PDA

View Full Version : SF Sunday Chronicle: The Case Against Bonds


Fenway
04-16-2006, 07:12 PM
those 2 reporters going for the kill now.


The Case Against Bonds (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/16/MNGQOI9U7L1.DTL)
Court records, documents compiled by feds bolster possible perjury case against the Giants star. Chronicle
http://sfgate.com/graphics/homepage/blackdot5x7.gifKnapp: Past still relevant (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/16/SPG8KIA0TE1.DTL)
http://sfgate.com/graphics/homepage/blackdot5x7.gifShea: Power surge, suspicion go on (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/16/SPG5BI9GHU1.DTL)

SoLongFrank
04-16-2006, 07:55 PM
Short of someone from BALCO or directly involved with the sale of the substances testifying that Bonds both was directly involved in the sale & knew at the time they were illegal Bonds will not be indicted.

Kimberly Bell is easy to discredit because of the close personal relationship she share with Bonds. She doesn't count & most likely will not even be called as a witness.

Victor Conte has already set the stage. Proclaiming he intends to write a book that refutes the authors of GOS. That tells me that both him & Anderson & the other BALCO employees smell the green they can make from all this. Rains knows this as well.

The threat of perjury is not enough to compel them to speak the truth. The lame memory excuse is the most often card played in cases where testimony is crucial. "I don't recall. I don't remember. That doesn't ring a bell. That doesn't come to mind. I'm not clear. I can't say with certainty. Etc." There are so many lines available for the lame memory excuse to avoid a perjury charge.

It doesn't matter how it looks in a court of public opinion. It works for a court of law.

ilsox7
04-16-2006, 08:03 PM
Short of someone from BALCO or directly involved with the sale of the substances testifying that Bonds both was directly involved in the sale & knew at the time they were illegal Bonds will not be indicted.

Kimberly Bell is easy to discredit because of the close personal relationship she share with Bonds. She doesn't count & most likely will not even be called as a witness.

Victor Conte has already set the stage. Proclaiming he intends to write a book that refutes the authors of GOS. That tells me that both him & Anderson & the other BALCO employees smell the green they can make from all this. Rains knows this as well.

The threat of perjury is not enough to compel them to speak the truth. The lame memory excuse is the most often card played in cases where testimony is crucial. "I don't recall. I don't remember. That doesn't ring a bell. That doesn't come to mind. I'm not clear. I can't say with certainty. Etc." There are so many lines available for the lame memory excuse to avoid a perjury charge.

It doesn't matter how it looks in a court of public opinion. It works for a court of law.

All they need to do is find that there is probable cause that Bonds committed the crime. Enough compelling circumstantial evidence along with a witness or two should be enough to establish probable cause. The question is, just how strong is the circumstantial evidence being submitted?

No one here knows that, so no one can answer the question at hand.

SoLongFrank
04-16-2006, 08:33 PM
That is not the way perjury cases work. A grand jury will not grant an indictment based on circumstantial evidence. Short of a physical record or testimony clearly stating that Bonds knowingly used illegal substances at that time the Fed's will never be able to indict him. That's why few such cases are ever tried & even fewer ever won.

From what we know so far (GOS, excepts) the Fed doesn't have enough to overcome the dumb ballplayer excuse. Dr Ting may have been party to a conversation where Barry attests to knowing he was using illegal substances. But unless the Fed has something stronger to wield against him there's no reason for Ting to give up Barry. Barry is rich enough to buy his silence.

That's the problem the Fed has in any case against Barry. Who can they get as a credible witness that doesn't care about Barry's riches?

ilsox7
04-16-2006, 08:36 PM
That is not the way perjury cases work. A grand jury will not grant an indictment based on circumstantial evidence. Short of a physical record or testimony clearly stating that Bonds knowingly used illegal substances at that time the Fed's will never be able to indict him. That's why few such cases are ever tried & even fewer ever won.

From what we know so far (GOS, excepts) the Fed doesn't have enough to overcome the dumb ballplayer excuse. Dr Ting may have been party to a conversation where Barry attests to knowing he was using illegal substances. But unless the Fed has something stronger to wield against him there's no reason for Ting to give up Barry. Barry is rich enough to buy his silence.

That's the problem the Fed has in any case against Barry. Who can they get as a credible witness that doesn't care about Barry's riches?

There's your problem. You have no idea what is being introduced into evidence. Therefore, you really have no idea what will happen. They may or may not find probable cause. You are talking like every piece of evidence that is submitted to the grand jury is also submitted to the public for viewing. It's not.

SoLongFrank
04-16-2006, 08:54 PM
You keep saying probable cause & that's where we disagree. To have any shot of trying a perjury case you must have evidence in the form of a physical record or irrefutable testimony. In otherwords you need a near certainty to be granted an indictment. If you believe otherwise quote a case precedent.

I never claimed to know what the Fed has. I was only commenting on what the authors have told us about in GOS & the various excerpts that have been released. That alone is clearly not enough. Is it all the Fed has? I don't know.

I do know that some of the writers information was obtained illegally so there is the possibility it's the bulk of the Fed's case. That fact alone weakens any case they bring against Bonds because it opens them up to procedural errors.

Lip Man 1
04-16-2006, 09:37 PM
My only two comments are that:

1. Bonds is guilty as sin and should be nailed for his arrogance.

2. That being said I seriously doubt a SAN FRANCISCO judge and a SAN FRANCISCO grand jury are goin to nail a member of the SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS.

That's as bad as asking a Chicago jury to convict the so called 'Black Sox.'

Ain't gonna happen.

Lip

ilsox7
04-16-2006, 09:47 PM
You keep saying probable cause & that's where we disagree. To have any shot of trying a perjury case you must have evidence in the form of a physical record or irrefutable testimony. In otherwords you need a near certainty to be granted an indictment. If you believe otherwise quote a case precedent.

I never claimed to know what the Fed has. I was only commenting on what the authors have told us about in GOS & the various excerpts that have been released. That alone is clearly not enough. Is it all the Fed has? I don't know.

I do know that some of the writers information was obtained illegally so there is the possibility it's the bulk of the Fed's case. That fact alone weakens any case they bring against Bonds because it opens them up to procedural errors.
The whole purpose of bringing an indictment is so that a grand jury can determine whether or not there is probable cause that the accused committed a crime. If that grand jury finds such cause, it goes to trial. The trial is the forum that determines whether or not the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no case for this; it is simply the purpose of a bill of indictment.

From Black's:

bill of indictment. An instrument presented to a grand jury and used by the jury to declare whether there is enough evidence to formally charge the accused with a crime. See INDICTMENT; NO BILL; TRUE BILL.

EDIT: My whole oint when I first commented was that you are saying the Feds HAVE to have someone from Balco or a seller of the steroids testify against Bonds. I am simply stating that that is not necessarily true. The evidence will be viewed b ythe grand jury as a whole. If the jury feels as though there is probable cause to charge Bonds, they will do so. If not, then it ends.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-16-2006, 10:19 PM
If Bonds lied to the grand jury, he committed perjury. The fact they are calling him back into the grand jury indicates they need to sort out some new facts and/or discrepancies from Barry's earlier testimony. Either way, it's not good news for Barry.

And Lip, it's Barry's arrogance that is getting him into all this trouble. The smartest move the man could make right now is simply disappear like Scammy and McAndro already did. Unlike those two, Barroids still thinks he can bull**** his way through this and that's why he's is going to be taken down.

:nandrolone
"Barry, is there any chance you can claim English is your second language? It might help when they call you to testify. It did for me!"

Madvora
04-16-2006, 10:54 PM
This whole thing against Bonds is almost getting boring it's so obvious.
When are they going to get to Sosa already? We need something new. You can't tell me a moron like that is smart enough to completely cover up his tracks and leave absolutely no trace of anything.

Where's that damn gym bag?

Lip Man 1
04-16-2006, 11:36 PM
Sosa's retired. MLB could care less.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
04-16-2006, 11:58 PM
You keep saying probable cause & that's where we disagree. To have any shot of trying a perjury case you must have evidence in the form of a physical record or irrefutable testimony. In otherwords you need a near certainty to be granted an indictment. If you believe otherwise quote a case precedent.

I never claimed to know what the Fed has. I was only commenting on what the authors have told us about in GOS & the various excerpts that have been released. That alone is clearly not enough. Is it all the Fed has? I don't know.

I do know that some of the writers information was obtained illegally so there is the possibility it's the bulk of the Fed's case. That fact alone weakens any case they bring against Bonds because it opens them up to procedural errors.Are you assuming you know more about the case then the prosecuting attorneys? It sure sounds like it. I doubt very much they would be pressing the case if they didn't have the goods. This sounds more like just filling in the gaps. Barry's going down.

SoLongFrank
04-17-2006, 12:29 AM
Are you assuming you know more about the case then the prosecuting attorneys? It sure sounds like it. I doubt very much they would be pressing the case if they didn't have the goods. This sounds more like just filling in the gaps. Barry's going down.

Are we talking about the same Feds? How much time did Conte & Anderson serve for their plea-bargain? Are you suggesting Barry is a bigger trafficker of these drugs than Conte? So why then did they make the offer? Because they were faced with the possibility of losing the case altogether.

What was the initial tally? 42 counts. What was the bargain? 1 count.
That's how a sentence that could have been greater than 15 yrs got sliced down to less than a year. How about Conte's arrogance after he was set free? Didn't sound like he feared the Feds at all.

I'll believe Barry's going down when I see it. Until then it's just a smoke screen to milk more money out of us the fan.

ilsox7
04-17-2006, 01:01 AM
Are we talking about the same Feds? How much time did Conte & Anderson serve for their plea-bargain? Are you suggesting Barry is a bigger trafficker of these drugs than Conte? So why then did they make the offer? Because they were faced with the possibility of losing the case altogether.

What was the initial tally? 42 counts. What was the bargain? 1 count.
That's how a sentence that could have been greater than 15 yrs got sliced down to less than a year. How about Conte's arrogance after he was set free? Didn't sound like he feared the Feds at all.

I'll believe Barry's going down when I see it. Until then it's just a smoke screen to milk more money out of us the fan.

Barry is different. It's perjury and he is the poster child for steroids. There is a chance they make him an example. Some politician will make it their cause.

SouthSide_HitMen
04-17-2006, 01:35 AM
those 2 reporters going for the kill now.


The Case Against Bonds (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/16/MNGQOI9U7L1.DTL)
Court records, documents compiled by feds bolster possible perjury case against the Giants star. Chronicle
http://sfgate.com/graphics/homepage/blackdot5x7.gifKnapp: Past still relevant (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/16/SPG8KIA0TE1.DTL)
http://sfgate.com/graphics/homepage/blackdot5x7.gifShea: Power surge, suspicion go on (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/16/SPG5BI9GHU1.DTL)

The most important article of the three is the third one.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/16/SPG5BI9GHU1.DTL

Shelton and any other player will have suspicion about whether they are taking or not taking steroids due to the fact that MLB's testing is a joke. Until MLB gets serious about this issue the game will continue to be dragged through the mud and players regardless of innocence or guilt will be tarred by the same feather.

QCIASOXFAN
04-17-2006, 01:44 AM
So I looked at a price guide and saw some of my Bonds rookies are going down in value, could this be the cause lol.

SouthSide_HitMen
04-17-2006, 02:08 AM
So I looked at a price guide and saw some of my Bonds rookies are going down in value, could this be the cause lol.

http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/crawfor/apmacro/Trading/dukes.jpg

Cell, I mean Sell !!!

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 09:26 AM
Are you assuming you know more about the case then the prosecuting attorneys? It sure sounds like it. I doubt very much they would be pressing the case if they didn't have the goods. This sounds more like just filling in the gaps. Barry's going down.

I think they've got more than enough to take down Barroids on perjury. I think they're bringing him back because they have new evidence he knows more about the distribution of this stuff than he ever let on to during his initial testimony. They're pressing him over perjury as a lever to turn him state's witness against others who haven't been captured yet.

You think Victor Conte is the ringleader? As far as the Feds are concerned, Barroids is the doorway to a whole new drug ring.

Ol' No. 2
04-17-2006, 10:06 AM
Are we talking about the same Feds? How much time did Conte & Anderson serve for their plea-bargain? Are you suggesting Barry is a bigger trafficker of these drugs than Conte? So why then did they make the offer? Because they were faced with the possibility of losing the case altogether.

What was the initial tally? 42 counts. What was the bargain? 1 count.
That's how a sentence that could have been greater than 15 yrs got sliced down to less than a year. How about Conte's arrogance after he was set free? Didn't sound like he feared the Feds at all.

I'll believe Barry's going down when I see it. Until then it's just a smoke screen to milk more money out of us the fan.I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that I think the prosecutors know a lot more about what evidence they have than you do.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 10:27 AM
Are we talking about the same Feds? How much time did Conte & Anderson serve for their plea-bargain?
Would you please get a clue. If Conte wasn't offering up something of value to the Feds, why the hell do you think the Feds would offer any plea bargain at all?
:o:

For all you know Conte is the very person who is serving up Barry Bonds on a silver platter. Conte cooperated. He got the plea bargain, remember?
:o:

I can't wait to see you negotiate the price on your next new car purchase. You'll probably wind up paying full sticker for a used model. Yeah, but at least I got screwed in my first choice of color...

Tragg
04-17-2006, 10:34 AM
Sosa's retired. MLB could care less.

Lip
He holds no records, everyone knows what he did, and he's not an american citizen and presumably out of the country...forget him.
They need to go after the also retired McGwire though.

Ol' No. 2
04-17-2006, 10:47 AM
He holds no records, everyone knows what he did, and he's not an american citizen and presumably out of the country...forget him.
They need to go after the also retired McGwire though.I don't think you can let him off that easy, but it's a much tougher case because they'd have to develop it independantly. If you start stripping records (not likely, but it could happen some day), Sosa could become the record holder by default.

Flight #24
04-17-2006, 10:51 AM
Are you assuming you know more about the case then the prosecuting attorneys? It sure sounds like it. I doubt very much they would be pressing the case if they didn't have the goods. This sounds more like just filling in the gaps. Barry's going down.

I have no knowledge of the facts of the case other than what I've read in the various papers, etc. But I do know that there are numerous instances of Federal prosecutors proceeding with high-profile cases in instances where a)the public benefit is minimal and/or b) they don't have a great case. It happens all the time in various realms including SEC investigations/prosecutions, federal ones, and state ones.

Not saying that they do or don't, but the fact that they're proceeding doesn't mean they actually have anything direct on him. A lot of times, especially involving high profile guys, it's as much about about face time for the DA (or equivalent). Even if they think they might lose. And as noted by those much more well-versed than I in the legal details, perjury is tough to prove.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 10:57 AM
Not saying that they do or don't, but the fact that they're proceeding doesn't mean they actually have anything direct on him. A lot of times, especially involving high profile guys, it's as much about about face time for the DA (or equivalent). Even if they think they might lose. And as noted by those much more well-versed than I in the legal details, perjury is tough to prove.
GASP! You mean it's possible the DA has cynical motives of his own for prosecuting Barry? Say it ain't so!!!!
:wink:

I would hasten to add that Barroids' lawyer has a legal obligation to blow as much smoke in defense of his client's interest as any DA might have for his own personal aggrandizement.

Barry has already appeared once. The fact Barry is going in front of that grand jury a second time is NOT good news for Barry, I don't care how much Barroids' lawyer spins it.
:cool: