-The New York Times, February 20, 2009 by Katie Thomas
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/sports/baseball/21bonds.html?pagewanted=print
Illston’s decision dealt a serious blow to the prosecution’s case, said Erin Murphy, an assistant professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. “I think they can try to package it as prettily as possible, but it is the critical evidence that shows that Bonds used steroids,” she said.
-KQED-FM, Forum with Michael Krasny, February 27, 2009 Host Dave Iverson
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R902271000
“One thing about the charges that Bond is being pursued for is that they allow for a conviction, where there are two inconsistent statements that are irreconcilable under oath, without having to prove, necessarily, which one of those two statements are false. So that you don’t need to say, ‘this was true or this was true,’ as long as you can say that someone said under oath two things that were, in fact, inconsistent.”