Barry Bonds indicted

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
um he may have told the truth ....

[/ QUOTE ]

the way he answered the questions, it is highly unlikely... although the prosecutors may not be able to prove he lied...

[/ QUOTE ]

So saying "No." makes it highly unlikely that someone is telling the truth?

Please explain.

[Pudge714]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Barkley
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/tag/CharlesBarkley/

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Barkley
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/tag/CharlesBarkley/

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice.

Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt.



[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm not understanding this distinction here.



[/ QUOTE ]

I said that unclearly. If physical evidence already exists -- documents, the "smoking gun," etc. -- and it is subpoenaed, you must produce it. If you hide it, claim it doesn't exist, or destroy it, that could be obstruction.

If something exists in your mind, you can not be convicted of a crime for failing to speak (although you may be held in contempt unless you have the right not to speak). If you do speak under oath and you lie, it is perjury. In certain circumstances, the perjury might also constitute obstruuction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that is more clear. I had always sort of had the impression that contempt was when you failed to cooperate in court, i.e. do what the judge says, and obstruction was when you failed to cooperate with investigators or something like that.

Just to make sure I have it clear, a better distinction would be obstructionhysical evidence::contemptersonal testimony?

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. And I dismissed it as nearly impossible. The evidence is overwhelming and his testimony evasive. There may not be enough admissile evidence to convict him, but he knew he was being given steroids.

That is, unless he was set up by Mark Furman... too bad Johnny Cochran is dead.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. And I dismissed it as nearly impossible. The evidence is overwhelming and his testimony evasive. There may not be enough admissile evidence to convict him, but he knew he was being given steroids.

That is, unless he was set up by Mark Furman... too bad Johnny Cochran is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly cannot even comprehend how you could decide the evidence is overwhelming when you've never even been presented any of it in any impartial setting and you havent been privy to a single argument or shred of evidence from the defense.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
um he may have told the truth ....

[/ QUOTE ]

the way he answered the questions, it is highly unlikely... although the prosecutors may not be able to prove he lied...

[/ QUOTE ]

So saying "No." makes it highly unlikely that someone is telling the truth?

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

He tried to avoid saying no many times. Eventually he does say no, but he does what he can to avoid answers. That is what I get from reading the testimony.

That, along with all the other written evidence and circumstantial evidence and witnesses -- by the way, circumstantial evidence is not a bad thing -- many criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Defense attorneys just like to make it sound weak. Circumstantial evidence can be very strong -- and eyewitness testimony is often far less reliable.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. And I dismissed it as nearly impossible. The evidence is overwhelming and his testimony evasive. There may not be enough admissile evidence to convict him, but he knew he was being given steroids.

That is, unless he was set up by Mark Furman... too bad Johnny Cochran is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly cannot even comprehend how you could decide the evidence is overwhelming when you've never even been presented any of it in any impartial setting and you havent been privy to a single argument or shred of evidence from the defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game of Shadows by itself is overwhelming unless you read it with an overskeptical pro-Bonds bias (like those who believe OJ didn't commit the murders). The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts... there are rules of admissibility that often have little to do with how good the evidence is.

Yes, I have made a personal judgment. I also have some personal knowledge on how a U.S. Attorney's office works and what it takes to get the approval to bring a high profile indictment -- so that gives me some added comfort that this case would not have been brought without some pretty strong evidence.

[FlyWf]

"The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts..."

Yes, a vastly better source is douchebag sportswriters and idiots on the internet. Courts have this big hangup about things being "true" instead of "interesting", and after all Barry Bonds has a barcalounger at his locker. QED.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
Game of Shadows by itself is overwhelming

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha