnerate his family from any wrongdoing without knowing really anything about it? I'm not saying they're guilty or innocent, but i'm certainly not going to draw conclusions either way without any credible information.
As for your "scorching the earth" quote...they aren't quite going that far. I'm not sure what link you're referring to, but the first one in this thread was incredibly bias. And it doesn't matter if their case is solid now or not, its an investigation! IMO, as long as they have enough credible evidence to justify continuing, then they need to continue to investigate.
We'd all like these things to be cheap and open and shut in a week. Thats not real life.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
I lol at the fact that someone can say I didnt knowingly take something and its ok. How do you not know what is being injected in you? Its so funny. So next time you get in trouble for something, I have these full proof lines that will get you out of trouble.
Whether or not it's a ridiculous excuse is irrelevant to this case. The only example you gave which is really applicable is the speeding one (because the others have nothing to do with the law). Whether or not the driver knew he was speeding was irrelevant. He was speeding, and that's against the law, and thus he gets punished for it (with the proof being the radar gun of the cop). In the case of Bonds, the alleged breaking of the law was him lying under oath. Since what he said under oath was that he did not knowingly take steroids, in order to nail him for lying, they have to first prove that he took steroids, and then prove that he knew it was steroids. Yes, we all know that it's a stupid excuse and all, but in a court of law, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Re: feds victimize family to get trainer to talk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Whether or not it's a ridiculous excuse is irrelevant to this case. The only example you gave which is really applicable is the speeding one (because the others have nothing to do with the law). Whether or not the driver knew he was speeding was irrelevant. He was speeding, and that's against the law, and thus he gets punished for it (with the proof being the radar gun of the cop). In the case of Bonds, the alleged breaking of the law was him lying under oath. Since what he said under oath was that he did not knowingly take steroids, in order to nail him for lying, they have to first prove that he took steroids, and then prove that he knew it was steroids. Yes, we all know that it's a stupid excuse and all, but in a court of law, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote:
I did not kill my wife. I don't know how those blood prints got into my car. If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.
While he wasn't convicted of murder, he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in the civil case. Imagine if the prosecution just simply gave up because the case was long and difficult? :rolleyes:
