OK, how do you explain the Bonds verdict, without accusations of jury tampering?

So the Barry Bonds jury came back, and could only agree that Barry obstructed justice, and deadlocked on the three remaining perjury charges.

So will someone please explain to me how this is possible...

The jury has to convict with a unanimous 12-0 verdict for any charge they bring back a result of Guilty on, and must acquit with the same unanimity.

So all the jurors believe he obstructed justice. However:

• One of the jurors, and only one, not only believed that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was injected with a syringe (and, hence, perjured himself when he told the Federal Grand Jury he did not), but stood with that belief to the point of a mistrial on that charge. This, even though one of the star witnesses for the prosecution (with no rebuttal witnesses from the defense!!) said she saw Greg Anderson (who, IMHO, should rot for the rest of his days for voluminous obstructions of justice!) inject Barry. JURY TAMPERING??? Probably, but it leads to an 11-1 for conviction, and that's not enough.
• On the subject of perjury for knowingly taking steroids, the prosecution, even with all of the stuff said about Barry beforehand and all the witnesses in the trial being for the prosecution, could only get 4 out of the 12 to believe Barry perjured himself on the steroid question. The level of incompetence (or abject blindness on the part of San Franciscans -- remember, of course, that the jury pool is from San Francisco's voter rolls!) this appears to indicate on the part of the prosecution is staggering. ANY FOOL CAN SEE FROM HIS PICTURES AND HIS PERFORMANCE THAT HE WAS ON ILLEGAL PEDs!!! And yet, with all the resources and all the time wasted on this trial, you can't get more than FOUR of the jury to believe that beyond reasonable doubt?
• And on the HGH perjury question, it was worse. They only got THREE to believe Bonds perjured himself on that one.

So the question that I have is the following:

You have the jury convicting Bonds on obstruction, but one juror believes he did not use a syringe, and majorities of the jury believe Bonds when he said he didn't take steroids or HGH knowingly. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? You either have to explain to me how the one juror who voted to acquit on the syringe perjury question votes for obstruction anyway, or explain how that one juror believes he took steroids or HGH...

Something happened here -- that much is clear. We've already got a scumbag in Greg Anderson who's been in and out of jail repeatedly for contempt of court (which should be updated to repeated obstructions of justice -- if Anderson were compelled to testify and forced to do it, Bonds would be exposed and this would be the end of it!!), and he knows and is not talking!

Basically, I think Bonds walks. I think the judge views this verdict, will do the one logical thing and toss it (simply because he'd have to come to the question as to how do you obstruct justice in this case if no perjuries are proven), and I don't think it's going to get retried.

And then the Hall of Fame talk starts. He's going to be the ultimate Litmus Test: He goes in, and Roid-ger Clemens, A-Fraud, Rafael Palmerroids, McLiar, So-So, and the rest of the cheating scum get in too.

I don't think he goes in, and I still believe that this entire era (from the Cansecos to A-Fraud) will eventually, to the extent possible, have to be wiped from the books.

Funny thing, the fraud that is our Major League of Baseball: The Hit King is banned for life, the Home Run King is a felon, the second to the aforementioned Hit King a bigoted scumbag.

And you still want your kids to get the glove?

As I will say in the next post, you may wish to watch where you go...