A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
gh wrote:The prosecutors better ask for a change of venue if they want an unbiased jury!
Really?? You think there is an area of the country that is not biased about Bonds???
Of course, but they're biased the other way; I'm saying he can't get convicted in the Bay Area, so the prosecutors should look for change of venue. (not the judge)
gh wrote:Of course, but they're biased the other way; I'm saying he can't get convicted in the Bay Area, so the prosecutors should look for change of venue. (not the judge)
nonsense, this whole idea that people are so biased on an issue that they will not be fair is unfounded. There are many americans that are convinced that he is a baseball cheat (no the only one of course) but would be completely fair in weighing the evidence for guilt regarding the charges. Folks are by and large profoundly fair and open minded.
Last edited by paulthefan on Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I'll outmaneuver them at every turn," (Bonds attorney Michael)Rains told the newspaper Saturday night. "I've kicked their ass in private, I'll continue to kick their ass in public."
I say better never than late. The Feds are so arbitrary about who they go after for the most trivial of offenses. Martha Stewart can tell you all about that.
Prediction: Though I don't think this indictment is racially motivated, this trial will cause America's racial divide to rear it's ugly head once again. And you can take that to the bank.
paulthefan wrote:nonsense, this whole idea that people are so biased on an issue that they will not be fair is unfounded. There are many americans that are convinced that he is a baseball cheat (no the only one of course) but would be completely fair in weighing the evidence for guilt regarding the charges. Folks are by and large are profoundly fair and open minded.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would feel this way. Unfortunately my life experiences, recollection of American history and understanding of human nature leads me to different perspective.
jazzcyclist wrote:I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would feel this way. Unfortunately my life experiences, recollection of American history and understanding of human nature leads me to different perspective.
Please remember that just as in the Martha Stewart case once the wheels of an investigation get started they roll, They can not in the middle of an investigation set up a firewall around "popular personalities"... for instance if an investigation into securities exchange crimes or insider trading violations leads unexpectedly from a CEO to a stock broker to a popular personality there is no legal mechanism that allows an investigator to say "uh-oh" this could get some bad press we had better turn this off... You do that as a federal prosecutor and your career is over and you are standing before a congressional subcommittee answering alot of ethics charges.
Likewise the US people have enacted laws regarding controlled substances and laws regarding perjury. Those two can not just be suspended because a popular baseball player is in the frying pan... once an investigation gets rolling you can not stop it.
Last edited by paulthefan on Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan wrote:...nonsense, this whole idea that people are so biased on an issue that they will not be fair is unfounded. There are many americans that are convinced that he is a baseball cheat (no the only one of course) but would be completely fair in weighing the evidence for guilt regarding the charges. Folks are by and large profoundly fair and open minded.
If you lived here and listened to talk radio you'd perhaps feel slightly different. Bonds enjoys godlike status among a lot of the faithful.
But realize I'm not saying that "most" locals think he's innocent. All I'm suggesting is that it's just a mere 8.3% of his peers (i.e., 1 in 12) believing in his innocence is all that's required to set him free. I'm thinking that'll be an easy sell.
paulthefan wrote:...nonsense, this whole idea that people are so biased on an issue that they will not be fair is unfounded. There are many americans that are convinced that he is a baseball cheat (no the only one of course) but would be completely fair in weighing the evidence for guilt regarding the charges. Folks are by and large profoundly fair and open minded.
If you lived here and listened to talk radio you'd perhaps feel slightly different. Bonds enjoys godlike status among a lot of the faithful.
But realize I'm not saying that "most" locals think he's innocent. All I'm suggesting is that it's just a mere 8.3% of his peers (i.e., 1 in 12) believing in his innocence is all that's required to set him free. I'm thinking that'll be an easy sell.
It is a little different than that. The 8% number is the 'ex post' number but your commentary is treating is as the 'ex ante' one. Specifically, both sides get challenges and I will guess that they have some ability to detect those with an opinion that might cause problems. However, I do not know the number of challenges etc.
paulthefan wrote:Please remember that just as in the Martha Stewart case once the wheels of an investigation get started they roll, They can not in the middle of an investigation set up a firewall around "popular personalities"... for instance if an investigation into securities exchange crimes or insider trading violations leads unexpectedly from a CEO to a broker to a popular personality there is no legal mechanism that allows an investigator to say "uh-oh" this could get some bad press we had better turn this off... You do that as a federal prosecutor and your career is over and you are standing before a congressional subcommittee answering alot of ethics charges.
Likewise the US people have enacted laws regarding controlled substances and laws regarding perjury. Those two can not just be suspended because a popular baseball player is in the frying pan... once an investigation gets rolling you can not stop it.
You're wrong Paulthefan. Even Federal prosecutors have discretion over what they will prosecute and what they won't. Career ambition and political consideration play a huge part. The judge threw out the insider trading charges against Martha Stewart because it was selective prosecution (Stewart wasn't out buying info, it just fell into her lap). Similarly, Marcus Dixon's child molestation charges (two high school students have consensual sex and one is over eighteen-years-old) were thrown out by the Georgia Supreme Court because it was selective prosecution. On the other hand, if prosecutors were obligated to pursue everything they saw, Congressman Peter King of New York (a lifelong and avid supporter, fund raiser and collaborator of the IRA), would be locked up for life. But prosecutors knew how popular the IRA was on both sides of the aisle in Washington, so they left it alone.
If you have read the Game of Shadows book you know that this indictment is the culmination of the BALCO investigation - it was always about Bonds, and everyone else implicated was just acceptable collateral damage.
paulthefan wrote:...nonsense, this whole idea that people are so biased on an issue that they will not be fair is unfounded. There are many americans that are convinced that he is a baseball cheat (no the only one of course) but would be completely fair in weighing the evidence for guilt regarding the charges. Folks are by and large profoundly fair and open minded.
If you lived here and listened to talk radio you'd perhaps feel slightly different. Bonds enjoys godlike status among a lot of the faithful.
But realize I'm not saying that "most" locals think he's innocent. All I'm suggesting is that it's just a mere 8.3% of his peers (i.e., 1 in 12) believing in his innocence is all that's required to set him free. I'm thinking that'll be an easy sell.
It is a little different than that. The 8% number is the 'ex post' number but your commentary is treating is as the 'ex ante' one. Specifically, both sides get challenges and I will guess that they have some ability to detect those with an opinion that might cause problems. However, I do not know the number of challenges etc.
You're throwing in decimal points where none are needed. The important fact is that it's only going to take 1 juror to make him innocent, not a majority.
I don't see where there's a race card to play in this one: when you're chasing down big fish in the Wall Street World, you're pretty likely gonna end up w/ white guys; in pro sports....
Unless there's evidence that, say, Jason Giambi also lied to the GJ (before later coming clean).
While out at lunch the race card mentioned by callers on the sports radio show was the disparate treatment of Bonds vs. McGwire. The talks show hosts were having none of that . . .
Leaving the office I turned on local sportstalk; major local station (which is also host for the Giants). First caller was in mid-rant when I tuned in; lamenting how the legal persecution is always the high-profile people, cuz they're easy targets. Concluded his rant with, "If I end up on that jury, I'm voting not guilty no matter what the evidence says."
Next two callers (both of whom sounded well-educated, well-reason guys, not JoeSix grunting stereotypes) both went on at lenght about selective persecution and said they'd probably vote not guilty as well, although the final guy say he hated to betray the system that way.
I know I'd feel like crap if I were in a position where I had to selectively punish somebody like that, but if you can't keep the legal system operating based on the evidence, we're in a pretty scary position as a society. (Not that this probably any different than it ever was; just don't think people would be so open about it in the past.)
gh wrote:I know I'd feel like crap if I were in a position where I had to selectively punish somebody like that, but if you can't keep the legal system operating based on the evidence, we're in a pretty scary position as a society. (Not that this probably any different than it ever was; just don't think people would be so open about it in the past.)
Interesting comment from the editor of TFN, who some claim took a blind eye to the drug problems within the sport, to the ultimate detriment of the sport.
gh wrote:I know I'd feel like crap if I were in a position where I had to selectively punish somebody like that
I'd feel pretty good about putting him away if I'm on the jury and I have good evidence he's guilty. Selectivity has nothing to do with it. Guilt does.
