O/T - Clemens On 60 Minutes

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

There is generally no requirement that a complaint be signed or verified by the plaintiff.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wil Jordan

Roger Clemens is all about himself just like Barry Bonds. They were great players prior to using steriods. Instead of relying on their natural abilities to take them to the HOF and to make millions of dollars they chose to cheat. He is trying to repair the damage done by the Mitchell Report by telling a mutitude of stories that don't make sense. Anyone that saw the interview could tell he was not telling the truth. Clemens just dosen't get it the public owes him nothing and with good reason. Fans are very forgiving when you admit what you did but if he continues on his present course he will end up like Pete Rose and others who have chosen not to accept the consequences of their actions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

As I recall, the question posed of Clemens was whether McNamee ever injected him with anything, not where did he inject him nor whether he injected it in his butt. The answer therefore appears true, or at least consistent--he received B-12 and lidocaine injections. Clemens went on to state how he still uses those same injections for his joints, and was not evasive in that regard. No way he was unprepared for that question, and he had to know it would immediateley be shown that the injection is administered in the joints--hell, even I knew that. So I think some are making too much of that answer as being an obvious lie, when it appears consistent.

David, I understood Clemens to say he would have gone to Mitchell immediately if he knew what McNameee had said, and that he wasn't told of the allegations. My gut feeling is that all of these guys opted out of talking to Mitchell more out of a fear that they would be asked to rat out their teammates (not that I believe that to be justifiable) than out of a concern for confronting damaging evidence.

I have not read the Complaint, but understand that there is at least one very curious allegation--that McNamee was forced not only to just tell the truth, but to give up Clemens as a means of avoiding or reducing his punishment. How that plays out will be fascinating, IMO.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That's a lot of absolutely false statements Clemens is saying McNamee made....I guess McNamee will have to prove he made them, somehow?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Obviously, whoever advised all the players not to cooperate did them a disservice. Interestingly, the only player to cooperate had his name removed from the list as he provided evidence he was not guilty. Fair to presume this player chose to defy the Players Union wishes as he felt he was not guilty.

The problem for the Players Union is that the drug rules and laws are, directly or indirectly, coming via Congress (Congress effecting drug laws, who would've thunk?). Whatever the Union's reasons, having advised the players to not cooperate with Mitchell not only won't sit well with Congress as a whole, but may help lead to more testing and harsher penalties.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

IF what Todd just reported is true -- that in addition to telling the truth, to save his skin McNamee also had to include as part of the "truth" an allegation of steroid/HGH use by Clemens -- the impact of that revelation on public opinion could be monumental. Suddenly McNamee is given a huge motivation to lie about Clemens, seriously impacting his credibility. I would think in relatively short order someone with first-hand knowledge of the truth of this allegation (e.g., Mitchell/the Feds) will add his/her voice to the mix.

If that allegation is forcefully denied and in fact untrue, it would seem to demonstrate how desperate Clemens is, going to any lengths to try to respond head-on to the most troubling aspect of his predicament -- Why would McNamee lie?

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

At a critical point in the interview, my TV went kinda fuzzy both visually and audibly - for maybe a 15 second response from Clemens.

Was my TV an isolated local reception case, or did you folks pick up on the "scramble."

If so, obviously edited on prurpose, hmmm.

steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Clemens would be a whole lot more believable if his good buddy Pettitte hadn't admitted that McNamee gave him HGH.

Clemens has completely screwed his Hall of Fame chances by taking this route...Andy Pettitte will come back and pitch next year and no one will say anything. If Clemens had said basically the same thing that Pettitte did that he tried it, it didn't work and he never did it again then he would be headed to the Hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

The ability of this forum to entertain should not be underestimated!!

This recurring MLB/Vitamin B12 episode has made me reflect back upon what my parents and doctors always told me while growing up back in semi-rural Chicagoland during the troubled '70s...They all said to me, "Jason, remember to always take your vitamins...-through a needle in the butt."

I just don't really recall that last phrase though. Hmph, I guess I just misheard them cuz it must have been there. I mean, that's what our major league heroes do, so it must be right!

[Archive]

Posted By: shane leonard

I like Clemens and I think he is an awesome pitcher, but I heard rumors of this back four years ago when a friend of mine was down watching his son play during spring training with Clemens. My friend was on the front row watching Clemens pitch and he was having a hard time hitting 86 mph. The statement made by someone with the organization was, "he hasn't had his shots yet."

Pretty positive they were not talking about the flu shots.

Shane

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Jeff may disagree but after reading these posts its a good thing we require actual evidence to convict someone and we dont merely convict people based on nothing other than hearsay and what your friends did.

As for "the scramble" - I love it. Now Clemens has the power to scramble the television signals. Just awesome. As long as we are going to make this into a conspiracy theory, I've heard through a friend of a friend's uncle's girlfriend that Clemens is actually a CIA assasin and that when the guy with the "organization" stated "clemens hasn't taken his shots yet" he was actually referring to a CIA hit.


Edited to add - this post should not in any way be interpreted as my supporting clemens. If he did it, he should suffer the consequences. However, sorry, I dont believe you can tell someone is lying simply based on their appearance/body language (hey all you law enforcement guys - when someone is believed to have committed the crime but shows no signs of lying while denying it, do you let them go? Have people proclaiming their innocence ever been wrongly convicted?). I like to see something a little more along the lines of evidence before someone is convicted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

JK,

You're confusing Roger Clemens with Chuck Barris. Don't worry. Happens all the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: D.C. Markel

Here is one excerpt from the 60 Minutes interview that was so incredibly lame regarding why Clemens claims he couldn't have taken steroids:

Quote from Clemens during interview: "If he's [McNamee] putting that stuff up in my body, if what he's saying which is totally false, if he's doing that to me, I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead." Later Clemens goes on to say, "Why didn't I break down? Why didn't my tendons turn to dust? That's all it's good for. It's a quick fix.

If anyone believes this is even remotely true, then this proves no one in baseball has ever taken steroids because players like Canseco, Giambi, and other who have confessed to steroid have no third ear on their forehead or tendons of dust.



Here's another segment where Clemens is totally clueless regarding coming up with a credible explanation why McNamee had to testify against him:

Mike Wallace states, "George Mitchell says he believes McNamee and this is why: McNamee got caught up in a federal steroids investigation, and the federal prosecutors agreed not to charge him if he told the truth about his involvement with steroids. But they would charge him if he gave any false information. So Mitchell says McNamee had strong incentives to tell the truth," Wallace says. "What did McNamee gain by lying?"

"Evidently not going to jail," Clemens says.

"Jail time for what?" Wallace asks

"Well, I think he's been buying and movin' steroids," Clemens says.








Here's the transcript of the interview:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/60minutes/main3671585.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

All McNamee had to do was keep his mouth shut about Clemens if he wanted to avoid the media firestorm that has been created -- simply put, McNamee had no incentive to name Clemens. Pettitte's corroboration is killer to Clemens' denials. As for McNamee speaking with Clemens, I'm stunned -- is it possible that both Clemens AND McNamee are getting awful legal advice?

I still think Clemens took a polygraph test and failed. Todd, don't put anything past Clemens and his lawyer in this instance: it would have been a nice bit of PR if he could have waived those results around. When I have a client that is telling the truth about an issue, I often have them take the test and when they pass, show it to the feds and insist they polygraph their cooperator on the same issue. That request often results in a charge being dropped. All Mike Wallace had to do last night was follow up with: "have you taken such a test already?" He was too busy asking Roger to swear he was telling the truth.

As for filing the lawsuit, Clemens is out of his mind as he will simply propogate this steroid story forever and ever and ever. I'm amazed that any lawyer could give such poor advice; the only way to rationalize it is to assume that the lawyer was blinded by Clemens' celebrity and stopped thinking.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

A few things to point out about the Mitchell Report:

(1) Nobody was granted immunity to testify as part of Mitchell's investigation -- Mitchell was not in a position to grant immunity to anyone, only to promise to try and keep information and identities confidential (if requested to do so), to the extent he could do so. I am not aware of McNamee having immunity from federal prosecution, but if he has it, he didn't get it from Mitchell, because he couldn't get it from Mitchell.

(2) This may state the obvious, but the Mitchell Report reports only what was told to Mitchell (and his team). And the reason almost no current players cooperated with the investigation was because they were advised by the Players Association not to cooperate, primarily because Mitchell could not guarantee confidentiality or immunity (which, I suppose, is a fair concern). Read the annexes to the Michell Report -- there are two memos, one from Mitchell and the other from Donald Fehr, addressed to the players on this point.

(3) Anyone who dismisses the Mitchell Report simply because of Mitchell's former ties to the Red Sox shows only that the Mitchell Report was not read, or not read closely. There are literally dozens of references to the Red Sox, Red Sox players and Red Sox management, including some embarrassing correspondence from Theo Epstein around the time the Sox acquired Gagne. In one section, the report indicates that 23 members of the Red Sox organization were interviewed about a particular incident involving Paxton Crawford ... not surprisingly, all 23 played dumb. The Red Sox appear as bad as any other team, and worse than most.

Read the report.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Tom- perhaps I did not clearly state my positon on polygraphs. I agree that in the hands of an unskilled and/or unimpartial examiner they can be a disaster. We routinely counseled our clients NOT to agree to take polygraph examinations except in the most extreme sitautions when there were extenuating circumstances that justified their use. Of the several examiners in this area, there is only one examiner whom I trusted enough to use.
That said, I would reiterate that in the hands of a well trained, competent and impartial and neutral examiner they can be accurate, not infallible, but approaching trustworthiness.
As far as their infallibility goes, (the flip side of the coin), I once represented a serial killer who was adept at "fooling" the examiners (more than one was given), and was able to provide incorrect answers which appeared as truthful responses.
They are not 100% effective and there are too many variables from the examiner himself, the questions asked, etc. and that is why the results will probably never be admitted in federal court and most states.
I also agree that Clemens' attorneys probably explored the possibility of having a "friendly" examiner give the Rocket a test and if the results had been positive that he was being truthful, would have trumpeted the results from the rooftop.
tbob

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I can see how you might submit your criminal defense clients to a polygraph as a means of obtaining a dismissal, although at least here in AZ the State won't bite unless a second exam is taken before their polygrapher, and even then I believe it happens infrequently. However, as I understand it, you have no downside in doing so in the criminal arena--he passes and you waive it all around, he fails, you have no duty to disclose it ever happened. If I'm wrong about that, please advise.

In Clemens' case, you have an obligation to disclose the failed poly in the civil action. Even if inadmissible at trial, it's discoverable and a matter of public record (absent some stipulated protective order that likely will not be forthcoming), and since Roger is far more interested in swaying the public and clearing his name than winning a lawsuit against a marginally collectible defendant, he proceeds at great risk in going forward with a polygraph.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Well, I didn't see the whole interview, nor am I an expert at polygraphs or determining who is lying, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That said:

I do think it is relavent that the trainer making the accusation is basically getting off with no punishment for his crimes.

It would be interesting to know the circumstances of how he ended up not being Clemen's trainer? Was there a bad split personally? I would think the Yankees could confirm or deny that they had Clemens take the joint shots that he mentioned.

Lets remember that Clemens was named last year by one of the California papers as being a "user" and they have since retracted their story. Is it possible that his trainer had read that story and to save his own skin throws Clemen's name out there thinking that he was doing it anyways and he's a big name and it will help me with the feds? I'd say yes its possible.

I also think that Clemen's is a very very competitive person. Can I imagine him hearing that others are doing something that helps them and he decides to do it also - yes I can.

However, If I had spent my entire life doing something very well and one day someone claimed that I had done so illegally, or by false pretenses, or by cheating - ONE person whom I had a falling out with - I don't think I'd be too happy. Nor would I be in the best mindset for interviews, or answering my thoughts on polygraphs, etc (no matter how well prepped). I'd be pretty damn mad and feeling that there wasn't much I could do.

We live in a country where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. All MLB players were told not to speak with Mitchell, and union members generally follow the advice of their union. One uncollaborated story from someone looking to avoid jail isn't what I'd consider "beyond a reasonable doubt".

For MLB players unfortunately it only takes one bad apple...and baseball has had many bad apples...and there will always be doubts and whispers - just like there are in track & field and cycling. If Clemens didn't do it then I feel really bad for him because forever his reputation is basically tainted, perhaps gone. I strongly feel that something more than one man's story should be required for that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

All we can do is hope that Roger is telling the truth and that he can some how prove it. Do I think it's possible that Clemens took PHDs? - Yes, I think it's possible. Do I think so? I'm hoping he didn't.

Why not polygraph both Clemens and the trainer? I know that stuff isn't admissable as evidence but it would be interesting to see if they both come out positive, negative or opposite. It wouldn't prove anything but it sure would be interesting. If Clemens is not telling the truth I bet he is praying that the trainer didn't save a syringe he used.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Sadly, 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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

A polygraph is 99% accurate? I didn't know that...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Leon, I was just throwing that number out there. The success rates of polygraphs exams are hotly disputed. I would venture to guess they are about 90% or more accurate, probably 95% but there is no real way to measure this due to the variety of ways they are administered and other variables.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I could see me being one of the 10% when it was wrong....As for Clemens....I didn't see the interview yesterday so don't know with respect to that. I hope he didn't do it. He looked convincingly innocent in a news clip, albeit only about a 1 minute one, today on TV......

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McHugh

to know he is lying. Lidocaine is a numbing agent and nothing more. So unless his ass was sore from pitching (ha ha!) why would he need this stuck in his ass. B12 Shots are always given in the arm. Why would he be given this shot in the behind? Steroids are almost always shot in the backside. Also notice the last few years he would finish a 1 year real time contract after closing day never sign until the following year. This is because when a player is under contract he can be drug tested at anytime offseason included. So come november 1st not under any contract meaning no test no risk just start amping up like crazy stop on april 1st wait 2 weeks for drugs to clear and then sign nice 1 season contract. After 5 months of steroids training and eating you can pitch next 4-5 months with out the juice and be very very good. That my friends is how it is done!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

....and somewhere....Barry Bonds is smiling!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"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."



even though it was a rhetorical, I will answer.

I most probably would hesitate to take a lie detector test.

I am not sure I would pass any polygraph - ever. I get a bit nervous when I am accused. I tend to think of the implication of a question - and then say to myself - 'oh man they think I did such and such.' I never took my pulse during accusatory questions - but I am sure it jumps on the implications of a question - and I would make that little needle dance around.

I am not making a commentary on Roger Clemens. Just saying that I am doomed if I ever had to take a polygraph.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joe, there are baselines established with polygraphs to take that nervousness into account.

That being said, you ARE from Staten Island and, therefore, never above suspicion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I know you enjoy what you do....

but something tells me you would also have a blast as a prosecutor.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joe, that's a dirty little secret of mine. I think I'd enjoy it but eventually I'd miss the challenge of winning cases when the odds of victory are so slim.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Patrick - read some of the posts above. As noted earlier in this thread, clemens never stated that the lidicaine and b12 shots were in his rear - all he has stated was that he was given those shots by his trainer. He didnt state where they were administered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

It was announced earlier on the radio tonight that Clemens had his investigators talk to McNammee 3 days before the release of the Mitchell report. If this is accurate, how can Clemens say with a straight face (as he did to Mike Wallace) that he had no idea he was going to be named in the report????

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Leon, the tests aren't 99% accurate, and I invite any citation to authorities showing it to be 90% accurate. I'd be surprised if it were 80% accurate, and here in AZ it is often considered little more than voodoo science. There is a reason that these tests are WIDELY, WIDELY held inadmissible throughout the country, and not just in beyond reasonable doubt criminal cases.

Jeff, let me ask a rhetorical question, rhetorical in the sense I'm not sure we will ever know. You've already declared Clemens to be a liar from your review of a 12 minute televison interview. If he were to pass a polygraph, would you concede that the test is a more accurate truth-finding tool than your abilities as a cross-examiner? Would you ever advise a client to rest the hopes of his case on a polygraph over your abilities as a lawyer? Because that is exactly what you are risking when you tell Clemens to take the test. Pass the test and it helps, but you're a long way from winning. Fail and you're a short way from losing, in fact you've likely lost. You do it your way, but the day I advise my client to pin his case on the results of that type of test is the same day I call my malpractice carrier for the first time.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Perhaps McNammee lied to clemens' investigators?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

this from the American Psychological Assn--who I do not necessarily endorse, but to whom I point after four minutes of google research:

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.

Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.

Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.

Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability.

Here's the link, for purposes of completeness. http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Todd, I haven't based my opinion on Clemens due solely to the 60 Minutes interview. I've repeatedly stated that many other factors contributed to my belief including -- and I'll state this again -- the corroboration of McNamee supplied by Pettite, the slowness in the response by Clemens, the ridiculousness of his claim to having been injected by McNamee, his discussion of steroids with Canseco, along with everything that I saw last night. Clearly my opinion is not limited to a few minutes of an interview.

As for the accuracy of a polygraph test, as I've said there is a wide disparity in opinions and tests. That being said, there is a good reason that the FBI uses polygraph tests routinely as part of their investigation techniques. So do many police departments. The US Department of Justice uses polygraph tests often for security clearance tests. Etc. etc.

I'm not sure how many criminal cases you've tried but I think most criminal lawyers will tell you that when you get lied to enough by a witness under oath you can pretty much spot the signs of dishonesty fairly quickly -- and I'm not talking about twitching and pursed lips and darting eyes. I'm talking about answers that make no sense, excuses that are laughable and difficulty answering questions that were so easily handled on direct examination of the prosecutor.

In sum, Clemens is lying. And as I predicted yesterday -- and confirmed by Clemens tonight -- he will testify before Congress without asserting the 5th Amendment. When you are exposed to enough sociopaths their patterns become familiar.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Todd and Jeff: fascinating discussion.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

please then, answer the question, would you admit that a successful polygraph by Clemens would trump your not only 12 minute review, but the other stuff you claim to have been telling us all along? Willing to bet the case on the polygraph?

You've called his representatives tin eared and him a flat out liar. Is it still your position that he should "go running" to get a polygraph test, and that he is getting bad advice from people who have likely done this sort of thing for a great many years?

I haven't ever tried a criminal case, but I question what that has to do with this, a civil case. I have tried my share of civil cases, and consider myself sufficiently familiar with how they work. Also, I tend to defer to or at least strongly consider the efforts of those who are more familiar than me with the facts, the law and the client.

Hi Al.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I'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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I have pointed out repeatedly that you are flat out reckless to suggest the polygraph exam is the way to go here, you are irresponsible to come on here and suggest they are 99% or even 95% effective when you damn well know that's not true, that your backpedaled percentage appears to be made up, and whatever you think of yourself as a criminal lawyer, you just might not have all the flippin answers. Now if I have misread your remarks, I would ask others to point out where and how, for it seems to me that you're the one who spins and changes course. It would be nice in the court of public opinion? If Clemens takes and fails a poly, he's toast. Now let me ask again counselor, would you advise the client Clemens to take the poly, yes or no? Simple question. I'll let others take for themselves whether your answer is good advice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Todd...deep breaths...LOL!

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

maybe it's really Mark McCleary!!! LOL

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Well..you guys are kind of similar...so I wouldn't be surprised!

In the meantime: serenity now....

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I become very serene when my B.S. alarm goes off and I respond by calling B.S., so thank you Jeff, I'll sleep well tonight.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Todd...you're very angry. And you seem to ignore the fact that other criminal defense lawyers and law enforcement people agree with me on here. Maybe anger isn't the right emotion you're feeling...it's ok, though, I'm used to it from other lawyers who are feeling green.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

oh you can make me feel green all right, just like bad Thai food. I wouldn't limit it to other lawyers though, I'm sure we all here feel and wish with every fiber of our beings that we could be even a fraction of what you are-- in fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a poll on that very subject. Of course I and probably others would need you and a battery of defense specialists to interpret the poll for us great unwashed, lichtman wannabes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Todd, you turned this into an attack thread. Go to sleep. Maybe tomorrow your life will get better.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I sure hope so, I mean I'm right on the precipice. Thanks for talking me down, wow, how do you do it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob L

yawn!!

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Correct me if I am wrong but haven't Sociopaths proven they can beat polygraph tests? If so, then this could cause a problem if Clemens is a Sociopath (like Barry Bonds and George W Bush).

Now, if "regular" and "normal" people are tested and the results of a polygraph are close to 100% accurate then by adding in Sociopaths, the accuracy rate would drop. This would especially be true in criminal cases since there would probably be more Sociopaths arrested and tested than if a random sample of people were tested. This increase in "bad" results would cause a decrease in accuracy of polygraph tests.

A more reliable test would probably be the brain scan tests to see if and when people are lying but those, I have heard, are more expensive to run and not as many people or facilities around the country can do them.

Just my two cents,

David

P.S. - I just wanted to add, I like Clemens but the more I hear and read, the more I think he is guilty. If so, then he, like Bonds should NOT be allowed into the Hall of Fame.

It will be interesting to see if Clemens testifies under oath to Congress. It will also be interesting to see if anybody involved in this has any more secret tape recordings or E mails.