Comments on: Get ready, kids: Barry Bonds’ trial is right around the corner

By: browngoat25

browngoat25 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:08:04 +0000

Craig, have you been to http://www.MurrayChass.com today? Here is a highlight (and I apologize if this is considered baiting):

“A report in The New York Times on Saturday about the Barry Bonds perjury case said that prosecutors said that Bonds’ former girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, “would testify to seeing physical changes in Bonds that are indicative of steroid use, including acne on his back and shoulders…”

If acne is good enough for Federal prosecutors, it’s good enough for me no matter how much Piazza and his supporters scream and whine at my mention of Piazza and the acne that covered his back until it miraculously disappeared when baseball began testing for steroids in 2003 and 2004.

No one has accused Piazza of perjury, but he better be careful with what he says if he ever has to testify under oath.”

By: Walk

Walk — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:39:16 +0000

As far as i can tell the prosecution has already won, no need for a trial. Bonds has lost money to his lawyers, likely in excess of an possible fine, his own time and peace of mind and security. Being a peace officer myself i know these trial take a toll on everyone involved. where was i, oh yes, bonds was forced out of baseball earlier than he wanted, his reputation is trashed, i can go on but just like this trial i just cant see why i should. There is a fine line between prosecution and persecution and it has been crossed here, the leaking of the selected names from the “list” is the most glaring part.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:16:36 +0000

Tell you what. Apropos the spending of Federal money, I would have preferred not going into Iraq and prosecuting Bonds anyway. But at least the upshot of it all is that we now know that Bush was lying.

By: thekcubrats

thekcubrats — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:52:38 +0000

Calc, you are a funny man, but that has got to be the funniest punchline you’ve ever appended to a blog post. Total spit-take. Too bad the single-entendre types pining for that shiny scalp missed it.

By: BC

BC — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:43:39 +0000

I obviously have no knowledge or insight into it, but I think Bonds is going to pay off Anderson with a boatload of cash once this thing is put to rest. Bonds has enough coin to stash $4mil or so in a shoebox. Anderson keeps his mouth shut, waits it out, then he’s set for life. Why wouldn’t that happen?? Win-win for Bonds and Anderson.
That being said, I think Bonds has done a great job keeping his mouth shut and staying under radar (can you take a lesson, Roger Clemens?). I don’t think Bonds will get popped for anything. Doesn’t mean I think he was clean, but legally, things seem to be in his favor.

By: BC

BC — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:33:21 +0000

If its California tax money, fine, they're bankrupt anyway and 2900 miles from me. If its Federal tax money, c'mon people. What the (expletive) good is coming of spending 70 bajillion dollars to go through it? At this point I DON'T CARE. And who the (expletive) does?

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:29:09 +0000

It’s never been clear. His official stance — through his lawyer — is that he believed his original deal with prosecutors was that he wouldn’t have to testify any more than he originally did, they breached it and now they’re vindictively going after him, so screw them.

Some say it’s loyalty to his childhood friend, Bonds.

Some say that he’s worried that his testimony against Bonds would contradict his own testimony from other cases, getting himself in hot water. Of course, given that he’s already done more time for contempt than he’d ever get for perjury, that’s less plausible as time goes on.

Many believe Bonds is paying him off. It’s quite a charge — borderline libelous — and it’s one that I have a hard time buying, simply because the government is really, really good at tracking money, and if Bonds was sending Anderson money, they’d know, whether he did it now or if he does it later.

Really, we have no idea what the truth is, or if there is even one reason. We may never know.

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:24:57 +0000

BC – Agree 100% with everything you said.

Craig – Like you said that’s why they play the game.

By: dodger88

dodger88 — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:24:28 +0000

I have not followed much beyond the headlines so why is Greg Anderson not testifying?

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:19:52 +0000

You are right Craig. I have been on this train for years too, the questions in the grand jury room were awful. I cannot imagine why this case is still being pursued. Mr. Bonds answered vague and compound questions.

I think bonds is lucky this was a grand jury, because the questions would have been objected to, giving the AUSA a chance to clean them up.

By: PanchoHerreraFanClub

PanchoHerreraFanClub — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:14:20 +0000

I agree 100% with you Craig. It may be interesting to note that 3 months was the longest sentence handed out in the investigation. It is tough for me as taxpayer to justify spending millions on this kind of crime.

By: Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward

Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:09:54 +0000

Will it be fair and speedy? Oh wait, never mind.

By: BC

BC — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:04:06 +0000

Just my opinion….Bonds AVOIDED lying under oath as carefully as possible. And… would not be surprised if he’s put more than a couple million bucks aside for Greg Anderson to take the fall.
But none of us (least of whom me) know conclusively. I’m just doin’ the math.