http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ml?eref=sircrc
Printable View
Yep. And we've also learned that the government has threatened Anderson's wife, and has sent undercover FBI agents to attempt to befriend her and incriminate herself and her husband. Is there still any doubt that the government's case without Anderson is flimsy at best? Them not having Anderson is the reason all their evidence is being thrown out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
considering they can't even prove the samples are Bonds you would think that kills their case...
That's why they need Anderson...because he can validate their entire case.
Man, if I was Anderson, I better be getting some MAJOR cash from Bonds after all this is over.
What is happening to his family is wrong, but honestly, I don't see why he just doesn't testify instead of spending years in jail. I can almost guarantee Bonds wouldn't do the same for him.
They are working on using kimberly bell now since she had admited supposedly in an interview that she had injected him with steroids.
lol she also supposedly will testify that she saw noticable "testicular changes" in Mr. Bonds durring her time with him which is 1 of the side effects to steroids (and probably other things as well)
Bell claims to have witnessed him being injected, not doing the deed herself. The prosecution would then have to prove that it was indeed steroids that Bell witnessed being injected into Bonds AND that Bonds KNEW it was steroids.
As for the "testicular changes", that means really nothing for the case, because what is being disputed is not that Bonds did steroids, but rather that he knowingly did steroids.
not to mention how realiable willo testimony on testicular changes be from a non medical scorned ex-girlfriend going to be??Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
not to mention it's most likely ******** anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
But to answer your question, I know how reliable it would be IF I were on the jury. If it actually comes to trial (which I doubt) and she testifies, Bonds' lawyers will probably want an all male jury. :D
I'm surprised the judge didn't just throw the case out after that. Bonds' defense attorneys have a pretty easy job from this point forward.
Ive been saying to just throw this case out for the longest, its a growing bill for taxpayers that we simply dont need right now.
The funniest thing (well, it's not really funny, it's actually pretty damned pathetic, truth be told) about this is SI's article Wassit linked to above. The article points out:
that prosecutor's can't say for sure if the urine samples belonged to Bonds, but it didn't stop them from titling the article:Quote:
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the urine samples that tested positive for steroids are inadmissible because prosecutors cannot prove conclusively that they belong to Bonds.
Isn't it obvious how the media sometimes intentionally manipulates "facts", and it's just as obvious from public opinion surveys that the manipulation works. I mean how many people reading that article left thinking Bonds tested positive three times???? After all, that's what the title of the article implies. Yet the judges ruling implies we don't know if Bonds tested positive, because we don't know for sure if those urine samples belonged to Bonds.Quote:
Bonds' Three Positive Steroid Tests Barred from Perjury Trial
Truly effing pathetic. And it happens with "real" news all the time too. I'm becoming more and more convinced as I grow older that our media is no less controlled and manipulated than the Chinese media.
If I disappear after this post, then that proves it. :D
EDIT: And btw, please notice how Wassit titled the thread. He (properly, IMO) didn't say they were "Bonds' positive" tests, he just said "posivite tests." I'm pretty sure that wasn't unintentional.
He actually took it from the header of the article he linked to. For some reason, the browser header differs from the article headline.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
If he were to pee in a cup now can they compare it?
i'm pretty sure they could prove it's bonds' pee. isn't there the whole DNA thing?
of course, it still doesn't confirm perjury.