Posted on 02/14/2008 11:38:14 AM PST by JZelle
Thought I'd give that a little Gaylord Perry style doctoring...
He would make a good one. The last real Commissioner was Bart Giamonti, IMHO. Selig is a joke, a bad one.
Someone with photoshop needs to fix a picture of Clemens with an ear growing out of his forehead, I think that was the words he used. hehe
Big time jail time should only be awarded for crimes proven in a court of law. The evidence needs to be “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, and that does not include opinions based solely on how a defendant presents himself.
Of course. And if Roger is charged with lying to Congress, he will have the presumption of innocence in court, same as any other defendant.
Not “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the legal standard in this country.
In this case, there is no credible evidence (that I have seen) that proves Clemens guilty of perjury (which is the only legal charge he could face, IIRC).
There I can't agree with you.
Either Clemens is lying or Andy Pettite is. His accuser might not be a choirboy (few witnesses in drug crimes are), but his claims have gained much credibility through Pettite's admissions.
Perhaps that is why Dubya is pushing for Amnesty.
Roger did say it was because his Mother told him to — that he starting using B12.
He has no original ideas. He was simply doin’ what others told him to do. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
So he has ratted out his wife, his best friend and his mommy.
Roger’s Dog had better get himself a good lawyer.
Pettite's admissions are not under oath, as I understand the current situation, therefore I did not consider them "evidence". Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in criminal cases.
I could be wrong, but I thought Pettite gave a deposition, which would have been under oath.
I’m also no lawyer, but I’ve watched enough “Law and Order” to know that hearsay is allowed under certain circumstances. I’m pretty sure that in a perjury trial, utterances by the defendent that contradict the veracity of his statements before Congress will be admissible.
I think Roger’s toast. I no longer believe him (and I did at first) - I’m now convinced that he lied to Congress, and for that he deserves to spend some time in jail.
Ya see this?
After viewing the photographic evidence I find that Mrs. Clemens is definitely NOT GUILTY!!
I’ll buy that big time.!!!!!
I agree!!!
And Canseco signed an affidavit saying Clemens didn’t juice.
So...who is more credible; Petitte or Canseco?
It’s a den of thieves folks.
I’m still stuh...stuh...stuh...studying the....
EVIDENCE!!!!!
Okay, I’m through now. Not guilty
The part I find distrubing is Clemens lets McNamee take his wife in their bedroom behind closed doors for an injection. But Roger states he had no idea what they were doing.
Why am I not surprised that you two would take that position?
As a lifelong Mets fan, it’s actually pretty out of character to criticize McNamee as well as Clemens.
Mortie, let me help you with a couple of legal terms in addition to the standard of proof.
“Deposition” - That is a question and answer session that is under oath.
“Circumstantial evidence” - that is evidence that can be used to convict a man, even if you don’t have any direct evidence. Let me explain. A test that shows Roger positive for HGH - that would be direct evidence. The fact that Pettitte says, “He told me he used HGH.” That is circumstantial evidence of his guilt. THAT IS ENOUGH TO CONVICT HIM BY ITSELF.
You can also use circumstantial evidence to show support for other evidence. Therefore, the fact that Debbie Clemens was injected by the same McNamee in their house, during the relevant time period, is strong evidence that Clemens knew McNamee dispensed HGH, which makes you wonder how she would get it and not him. It’s evidence that Clemens could have gotten HGH from him. It’s evidence that supports McNamee’s version of everything about Clemens. Etc, etc, etc. By itself, it doesn’t prove that Clemens took HGH, but it provides support, corroboration, and veracity to McNamee’s allegations.
“Hearsay” - an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Pettitte’s answers to questions in a deposition are NOT hearsay. And they can be used as evidence, if Pettitte decides to say something different and an attorney chooses to use those word to impeach him.
“Admission” - a statement from a witness (Pettitte) that a party (Roger Clemens) has told him something that is against the party’s (Clemens) interest is an admission, and that is not hearsay. A person’s own words, by admission, can be used against you in a court of law.
I suggest you find a different law school to learn about the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.