Roger Clemens jurors were wondering why prosecution lasted 5 years

Names of twelve persons (four men and eight women) who acted as jury at the case against the former baseball player 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 intake of steroids and HGH. But since the jury acquitted Roger Clemens, the government criticized the persons that composed the jury. Several persons that composed the jury were interviewed.
A political activist, an art historian, a teacher of deaf kids, an official of Treasury Department and an employee of the Canadian Embassy composed the jury.
Joyce Robinson-Paul, a political activist, was interviewed by the New York Daily News some days after Roger Clemens was acquitted. She noticed that the jury understood that they had to be fair to both the government and the sportsperson. But they didn’t find anything that had to be pursued.  Later she also noted that the federal prosecutors were not capable to prove their statements.
The employee of the Canadian Embassy Bradford Weaver confirmed that the government acted wrongly. This person noted that such situations should not happen again. He also made it clear that there was nothing to be prosecuted. This person was interviewed by the Associated Press. He also pointed out that each juror was convinced from the very beginning that Roger Clemens was not guilty of any charge. Bradford Weaver reminded that every juror was unanimous.
The employee of the Canadian Embassy was also asked whether he considered that Roger Clemens really took steroids. The Associated Press also asked him whether he considered that the governmental case against the baseball player represented just the waste of taxpayers’ funds. But the employee of the Canadian Embassy didn’t answer the questions.
Another juror that chose not to be identified noted that the jurors didn’t understand how the government made the decision to waste significant sums of money during five years in order to prosecute the athlete. This person claimed that it was impossible to understand why the prosecution took place five years.
Other jurors didn’t present any information.
As for feds, they seemed to be totally disappointed. They declined to respond to the statements presented by the jurors.