Skip to content

Brian McNamee’s estranged wife contradicts his testimony

Jun 7, 2012, 9:13 AM EDT

Brian McNamee

As we’ve said over and over again, the only thing that truly matters in the Roger Clemens case is whether the jury believes Brian McNamee. For all of the other weeks and weeks of testimony, if they believe what he says, Clemens’ goose is cooked. If they don’t believe him, Clemens walks.

So it’s kind of a big deal that Brian McNamee’s soon-to-be ex-wife came in to court yesterday and contradicted a key part of his testimony. Specifically, the testimony in which he explained why he took the unusual step of saving the syringes that he allegedly used to shoot-up Roger Clemens. The reason he gave: his wife pestered him, saying that he needed to protect himself.  Yesterday Eileen McNamee said that wasn’t so:

Wearing a blue floral print dress, Eileen McNamee presented herself as a soft-spoken first-grade schoolteacher who never nagged her now-estranged husband about Roger Clemens. She went on to contradict the government’s key witness many times … She says she never said anything of the sort. She said McNamee didn’t tell her back then that he was injecting Clemens …

This matters because, if there was no self-preservation motive for keeping the syringes like McNamee says there, what was the reason? Was it a more sinister motive? Or, for that matter, were they truly preserved in the first place? The defense is saying McNamee made all this evidence up. That’s a hard sell, but it’s made easier if it sounds like McNamee was lying about the stuff to begin with.

Eileen McNamee went on to contradict McNamee regarding the now-famous FedEx box in which McNamee stored the evidence which implicates Clemens. She said that their marriage broke down, not because, as McNamee said, he had to travel all the time, but due to the date-rape drug incident down in Florida, which the jury doesn’t know much about, but which is being referred to as McNamee being involved in a “serious criminal incident.”

Obviously she will be cross-examined and the prosecutors will say that, due to contentious divorce proceedings, she has a reason to sink Brian McNamee.  But it’s hard to see what she gains by doing it here as opposed to in divorce court.  And that aside, the sight of a witnesses wife coming in to court and essentially saying he lied is the sort of thing that has to stick in a jury’s head.

  1. dirtyharry1971 - Jun 7, 2012 at 9:22 AM

    i knew the Rocket was clean all along..

  2. makeham98 - Jun 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    Time for the judge to just direct an acquittal, let everyone make their vacations, and stop this ridiculous celebrity persecution.

    The feds have clearly demonstrated that there are worse things than allegedly lying to congress about steroids in sports.

  3. ltzep75 - Jun 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    Craig:

    McNamee’s wife also testified that McNamee claimed to retain the alleged evidence of Roger’s steroid/illicit PED use to “Protect himself”. So the self-preservation motive remains, albeit in a different form. Additionally, I would think, in light of the retained motive, that her discussion of “a serious criminal incident” is possibly more damaging to McNamee’s credibility as the jury is left to wonder just what is going unsaid (but obv not as bad as telling them about a date-rape situation).

    • Jonny 5 - Jun 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM

      If he’s going to put drugs in a woman’s drink to get a little sumptin, why not put drugs in Clemens to get a little money? I’m sure the motive to save the syringes isn’t “protecting himself” If anything implicating yourself in illegal drug use would achieve the opposite of that. I think the jurors should know about this date rape incident, it shows the man has no scruples. Which is important here.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jun 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

        Spot on Jonny. Precisely why I never put much stock in McNamee’s “word” to begin with.

  4. proudlycanadian - Jun 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM

    Anyone who has an ex wife or is going through a divorce, knows how unreliable the testimony of the ex can be. “Hell hath no fury” etc.

    • The Rabbit - Jun 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

      Morning PC,
      Have to disagree.
      Although both genders are known to claim that the ex is vindictive in divorce, not all divorces follow that patttern. I’m not even sure that the data would prove that most are that way.
      With half of marriages ending in divorce, it doesn’t make a great press, but sometimes nobody is “scorned”, particularly in a culture of short-lived first marriages where there are no children involved.
      Rather than believe that her testimony is unreliable, I’m more likely to believe that Brian McNamee is the type that didn’t discuss many of his activities with his wife. She’d be credible unless something came up in the cross that forced her to retract her statements.
      Hope all is well in your world.

      • proudlycanadian - Jun 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM

        Fair comment Lapin; however, we each have our own experience.

      • The Rabbit - Jun 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM

        And that’s the point I was trying to make. This isn’t about either of our personal experiences which may actually be similiar and not what I described.
        I was trying to look at her testimony as a jury might, i.e., without a personal bias regarding divorce. She could be a lot more credible than he is.
        So, how bout those Jays?

    • 24missed - Jun 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM

      Behind every woman scorned is a man who made her that way. That’s what Miranda Lambert would sing to you.

      I totally get your point and it would be fabulous if every divorce were amicable. But, that’s not what I’ve witnessed, either. I think that the testimony should be completely shelved. She’s rockin’ the ole school marm charm. Coming from the master of ole school marm charm, when necessary, of course.

  5. stlouis1baseball - Jun 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM

    McNamee isn’t telling the truth? He lied? He’s a liar? Noooo way. Who woulda’ thunk it?

  6. makeham98 - Jun 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    Brian Macnamee is Clemens’ crazy ex.

  7. paperlions - Jun 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    Does anyone have a wife/GF/significant other that didn’t nag them about….well….nearly everything they think you should have done differently? I am not referring to a one-time expression of an opinion, but a recurring expression on just about anything about which you didn’t take their advice already.

    Every heard the lines: “I’ve been telling him for months/weeks/years that [insert thing he did that turned out wrong] was a bad idea” or “I told him over and over that [insert thing he did that turned out wrong] was going to blow up in his face.”

    I’ve known a lot of women, and like women a lot….but if one says that she doesn’t nag (repeat something he doesn’t do or want to do) over and over…well….color me dubious.

    • 24missed - Jun 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

      Paperlions,

      I keep telling you to color yourself dubious. I have been saying this for months/weeks/years.
      Nag, nag, nag.

  8. buffalomafia - Jun 7, 2012 at 10:49 AM

    The government owes the American people money for this waiste of time!

    Clemons will walk away smiling!

    What about Clemons wife taking steroid injections?

  9. sdelmonte - Jun 7, 2012 at 11:14 AM

    I know that you can’t predict a jury’s reactions. But if I were a betting man, I would say that there is no way Clemens is convicted.

    And at the same time, there is no way any of this helps get him into the Hall, which is what I think he really wants.

  10. diablito0402 - Jun 7, 2012 at 11:43 AM

    Rocket is dirty, pettite said it thats enough for me, even though he backed out of it. But he still said it, rocket is now tainted.

  11. WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jun 7, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    That is the most oversized suit ever.

  12. Jonny 5 - Jun 7, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    It makes it seem more plausible McNamee could have injected Clemens for the sole purpose of setting him up for extortion at a later date. As a matter of fact that’s kinda how I feel about this situation. Why save the syringes in the first place? I’d say it could be for leverage only because of the fact that Clemens got injected and you have the needles as proof telling me for sure that McNamee planned on using them against Clemens in the future. If you were worried about your own involvement will illegal drugs you’d probably be inclined to trash the evidence of it. I’d think so anyway.

  13. diablito0402 - Jun 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM

    Its not about mcnamee and illegal drugs, its about clemens using steroids, theres proof, theres dna, best friend pettite said it, then backed out , but still said it, the jury should also take that in to consideration, right?

    • stlouis1baseball - Jun 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

      Yeah…and SOCIETY should take into consideration the current state of the game during the 80’s…90’s…and early 2000. Additionally, MLB’s views (at that time) on the matter should also be taken into consideration (clarification…MLB’s blind views on the matter).
      Simply put…they are a bunch of hypocrites.
      Hell…they turned their beady little heads while balls were flying out of the parks at record pace (while turnstiles where in perpetual motion at record pace). They even investigated/traveled out of the Country to visit the baseball manufacturers (Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic…can’t remember which) because the balls just couldn’t be made the same way. The baseballs have to be the primary culprit of all the HR’s. All the while…dude’s were swelling up as big as a house.
      H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.S.

  14. georgebrett - Jun 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

    The key to this whole story is SOON TO BE EX-WIFE

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches