Roger Clemens Not Guilty on All Counts

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I don't know if he cheated or not; I wasn't there. Therefore, my opinion would only be a guess. I haven't listened to the facts, like the jury. If after hearing the facts they thought that there was not compelling evidence that he did steroids then I must guess that he did not.
Peter--I was just making the point that if O'Keefe could make an open and shut case, based on facts and not assumptions, that Clemens juiced then the prosecution could have probably made a strong argument, a winning argument, that he was guilty. Obviously, that was not the case.

Mattingly had half a HOF career. Unfortunately, a bad back killed the second half.

And a jury acquited OJ. Sometimes, it's just hard to prove things with admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But I wouldn't infer innocence from that. Change the burden of proof and you might have a different verdict. The jury also could be sending a message that this sort of prosecution is a waste of time and money.