|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 16:03:52 GMT -5
YEEAH BALLS I CHOSE THESE WORDS CAREFULLY:
FUCK YOU!
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 16:06:35 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 14, 2007 16:10:29 GMT -5
If the testimony of "bad" people is no good, then John Gotti shouldn't have gone to jail.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 16:19:05 GMT -5
f the testimony of "bad" people is no good, then John Gotti shouldn't have gone to jail.
That's right...he was framed......
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 16:23:55 GMT -5
the midget mike report will be coming out soon.
if pot tests are on it, i hope we have a very long waiting list for the 2008 tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 14, 2007 16:25:30 GMT -5
f the testimony of "bad" people is no good, then John Gotti shouldn't have gone to jail.That's right...he was framed...... not framed, but the bulk of the prosecutions testimony was from Sammy.... just sayin
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 16:26:30 GMT -5
i wanted to read the exerpt about chuck knoblauch and see how he recieved steroids.. so i read the thing and im still trying to understand how this can be taken seriously... where the fuck is the proof holyshit... and i think chuck took it too.. i understand its report but don't throw names on a list if you don't have 100% proof
read it for yourselves
Knoblauch played for the Yankees during 2000 and 2001, the two years when McNamee served as the Yankees’ assistant strength coach. McNamee provided personal training services to Knoblauch. McNamee said that he acquired human growth hormone from Radomski for Knoblauch in 2001. Beginning during spring training and continuing through the early portion of the season, McNamee injected Knoblauch at least seven to nine times with human growth hormone. Knoblauch paid Radomski through Jason Grimsley and, once or twice, through McNamee. (Radomski produced two checks from Grimsley in 2001 that totaled $5,550.) According to Radomski, McNamee suggested to him that McNamee was obtaining human growth hormone on Knoblauch’s behalf. According to McNamee, on occasion Knoblauch also procured his own supply of human growth hormone. McNamee believed that Knoblauch’s other source was Jason Grimsley. In order to provide Knoblauch with information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he did not respond to my request.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 16:27:53 GMT -5
Testimony is not "bad" or "good" depending on who gives it. Testimony is "bad" or "good" depending on whether other physical evidence can refute it or deny it.
Testimony with no physical evidence to do either, is JUST testimony and not enough to prove guilt or innocence.
This is like telling me your car can go 200 mph, but you never let me get in and drive the fucking thing to verify it.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 16:34:23 GMT -5
Freakz, be that as it may, here is a key sentence in there.
In order to provide Knoblauch with information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he did not respond to my request.
Also, Mitchell himself said to read the testimony and take from it what you will. Good thing about them offering this up for your own perusal is you can make your own conclusions.
Sorry, but I personally think people have things better to do than to make up stories about Chuck Knoblauch buying roids from this guy or that guy.
Oh, and one more IMPORTANT thing. Grimsley has already named names. I am sure that if push comes to shove, he could implicate Knoblauch if he has not already. Anyone throwing around Knoblauchs name along with Grimsleys would have to know that before they did so.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 16:44:11 GMT -5
That is absolutely not true. While physical evidence is certainly corroborating and builds a case, you absolutely can convict solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 16:44:19 GMT -5
True TOM but how many current or former players talked to mitchell .. not many of them does that mean anyone who didn't speak to mitchell is now guilty too
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 16:46:09 GMT -5
It certainly raises suspicion. Mitchell gave them all the chance to talk with him, and they refused.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 16:58:12 GMT -5
Horseshit, Balls.
You are so full of shit, it's laughable.
Sure a prosecutor can choose to present nothing but testimony in an attempt to fulfill their burden of proof, however customarily U.S. courts refuse to facilitate convictions based solely on testimony with no independent evidence to corroborate said testimony. As a matter of fact, this is how full of HORSESHIT you are - not only will a judge routinely instruct a jury not to base a guilty verdict solely on testimony, but even if the testimony is a defendant's own confession, it usually will not stand on it's own as definitive proof of guilt.
Jesus fucking Christ....get a clue!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 14, 2007 16:59:31 GMT -5
which is it, are you a lawyer or a computer guru?
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 17:00:35 GMT -5
Balls is just being an ass for the sake of being an ass.. i think ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 17:01:45 GMT -5
What part of "THEY WERE INSTRUCTED NOT TO COOPERATE" escapes you?
They are part of a union that has turned them all into millionaires and spoon-fed them every luxury in the world, and has displayed a vehement passion to defend it's players tooth and nail...and that union told them in no uncertain words DO NOT COOPERATE WITH THE MITCHELL INVESTIGATION...yet MetsSuckBalls wonders...gee, why didn't they just cooperate? THAT'S what raises suspicion in your eyes?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 17:02:55 GMT -5
I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with the law, but a single eyewitness, if deemed by the jury to be telling the truth, absolutely can be enough to convict someone. It's happened countless times in the past.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Though I have to admit, if that's the way it is in California, no wonder every gets away with everything.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 17:04:25 GMT -5
Good one Giambi. Forgive me for actually taking the time to educate myself so I don't just spout things off the cuff like...."ummmm SUE MLB, yeah yeah SUE MLB!"
It doesn't take some wannabe Perry Mason to comprehend basic legal procedure.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 17:10:01 GMT -5
Well, you are clearly a wannabe Perry Mason, because you are flat out wrong. There is no instruction to not base a verdict solely on testimony. If that happened, that would be like the judge testifying that the witness is full of shit.
The judge will instruct the jury on how to react to the eyewitness testimony and what factors to weigh, and the consideration of corroborating evidence would be one of the factors. But if you think that a judge will actually instruct a jury to not convict solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, you are just flat out wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 17:17:13 GMT -5
A single eyewitnesses testimony along with absolutely ZERO other items of independent evidence (and that's what we have here with the Mitchell report - we have no photocopies of canceled checks included in the report, we have no recordings of drug deals, we have no photos of drug deals, we have no failed drug tests, we have nothing other than testimony) is not now, never will be, and never has been enough, all on it's own to convict in a court of law, short of some chicken shit traffic case involving a cop claiming you ran a light and you going to court saying you didn't.
It hasn't happened "plenty of times in the past." What has happened plenty of times in the past is convictions based on very credible testimony, testimony so credible that it may very well be the MOST telling piece of evidence of guilt, along with other supporting evidence to corroborate the validity of the testimony.
You're purposely being obtuse and vague in order hide your completely inaccurate assessment of this situation. You are absolutely right in saying that testimony can be and many times has been the proverbial "nail in the coffin" for many a defendant in court...but you are acting as if that testimony often stands all alone with absolutely no corroboration...and you're wrong, as wrong as you can possibly be...whether we're talking about New York, California, or Federal court. Don Fehr said in no uncertain words EXACTLY what I'm telling you right now, regarding this Mitchell Report testimony. You're swinging from your heels and missing poorly...it's pretty embarrassing because you have a far more impressive legal education than any of us here.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 17:19:46 GMT -5
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 17:31:38 GMT -5
WRONG. Once again, corroborating evidence helps. No question of that. But you are completely wrong in saying that if the sole evidence is eyewitness testimony, you can't convict. It's happened many times. Is there room for mistakes? Sure. One example: www.geocities.com/LennyVasbinderPI/FalseEyewitnessIDThe opening of the article discusses a guy who was convicted of murder solely on the eyewitness testimony of a crackhead. No corroborating evidence. No murder weapon. The conviction was later overturned, but that was over a decade later, and the point is that nothing prevented the conviction based solely on eyewitness testimony. Here's another example: www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/86684/op-86684.pdfHere, we have another example of a guy trying to appeal a conviction, because the court didn't allow an expert to rebut eyewitness testimony, which once again, was the sole basis for conviction. So again, that's another example. I'm not saying it's the best way to get a conviction, but there are so many examples when the only evidence is a witness, and there is a conviction. If it weren't possible, any case against any defendant with an eyewitness and nothing else would not only get dismissed, but charges wouldn't even be brought. That's simply not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 17:33:11 GMT -5
Opper v. United States (1954), 348 U.S. 84, 93, 75 S.Ct. 158, 164, 99 L.Ed. 101, 109
Polk vs State (Texas) Article 38.14
Pacheco vs State (North Dakota) NDCC 29-21-14
Josef vs State (Texas)
You can Google this shit and the list of cases in which the instruction to jurors that testimony (especially accomplice testimony, which IS the case here) must be corroborated to sustain a conviction is fucking ENDLESS!
This isn't the Ballzaro World....people in our court systems actually (thankfully) make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 17:39:11 GMT -5
Good Lord, you are so intent on being RIGHT (rather than being logical) that you will even attempt your spin-doctoring (Jason Giambi ring a bell) on evidence that REFUTES your position.
What part of "In 1999, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated his conviction for lack of evidence, barred a retrial, and ordered him released" do you not understand? A mistake was made...a gross miscarriage of justice was rectified....a jury convicted on uncorroborated testimony, they were wrong to do so, the judge was dead wrong to allow it, and it was reversed. Seriously........fuck, I'm at a loss.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 17:40:02 GMT -5
www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/jun04/88opn04.pdfPeople v Calibria... which also cites People v. Arroyo. The key issue at trial was the identification of defendant as the perpetrator. There was one eyewitness, the victim, who positively identified defendant both at a lineup and in court. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction based upon the eyewitness identification.We have previously recognized that the testimony of one witness can be enough to support a conviction, noting that it is typically the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility (see People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982]).Although the dissent doubts her credibility, twelve jurors did not. Since the jury's determination was rational, its verdict may not be disturbed.Dude--give it up. You just wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 17:42:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 14, 2007 17:42:44 GMT -5
LOL @ "Ballzaro World!"
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 17:45:17 GMT -5
how much has this report costs.. i heard almost 60 million for 2 years ??
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 17:49:28 GMT -5
Anywhere between $20-60M
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 17:50:02 GMT -5
Holy fucking SHIT!!!!! What the hell are you talking about dude. You just posted ANOTHER case that refutes your stance.
Jesus Christ Balls, AT LEAST have the common courtesy to READ the shit you post. There was corroborating evidence in THAT CASE TOO!!! READ THE FUCKING THING, dope! There was additional evidence adduced at the time that the woman picked this guy out from a lineup. Neither the evidence nor the testimony were sufficient on their own merit to convict, but the credibility of the woman along with the much weaker evidence was enough. No one ever said testimony can't be the "BEST" evidence....it just can't be the ONLY evidence.
I know one thing....no one would pick YOU out of a line up of people suspected of knowing what they're talking about!
|
|