Barry Bonds’ ex-girlfriend may have contradicted her grand jury testimony yesterday

17 Comments

If you think (a) the Bonds trial couldn’t get any more cringe-worthy; and (b) I couldn’t find a way to make a second post about Barry Bonds’ testicles today, well, you’re quite mistaken.

After a couple of witnesses took the stand this morning, the jury was cleared and Bonds’ lawyers told the judge that Kimberly Bell — Bonds’ ex-girlfriend — testified about Bonds’ testicle shrinkage differently yesterday than she did before the grand jury.  Back in 2003, Bonds’ lawyers say, Bell said Bonds’ testicles shrunk by 50%. Yesterday she said that they had shrunk, but not by as much.

The issue here is that Bonds’ lawyers are accusing the prosecution of withholding critical information. Specifically, that a key witnesses testimony was going to be different in front of the grand jury than it was at trial.  While this doesn’t seem like a major deal on the surface — the less specificity we hear about Bonds’ testicles the better — the judge said this concerned her during the back-and-forth a few minutes ago. If the defense knew that Bell would present a moving target, it may have changed their entire case theme. And it would have made cross-examination of her a fundamentally different deal than the on-the-fly way it was dealt with yesterday.

The court is in recess at the moment, but it would not be at all shocking if at some point — maybe even after the break — the defense moved for a mistrial on the grounds that evidence was withheld. I’d be surprised if the motion was granted. There are ways to remedy this short of that, such as striking Bell’s testimony and/or making some sort of statement about it to the jury. But either way, it’s a serious issue and, even in the likely event that the case goes on, it could be damaging to the prosecution and could be a potentially major appeal issue for an appeals court that has been fairly pro-Bonds in previous rulings.

Miguel Montero to be designated for assignment

14 Comments

A play in three acts:

I.

Miguel Montero talks smack about his teammate

II.

A team leader talks smack about Miguel Montero

III.

The Cubs get rid of Miguel Montero:

This is rather surprising. As I said in the last post, I figured he’d apologize today and it’d all be in the past. Guess not. Even more surprising: we learned earlier this week that the key to good clubhouse chemistry is having a teammate everyone hates. Guess that only works for the Giants.

Montero is making $14 million this season, so the Cubs are definitely eating some money to make a headache go away. They’re also losing some offensive production, as Montero has hit a nice .286/.366/.439 on the season. His terrible defense against opposing baserunners mitigates that, of course. And the whole “pissing off everyone in the clubhouse” thing isn’t exactly working out for him either, so here we are.

Oh well, have a good one, Miguel.

We now have photographic proof that Tom Ricketts and Ted Cruz are different people

6 Comments

A lot of people think they have a double walking around someplace on Earth. They may actually be right. We have an example of this in baseball and politics.

Cubs owner Tom Ricketts looks a lot like Texas senator Ted Cruz. Or, since Ricketts is older, I guess Cruz looks like Ricketts. Either way, they could play brothers if someone put on, like, the worst ever production of some play about brothers.

If you’re not familiar with one or both of those guys, take a gander at the photo that was taken of the two of them in Washington this morning as the Cubs made the rounds with their World Series trophy:

If they put those rings together, Tom can turn into any animal and Ted can turn into anything made out of water. True story.