Posted By:
Jeff LichtmanI'm wondering if you're purposely misreading what I've written. I never said the results of a polygraph were the end-all, be-all here. I simply wrote that they are highly persuasive in the court of public opinion -- in fact, I called it a "nice bit of PR." And then I provided the rhetorical question about the polygraph test to show how significant it is to public opinion. Most common sense people who are not well-versed in Daubert will tell you that a polygraph test means a lot. That being said, because federal criminal authorities often respect a polygraph result, they will be open to discussing such a thing in a case.
And sorry, just because his lawyers have "done this thing for a great number of years" does not mean that they haven't screwed this up. Do you actually think that bringing a civil suit against McNamee -- a case that will be in the public eye for years -- will do Clemens good? What happens when 250 ex-Clemens teammates are deposed and asked about steroids?
I suspected you might not be a criminal lawyer because your answers were commensurate with someone who had never cross examained a criminal looking to save himself -- not his money or property -- but himself. The stakes are higher than in a civil context. To suggest that this scenario is civil in nature only is just not correct. I think if you review the opinions of the criminal defense lawyers and law enforcement people on this thread you'll find that they're legion in believing that Clemens lied. And I think there is a pretty good reason that we all feel that way.