feds victimize family to get trainer to talk

[HoustonGM]

"close to a solid case" again is subjective. What does that mean?

It means not enough to get a conviction.

Again, you have no idea what they have.

Which is why I'm obviously basing what I think on what we know they have.

How close they are to the point of bringing this to trial, I don't know any more than you do.

We know exactly when the trial begins - March 2.

Hmm...it was always my understanding that he was given a lesser sentence on his distribution charges because he agreed to talk, and then when he refused to talk he was jailed because of the distribution charge being re-instated because he didn't live up to his promise. If he was subpeona'd and refused to go, then thats contempt and I could see him being jailed for that as well. After reading the wiki, you may have me on that one. It appears the two (jail time for not talking, and distribution charges) may not be connected.

The two aren't connected. It's not a "maybe". Greg Anderson spent about a year in jail for refusing to testify.

As I've said, we know nothing about there evidence.

This is not true unless you have not followed the case in the news.

I don't know if its sketchy, or solid...

My "sketchy" comment was, quite obviously, specifically regarding the Bonds urine tests, evidence which was leaked recently. Let's go through that discussion again.

You linked to a news article from the New York Times saying that the prosecutors have evidence linking Bonds to the use of PEDs other than the cream and clear. I thenlinked to the full report on that evidence, which said that they have retested his urine, and I said, "Furthermore, this evidence sounds incredibly sketchy. They apparently have his urine tests, which originally did not test positive, and now, are testing positive...according to the leak."

and I certainly don't know if they are close or miles from filing a perjury charge and going to trial.

Than you must have literally not followed the news about it at all, considering perjury charges were filed over a year ago and the trial begins in a month.

From what you have claimed, that "they don't have nearly enough to get a conviction", it appears again that you have inside information nobody else is privy to. I don't see how you can draw that conclusion otherwise.

I've already explained. I don't think it's a huge leap to assume that without Greg Anderson they don't have much of a case, considering how hard they're trying to get Anderson to testify. Do I know this? No, nor have I claimed to "know" it. It's simply what I think based on the facts that we know.

[dickay]

LOL...i did not know there was a trial date set already. Let me get this straight...they've been investigating this for years, indicted Bonds nearly two years ago, are less than one month away from trial and NOW you are saying they should simply drop the case? And you do this admitting you don't know what evidence they have???

[HoustonGM]

Mind showing me where I said the government should "drop the case"?

Also, again, we DO know some of the evidence they have. Also, sometime this afternoon, all the evidence is going to be released. See here and here.

[dickay]

Mind showing me where I said the government should "drop the case"?

Also, again, we DO know some of the evidence they have. Also, sometime this afternoon, all the evidence is going to be released. See here and here.

you can play semantics all you like. This thread highlights your many comments about the expenses of this not being in the "public good", its a "witch hunt" and the like. I'm not going to re-read all this.....and play semantics with you.

It'll be interesting to see what evidence they actually have.

[dps]

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?

Prosecutors make that call all the time. It's just part of how the system works.

[HoustonGM]

you can play semantics all you like. This thread highlights your many comments about the expenses of this not being in the "public good", its a "witch hunt" and the like. I'm not going to re-read all this.....and play semantics with you.

None of that remotely means they should drop the case. I have never said they should, nor have I implied it. It's not an issue of semantics. You're making a claim that just is not true, and utterly misrepresenting my position.

[HoustonGM]

The evidence was released yesterday. Here's ShysterBall's quick take:

For those interested -- especially fellow shysters with a PACER login and password -- here's the mother lode of US v. Barry Bonds documents, pleadings, etc. I haven't had a chance to really go over them in any detail, but my cursory review of it confirms what has been obvious for some time: the government is in deep doo-doo if it can't somehow compel Anderson to testify, because it needs Anderson to authenticate almost all of the documentary evidence that implicates Bonds. Without it, they are relying on considerable amounts of hearsay. The government has argued that the hearsay is admissible due to several exceptions in the rules, but for reasons that will be boring to anyone who isn't a lawyer (and most of us who are) I find their arguments to this effect to be less-than-compelling.

Obviously the judge may disagree, and however she comes down on the issue is going to, obviously, go a long way towards determining the outcome of the case. If I had to handicap it at this point, however, I still say: Advantage Bonds.

That concurs with several other people's (also lawyers) comments I've read at Baseball Think Factory.

[dickay]

The evidence was released yesterday. Here's ShysterBall's quick take:



That concurs with several other people's (also lawyers) comments I've read at Baseball Think Factory.

So a firm that has taken a stance against this investigation states that they haven't had a chance to review much of the information but regardless is making the claim that the information or lack thereof favors Bonds.

Convenient and Shocking.

[HoustonGM]

Like I said, he's not the only person to say this. In fact, I've yet to see anybody say anything good about the government's evidence against Bonds, but I've seen multiple people make the same claim - without Anderson to substantiate it, it's not a good case. The government can prove six ways to Sunday that Bonds used steroids, but that's not what's on trial.

[dickay]

Like I said, he's not the only person to say this. In fact, I've yet to see anybody say anything good about the government's evidence against Bonds, but I've seen multiple people make the same claim - without Anderson to substantiate it, it's not a good case. The government can prove six ways to Sunday that Bonds used steroids, but that's not what's on trial.

That may be true. Honestly I haven't researched the information or opinions. I was just stating that your quote from the shyster was expected. Whats comical is they gave their synopsis while admitting to have not closely read the information.

While we know he perjured himself, and I hope they are in fact able to prove it.....I won't be surprised if in the end they cannot.

[HoustonGM]

That may be true. Honestly I haven't researched the information or opinions. I was just stating that your quote from the shyster was expected. Whats comical is they gave their synopsis while admitting to have not closely read the information.

How is that comical? He gave his first impression. He did the same with the Mitchell Report, and then broke it down piece by piece after he had a chance to dig deep into it.

[dickay]

How is that comical? He gave his first impression. He did the same with the Mitchell Report, and then broke it down piece by piece after he had a chance to dig deep into it.

Because after reading their most recent piece you provided, I would have bet my house they'd have stated the govt. had no case after reading the information. Come to find out they made their opinion even without reading it, which just confirms what I thought all along, their mind is past made up.

I think the Govt. could have had a picture of Bonds taking a needle in the a$$ from Canseco, and this shyster would argue its inadmissible and the govt. has no case.

[HoustonGM]

Because after reading their most recent piece you provided, I would have bet my house they'd have stated the govt. had no case after reading the information. Come to find out they made their opinion even without reading it, which just confirms what I thought all along, their mind is past made up.

Why can't it be that the government's case just IS weak? Why do you have to accuse people of making up their minds without the information, and then refusing to change it when they see the information? That's completely NOT the case. There's been many leaks prior to the full release of evidence, which is what people have used to form their opinions. The full release has confirmed the leaks, according to the multiple people that have reviewed the evidence, cursory or otherwise.

Judging from what you've said in this thread, you've paid incredibly little attention to the Bonds proceedings. I'm surprised that you aren't deferring to those that have spent the past couple years following the case, and instead are accusing them of "pro-Bonds bias." Well, maybe it's not too surprising, considering you've demonstrated a good deal of anti-Bonds bias in the past.

[dickay]

Why can't it be that the government's case just IS weak? Why do you have to accuse people of making up their minds without the information, and then refusing to change it when they see the information? That's completely NOT the case. There's been many leaks prior to the full release of evidence, which is what people have used to form their opinions. The full release has confirmed the leaks, according to the multiple people that have reviewed the evidence, cursory or otherwise.

Judging from what you've said in this thread, you've paid incredibly little attention to the Bonds proceedings. I'm surprised that you aren't deferring to those that have spent the past couple years following the case, and instead are accusing them of "pro-Bonds bias." Well, maybe it's not too surprising, considering you've demonstrated a good deal of anti-Bonds bias in the past.

I am actually more Pro-Bonds than most, and have always been. He gets a bad wrap for a ton of unfair reasons. You pay little attention.

Maybe you missed this;

While we know he perjured himself, and I hope they are in fact able to prove it.....I won't be surprised if in the end they cannot.

I have no horse in the race. I don't care either way, but for some reason you and that shyster seemingly feel that the case is being investigated unfairly and at a loss of "public good". You've also stated or at least linked the site that claimed something to the effect that there should be a public good or there should be no additional money spent, thus no investigation on Bonds or anyone where no "public good" exists. Its that attitude that I've disagreed with.

As for shyster.....IT IS COMPLETELY THE CASE! The article you linked initially was incredibly biased, and then shockingly you link him again claiming to have not fully read everything but providing yet another anti-Govt. opinion.

I'd tell you to please link his opinion when he's actually fully read the information as only then does it really interest me........but IMO he's lost all credibility and I really don't care of his opinion anymore. Opinions of unbiased individuals who have fully reviewed the information, I would find interesting.

[HoustonGM]

As for shyster.....IT IS COMPLETELY THE CASE! The article you linked initially was incredibly biased, and then shockingly you link him again claiming to have not fully read everything but providing yet another anti-Govt. opinion.

I'd tell you to please link his opinion when he's actually fully read the information as only then does it really interest me........but IMO he's lost all credibility and I really don't care of his opinion anymore. Opinions of unbiased individuals who have fully reviewed the information, I would find interesting.

No, it's not the case. He did not make up his mind before seeing any information, and he is not refusing to change his opinion in the face of new information. He formed his opinion based on his following of the case all along, and all the leaked evidence and statements (ie. not before seeing any information). If the new information contradicted all that, he wouldn't stick by his opinion which was based on previous information. Since the new information confirms the previous information, and does not contradict it, I don't see what the problem is with sticking to his original thoughts.

You seem to not care that a good deal of this evidence had already been known to us, and that he's been following the case since the beginning. He's not "pro-Bonds." He's just interpretting the facts of the case, and the facts of the case point to the government having a weak case without Greg Anderson's testimony. Furthermore, yes, this was a "first impression", prior to digging deep into the evidence. I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing. Knowing him, I'd be surprised if he doesn't post more of his thoughts once he reads over the evidence in more detail.

Just more information here:

From his comment section:

They’re [the government] arguing admission [of hearsay] against interest, business records, and/or the residual exception, which basically says “we can’t get our witness to testify, but the testimony is important, he said it once, and when he did there was some indicia of credibility to it.”

They rely heavily on the residual exception. I’ve never litigated it, but it strikes me that courts have to be extremely careful in resorting to it lest the entirety of the hearsay rule be swallowed up. I know many states adopted it in the case of domestic abuse (i.e. the wife that won’t later testify even though she at one time provided a statement). I’m not sure that it applies here.

At some point, if the government can’t get a witness to testify, they have to kiss goodbye whatever evidence he would have testified to.

Here's another lawyer's opinion, from the Baseball Think Factory thread, just to show that there's multiple people interpretting the known facts in the exact same way (and, as I said previously, I've yet to see anybody express an opposite view):

I've begun slogging through those documents. Bonds' attorneys did a terrible job in their initial motion to exclude, but presented a very strong reply brief. Don't have any idea what Illston will do; there's a lot of discretion vested in the trial judge.

EDIT: Basically, there's a lot of stuff there, but it seems like -- as we suspected all along -- so much of it hinges on Greg Anderson. Without his testimony, the government's case is fragmentary at best.

The prosecution falsely writes in its motion papers that Bonds admitted using the cream and the clear.

They also argue that people don't brag or lie in locker rooms.

Bonds' attorneys are really trying to go for the home run here; they're asking for the court to throw out virtually everything the prosecution wants to introduce. Little chance that she does that (if she did, she'd pretty much be looking at a motion to dismiss) but she can still cripple the prosecution's case if she gives Bonds even part of what he's asking for. And when the prosecution is relying on the residual exception, you know (well, you do if you're a lawyer) how worried they are.