I have read the article (or at least the one from Yahoo, which is what I assume you are referring to).
While it seems very damning to McNamee, you then have to question if they have that much evidence, why was he not charged?
Burden of proof is the biggest reason. The lack of a charge is not a clear cut indictment of innocence. It is a decision by a prosecutor that his/her job to get a guilty conviction is not clear enough for them to proceed. In a similar case (but with a different twist), the prosecutor in the Duke LaCrosse team rape allegation carried through with his plans to prosecute because he had a victim willing to testify. From what I read, the victim in this case is not jumping up and down wanting justice like the Duke LaCrosse victim. For all I know she told the prosecutor "I want it to be over, I don't want to sit in front of jury and be blasted by a defense attorney... no thanks".
End of case, cannot prosecute well enough without the victim (speculation on my part).
So while the prosecutor in the Duke case was more than willing to go into a court fight with a star witness (who later turned out to be a very unreliable victim at that and his case fell apart and led to his disbarment), this particular prosecutor one can only summize felt that the burden of proof was not met so no sense in wasting the taxpayer money.
That did not change the opinion of the witnesses and law enforcement people in the case (security guard, hotel manager, police detectives) that McNamee did take advantage of a woman. That is highly despicable and something I cannot personally turn a blind eye towards.
Rape is taken very seriously no matter who is involved. Even though he was working for the Yankees, I doubt him being charged would have damaged any situation with the Yankees. McNamee was a virtual nobody to the Yankee's, as evidence by them firing him over the issue.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you clarify this because the article stated the Yankees did not comment on the allegation and the firing as being tied in together. But if it were and McNamee felt damaged by the organization, he then had an actionable case... no? I'm asking because I'm no legal expert.
Even with all this, because he was not charge, in theory should be considered innocent, by the innocent until proved guilty comment you mention in regard to Clemens.
I go with the police detective opinion primarily who has no problem saying McNamee lied about his involvement in this rape. There is no doubt in his mind that McNamee is not innocent, I have little doubt because of it too.
And Roger Clemens is being indicted for using steriods or comparing him to Pete Rose in guilt. One, no one can prove he used steroids, it's up to believeability at this point in the "he said he said" case. Two Pete Rose has made no bones about being guilty as charged. So until Clemens comes clean like Pete, he has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Bring out checks paid for the steroids, bring out witnesses to the injections, bring out a police detective who interviewed Clemens at the time and found him guilty because he went through his apartment and found syringes and empty bottles that contained XXX steroids and HGH. Guess what, I'm ready to say Clemens is guilty. The reason I was ready and willing now to ascribe lack of character to McNamee now is that the detective's assertion plus witnesses speak to cupability. The found evidence at the poolside of the date rape drug that someone used on the woman and that was in a water bottle owned by McNamee. They found the same date rape drug in the woman's blood when tested at the hospital.
A lack of prosecution charge is not about lack of cupability, but lack of enough evidence to convict in a court of law.
All this does prove is that while that is a legal distinction it is not the true method the public (or people) use to classify people. When you hear of situations like this, (most times) people form an instant opinion of guilt or innocence. It just seems in this case you are doing that for McNamee and chastising others for doing it to Clemens, thus my comment about you having a double standard here.
Duly noted, however I beg to differ on "instant" when it comes to McNamee.
Seems like they are both shady in their own ways. Rape obviously being more serious than taking steroids, but still both seem more likely to be guilty than innocent. And there is just about nothing they can do to change that, just ask OJ.
OJ was convicted in a civil court. He was found guilty.
