Barry Bonds indicted

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]


Remember when we had a big discussion about weighted probabilities? Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it shifts it.

But think of it this way. If you had to make a yes/no decision with only 25% of the total evidence surrounding it, how confident would you be in that decision? What about with 50%? 75%? 99%?

Now what percentage of the total evidence available do you think the DOJ, Bonds lawyers, etc etc have and can use in court? How honest will all the witnesses be? And on and on.

For example, if Conte and Anderson both testify that Bonds had no idea what was going on do we take their word at face value? Some would, some would not.

So if he is acquitted but only say, 25% of the total evidence (obv totally subjective) is admissable that moves the likelihood less than if 75% of the evidence is shown. Agree?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bad news RedBean look at the prosecutions positive drug test. airtight IMO.
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ind-of-sketch/

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have said the exact opposite, why does he need to take a weekly test if he knows he is dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? The "clear." Like, you can take it and your test comes up clear. Would you not want to make sure it was working?

[/ QUOTE ]

He may know he's dirty, but that doesn't mean he would test dirty.

At some point, don't you think Bonds would ask why the lab administering him supplements would also be testing him for steroids?

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetically, I would expect an acquittal to shift the likelihood that Bonds was not aware that he was given steroids considerably (although this will also depend on what evidence is permitted and disallowed). The likelihood of whether he was actually given steroids with or without his knowledge (or with his intentional or reckless disregard of what was being put into his body) could change in either direction depending on the evidence presented at trial -- or there could be no effect at all.

I don't want to start a new thread to ask this, so I will ask it here: What gag order?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that Bonds was not allowed to talk about anything discussed at the grand jury proceedings since they were sealed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the grand jury witness is the only person in the grand jury room that is allowed to disclose his testimony outside of the grand jury room without leave of court (at least in the federal system). Everyone else is bound to secrecy.

[manbearpig]

linky

Somebody must have written him a pretty big check....

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
linky

Somebody must have written him a pretty big check....

[/ QUOTE ]

This has always puzzled me because Anderson is basically saying that his truthful testimony will incriminate Bonds. I cannot believe he is going to sit in jail otherwise (whether or not someone is paying him to be silent).

[THAY3R]

Man Bonds must be a pretty huge prick to have friends like that.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
Man Bonds must be a pretty huge prick to have friends like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never met the man and have never called him a prick... and if he is a prick, he is a prick with a big checkbook.

But that avoids the point -- if he has nothing incriminating to say, why won't he testify? I know someone will slam me for saying this, but Anderson's refusal to testify is one of the things that makes me believe that Bonds knowingly took steroids... his silence is not admissible in court, but it is incriminating in the court of public opinion.