B. Bonds' ex-girlfriend Kim Bell (possible federal witness) to pose for Playboy

Re: B. Bonds' ex-girlfriend Kim Bell (possible federal witness) to pose for Play

Yet more information on Bell's upcoming appearance in Playboy. She seems set to dish on their physical relationship, and more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/othersports.html?in_article_id=464938&in_page_id=1781

Her agent, David Hans, said: "Kimberly has never talked about her sex life with Barry and believe me there's plenty to tell."

Besides her hot physique, Bell is offering love notes from Bonds, phone messages and testimony she gave to the FBI in the BALCO steroids trafficking case but it is not clear if she will announce whether steroids enhance all parts of the body.


So, not only is she going to undermine her credibility as a possible future witness by both posing nude and giving steamy details (for profit), she's also going to discuss her testimony to the FBI.

Let the cartwheels of joy begin in the federal prosecutor's offices.

But, then again, since those involved with Game of Shadows didn't care about the legal process, why should Bell, right?

Indeed.

 

you come off as the fucking defender of the high and mighty.

how much does bonds care about the legal process la douche?

 

I'd say, at this point, he cares a great deal about it.

 

at this point ... touche.

 

... and to expand upon Big Ragu's point, Kimberly Bell could have sold the stories and pictures before she testified and before the grand jury was even empaneled

 

Re: B. Bonds' ex-girlfriend Kim Bell (possible federal witness) to pose for Play

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/_sports/baseball06/balco_players/index.html?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=HOME


KIMBERLY BELL: Graphic artist from San Jose, Calif., who says she began dating San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds in 1994 and the relationship continued for five years after the player remarried in 1998. Bell testified before a grand jury that Bonds told her of his steroid use and flew into rages she attributed to steroid use, according to testimony obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle. She also testified that Bonds gave her $80,000 in proceeds from the sale of autographed baseballs and other memorabilia to make a down payment on a house. Bonds' attorney Michael Rains has identified Bell as a key witness in the ongoing perjury investigation, and he has accused her of trying to extort money from his client.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2007/07/25/2007-07-25_bells_lawyer_bonds_is_in_deep.html


Last month, the Daily News reported that Bell's agent, Phoenix-based David Hans Schmidt, was shopping around her "sex life with Barry" tales as well as a nude photo spread. "Kimberly has never talked about her sex life with Barry," Schmidt told the News' Rush and Molloy gossip section. "And believe me, there's plenty to tell."

Apparently Playboy was willing to pay the right price for the rights to present Bell's words and curves. It is unclear if the Playboy article will include Bell's claim that Bonds told her he used steroids. The former graphic artist from Oregon met Bonds at Candlestick Park in 1994 - the outfielder's second season with the Giants - and had a tumultuous relationship that lasted until 2003.

Her grand jury testimony reportedly told how Bonds gave her $80,000 cash from memorabilia sales for use on a down payment for a Scottsdale, Ariz. home. She had originally asked for $100,000 but Bonds refused. Bonds instructed Bell to deposit the cash in $9,000 installments so as not to trigger any IRS scrutiny.

Bell was in negotiations to do a tell-all book two years ago and her co-writer at the time, Aphrodite Jones, told the News then that the relationship was rife with verbal abuse and intimidation by Bonds. Bell saved a stockpile of phone messages that detail Bonds' explosive temper.

Horowitz said he does not believe his client's decision to pose nude will affect her credibility as a government witness, especially since she has already testified.

"Here's the deal, whatever Kim has testified to in the grand jury, took place before she had a financial motive. It's after the fact. If she wants to make some money - talking about (the relationship with Bonds) and posing - what's the big deal?" said Horowitz. "I don't think juries are so naive. Juries are made up of regular people. They know Barry Bonds is super rich. And they know what Kim is - Kim is basically somebody whose feelings were hurt by Barry. They're not going to blame her. They're not going to discredit her. They're not going to discount what she says, just because she posed for Playboy. This is not the '50s anymore."

This next-to-last bolded statement does not necessarily follow. That is, Bell could have had a financial motive the entire time, regardless of when she testified. I know that. But what's more important is that Bonds' lawyer, Michael Rains, knows that and will seek to exploit Bell's money-grab for his client's gain. This is extremely basic lawyering. But you don't have to believe me, let's take a look at what someone who both teaches law in the Ivy League and is a former US attorny has to say on the matter (repeated from earlier in the thread):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/sports/baseball/24schmidt.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1185475503-noFk8O9BhLIGEPfiD1IVbw


According to Daniel C. Richman, a former assistant United States attorney and now a professor at Columbia Law School, the government is not likely to be pleased that one of its potential witnesses has decided to pose nude for money.

“The government is generally interested in protecting the credibility of their witnesses, and if there is any reason to believe the witness is trying to profit from her involvement in the case, it is usually something defense lawyers seize on,” Richman said.

Michael Rains, Bonds’s lawyer, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

It is not known what Bell has told the grand jury, but she told The New York Times in 2005 that Bonds told her he used steroids.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is an incredibly foolish move by Bell, one which almost certainly has infuriated the federal prosecutors involved in the case. If Bell is a key witness to both the possible tax evasion and perjury charges, there is almost nothing she could have done more damaging to the case that her decision to pose for Playboy.

Here's a question for Bell and her representation (and everyone else): Why pose now, instead of waiting 8 more months or so when the grand jury will likely be finished with its work and the indictments will or will not have been handed down? Why go out of your way to damage the feds' case? Does Bell desperately need money? If so, what else could she possibly do between now and the potential end of the grand jury's meetings? Does Bell and her lawyer know something we don't know, like that the feds don't have much of a case even with her testimony and so she has decided to go ahead with her own profiteering from Bonds, seeing as how her damaging her own credibility as a witness is immaterial to the feds' weak case? Perhaps the feds have hard evidence on the tax evasion charge and no longer need to rely on Bell's testimony for seeking that charge, and have decided to scrap pursuing the perjury charge? ...

Bell's decision to pose now - not, say, 8 months from now - is either: 1) The action of a financially strapped woman and/or 2) The action of an ignorant woman (i.e., "my testimony will hurt the feds' case? OMG!!") and/or 3) The action of a woman who has been tipped-off that her testimony is no longer relevant to the case, for one reason or another, and so has been given a metaphorical 'waiver,' so to speak, to go and make her $$$-grab from the feds.

And the feds aren't talking. They're doing the 'no comment' thing. So we'll have to wait and see.

But make no mistake -- in the public's mind, this will be seen as the ironclad certification that Bell was only in this for the money. Her seeming nonchalance towards her impugning of her own credibility as a past and possible future witness is a both a public-relations and legal death-knell. Remember, she could be called upon to expound on her previous testimony as the feds' case has possibly developed given potential new evidence. Even if you want to go with the paper-thin premise that 'well, she already testified,' as her lawyer would like you to, her possible follow-up testimony could prove crucial to the feds' being able to prove their case. As such, she is currently worthless legally, the rough equivalent of a 'shot' fighter. Oh, and good luck with the case, prosecutors -- thanks so much for deposing me. Buh-bye; I've got Hugh Heffner on line 1.

This only lends credence to my theory that the only charge the feds will be pursuing will be the tax evasion one. A possible key witness to a potential perjury indictment has just effectively taken herself out of the equation.

For Michael Rains, this must seem like the easiest money he's ever made. It appears to be a turkey shoot. No wonder he's making swaggering statements to the media. When your would-be opponents keep blowing themselves up, it's probably fairly difficult to restrain your own confidence in your ultimate victory for your client.

For Bell, the clock has just struck 14:45. Best rush to get that last 15 seconds of fame in while you still can. That is, while Barry is 'on fire,' publicly.

Bonds? He has other matters on his mind. Like being 3 HR's away from accomplishing a feat never seen in 125+ years of his sport.

A century versus 15 minutes. Not very difficult to see why Bell would be doing what she seems to be doing -- riding Bonds' coattails for all they're worth.

 

Yes, she could have. But as my last post makes clear, she did not.

Not trying to be a jerk to you, Gold, just want to make sure others (and I'm not talking about Ragu here) who might stumble on this thread know what is and is not true in the highly-confusing-to-keep-track-of Bonds case (and it's derivatives, like Ms. Bell).

 

clown.