|
May 26, 2012
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
November, 2009
October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (7)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (21) Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (5) The Waiting Game (10) Rules = Destiny (1) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.Monday, January 26, 2009Lie down with dogs . . .The prosecutors in the Roger Clemens perjury case have already called Kirk Radomski before the grand jury, so one presumes that they intend to use him as a witness at any criminal trial against Clemens. They need to rethink that now:One week before Brian McNamee and Roger Clemens testified before a House committee at a contentious public hearing last February, McNamee sat down for a deposition with committee investigators. Interesting, but this presumes that Brian McNamee had any credibility to begin with. Oh sure, he may be telling the truth about some specific things related to Clemens and Clemens may very well have lied himself, but as the experts quoted in this story and any practicing attorney knows, credibility is a much larger and much more amorphous concept than the simple matter of whether a given statement is perceived to be true or false. As I noted back when this story didn't make me physically ill, Brian McNamee has always had a problem with the truth. He lied to Clemens' people before the Mitchell Report was out. At least twice. He lied to the media about whether he was involved in steroids. He used to lie and tell people he had a PhD when he didn't. St. Petersburg, Florida police claimed that he lied to them several times in connection with the investigation with an alleged incident of GHB-fueled date rape. Oh, and then he stiffed the law firm that represented him in that investigation, using the old "my dog ate those legal bills you sent me" defense. According to that same ESPN article, he lied about why he was let go from a teaching position at St. Johns, telling people that he was a victim of the steroid investigation when, in reality, he had a one-year contract that was up and not renewed long before the steroid news hit the papers. The Kirk Radomski contradiction noted by Schmidt in yesterday's story is certainly a problem, but it's nothing new. McNamee is an admitted drug dealer and a serial liar, dating back years. Does any of this make Roger Clemens any more credible? Of course not. But when your star witness in a perjury case is himself a demonstrated liar and arguable scumbag, you have a serious problem with your case. (thanks to Jason at IIATMS for the link) Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 8:05am Comments
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: Under the Hood>> <<Previous Post: Stronger than dirt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can I use the dog ate my mortgage payment defense to avoid potential future foreclosure? Just want to know before I divert the funds to fund my PSL and season tickets at the ballpark.