Ok, so cliche #1 for not signing Bonds has been eliminated.

I guess #2 would be "Distraction In The Clubhouse".

Followed by #3, "He's not a gamer".

so we are going to a 4th grand jury. Is that right, this is the 4th grand jury to investigate Barry Bonds?

Is that right, this is the 4th grand jury to investigate Barry Bonds?

And so far none have investigated the true villain lawbreaker in baseball - Andy Pettitte!

GR,

it is important to keep getting grand juries to investigate bonds until they finally charge him with every crime there is so SURELY there will be a guilty verdict on SOMEthing so we can FINALLY get him in maximum security prison where he belongs for not being the kind of person who will agree to pretend to be the kind of goody 2 shoes that the media likes to pretend star baseball players really are. swearing. fornicating. doing drugs. SMOGGGGGGGGGGGG

teach "The Children" a lesson it surely will

see what happens you take away babe ruth's record

i mean, ignore the novitsky's of the world who want to be let into your private circle soas they can feel special too

And so far none have investigated the true villain lawbreaker in baseball -

I thought for sure it was that drug pusher Paul LoDuca.

shows you what i know

And so far none have investigated the true villain lawbreaker in baseball

Chris Truby

BBC, it sure seems that way doesnt it?

I can promise you that if white ballplayer had to go thru 5 years of federal investigation over nothing, and 4 or 5 different grand juries, the MSM media would be up in arms. a few of them are already saying that the Clemmens thing has gone to far, or is over the top. and that has only been three months.

5 years?
five years this ballplayer has had to live under federal indictment for [allegedly] trying to be a better ballplayer.
5 years!

Chris Truby

Satanic dismemberment isn't necessarily illegal. He could be Satanically dismembering roadkill or wild game or something.

GR,

sigh

i don't see them investigating mggwire. or any other drug user. clemens is NOT going to prison, grand juries are not going to be convened for 5 YEARS straight.

the barry bonds thing is personal and it always was.

and i know it every time i hear anyone explain why it is ok to ignore ryan franklin because he's a nobody.

as for me, well, i'll really miss The Barry Show and i'm glad i had the sense (and fortune) to watch him as long as i did.

5 years?
five years this ballplayer has had to live under federal indictment for [allegedly] trying to be a better ballplayer.
5 years!


GR,

Are you counting the BALCO grand jury as a GJ hearing evidence on a Bonds indictment? There was the GJ wherein Anderson went to jail for refusing to testify. Then there is the GJ that indicted Bonds

AFAIK, Bonds was not indicted until November 17, 2007. That is the indictment he is still under. I presume it is still the same GJ that will be asked to issue the superceding indictment. They generally sit for 18 month sessions.

Even if you count BALCO, I think that is only 3 GJs that have ever seen Bonds in any shape or form, and one was not looking at him.

BL..

so this will be the third grand jury looking specifically at him. The first one was designed to entrap him. At least that is what the evidence shows.
The last grand jury was asked for an indictment on their final week if I remember correctly, so i am guessing this should be a new, and third overall grand jury looking at him. Four in total.

BBC Agreed .. on all accounts.

so this will be the third grand jury looking specifically at him. The first one was designed to entrap him. At least that is what the evidence shows.
The last grand jury was asked for an indictment on their final week if I remember correctly, so i am guessing this should be a new, and third overall grand jury looking at him. Four in total.


I am still not seeing four; GR

(1) The BALCO grand jury. (which you count)
(2) The Anderson imprisonment GJ (which did not indict)
(3) The current GJ, which indicted on 11/17/07 and is still in session.

Which one am I missing.

There were 2 Anderson imprisonment GJ's.

are you sure the current one is still in session cus I do not believe it is.
Also (2) and (3) were looking at the same things, just two different GJ's.
so this will be the third looking at bonds, four total if you count the one designed to set him up.

I don't know about this headline. I think we ought to consult our legal expert Kevin to tell us that Bonds is going to be on trial in midseason.

Sorry David, kevin spends his Friday evenings at the VFW. Maybe he can chip in later.

Not exactly the way to sell the team to the public.

Didn't hurt the Lakers much, IRRC.

This will be the fourth Grand Jury.

On July 21st 2007 The grand jury investigating Barry Bonds has been extended for another six months

That was the third Grand Jury.

So unless they plan on calling all those guys back again, we are headed towards our .. ..

4th grand jury.

You think someone who is under indictment for lying over steroids is going to generate more negative publicity than someone who was under indictment for rape?

The Bonds comparison is terribly unfair and hurtful to Bryant. After all, Kobe Bryant only had to pay off a human being. It's not as if he was an arrogant sociopath who raped Kareem's 38,387 points or anything.

So, is Bonds under indictment or not?

Thanks Kev, I knew I could count on you.

Cliche #4 on why teams won't sign Bonds:

Not exactly the way to sell the team to the public.

And Cliche #5:

Plus, Koby wasn't 1,000 years old.

Huge Laker fan, but not a big Bryant fan, here. I addressed this in another Bonds thread, and kevin is right. Even if one sees Bryant as Gonfalon appears to, Bryant was in 2004 a 26- year-old All-Star who was already under contract. That is a huge difference from a 43-year-old free agent--even one as skilled as Bonds.

In addition, while Bryant's alleged crime is far more heinous than Bonds' in a moral sense, Bonds' misdeeds are seen as affecting the game on the field, which is why I don't buy the "but people sign wife-beaters" line. Bryant may in fact be an arrogant sociopath (I have no idea)--but he has never to my knowledge been accused of cheating at basketball, and he is known as a durable, tough, competitor, no matter what else one can say about him.

I said in an earlier Bonds thread that IMO what tilts the argument against a Bonds signing weighing all the factors, is the indictment. If the Feds had said "We don't have enough, drop it" then I think teams blowing off Bonds would be shadier. As is, I can see it. I don't think Selig ordered anyone not to sign Bonds; Selig is not stupid like that. I think it is likely he subtly discouraged it in ways that are not illegal, much less provable.

Plus, Koby wasn't 1,000 years old.

First things, its Kobe. We don't need to drag Clemens into this discussion!
And old or not, Bonds will be as much a star on any team he joins as Kobe was on the Lakers ( He was billing 1b on those teams after Shaq ). And Bonds will add as much value as any FA signed since..David Ortiz.
Being old is not the same as not being productive. And in this day and age where Hunter gets $90 mil, you think people are going to complain about Bonds getting an incentive laden $10 mil?

PS : addressing RR and your point of Kobe being already on the Lakers, wasn't that the season where the Lakers had to choose between him and Shaq?

So, if it's a new grand jury, odds on another attempt at putting Anderson in jail for civil contempt?

And #1, I wish someone would flesh out the distraction in the clubhouse thing. I have never understood how fielding a reporter's question (or 100 questions all the same) about someone else's trial could make a player hit, field, pitch, or run worse. Not like they have to stay up at night researching their answer.

How about those Celtics, robin

It is good for the league, and the game. I have always liked KG and Pierce. Their team defense is superb. I look forward to watching them take on Cle and Det in the playoffs in the Lesser Conference.

Since I spent much of the summer pushing for a Gasol deal to my Laker buddies, I am happy about my team as well at the moment. They just beat Dallas and Utah on the road, with Bynum, Ariza and Gasol all injured.

PS : addressing RR and your point of Kobe being already on the Lakers, wasn't that the season where the Lakers had to choose between him and Shaq?

Yes, pretty much. Buss decided to build the team around Bryant and gamble he would get off. Stern is on his knees every night praying that the Lakers play the Suns at some point in Western Playoffs, the later the better, and that the Celtics make the Finals.

You saw what BL wrote, Chris. You don't need to ask again.

I don't think so. THe Nov indictment was ruled insufficient, AND the feds have said they would re-file, which means to me he is not presently under indictment.

HTH.

I know JP Ricciard is stubborn as s-h-i-t to get him, but now that his trial is delayed to 2009, the only reason he'd be bad is clubhouse issues....and when he COULD be the final piece of the puzzle, I think I might rather have the playoffs and a distraction...Really, why is the integrity such an issue? He's a jerk, but so many other players took roids also.

The current gap in paperwork seems to be an exceedingly niggling distinction. The indictment will be re-filed. Will this be a "new" indictment? I'm thinking, zzzzz, whatever. A guy who breaks out of Sing Sing isn't a "prisoner" until he's recaught, but does that mean he served two jail terms a few hours apart?

The targeting of Bonds (rightly or wrongly) is obvious enough without needing to settle on a specific tallymark total to sell it. If we as humans weren't so fixated on numbers, there's a very decent chance Mr. 756 wouldn't be facing any legal issues at all.

God, talk about torturing definitions, Chris.

First, you blindfolded it. Then you waterboarded it. Then you performed a mock-execution on it.

Aren't you now going to ask what the definition of "is" is?
Hey dumbass, it's a factual distinction. Learn the difference.

He's a jerk, but so many other players took roids also.

At this point, it is as much about the strong belief that he lied and keeps lying as about the PEDs, and also he is under indictment for lying to the govt, not for taking PEDs. If we assume Bonds took PEDs knowingly, if he had just said that to the Feds--even if he then told the media "And a million other guys took them too, so I'm not going to apologize for it" I think there is a much better chance he would have an offer.

"Now after many, many years, they are going to ask, apparently, another grand jury to return another indictment," defense attorney Allen Ruby said after the hearing. "They have the responsibility of trying to salvage this prosecution."

The best way to express it is he's conditionally indicted, as long as 12 of 19 of the new grand jurors agree with the charges they come up with. I just read a bunch of newsbriefs, and I don't think the reporting is consistent enough to know the truth. However, at least one article made it appear that if the prosecution doesn't have a new grand jury indictment by the June date, they are finished.

This is not at all like the Thomas case where they went back to the grand jury and got a new indictment in 2 weeks (3/4 to 3/18). The evidence in the Thomas case appears solid.

So, a quick poll:

Is any team going to sign Bonds...

1. Before the season begins,

2. After the All-Star break,

3. or not at all?

I vote for the second alternative. Less money, less injury exposure, more PR cover due to the relatively greater importance of the remaining games. (And yes, I know the answer to that, but I'm talking about perceptions.)

... two Anderson GJ

Yes, the BALCO grand jury and the grand jury that was dismissed in October. One was for his doping crimes, the other was for contempt.

sure that this is the same ...

If it is not, it would be strange. A Federal GJ term is 18 monthes, extendable up to another 6 months for regular GJs, and up to three seperate 6 month extentions for a special session.

GJ is extended 6 months

I don't follow GR. That is the Anderson contempt jury.

under indictment

That is what you get here that you can't get anywhere else. A distinction without meaning, that is incorrect, and someone wants to fight to the death about it. I wish Ray and David would point out to him that the case has not been dismissed nor has jeopardy attached, and how that distinction can be important especially as we are running up on the SOL for this offense. Maybe RonJohn will come in and explain Grady for him (544 F.2d 598). I don't know what else to say to him. It sounds like he is just going to keep posting it in every thread thinking he has a "gotcha"

Eddie,

That is not even close to being correct. Where are these tortured definations being propogated. The current indictment lists TOO MANY false statements for each criminal count. The USAO may just edit out some of those statements and proceed on five counts. They don't need a GJ to do that. There is nothing "Conditional" about that.

Instead the government has chosen to seek a superceding indictment where they will bring more counts for each of the same incorrect statements that were in the original indictment. That will require GJ votes, but if the GJ doesn't vote that way, the still just amend the current indictment.

If and only if the government says, "#### it, I'm not listening to you federal judge" then and only then would the federal judge dismiss the case and at that point he is not under indictment.

Interesting.

This is Littman's article:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-bondshearing032108&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

By the way, this is more applicable to the Clemens case than the Bonds case, but it's all steroids, right? Read this piece to see the sort of thing fanatic law enforcement officers do in interrogations when they're "sure" someone is guilty and just need someone else to admit it. (The piece has nothing whatsoever to do with steroids; it will just give something to think about to some of our more naive folks who think that the idea that a LEO would coerce a witness into implicating someone in a crime is crazy conspiracy talk.)

Chris, think about it this way: the government has the opportunity to seek a superseding indictment. If he weren't under indictment, there would be nothing to supersede.

That is what you get here that you can't get anywhere else. A distinction without meaning, that is incorrect, and someone wants to fight to the death about it. I wish Ray and David would point out to him that the case has not been dismissed nor has jeopardy attached, and how that distinction can be important especially as we are running up on the SOL for this offense. Maybe RonJohn will come in and explain Grady for him (544 F.2d 598). I don't know what else to say to him. It sounds like he is just going to keep posting it in every thread thinking he has a "gotcha"

Hey,, so-and-so: You *could* just say "Yes, he's still considered under indictment even if the indictment is insufficient and has to be re-filed".

Or you could respond like a dick. Your choice...oh, I see which way you went.

It's not a "gotcha", it's a question about a factual distinction. I do understand that often falls outside your jurisdiction.

He did. In another thread. In plain and simple terms.

So I'm not understanding why you are revisiting it.

If so, is it so hard to say that? There are only a million threads, and I don't read all of them every second.

Here's a fact. You argue like an 8-year old.

And yet, that's light years ahead of you.

I did.

No you didn't. At least not in any clear fashion.

I asked about teh indictment and you said "You saw what BL wrote." So I scrolled up. He didn't write anything (in this thread) that covered it.

So, no you didn't.

so it is a new Grand Jury. according to Littman they are going to a new grand jury. A 4th!

again, backlasher. There were TWO grand jury's with Alderson. This will be the 3rd. 4th in total if you include the BALCO Grand Jury.

GJ is extended 6 months

I don't follow GR. That is the Anderson contempt jury.

that is the same one that was investigated Bonds. Its not a different one. Its the same one!
That was grand jury number #3

see what happens you take away babe ruth's record

I'm pretty sure that was Hank Aaron.

Read this piece to see the sort of thing fanatic law enforcement officers do in interrogations when they're "sure" someone is guilty and just need someone else to admit it.

David - Very sobering. It certainly questions some of the certitude some of the crusaders on this topic, though I doubt it will put an end to the flippancy of their certitude.

roam the ballfields

So you're saying Bonds can roam now? I thought he was a statue.

I'd like to see Bonds in LF behind Jeter. Routine ground balls might become triples.

Dave, you got any pieces to see the sort of thing fanatic libertarian lawyers do in defending guilty clients in order to evade the rule of law and let criminals roam the ballfields?

Well, there are plenty of pieces out there about your preferred system of jurisprudence.

david,

thank you for posting that link.

but the problem is that a lot of people don't understand that this kind of stuff is routine LEO procedure

AND

people who haven't had any dealings with cops/people who the cops got on ONE thing are the ones who get hurt the most.

because they don't understand that the FIRST thing you need to do is ask for a lawyer

theres too many people that really REALLY think that lawyers are ONLY for the guilty and that a person who is innocent got nothing to worry about... which even i know better than

so

should i start posting links about ALL the people who were innocent, answered cop questions for hours and HOURS in an interrogation room without worrying, didn't understand that cops were just looking for ANYTHING to put them inside because the COPS had already decided who be guilty and those INNOCENT people went inside for YEARS. maybe i should even post links to all the INNOCENT people who got convicted based on dirty/invented evidence by the lab/police

and that's just here in houston

Well, there are plenty of pieces out there about your preferred system of jurisprudence.

Dan, I was going to suggest this one. And then there's the classics.

"Criminals roaming the ballfield" sounds like what could have been a good subplot for Escape From New York, or maybe Robocop.

but the problem is that a lot of people don't understand that this kind of stuff is routine LEO procedure

That's only part of the problem. I would identify the problems this way:

1) People don't realize that this behavior is common.
2) People don't realize that this behavior is effective.
3) People don't care.

As to the second point, people simply don't understand that people will confess to things they didn't do, or that they'll falsely implicate someone else even without any malice. They think that these techniques get the truth, rather than what the interrogator wants to hear. They think, "I would never falsely confess just because the police claimed they had evidence against me." But they would. People do. All the time. Remember, cops are professionals, and criminals are amateurs. (I don't mean that to be complimentary towards cops; I just mean that they're experienced.)

As to the third point, it's because most of their exposure to the criminal justice system is on TV or in the movies, where we already know who the good guys and who the bad guys are. It's fine to trick a guilty person, they think. It's fine to coerce someone into testifying against a guilty person. Maybe they're right -- but IRL, despite Kevin's religious beliefs, we don't know who's innocent and who's guilty. They do these things to innocent people and guilty people.