Is anyone else getting a horror movie vibe from this article's blurb? I'm imagining a secret pact between the four, brought to light when one of them is brutally murdered by an oversized pituitary gland in a black topcoat.

I've never tried to follow a trial via twitter before but it appears that either T.J. Quinn got very bored or the cross examination of McNamee was incredibly disjointed. As best I can tell, Hardin got McN to admit to changing his story several times over and to admit that the needles were comingled with those he used to shoot up other players who have subsequently admitting using PEDs. But those points were burried in three days of cross that seemed, at least via twitter, to be quite round-about.

With testimony like this, the judge will soon be dismissing more jurors for sleeping on the job.

The truth comes out as to why we got the name Giancarlo.

The truth comes out as to why we got the name Giancarlo.

Drat, beat me to it.

And Knoblauch was still about 4'10", right? Fat lot of good it did him.

I've never tried to follow a trial via twitter before but it appears that either T.J. Quinn got very bored or the cross examination of McNamee was incredibly disjointed. As best I can tell, Hardin got McN to admit to changing his story several times over and to admit that the needles were comingled with those he used to shoot up other players who have subsequently admitting using PEDs. But those points were burried in three days of cross that seemed, at least via twitter, to be quite round-about.

That's what some news coverage seemed to indicate. Craig Calcaterra wrote that Judge Walton himself was getting exasperated with how long and meandering the McNamee cross has been.

Incidentally, I don't understand the headline: "Brian McNamee testifies that he gave HGH to ... Mike Stanton" in comparison to the text: "McNamee also testified that former Yankee pitcher Mike Stanton obtained HGH from drug dealer Kirk Radomski, after McNamee put them in touch."

And as if on cue, a Knoblauch sighting. On the G train in NYC, of all places.

This reminds me of a funny story about Chuck Knoblauch...

Today's testimony: (1) a beer distributor who said that the can was probably on the shelf around the time McN testified giving C shots, but who couldn't say whether it went to a retailer closer to McN's home or C's; (2) a finger print expert who testified that just because she couldn't find any of C's prints on the can or contents, that doesn't mean that he didn't handle them; and, (3) the former 11 year old whose picture was taken with C at Canseco's house.

Winding towards the end of the case, I can see a jury coming back acquiting on the charges related to the denial of using PEDs but convicting on the denial that Clemens attended Canseco's party. The only real evidence on the former is McN's testimony, the latter at least has someone testifying who is not an admitted frequent fabricator. Of course, I think that a charge based on a denial that C was at the party when in the same testimony he admitted being at the house on the same day, but after the party is hairsplitting of the worst sort and a waste of a lot of judicial resources. How the John Edwards case can be tried in one-quarter the time as this he said / he said boggles my mind.

And as if on cue, a Knoblauch sighting. On the G train in NYC, of all places.

That story and the accompanying picture make for the saddest 1-2 punch this Yankee fan will likely get hit by for at least the next few weeks.

McNamee hadn’t been allowed to name the players before, but U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said Monday he would allow it to rebut the suggestion made by Clemens’ lawyer during cross-examination that McNamee solely targeted the former pitcher.

Seems kinda dumb by Clemens' lawyer, no?

The truth comes out as to why we got the name Giancarlo.

When I read the headline I thought, "So THAT is how he was able to destroy the new video display at Marlins Park!" Then I read that it wasn't THAT Mike Stanton. He wasn't even that OTHER Mike Stanton.

Seems kinda dumb by Clemens' lawyer, no?

Now those guys need lawyers. It's a stroke of genius!

Of course, I think that a charge based on a denial that C was at the party when in the same testimony he admitted being at the house on the same day, but after the party is hairsplitting of the worst sort and a waste of a lot of judicial resources

Hey, they convicted Barry Bonds of rambling.

Of course, I think that a charge based on a denial that C was at the party when in the same testimony he admitted being at the house on the same day, but after the party is hairsplitting of the worst sort and a waste of a lot of judicial resources

Except that if they do convict on that silly non steroid charge the anti-steroid crusadesrs will whoop and holler and declare victory because Roger Clemens got convicted of something.

#15--
Which brands Bonds, now and forever, as a felonious digresser. Now, if we can just punish Mark McGwire for defrauding the public -- the so-called "Bash Brothers" weren't even related -- this country can get back on its feet again.

Another day off in the trial. Amazing how long this is taking. I pity the poor jurors ...

The prosecution filed a motion to allow testimony of people (including David Segui) who are expected to say that McNamee told them, well before the Mitchell Report, that he had saved the needles and gauze. Prosecution argues that since Clemens is arguing that McN manufactured the evidence, they should be able to offer this testimony to rebut that argument. Does that, in turn, then open the door to allow Hardin to directly -- rather than obliquely and indirectly -- ask about the rape charge, altering evidence in a homicide investigation, etc? I thought Clemens should have been convicted of asshattery for http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/OAK/OAK199010100.shtml but this trial is unbelievable.

It looks like Judge Walton is allowing the Govt to have David Segui and Anthony Corso (a private client) testify that McNamee told (1) Segui in 2001 that he saved the "darts" that he used to inject PEDs into MLB players; (2) Corso in 2002 - 04 that Clemens used HGH "regularly"; and (3) Corso in 2005 that he saved needles that he used to inject Clemens. They will testify that McNamee told them he was saving the evidence at the behest of his wife. This evidence will be allowed as a "prior consistent statement" to rebut the inference created by Hardin's cross-examination that McNamee contrived the story about Clemens only after he was approached by the Feds in 2007. Hardin had successfully moved pre-trial to exclude this testimony, but the ruling was subject to re-examination if Hardin opened the door during trial.

If the jurors accept this testimony at face value (and I have no idea how Segui and Corso will fare on cross-examination), it is a huge victory for the prosecution. Long before George W. Bush elevated PEDs into his State of the Union address, McNamee was telling people that he had injected Clemens with PEDs and kept the needles. I do not think a juror would rationally conclude that McNamee started setting up false accusations of Clemens in 2001, but rather would take this as strong corroboration that McNamee (as repugnant as he is) is telling the truth about his injections of Clemens.

Long before George W. Bush elevated PEDs into his State of the Union address, McNamee was telling people

The fundamental problem with the prosecution's case still exists: "McNamee was telling people."

Virtually every piece of evidence traces to McNamee. And if he's a serial liar with a history of evidence tampering, it's not much of a stretch to conclude that in 2001 he was... lying. Or at least that you can't convict BARD based on his word.

Also, re the needles, I don't think anyone questioned that he saved something in 2001. He has Clemens's DNA at least, so he must have saved something. The question is what it was that he saved, and how much he should be trusted that what he actually saved is what he says he saved.

If I were Hardin I would make the following point in closing:

"Here are the different versions McNamee has told w/r/t Clemens's use:

1. Pre-feds: He tells the media that Clemens never used steroids or HGH.

2. Day 1 of interview with feds: He tells the feds that Clemens never used steroids or HGH.

3. Day 2 of interview with feds: He tells the feds that Clemens used steroids and HGH.

4. Mitchell Report: He tells Mitchell's people that Clemens used steroids and HGH. He also tells Mitchell's people (and the feds) that he had no conversations with Clemens about PEDs after 2001 and that he had no further evidence of Clemens's use other than what he's produced to date.

5. Congress: He tells Congress that Clemens used steroids and HGH, but now suddenly he produces a bag of syringes and gauze for Congress.

6. At trial: He tells the jury that Clemens used steroids and HGH, but now suddenly he says Clemens discussed PEDs with him after 2001 (i.e., in 2004)."

Etc.

I mean, which version does one believe? Does one believe, based on that mess, B.A.R.D. that Clemens used?

EDIT: I'm not actually sure that 1 and 2 made it/will make it into evidence (the distinction between what he told the feds on the first day vs. what he told them on the second day), but I presume it did or will. If not, there are still plenty of different versions. This guy can't tell just one.

McNamee is a lousy witness, but this corroboration goes a long way to make the idea that McNamee is lying about all of this highly implausible. Everyday in federal court, juries convict on testimony from highly repellant cooperators -- murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc. There is a standard list of tropes that AUSAs use when attempting to get a jury to accept that testimony as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And when the defense -- which does not have to prove anything but puts its credibility on the line when it attempts to prove anything -- depends upon the jurors believing that the cooperator started plotting against the defendant years before the cooperator himself is caught, it is a tough defense for jurors to accept.

The other thing that the jury is going to see is that McNamee had a long list of MLB players on whom to flip: Segui, Knoblach and Pettite at a minimum. For the jurors to buy Clemens' defense, they would have to conclude that the Feds were so fixated on Clemens that they forced McNamee to finger an innocent man rather than simply going after the guilty. And that the Feds, having forced McNamee to finger an innocent Clemens, elected not to prosecute Clemens until after Clemens demanded the opportunity to testify before Congress. It might work, but it is a harder sale to get the jurors to believe that the Feds are corrupt than simply to convince them that McNamee is a no-good POS.

And when the defense -- which does not have to prove anything but puts its credibility on the line when it attempts to prove anything -- depends upon the jurors believing that the cooperator started plotting against the defendant years before the cooperator himself is caught, it is a tough defense for jurors to accept.

But McNamee had to have started plotting something years before the fact -- because he saved the syringes. (!)

And he didn't have a coherent explanation for why he had saved them. The explanation he did offer didn't make sense. At best he saved the stuff to blackmail Clemens with later (which he obviously couldn't admit), but if one believes McNamee is a person who is willing to blackmail somebody, then it's not exactly a huge leap to believe that McNamee is a person who is willing to manufacture evidence. Especially given that he tampered with evidence while with the NYPD.

Also, to comment on what you wrote above:

It looks like Judge Walton is allowing the Govt to have David Segui and Anthony Corso (a private client) testify that McNamee told (1) Segui in 2001 that he saved the "darts" that he used to inject PEDs into MLB players;

This would be yet another conflicting version of McNamee's story, because in his 2008 deposition he said that the only stuff he saved was for Clemens, with the possible exception of one needle from Knoblauch -- and to my knowledge testing did not ultimately reveal any DNA from Knoblauch.

The other thing that the jury is going to see is that McNamee had a long list of MLB players on whom to flip: Segui, Knoblach and Pettite at a minimum.

FWIW, Hardin claimed to the judge last week that there was another player (besides Clemens) who says that McNamee lied when he said he provided PEDs to him.

For the jurors to buy Clemens' defense, they would have to conclude that the Feds were so fixated on Clemens that they forced McNamee to finger an innocent man rather than simply going after the guilty.

No. The feds don't frame people; they believe people (Clemens) to be guilty - not innocent - which is why they target them.

The feds say "The truth is X. Now tell us the truth." This is exactly what they did to McNamee, according to McNamee's own (recorded) words as told to Jim Murray. They told McNamee "We know Clemens used [lie], and if you don't tell us what you know you're going to jail."

And that the Feds, having forced McNamee to finger an innocent Clemens, elected not to prosecute Clemens until after Clemens demanded the opportunity to testify before Congress.

Umm, it takes time to investigate someone. They don't just "prosecute" someone before they've investigated the person. Only about 6 or 7 months elapsed between the time McNamee fingered Clemens and the time the Mitchell Report came out. And Clemens testified before Congress in February 2008 yet it took years for them to bring the prosecution. So by the very timetable of the case your argument makes no sense.

FWIW, Hardin claimed to the judge last week that there was another player (besides Clemens) who says that McNamee lied when he said he provided PEDs to him.

Wouldn't you be the one to tell us what a statement not under oath is worth?

McNamee is a lousy witness, but this corroboration goes a long way to make the idea that McNamee is lying about all of this highly implausible. Everyday in federal court, juries convict on testimony from highly repellant cooperators -- murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc.

Yes, but usually they're convicting someone worse. The street drug dealer flips on his supplier. His supplier flips on the smuggler. The getaway driver flips on the actual armed robber. It's not too usual that the testimony of drug dealers is used to convict mere users.

And that the Feds, having forced McNamee to finger an innocent Clemens, elected not to prosecute Clemens until after Clemens demanded the opportunity to testify before Congress.

Elected not to prosecute him for what? Before Clemens testified, Clemens (based on McNamee's story) was at most guilty of possession, years earlier; the statute of limitations was up.

Another day off in the trial. Amazing how long this is taking. I pity the poor jurors ...

At least they're getting caught up on their sleep.

It certainly seems plausible to me that someone like McNamee could have been lying to Segui and others when he claimed these things about Clemens. I'm not sure why he would lie about it, but I'm also not sure why he would tell them in the first place; i.e., any motivation for telling them could just as easily be construed as an incentive to tell them regardless of whether it was true.

"I pity the poor jurors ..."

He (Judge Walton) excluded one other juror question to McNamee: "Why should we believe you when you have shown so many inconsistencies in your testimonies?"

Walton said, "I won't ask that. That's for them to decide."

link

From Lester Munson. I again ask how in the hell this makes sense:

That would be consistent with McNamee's testimony last week -- that he kept waste from an alleged steroids injection of Clemens in 2001 and stored it in a beer can to soothe things over at home. McNamee's wife, according to McNamee, was concerned that he would become the fall guy if his involvement with drugs in baseball were ever exposed.

How does it help a "fall guy" to save the evidence of his crime?

FWIW, Hardin claimed to the judge last week that there was another player (besides Clemens) who says that McNamee lied when he said he provided PEDs to him.

Wouldn't you be the one to tell us what a statement not under oath is worth?

No; why would I be? I'm not understanding your point.

How does it help a "fall guy" to save the evidence of his crime?

To blackmail other people who have more to lose.

Setting aside that from the perspective of 2001, blackmailing them with evidence of hGH use wouldn't have made any sense, conceptually -- telling people in '01 that Clemens had used hGH would have been met with a blank stare/yawn -- what's the blackmail scheme? If he's caught being a drug dealer (either by MLB or by the government), what would he say? "I'm going to tell people you're a drug user unless..."? How would that keep him from being a "fall guy"?

It kind of did keep him from being the "fall guy", right? He's the state's star witness.

I know that your position that has been that even though McNamee's ploy worked, it still wasn't logical to expect that the feds would go after a (famous) user instead of a dealer. What I think is worth noting here, though, is that the feds may not have acted logically, but they acted just as an unintelligent dirtbag might expect them to act. They went after the "big fish" regardless of the merits of the case, they attached themselves to the famous guy that dirtbags like McNamee try to attach themselves to because they think it makes them important.

The Feds aren't acting like feds should act, they're acting like dirtbags themselves. It only makes sense that McNamee would expect them to act like dirtbags before the fact, too. The logic, such as it is, all follows.

telling people in '01 that Clemens had used hGH would have been met with a blank stare/yawn

I think that "Roger Clemens uses drugs and I know because I shot him up and saved the syringes" would be a pretty effective blackmail scheme.

How does it help a "fall guy" to save the evidence of his crime?

I have to agree with the fact that it does/would help. Hell, even if you aren't sure at the time of what options it will give you, it's pretty easy to see it will give you something more than the ZERO options that doing nothing gives you. (And even if you end up dead wrong, at least you are thinking you tried something.)

(And even if you end up dead wrong, at least you are thinking you tried something.)

Well, no; you're understating the danger to being "dead wrong." The actual danger to being "dead wrong" is that now they search your home and find the evidence of your crimes.

Well, no; you're understating the danger to being "dead wrong." The actual danger to being "dead wrong" is that now they search your home and find the evidence of your crimes.

-shrug- I'd imagine if he was going to the trouble of saving evidence of a crime, he'd hide it better. My whole point was that you don't have to be ridiculous or crazy to understand why someone would save something like that, IMO.

-shrug- I'd imagine if he was going to the trouble of saving evidence of a crime, he'd hide it better.

? We know that he _did_ go to the trouble of saving evidence of a crime, and he _didn't_ hide it better. He said he just tossed it in his home somewhere.

I've heard that sometimes cops get search warrants to search peoples' homes, so that wasn't exactly a brilliant hiding place.

? We know that he _did_ go to the trouble of saving evidence of a crime, and he _didn't_ hide it better. He said he just tossed it in his home somewhere.

I've heard that sometimes cops get search warrants to search peoples' homes, so that wasn't exactly a brilliant hiding place.

You're assuming that he wasn't already keeping other evidence of his crimes at his home anyway. If he has a giant stash of HGH or steroids, a few empty syringes are the least of his worries.

Further, you are also assuming that he is smart, which is clearly a fact not in evidence.

Further, you are also assuming that he is smart, which is clearly a fact not in evidence.

This. Everything Ray has said makes sense, if you start out from the basis of being reasonably intelligent and rational. McNamee appears to be neither.

From today per ESPN:

FBI forensic examiner Pamela Reynolds and Jeremy Price... revealed what the jury must have suspected all along -- that the beer can evidence does indeed contain traces of steroids.

Price also said the items he tested did not show any traces of a popular type of the vitamin B12 or the anesthetic Lidocaine. Clemens has said he was given injections of B12 and Lidocaine by McNamee, instead of steroids and HGH.

Clemens' lawyers did not dispute the experts' findings, but they again suggested under cross-examination that the evidence was fabricated by McNamee and contaminated by the way it was stored -- kept for several years in a FedEx box in the strength coach's house.

...Attanasio also posed a hypothetical: If he had a syringe with B12, used it, cleaned it out and then put in steroids, would the test reveal the B12?

Price said he didn't know.

Attanasio also made it clear that the experts couldn't say who, if anyone, used the steroids. The government will offer its evidence for that connection Friday, when forensic scientist Alan Keel, who was using terms such as "heterozygote" and "homozygote" as the clock approached 5 p.m., returns to the stand. He's expected to say Clemens' DNA was found on the materials McNamee saved.