Roger Clemens jurors were not convinced by affirmations of government

Names of 12 persons (4 men and 8 women) that acted as jury at the case against the athlete Roger Clemens were released by the judge Reggie Walton.
The government wanted the jury to be convinced that the athlete had lied before the Congress about usage of steroids and HGH. But since the jury didn’t believe it, the government criticized the persons that composed the jury. Some individuals that composed the jury were interviewed.
A political activist, an art historian, a teacher of deaf children, an official of Treasury Department and an employee of the Canadian Embassy were belonged to the jury.
Joyce Robinson-Paul, a political activist, was interviewed by the New York Daily News some days after Roger Clemens was cleared of the charges. She affirmed that the jury understood that they had to be fair to both the government and the baseball player. But they didn’t find anything that had to be pursued.  Later she also affirmed that the federal prosecutors were not capable to prove their statements.
The employee of the Canadian Embassy Bradford Weaver affirmed that the government acted wrongly. This person noticed that such cases should not be repeated. This person also noted that there was nothing to be pursued. He was interviewed by the Associated Press. Bradford Weaver also claimed that each juror saw from the very beginning that Clemens was not guilty of any charge. This person claimed that every juror was unanimous.
Bradford Weaver was also asked whether he considered that Roger Clemens really applied steroids. Journalists of the Associated Press also asked him whether he considered that the governmental case against Roger Clemens represented only the waste of taxpayers’ funds. But he refused to answer the questions.
Another juror who chose not to be named confirmed that the jurors didn’t understand how the government could spend significant sums of money during five years in order to prosecute the baseball player. This person noticed that it was impossible to comprehend why the prosecution lasted for 5 years.
Other jurors didn’t present any information.
As for feds, they seemed to be wholly disappointed. They declined to respond to the affirmations pronounced by the jurors.