J Lentner writes:

I wonder if you or any of you fellow bloggers have insight as to why Bonds has not been indicted. Assuming that the information from the Chronicle reporters is mostly true (a big assumption but I'm not talking about a conviction) it seems to me he should have been indicted by now.

I have no special insight, but here's what I replied:

Prosecutors like to bring indictments they can win. My guess is they don't have an air tight case. The ex-mistress is one witness who says Bonds knew about the steroid use and is willing to testify. But given she's a jilted lover, who knows how much the jury will trust her. What they'd really like is Greg Anderson to verify her testimony. "I gave Barry these drugs on this date and he knew what he was taking," or, "Barry asked me to find him drugs that would help build his body." Remember, Bonds said he didn't knowingly take steroids. So if Anderson gets up and says, "I just gave him things and told him to trust me," it's tough to convict Bonds of lying.

I remember listening to a Kerry stump speech on NPR during the 2004 campaign. One of the things he said was that if he were president, Lay and Skilling of Enron would be in jail by now. Apart from the fact that Kerry was convicting people without a trial, as a former prosecutor he knows it takes time to build a case, especially to make sure the evidence can't be challenged. Given that everyone in that case either reached a plea agreement or was convicted (or died), the prosecutor did a very good job, and not rushing was the right thing to do. I think that is going on here. They're not going to indict Bonds unless there is a very high probability that they'll get a conviction, and that's how it should be.