The Clemens jury thought Brian McNamee was lying

11 Comments

This seems pretty obvious given how the entire trial, for all of its length, was set up as a credibility contest between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. But it’s still pretty notable:

“Brian McNamee was not a strong enough witness to render a verdict of guilty against Roger Clemens,” juror Bradford Weaver told The Associated Press. He said that McNamee wasn’t credible for the jury because of a lack of “truthfulness.”

“The witnesses for the prosecution were, uh, how does one put it, kind of wanting, if you will. … It was quite lacking. If that’s what they were going to go with, then they should probably not have pursued the case in the first place if that’s all they had, you know.”

Jut remember this the next time someone says they won’t vote for Clemens for the Hall of Fame because he lied or holds up the Mitchell Report — sourced largely on Brian McNamee and the prosecution’s other drug-dealing, truth-impaired witness, Kirk Radomski — as some sort of damning indictment regarding player integrity.