RogerClemensReport.com

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

You don't need to use that kind of tone with me. I know what evidence is and if this isn't evidence then what is? Let's say it does have Roger's DNA, are they going to withhold it? I highly doubt it.

Yes, i've seen questionable "evidence" used by prosecutors but those are usually on the state or local level. This is the feds, they're not going to screw around with questionable material.

btw, it was McNamee's lawyers that gave a public statement about what they gave to investigators. I dont know where youve gotten that it's going to be used as evidence. Investigators havent said anything about it publicly.

If McNamee's lawyers' intention was to influence some public opinion with their statement, then it seems it worked.

[SportsTop]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

You don't need to use that kind of tone with me. I know what evidence is and if this isn't evidence then what is? Let's say it does have Roger's DNA, are they going to withhold it? I highly doubt it.

Yes, i've seen questionable "evidence" used by prosecutors but those are usually on the state or local level. This is the feds, they're not going to screw around with questionable material.

I have to say that holding on to that kind of stuff for eight years does make one scratch their head.

I don't know how it would be admissible in anything but the court of public opinion.

[Heelfan71]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0207083clemens1.html

pics of the stuff Roger used. He kept the stuff as a insurance policy if he got caught distributing the stuff.

[yvesdereuter]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

I have to say that holding on to that kind of stuff for eight years does make one scratch their head.

I don't know how it would be admissible in anything but the court of public opinion.

Whats more puzzling is how Andy Petitte, Roger Clemens' friend, has already admitted McNamee is telling the truth where he is concerned. You look at that plus how Roger turned around his career around 1996/97 and it looks a little too coincidental.

[taylor34]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

If this all comes to fruition, this is going to be even funnier than old Palmeiro. I think Roger had it coming anyways. I think it's funny that his own trainer didn't trust him at all, and predicted that he would get thrown under a bus at some point. Whether it's admissable as evidence is really irrelevant, if the stuff really is what they say it is then Roger is screwed publicly (but not legally). I bet Clemens was like 'oh ****' when they announced that.

Taylor34

[JoeRyan33]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

Wait until there's sufficient evidence before jumping to conclusions. All we have as of now is the testimony of a guy feeling the heat from the FBI.

Personally I think the focus should be on MLB. Selig should have resigned over this years ago, but he's hiding behind this witch hunt. It's shameful.

Congress has more pressing issues than whether or not Roger Clemens injected himself with steroids. I'd be clamping down on prozac overuse before I'd even consider investigating roids. It's all just some silly attempt on the part of no name Senators to get themselves reelected.

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

a lot of people "assumed" that the Duke Lacrosse kids were guilty, that didnt make it so.

In this country, you have to prove someone guilty. You cant prove innocence.

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...3clemens1.html

pics of the stuff Roger used. He kept the stuff as a insurance policy if he got caught distributing the stuff.

wow pictures of a crumbled beer can, needles, and gauzes from 7 or 8 years ago..if that's not enough to hang a man in this country, then i dont know what is

[bergie56]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

wow pictures of a crumbled beer can, needles, and gauzes from 7 or 8 years ago..if that's not enough to hang a man in this country, then i dont know what is

You don't always have to be the defender of everything Texas. It is ok to question a former Longhorn. I am not ready to say that Clemens is 100% guilty but you have to consider the evidence, should it have his DNA on it, to at least make you begin to believe that maybe he did take steroids. I also think that Pettite's testimony could be awfully damning as well. I guess we are going to have to wait to see what happens.

[Pared]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

You don't always have to be the defender of everything Texas.

Good point.

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

You don't always have to be the defender of everything Texas. It is ok to question a former Longhorn. I am not ready to say that Clemens is 100% guilty but you have to consider the evidence, should it have his DNA on it, to at least make you begin to believe that maybe he did take steroids. I also think that Pettite's testimony could be awfully damning as well. I guess we are going to have to wait to see what happens.

1. Im an American. In America you have to prove someone guilty. You are not automatically guilty because you are accused of something

2. It doesnt matter that he's a Longhorn, although i know a lot about the man. I actually know some of the same people. I know more about him than you do, im pretty sure.

3. I doubt they can get fingerprints off of those gauzes and needles from 7 or 8 years ago, much less DNA...but even if they do get legit DNA despite whatever conditions those items were in for so long, how does that prove that he used PED's? McNamee was a team trainer and injected all kinds of players with all kinds of stuff. What is to stop someone from adding traces testosterone or something later on? There is no chain of custody whatesoever. Im not saying that Clemens didnt use those for roids, but this "evidence" is worthless and doesnt prove crap. It is not evidence unless it is credible.

anyway, i can pretty much guarantee you that the prosecutors are not going to use that as evidence. No court across the country would use that as evidence...but I doubt McNamee's lawyers care if it is used as evidence, they probably know it wont. The purpose to McNamee's lawyers showing these pictures to the press and using the "evidence" word is to affect public opinion. It seems that worked with some suckers. Some people are buying it automatically. However, It's actually going to take some proof to prove that Clemens is a liar.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

3. I doubt they can get fingerprints off of those gauzes and needles from 7 or 8 years ago, much less DNA.

You can get DNA evidence off things more than 20 years old. Hell they get DNA off dinosaur bones that are well preserved.

How do you think all these innocent men who are in prison for 30 years, finally get out when they test the DAN evidence from 30 years ago?

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

You can get DNA evidence off things more than 20 years old. Hell they get DNA off dinosaur bones that are well preserved.

How do you think all these innocent men who are in prison for 30 years, finally get out when they test the DAN evidence from 30 years ago?

With no chain of custody, it doesnt matter. Conditions (heat, etc.) can F up DNA traces. If these were sitting in his garage or someplace like that for 7 or 8 years, then i doubt the DNA will be legit. but im no scientist.

I doubt it will be used as evidence anyway. The purpose of McNamee's lawyers showing these pictures to the press was to influence public opinion.

[Stu]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand Chain of Custody is only something that applies to evidence after it is collected by authorities. Obviously there's a possibility the evidence was tampered with, but that's usually the case with every piece of evidence. Under your theory if it took police a month to find a murder weapon it wouldn't be admissible because they had no "chain of custody".

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand Chain of Custody is only something that applies to evidence after it is collected by authorities. Obviously there's a possibility the evidence was tampered with, but that's usually the case with every piece of evidence. Under your theory if it took police a month to find a murder weapon it wouldn't be admissible because they had no "chain of custody".

it's not a theory

Finding evidence that someone doesnt want you to find because it will be used against them is different than someone all of a sudden providing evidence to you that benefits their case. Chain of custody is especially important when there is a chance of evidence tampering, or manufacturing evidence.