Barry Bonds On Trial

[papsrus]

It's amusing, and telling, that someone can see a felony conviction on obstruction of justice as a victory. Or, for that matter, that Bonds' admitted use of steroids had no impact on his athletic performance. But there it is.

Correction: They couldn't prove he knowingly took steroids that pretty much everyone assumes he did..

Apparently, "everybody" didn't include the members of the jury. So much for the court of public opinion.

No correction needed: My statement (misquoted by you) was "pretty much everyone." And "pretty much everyone" includes all but one of 12 jurors, who initially did, then didn't agree on one of the perjury counts.

So if we're talking about the jury, "pretty much everyone" is perfectly accurate, thanks.

Edited April 14, 2011 by papsrus

[Dan Gould]

Only Goodie could say that when his boy is looking at a ten year sentence and stands as a convicted felon.

And I absolutely love that he points out that the other two charges had final juror votes that favored acquital - barely but an 11-1 vote in favor of conviction doesn't mean anything.\

and Timmy, he's not found guilty or not guilty. The charges can and ought to be retried and like I said, they'll have to be lucky again to avoid conviction on the "no one but doctors and trainers ever injected me" charge.

[Tim McG]

It's amusing, and telling, that someone can see a felony conviction on obstruction of justice as a victory. Or, for that matter, that Bonds' admitted use of steroids had no impact on his athletic performance. But there it is.

Correction: They couldn't prove he knowingly took steroids that pretty much everyone assumes he did..

Apparently, "everybody" didn't include the members of the jury. So much for the court of public opinion.

No correction needed: My statement (misquoted by you) was "pretty much everyone." And "pretty much everyone" includes all but one of 12 jurors, who initially did, then didn't agree on one of the perjury counts.

So if we're talking about the jury, "pretty much everyone" is perfectly accurate, thanks.

Not exacly.

You are using the only number Dan provided.

"The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com

That, my friend, was "pretty much everyone" in the jury.

Non-Case closed.

Only Goodie could say that when his boy is looking at a ten year sentence and stands as a convicted felon.

And I absolutely love that he points out that the other two charges had final juror votes that favored acquital - barely but an 11-1 vote in favor of conviction doesn't mean anything.\

and Timmy, he's not found guilty or not guilty. The charges can and ought to be retried and like I said, they'll have to be lucky again to avoid conviction on the "no one but doctors and trainers ever injected me" charge.

Only Danny would have so much hatred for one human being as to wish a 10 year sentence on a side charge having absoltely nothing at all to do with the real reason the trial began in the first place: Knowingly using steroids.

He was AQUITTED of knowingly using steroids/HGHs, Danny.

[Read: Not found quilty]

Edited April 14, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

It's amusing, and telling, that someone can see a felony conviction on obstruction of justice as a victory.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917055,00.html

Good company, eh?

[Dan Gould]

It's amusing, and telling, that someone can see a felony conviction on obstruction of justice as a victory. Or, for that matter, that Bonds' admitted use of steroids had no impact on his athletic performance. But there it is.

Correction: They couldn't prove he knowingly took steroids that pretty much everyone assumes he did..

Apparently, "everybody" didn't include the members of the jury. So much for the court of public opinion.

No correction needed: My statement (misquoted by you) was "pretty much everyone." And "pretty much everyone" includes all but one of 12 jurors, who initially did, then didn't agree on one of the perjury counts.

So if we're talking about the jury, "pretty much everyone" is perfectly accurate, thanks.

Not exacly.

You are using the only number Dan provided.

"The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com

That, my friend, was "pretty much everyone" in the jury.

Non-Case closed.

Only Goodie could say that when his boy is looking at a ten year sentence and stands as a convicted felon.

And I absolutely love that he points out that the other two charges had final juror votes that favored acquital - barely but an 11-1 vote in favor of conviction doesn't mean anything.\

and Timmy, he's not found guilty or not guilty. The charges can and ought to be retried and like I said, they'll have to be lucky again to avoid conviction on the "no one but doctors and trainers ever injected me" charge.

Only Danny would have so much hatred for one human being as to wish a 10 year sentence on a side charge having absoltely nothing at all to do with the real reason the trial began in the first place: Knowingly using steroids.

He was AQUITTED of knowingly using steroids/HGHs, Danny.

[Read: Not found quilty]

You are frighteningly dense to use "aquitted" (sic) in regards to the charges that he wasn't found guilty of. To say that this means "not found guilty" and is some victory is just beyond asinine.

Who does better in a re-trial, the prosecution or the defense? The prosecution always does better, because it knows what worked and what didn't. They know now not to call the doctor who hurt their case. They know to prepare Hoskins better.

If they do re-try him here's a side benefit: More time in jail for the weasel who shirks his responsibility as a citizen, Greg Anderson.

[JSngry]

A fellow obstructor of justice:

[Jazzmoose]

His punishment:

[Tim McG]

It's amusing, and telling, that someone can see a felony conviction on obstruction of justice as a victory. Or, for that matter, that Bonds' admitted use of steroids had no impact on his athletic performance. But there it is.

Correction: They couldn't prove he knowingly took steroids that pretty much everyone assumes he did..

Apparently, "everybody" didn't include the members of the jury. So much for the court of public opinion.

No correction needed: My statement (misquoted by you) was "pretty much everyone." And "pretty much everyone" includes all but one of 12 jurors, who initially did, then didn't agree on one of the perjury counts.

So if we're talking about the jury, "pretty much everyone" is perfectly accurate, thanks.

Not exacly.

You are using the only number Dan provided.

"The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com

That, my friend, was "pretty much everyone" in the jury.

Non-Case closed.

Only Goodie could say that when his boy is looking at a ten year sentence and stands as a convicted felon.

And I absolutely love that he points out that the other two charges had final juror votes that favored acquital - barely but an 11-1 vote in favor of conviction doesn't mean anything.\

and Timmy, he's not found guilty or not guilty. The charges can and ought to be retried and like I said, they'll have to be lucky again to avoid conviction on the "no one but doctors and trainers ever injected me" charge.

Only Danny would have so much hatred for one human being as to wish a 10 year sentence on a side charge having absoltely nothing at all to do with the real reason the trial began in the first place: Knowingly using steroids.

He was AQUITTED of knowingly using steroids/HGHs, Danny.

[Read: Not found quilty]

You are frighteningly dense to use "aquitted" (sic) in regards to the charges that he wasn't found guilty of. To say that this means "not found guilty" and is some victory is just beyond asinine.

Who does better in a re-trial, the prosecution or the defense? The prosecution always does better, because it knows what worked and what didn't. They know now not to call the doctor who hurt their case. They know to prepare Hoskins better.

If they do re-try him here's a side benefit: More time in jail for the weasel who shirks his responsibility as a citizen, Greg Anderson.

Why do you do this, Dan? Isn't it obvious that nobody is calling anything a "victory". Only you are, OK?

And for you to call anybody "dense" is laughable, at best.

Let me help you out here:

acquittal noun Law . judicial deliverance from a criminal charge on a verdict or finding of not guilty.

source: Dictionary.com

Open your eyes once, Dan. You know, it is quite possible that you just might be wrong once in a while.

Edited April 14, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[papsrus]

Not exacly.

You are using the only number Dan provided.

"The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com

That, my friend, was "pretty much everyone" in the jury.

Non-Case closed.

Not exactly. A conviction on one count of perjury would have been sufficient for, well, a conviction on one of the perjury counts. Therefore, 11 of 12 jurors thought he was guilty of perjury on that count. Pretty much everyone on the jury, in other words.

He was AQUITTED of knowingly using steroids/HGHs, Danny.

[Read: Not found quilty]

He wasn't ACQUITTED of knowingly using steroids. I can see how you get confused though.

[Tim McG]

No confusion here:

"The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com

[TedR]

"He was acquitted of knowingly using steroids...."

Definite evidence of cluelessness. A hung jury is labeled a mistrial. Mistrial as defined by Webster's dictionary...."an inconclusive trial, as where the jury cannot agree on a verdict".

Inconclusive is not an acquittal.

"Open your eyes.....You know it is quite possible that you just might be wrong once in a while"

Any understanding of what "projection" is Dr Good? Let me help. Webster's definition: "the attribution to another person the feelings, thoughts or attitudes present in oneself."

"To all: I told you so"

I am concerned about our educational system.

[papsrus]

No confusion here:

"The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com

Yes, but acquittal was not the verdict on any of the counts. Therefore, your statement that he was acquitted is incorrect.

[JSngry]

A fellow obstructor of justice:

His punishment:

Proof yet again that Cosmic Justice is the best justice of all!

[Dan Gould]

Why do you do this, Dan? Isn't it obvious that nobody is calling anything a "victory". Only you are, OK?

And for you to call anybody "dense" is laughable, at best.

Let me help you out here:

acquittal noun Law . judicial deliverance from a criminal charge on a verdict or finding of not guilty.

source: Dictionary.com

Open your eyes once, Dan. You know, it is quite possible that you just might be wrong once in a while.

THERE WAS NO FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

HE WAS NOT ACQUITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TedR]

Edit to say this was in response to Jim's post.

Edited April 14, 2011 by TedR

[Patrick]

Edit to say this was in response to Jim's post.

The Creator has a master plan...

[papsrus]

THERE WAS NO FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

HE WAS NOT ACQUITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a little surprising, although maybe not, that Goodspeak misunderstands this. Pretty basic.

[Tim McG]

THERE WAS NO FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

HE WAS NOT ACQUITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a little surprising, although maybe not, that Goodspeak misunderstands this. Pretty basic.

Not being privy to the court documents, all I have to go by is the media sources I checked. All of which used the term "acquit". You have some court documents with difinitive wording to the contrary then let's have it.

Otherwise, this just a word game.

From NPR:

"They did not convict Bonds of lying in sworn testimony about his drug use."

I dunno. That sure sounds like a finding of lack of evidence for guilt, Boyz. Hence, by definition, they acquitted him.

source: NPR.org

Edited April 14, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[TedR]

Ah, the astute legal mind of the Goodone. Those same media sources also said Bonds is now a convicted felon. Problem with that?

[Tim McG]

Ah, the astute legal mind of the Goodone. Those same media sources also said Bonds is now a convicted felon. Problem with that?

I...nah.

Forget it.

****************************************************************************************

To the rest: You guys hash it out. Label it whatever you'd like, Pick the word that makes you happy. OK? I don't give a rip. Bonds was not found guilty of the big, bad, steroids charge. The Feds had no case. I was right from the start and all of now know that one, too.

My time is up here and so is the time you are spending on my back.

Out.

Edited April 14, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

To the rest: You guys hash it out. Label it whatever you'd like, Pick the word that makes you happy. OK? I don't give a rip. Bonds was not found guilty of the big, bad, steroids charge. The Feds had no case. I was right from the start and all of now know that one, too.

My time is up here and so is the time you are spending on my back.

As an educator, I would certainly hope you know the difference between not proven guilty and innocent.

The Feds had a case - Bonds' lackee chose to go to jail multiple times instead of stating the truth in court. If Anderson had nothing to hurt Bonds with, he'd have been there in a minute to help clear his buddy's name. But he didn't.

It is difficult to prosecute somebody when the truth is not allowed to come out. I am sure Anderson will be paid accordingly.

Regardless - Bonds *IS* guilty of taking steroids, self-admittedly. The visual evidence and on-field evidence certainly speaks to that as well, and earns him a big fat funky * for the rest of eternity. That is justice as well.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Aggie87

[Chuck Nessa]

I didn't even know those guys were dating.

[Dan Gould]

THERE WAS NO FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

HE WAS NOT ACQUITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a little surprising, although maybe not, that Goodspeak misunderstands this. Pretty basic.

Not being privy to the court documents, all I have to go by is the media sources I checked. All of which used the term "acquit". You have some court documents with difinitive wording to the contrary then let's have it.

Otherwise, this just a word game.

From NPR:

"They did not convict Bonds of lying in sworn testimony about his drug use."

I dunno. That sure sounds like a finding of lack of evidence for guilt, Boyz. Hence, by definition, they acquitted him.

source: NPR.org

You show us a single media source that used the term "acquit". Just one.

You cannot.

And you are an embarrassing excuse for a citizen if you do not know that a hung jury means that they could not agree on those counts and that NO VERDICT is entered in them.

This isn't even about the difference between "innocent" and "not proven guilty" as Aggie says.

This is about the basic meanings of simple legal terms we are all subject to. "Convicted" - "Acquitted" - "Hung Jury".

You don't understand any of them, and that's just sad.

[papsrus]

From NPR:

"They did not convict Bonds of lying in sworn testimony about his drug use."

I dunno. That sure sounds like a finding of lack of evidence for guilt, Boyz. Hence, by definition, they acquitted him.

Not to pile on, but this really does exemplify the confused reasoning you've displayed on this whole topic.

The jurors did not acquit Bonds of anything. Period. They found him guilty on one of the counts and could not reach a verdict on the others. The end. If they had acquitted him, then there would be no discussion of whether or not to retry him on the same charges.

[Van Basten II]

From NPR:

"They did not convict Bonds of lying in sworn testimony about his drug use."

I dunno. That sure sounds like a finding of lack of evidence for guilt, Boyz. Hence, by definition, they acquitted him.

Not to pile on, but this really does exemplify the confused reasoning you've displayed on this whole topic.

The jurors did not acquit Bonds of anything. Period. They found him guilty on one of the counts and could not reach a verdict on the others. The end. If they had acquitted him, then there would be no discussion of whether or not to retry him on the same charges.

Didn't one one of the characters in The Sopranos used this same type of justification when he got out of court without being convicted ?