Posted By:
Jeff LichtmanSadly, the court of public opinion does not employ the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. See the Chicago Black Sox, acquitted in court...convicted in history.
Here's my rhetorical question to everyone out there who was just accused of a horrific crime of which you were 100% innocent: if you were offered a polygraph test to be administered by an agreed-upon tester -- and it would clear your name and you were told it was 99% accurate -- would you hesitate? Of course, not. Being able to twist a polygraph examiner on cross examination does not necessarily mean the test is a joke -- it just means that reasonable doubt can be raised about the test. This is the sort of fact that has really hurt Clemens -- why wouldn't he run to it? And wouldn't it be funny if McNamee took a test and waived it around? If I was his attorney I'd do it in a second. Also, Pettite's corroboration of McNamee is devastating to Clemens, plain and simple.
All that being said, if McNamee was pressured into specifically fingering Clemens I'd feel different to some degree.
I just read that McNamee's lawyers were unaware that their client spoke to Clemens. Seems like they've really got a grip on their client.