Joe Jackson's Innocence [Archive] - Page 4

Bill Burgess

01-21-2007, 08:28 AM

This arrived by email from Gene Carney a few days ago.

THE CASE FOR SHOELESS JOE JACKSON, by Gene Carney

Background.

A brief review of the events of the Fall of 1919 are in order, along with what we know about Joe Jackson's activities.

Just where or with whom the idea to fix or "frame" the 1919 World Series originated, is not at all certain. Nor is it clear that this was the first World Series to be tampered with by gamblers or "fixers" armed with bribe money. Rumors surrounded the 1919 Series, just as they surrounded any major sporting event (boxing matches, horse races) that held the nation's interest. As the amounts wagered grew larger, the chances of the outcomes of games being influenced by gamblers' money grew accordingly, and baseball players were particularly vulnerable. Why? Because they had no bargaining power when they renewed their contracts with their clubs, no real job security. While their income was better than the average American's, it was also (no pun intended) fixed, and typically it was lower than it would have been in an open market. This was demonstrated when the Federal League competed with the two major leagues in 1914-15.

World War I shortened the 1918 season and crippled the income of baseball teams, and the contracts of 1919 reflected that. Fans returned to baseball after the war, but most players did not benefit until the following season.

September 1919

If it is true that there was discussion in the gambling world about fixing the Series of 1919 as early as August, when the pennant races were still far from over, then it is unlikely that the impetus for the Fix came from the players. However, it seems that several members of the White Sox may have "pitched" the idea to gamblers, in mid-September. Joe Jackson claimed that he heard those rumors, and took his concerns to Charles Comiskey, the owner of the Sox; but those claims have not been corroborated. Jackson testified that he was approached by a teammate and offered a bribe of $10,000 for his participation, but he rejected the offer. (Jackson's annual salary was $6,000.) The teammate tried again later, offering $20,000, and Jackson's response is unclear. Told that the Fix was in, with him or without his participation, Jackson may have tacitly agreed to at least keep quiet about what he knew was afoot.

Planning Meetings

There is no evidence at all that suggests that Joe Jackson ever attended any meetings where the Fix was discussed. One of his teammates [Room mate Lefty Williams] later claimed to have "represented" Jackson in the meetings -- giving the gamblers the impression that he was an active participant in the plot -- without Jackson's knowledge or his permission. That was also Jackson's testimony, and a jury in a civil suit believed (11-1) that Jackson did not conspire with his teammates to lose or "throw" any games in the 1919 Series.

October 1, 1919 (Game One. Reds 9, White Sox 1)

Jackson said that on the morning of Game One, he was approached by Bill Burns, one of the fixers. The brief encounter may have convinced Jackson that the Fix was indeed in. He responded by asking (or begging) his manager to bench him for the first Game, so there could be no doubt about his participation in the plot. The evidence seems to support that this happened; in effect, he informed his team of his suspicions. There is also evidence that his team, as well as the baseball authorities, already knew that tampering had taken place.

Jackson went hitless in Game One. Aboard on an error, his hustle resulted in the only Sox run. He made no errors in the field. If any game was played under a cloud of suspicion, this is the game. The one Jackson wanted to skip.

October 2, 1919 (Game Two. Reds 4, White Sox 2)

There is some evidence that suggests that the Fix was called off after the gamblers did not deliver the promised bribe money after the first loss. It seems very probably that the players were playing to win after Game Two, with the possible exception of Claude Williams, the starting pitcher of Game Eight. If Game Two was thrown, Jackson was likely not playing to lose, as he made three hits in four at bats, and made no errors in the field.

The Rest of the Series

The performance of Joe Jackson in the 1919 World Series was not perfect, but his twelve hits led both teams. Statistics do not indicate a player's intentions, however.

October 10, 1919

Jackson received, probably sometime during the Series or possibly right after, $5,000 in cash from his teammate, Claude Williams. The day after the Series ended, he apparently took this money to show to Charles Comiskey, as hard evidence that gamblers had indeed "reached" some of the players. Jackson said that he was turned away by the team secretary, Harry Grabiner.

Fall/Winter 1919-1920

As rumors of crookedness in the Series swirled, Jackson wrote to Comiskey on November 15, expressing surprise that his name had been mentioned in the rumors. He insisted that he played the Series to win, and offered to travel to Chicago to clear his name.
Jackson said that when Harry Grabiner visited him in Savannah, GA, to sign him to his new three-year contract, he again asked Grabiner about the $5,000, and was told to keep it. Grabiner denied this. A jury believed (by 11-1) Jackson's version of events over Grabiner's.

The same jury also believed that Grabiner deceived Jackson by telling him that his new contract, for 1920 through 1922, had no "ten days clause" (giving the team the right to release a player without cause, giving only ten days' notice).

The 1920 Season

Joe Jackson batted .382 in 1920, with 218 hits, 20 triples, 105 runs, 121 RBI, and just 14 strikeouts in 570 AB.

September 28, 1920

A grand jury, convened in Cook County (Chicago), finally started looking into the rumors about a Fix in the 1919 Series. The names of eight players whose checks had been withheld after the Series, appeared in the press; Jackson's name was one of them. The grand jury did not intend to interfere with the pennant races in progress by calling players until after the season. But with three games still remaining, two White Sox players voluntarily went to the grand jury, and confirmed that gamblers had offered bribes and tainted the outcome of the 1919 Series.

The first player to step forward was Sox starter Eddie Cicotte, who said that he had accepted $10,000 before the Series. Cicotte also testified that he pitched the Series to win, after intentionally putting the first batter he faced on (with a hit batsman).

The next player to step forward was Joe Jackson. Jackson met first with the team lawyer, Alfred Austrian, as had Cicotte. They were both advised to sign a waiver of their immunity, so whatever they said to the grand jury, could be later used against them. It seems that Jackson was also permitted to appear before the grand jury "half drunk," which may help explain his somewhat contradictory statement, which is available today.

Jackson, like Cicotte, confirmed that there had been tampering. But he also stated that he played the entire Series to win, at bat and in the field. When the press characterized Jackson's grand jury statement as a confession, as if he had deliberately thrown games, he immediately denied that. When the "Say it ain't so, Joe" story appeared soon after, it became generally believed that he had been in on the plot; Jackson denied that the meeting with the child took place.

Suspensions

The players whose names, in the words of Charles Comiskey, had been "bunched together" in the rumors were suspended, following their indictments, which followed on the heels of the grand jury testimony of Cicotte, Jackson, and (the next day) Claude Williams. In the Fall of 1920, the owners of major league baseball chose Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as the first Commissioner of the sport. A federal judge based in Chicago, Landis followed baseball and the grand jury gambling probe closely. Soon after taking office, in January 1921, he made known his opinion about the suspended players, stating that they were ineligible to play baseball until their names were cleared. He repeated this view when spring training camps opened.

The "Black Sox Trial"

The eight players (along with a number of gamblers or "fixers") were tried on charges of conspiracy in the summer of 1921. None of the players (including Jackson) testified, except to repudiate the statements that they had made to the 1920 grand jury. A jury found the players not guilty of the charges.

Judge Landis' Edict

Immediate;y after the trial, Commissioner Landis issued a statement that dashed any hopes that fans and players had about the return of the "eight men out." Landis said the men could apply for reinstatement, but their chances would not be good:

Regardless of the verdicts of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.

Appeals for Reinstatement

Although several of the banned players appealed for reinstatement, and fans and families petitioned the Commissioner, none of the players was ever removed from baseball's "permanently ineligible list."

The 1924 Milwaukee Trial

Another trial took place in the winter of 1924, in Milwaukee, WI, where the White Sox were incorporated. Joe Jackson sued the Sox, claiming that they owed him two years' back pay (for 1921-1922). In dispute was whether his contract contained the "ten days clause" -- if it did not, then the White Sox had to show cause for not paying the balance of the contract. Although a jury found for Jackson by 11-1, the judge overturned the verdict because Jackson's version of things in 1924 (presumably coached by his own lawyer) varied from the version he had given the grand jury in 1920 (when he was coached by Comiskey's lawyer). His grand jury testimony surfaced during the trial, inexplicably, from the briefcase of Comiskey's lawyer, after going missing since a few months after it was given.

Recent Attempts to Clear Jackson's Name

Over the decades, even well after Joe Jackson's death in 1951, many friends of his family, politicians, and fans have urged Judge Landis and his successors to reinstate Jackson. The best known advocate Jackson had was the late Ted Williams, who formally petitioned the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball on Jackson's behalf. Probably reluctant to rule on a case so cold, a sentence handed down so long ago, and a matter still shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, each Commission since Judge Landis has failed to take any action.

Some Possible Options

Without giving any new opinion about the facts in this case, or Jackson's participation, or his degree of guilt, a Commissioner could simply rule that the "lifetime ban" imposed on Jackson and the other banned players expired when their lifetimes ended. This would only remove them from baseball's ineligible list. It would then be up to others to decide whether Jackson or any of the others were worthy of the Hall of Fame ballot.

Another option would be to grant an amnesty, principally because there is reasonable doubt about the fairness of the original banishment. That Landis' edict was effective as a warning to ballplayers -- to merely associate with gamblers was now to risk one's career -- is not in question. However, there is little doubt that the men involved were denied due process, and that the harsh punishment they received was selective; that is, other players with similar "guilty knowledge" of the 1919 World Series fix, and who profited from that knowledge, were not banned; nor were the officials who might have called off the Series or postponed it to investigate the situation brought to their attention before Game One started, punished in any way.

A third option would be to finally treat each player as an individual case, and sort out what each did or did not do, based on all the evidence that can be found. If this was done in an impartial way, it may be that some players in fact could "pass" the test imposed by Landis' edict. Jackson probably did not throw a game or promise to throw one; that was the testimony of Charles Comiskey in the 1924 trial, even though he faced the loss of many thousands of dollars if Jackson won the case against the Sox. Jackson almost certainly did not participate in the planning of the fix. And finally, it seems that Jackson did communicate with his team about the fix, if not weeks or days before the Series, then at least before Game One, when he asked to be benched.

Character

Few people alive today knew Shoeless Joe Jackson well. But he is recalled in his hometown as a hero worthy of a statue. He has been voted into many different sports Halls of Fame over the years, despite his unfavored status in baseball. He apparently was a simple man, not a saint, but not likely a sinister person, either. If we "follow the money" he took in October 1919, which his team apparently told him to keep after he showed it to them, we know that much of it paid hospital bills for his sister, or went to charity. Shoeless Joe Jackson was simply a great ballplayer, praised by his hitting peer Ty Cobb, his swing copied by no less an icon than Babe Ruth. Because no history of baseball can be complete without his chapter, it seems time for baseball to do the right thing, and let his story be told.

Bill Burgess

01-21-2007, 01:40 PM

csh19792001

01-21-2007, 01:52 PM

From Gene Carney: Slightly different from the above post.

Issue #387 of Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown is now posted at
www.baseball1.com/carney

It's a kind of special issue -- making the case for Shoeless Joe Jackson, something I've not done before in a formal way, & something I did not try to do in my book. I'm looking for feedback (as usual), and if you can show this to the harshest Jackson critics you may know, I'd really like to hear from them.
Thanks,
Two Finger Carney

Bill,
Is this the longest thread in the history of this forum? How about the entire site? Have we ever had a poll with over 100 voters for any one choice?

207 voters has got to be some kind of record. And this site is entering it's 7th year of existence, correct?

Bill Burgess

01-21-2007, 02:09 PM

Oh heavens no.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=6638

The Hall of Fame used to have another massive, epic thread, but it got deleted accidentally.

If you want to see how big threads are, click onto either replies or viewed at the top left of a Forum's first page.

Bill

Appling

01-22-2007, 07:48 AM

This arrived by email from Gene Carney a few days ago.

THE CASE FOR SHOELESS JOE JACKSON, by Gene Carney

The players whose names, in the words of Charles Comiskey, had been "bunched together" in the rumors were suspended, following their indictments, which followed on the heels of the grand jury testimony of Cicotte, Jackson, and (the next day) Claude Williams. In The eight players (along with a number of gamblers or "fixers") were tried on charges of conspiracy in the summer of 1921. None of the players (including Jackson) testified, except to repudiate the statements that they had made to the 1920 grand jury. A jury found the players not guilty of the charges.

Judge Landis' Edict

Immediately after the trial, Commissioner Landis issued a statement that dashed any hopes that fans and players had about the return of the "eight men out." Landis said the men could apply for reinstatement, but their chances would not be good:
...and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.

Just being "grouped together by rumors" was enough to convict all eight ballplayers for life -- and even longer! Seems a similar group is being linked by rumors today - Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa -- power hitters with big HR numbers after 1995. The group is again being tried -- guilt by association -- rather than individual judgment based on fact.

This is a great story by Carney -- if true there has truly been a miscarriage of justice for Joe Jackson and perhaps a few others (Buck Weaver).

'And does not promptly tell ..." (Even if no one will listen?)

Bill Burgess

01-22-2007, 09:21 AM

Just being "grouped together by rumors" was enough to convict all eight ballplayers for life -- and even longer! Seems a similar group is being linked by rumors today - Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa -- power hitters with big HR numbers after 1995. The group is again being tried -- guilt by association -- rather than individual judgment based on fact.

This is a great story by Carney -- if true there has truly been a miscarriage of justice for Joe Jackson and perhaps a few others (Buck Weaver).

'And does not promptly tell ..." (Even if no one will listen?)
Clearly, Gene Carney is doing great work here. He is asking important questions. The kind that Judge Landis was not required to ask.

Have you noticed that the anti-Joe guys have avoided talking about Gene's Bury The Black Sox as if it were the plague? Gene has went way out of his way to arm himself with so much more of the facts than they have, and his conclusions don't match their severe conclusions. Gene can out-debate them, so they haven't much to say to Gene. Hmm. Interesting.

The anti-Jackson clique has never and will never bother themselves with such niceities as proving anyone actually guilty of wrong-doing.

I'll give one example. In December, 1926, Cobb/Speaker were accused of fixing a game from September 25, 1919. Even though they did indeed bet on it, there was never an attempt to pre-arrange the results. And some people believe that for betting alone, at at time when betting was not prohibited, was cause to expel them from baseball forever. Ban Johnson did ban them forever, but Judge Landis reversed it.

So, appearance of wrong-doing is not wrong-doing. That is why it is so important to have actual prove that Joe Jackson did something wrong. Taking money is not wrong-doing, regardless of what the anti-Jackson members need to believe. Only if he under-performed was there actual wrongness. No under-performing, no wrong, no sentencing, no punishment.

That is how adults respond. It's called 'due process', and because baseball didn't have any such thing as 'due process', Landis was allowed to get away with not reinstating Jackson/Weaver.

At least in 1926, Landis called in 2 whole teams to his Office and interragated all of them. He asked each and every one of them, if they had ever even 'heard' of Cobb cheating, throwing games, fixing, bribing, etc.

To a man, they all laughed and said the opposite. That he'd kill his own mother if she stood in his way to third base.

Why Landis didn't conduct an independent investigation into Jackson/Weaver in 1921 will always be a black mark against his integrity.

Ubiquitous

01-22-2007, 09:27 AM

So I guess when Joe Jackson admits under sworn testimony that he threw games that that too isn't wrong-doing either.

Bill Burgess

01-22-2007, 09:32 AM

So I guess when Joe Jackson admits under sworn testimony that he threw games that that too isn't wrong-doing either.
Well, the GJ testimony I read has Joe swearing under oath at least 3-4 times that he played to win, did not throw anything, nor commit any errors.

I think you are referring to a single instance where he said 'we', meaning the White Sox. He was not including himself in that group.

But you're typically isolating a single sentence, while pretending all the denials don't exist. Why is that?

And there is also at least one account of him telling his manager before game one of his suspicions, and not wanting to be involved in the Series. But, he did hustle and account for the only run in Game one. Hardly the actions of one who is trying to do wrong.

But again, you listen to your gut, I'll do the same.

Ubiquitous

01-22-2007, 10:11 AM

I don't pretend that the denials don't exist. Nor do I pretend that all of these theories and what-ifs are real either. Almost every possible excuse brought forth to defend Joe and others was never actually used by Joe and the others. Joe never used these defenses, Buck never did, nor did they ever bring these excuses up decades later when they told their side of the story. Yet when these guys are dead and buried and no longer able to corroborate or deny these new stories that is when all these "new" defenses pop up declaring these guys innocent.

What we do have is players saying they played to win but hey I was part of this group that threw games. It wasn't me it was them. Almost to a man each and every single one of them uses this defense. We even got people nowadays saying Cicotte didn't throw games!

Bill Burgess

01-22-2007, 01:09 PM

Back where we started. Your only defense is they can't prove their innocence. We contend that they don't have to.

On Fever (not in other venues), the pro-Joe side has seen nothing whatsoever to prove that Jackson ever did anything wrong. Taking money is not wrong. Taking money is not criminal. Accepting money doesn't prove he acted out your scenario of "Where there's smoke, there is fire".

You simply cannot prove anything, because you don't have anything, and you never will. Judge Landis never had anything, but as the King of BB, he didn't have to bother with proof, due process, evidence, morality, ethics, right & wrong, or anything else. He was a virtual dictator, and acted accordingly.

The least any good judge would have done was to call all the suspects together, taken their stories, and conducted a private process. This would have been easy for Landis to do. That he never felt the need to do anything, but acted on accusation, innuendo, rumor, hear-say, etc., speaks to his sense of proper due process.

And the fact that Jackson might have been talking under the slight influence of alcohol, and acting on the advice of a man who didn't represent him, but only wanted him to 'take one for the team', doesn't seem to trouble you in the least.

And I've never defended anyone but Jackson, who refused to attend both meetings and told the team of his suspicions, and played well, and Weaver.

Additionally, the impartial jurors believed his side of the story, 11-1, as did Comiskey, and the most knowledable investigator on the Black Sox today, Gene Carney. What do you hear that the jurors didn't?

Ubiquitous

01-22-2007, 03:17 PM

Um taking money for an illegal act whether or not you do the illegal act is against the law, and yes it is wrong.

What did you hear that the Judge didn't?

Did you hear what the jurors heard? Carney and now you like to place a lot of weight on the jurors of the second trial. Yet strangely enough tend to ignore the jurors in the first trial? Why is that? Is it because the first jury has absolutely no credibility with anybody viewing this case? Yet because the second jury and what they heard and how they deliberated is largely unknown we can make them out to be whatever we want them to be. Perhaps they were all Henry Fonda's, perhaps they were noble and good men. We don't know but we can the picture with them however we want. Carney likes to mention how we as observers more then 80 years later only have the written transcripts and how we cannot hear what they heard, see what they heard. He uses this view to show that somehow the jurors got it right despite what we see many years later. Well there is another side to that coin. The jurors based on what they saw and heard could have gotten it wrong. Look at OJ. 12 jurors sat in deliberation on him and found him not guilty based on what they saw and heard. Did they get it right?

And again I will say it again. All of your defenses for Joe Jackson and his actions were never brought up by the man himself. When did Joe Jackson ever say that what he said in the GJ was not true? Where did he say that he was told to say this and that? And why is it that the use of alcohol is defense against guilt and not the other way around? Again there is another side to the coin. You look at everything as if every wrong doing on his part somehow proves that he is innocent. I don't. I see conflicting testimony on his part, I see the money, I see what he said about the money, and I see guilt. For you you see Joe Jackson lying and for whatever reason that means innocence for you. I don't.

The man openly complained about being shorted the money. Whether or not he threw a game no longer matters. The man was part of a group of individuals who threw a game/games. Whether the money was to keep quiet, to throw a game, or to use his name no longer matters. He doesn't even have the Buck Weaver defense of not receiving any money. No where will you find Buck Weaver complaining about his cut. You will with Joe Jackson. No where will you find Buck Weaver admitting under oath that he threw games. You will with Joe Jackson.

You keep rushing to this 11-1 jury result but let me ask you this. What did Joe Jackson have to say about his 1920 GJ testimony when it turned up? He very obviously told two different version of events, how did he explain it? Now a judge, a man well educated in "due process", did hear Joe's side and made the call. A call that is lawfully and rightfully his to make. Yet again that gets ignored because that doesn't help your side. It isn't convenient. It isn't convenient that at almost every turn the law was being trampled on to protect these "innocent" ballplayers. That these "innocent" ballplayers constantly and routinely lied and said whatever they wanted whenever they thought it would increase whatever end result they wanted. I see all of that and I don't say "gee what lambs, they must be innocent" I see all of this and see them for the wolves they really are.

yanks0714

01-22-2007, 03:40 PM

The man openly complained about being shorted the money. Whether or not he threw a game no longer matters. The man was part of a group of individuals who threw a game/games. Whether the money was to keep quiet, to throw a game, or to use his name no longer matters. He doesn't even have the Buck Weaver defense of not receiving any money. No where will you find Buck Weaver complaining about his cut. You will with Joe Jackson. No where will you find Buck Weaver admitting under oath that he threw games. You will with Joe Jackson. Well, one good reason that Buck Weaver never said anything under oath is that he didn't testify, period. He wasn't called in the GJ. Only 3 players did in the GJ if I recall correctly.
In the trial Weaver wanted to take the stand but wasn't allowed to so they could show a united front.
Of course, Buck Weaver wouldn't complain about not getting his share. He didn't get any and didn't want any $. I strongly suspect Weaver played every game to win despite being at meetings.

One more thing that could be misconstrued. When Jackson mentioned about being shorted it could very well be in the vein that he received X amount of $ but had been promised more X's. You are assuming that he was complaining about being shorted. It could well have been straight forward testimony.

yanks0714

01-22-2007, 03:52 PM

You keep rushing to this 11-1 jury result but let me ask you this. What did Joe Jackson have to say about his 1920 GJ testimony when it turned up? He very obviously told two different version of events, how did he explain it?

I think the 11-1 Milwaukee jury vote says an awful lot.

As for the 1920 GJ testimony all I ask you is who was represnting Jackson and the other players? Comiskey's own attorney. Based on what I've read, in particular in Carney's book, it seems that Comiskey was aware of the fix, gathered evidence, swept it under the rug, covered/hid his own knowledge, and did what he could to cover his own butt. His attorney was acting to protect Comiskey, not representing the players, including Jackson. In an effort to protect Comiskey he provided terrible legal advice to the players.

To me, instead of supporting the banishment of Jackson {and Weaver} you should be yelling for the scalp of Charles A. Comiskey. he was nothing but a rapscallion in the murky episode.

Ubiquitous

01-22-2007, 04:32 PM

One more thing that could be misconstrued. When Jackson mentioned about being shorted it could very well be in the vein that he received X amount of $ but had been promised more X's. You are assuming that he was complaining about being shorted. It could well have been straight forward testimony.

I don't know what this means.

His attorney was acting to protect Comiskey, not representing the players, including Jackson. In an effort to protect Comiskey he provided terrible legal advice to the players.

Okay I can accept all of that if Joe Jackson said that. where did he say anything close to that? Where does he say in the 1924 trial that Comiskey's lawyer advised him to say this or that? Joe Jackson not once has ever said he was fooled or led astray. He has never once stated that he was told to falsely give evidence and in return he would be protected. Chick gandil never says it, Happy doesn't, Eddie doesn't. What do they all say as time goes by? There was no fix, that is what they say.

To me, instead of supporting the banishment of Jackson {and Weaver} you should be yelling for the scalp of Charles A. Comiskey. he was nothing but a rapscallion in the murky episode. So Comiskey's wrong-doing wipes away Jacksons wrong doing?

If Smith rapes Helen and then Steve a day later kills her that doesn't absolve Smith of his own wrongdoing.

Comiskey by all accounts knew about the fix and then when it became apparent that there really was a fix tried to do something. What he tried was in all probability weak compared to the real power he wielded. Once it was done he tried to sweep under the rug and preyed it didn't happen again. He almost got his prayers answered but then it all came out and he protected his business and himself.

Bill Burgess

01-22-2007, 05:34 PM

Um taking money for an illegal act whether or not you do the illegal act is against the law, and yes it is wrong. What illegal act? I don't know that Joe committed an illegal act and neither do you, when you are in your 'more candid mood'. Joe would only be guilty if he intended to commit an illegal act. Otherwise, he is not taking money for an illegal act, now is he? Be honest?

What did you hear that the Judge didn't?I heard Jackson insist he played to win, and haven't heard anything to prove otherwise. And I agree with the 11 jurors.

Did you hear what the jurors heard? Carney and now you like to place a lot of weight on the jurors of the second trial. Yet strangely enough tend to ignore the jurors in the first trial? Why is that? Is it because the first jury has absolutely no credibility with anybody viewing this case?The first jury was fine. It was the circus atmosphere and the stolen transcripts that undermined the seriousness of the process.
Yet because the second jury and what they heard and how they deliberated is largely unknown we can make them out to be whatever we want them to be. Perhaps they were all Henry Fonda's, perhaps they were noble and good men. We don't know but we can the picture with them however we want. Carney likes to mention how we as observers more then 80 years later only have the written transcripts and how we cannot hear what they heard, see what they heard. He uses this view to show that somehow the jurors got it right despite what we see many years later. Well there is another side to that coin. The jurors based on what they saw and heard could have gotten it wrong. Look at OJ. 12 jurors sat in deliberation on him and found him not guilty based on what they saw and heard. Did they get it right?No, we cannot do whatever we want with the second verdict in favor of Jackson. The impartial jurors heard it all and believed him. That must really bother you that those who heard MUCH more than you ever did disagree with you so directly.

Do you seriously want to take on the OJ jury too now? I can agree that they got it wrong, just as the second OJ jury got it right. The first OJ trial was much like the first Black Sox trial. Circus crap by Cochran/Scheck. Cochran later said that the second OJ jury got it right! Yes, you heard me right. Johnny Cochran admitted that the second OJ jury got it right by holding him responsible for the murders! It's true. Look it up.

And again I will say it again. All of your defenses for Joe Jackson and his actions were never brought up by the man himself. When did Joe Jackson ever say that what he said in the GJ was not true? Where did he say that he was told to say this and that? And why is it that the use of alcohol is defense against guilt and not the other way around? Again there is another side to the coin. You look at everything as if every wrong doing on his part somehow proves that he is innocent. I don't. I see conflicting testimony on his part, I see the money, I see what he said about the money, and I see guilt. For you you see Joe Jackson lying and for whatever reason that means innocence for you. I don't. Why did Jackson have to bring something up in order for it to be true. He was his own weakest link. Absolutely no aggression, too passive, too easy-going. He never brought up that he was denied legal representation during the first trial, because he mistakenly believed that Comiskey's lawyer, Alfred Austrian, represented him and his best interests.

He never brought up that Austrian told him to sign away his immunity. He never brought up that either. He could have and should have, but was too ignorant of legal matters. To sue for his back pay is not the act of a guilty person. No other Black Sox felt justified in suing. Jackson was not acting in the consciousness of guilt in suing. That is the act of one who feels wronged, not in having done wrong.

The man openly complained about being shorted the money. He did not. That is only your interpretation. He was merely trying to be factual and informational. Whether or not he threw a game no longer matters. Yes it does. This is not an issue of money, but of throwing games and betraying the baseball public. Nice try! The man was part of a group of individuals who threw a game/games. No he wasn't. Only your belief. Whether the money was to keep quiet, to throw a game, or to use his name no longer matters. Yes it does. We won't let you re-frame the main issue here. This is about whether or not Joe Jackson conspired to throw games. If you believe so, prove it. The burden is all yours and always has been and always will be. Nice try again to frame the issue on your most favorable ground. He doesn't even have the Buck Weaver defense of not receiving any money. Doesn't need one. He didn't attend meetings, tried to notify his team management and played extremely well. No where will you find Buck Weaver complaining about his cut. You will with Joe Jackson. No, you won't, Ubi. You just think you heard his tone. You have no way of determining his inflection of voice. No where will you find Buck Weaver admitting under oath that he threw games. You will with Joe Jackson. No, you won't. He was referring to 'We' the team.

You keep rushing to this 11-1 jury result but let me ask you this. What did Joe Jackson have to say about his 1920 GJ testimony when it turned up? He very obviously told two different version of events, how did he explain it? He didn't change his testimony. He amplified on what he had said earlier. Now a judge, a man well educated in "due process", did hear Joe's side and made the call. A call that is lawfully and rightfully his to make. Yet again that gets ignored because that doesn't help your side. No, I reject the Judge's conclusions because I disagree with him. It isn't convenient. It isn't convenient that at almost every turn the law was being trampled on to protect these "innocent" ballplayers. That these "innocent" ballplayers constantly and routinely lied and said whatever they wanted whenever they thought it would increase whatever end result they wanted. I see all of that and I don't say "gee what lambs, they must be innocent" I see all of this and see them for the wolves they really are.

I have not defended anyone but Jackson. I seldom even defend Weaver because I don't think he needs one. Not ratting out others is not a crime. Comiskey heard the same rumors and could have interrupted the World Series or delayed it but chose not to. Why not criticize his handling of the mess?

Ubiquitous

01-22-2007, 05:52 PM

What illegal act? I don't know that Joe committed an illegal act and neither do you, when you are in your 'more candid mood'. Joe would only be guilty if he intended to commit an illegal act. Otherwise, he is not taking money for an illegal act, now is he? Be honest?

What did he take the money for? In terms of real honest to goodness legality nothing he did or really anything the others did was illegal. It might be but it was a very gray and murky area. In terms of law in baseball, which is what you keep wanting to make this about he was very much committing an illegal act. Conspiracy is a very emcompassing law, and it doesn't just include the planning and carrying out of the illegal act. It also includes things after the act. Things such as paying people off to stay quiet. Secondly it doesn't really matter what was going on in Joe's head, what matters is his overt acts. In terms of law it is his overt action that determine intention

I heard Jackson insist he played to win, and haven't heard anything to prove otherwise. And I agree with the 11 jurors.
The first jury was fine. It was the circus atmosphere and the stolen transcripts that undermined the seriousness of the process.No, we cannot do whatever we want with the second verdict in favor of Jackson. The impartial jurors heard it all and believed him. That must really bother you that those who heard MUCH more than you ever did disagree with you so directly. No it doesn't bother me at all. Though I do get a kick out people calling them "impartial", yet at the same time also remind me that we were not there to hear what they heard or see what they saw. So the first jury got it right with the acquittals?

Do you seriously want to take on the OJ jury too now? I can agree that they got it wrong, just as the second OJ jury got it right. The first OJ trial was much like the first Black Sox trial. Circus crap by Cochran/Scheck. Cochran later said that the second OJ jury got it right! Yes, you heard me right. Johnny Cochran admitted that the second OJ jury got it right by holding him responsible for the murders! It's true. Look it up. But why did they get it right? Why did the first one get it wrong? Look something up, look who represented him in the second trial. Look who opposed him (in terms of lawyers) in the first trial, look who opposed him in the second trial. Did they get it right becuase truth and justiced prevailed or did they get it right because somebody had a better lawyer?

Law, juries, and courts have very little to do with rightness and wrongness, honesty and justice.

Why did Jackson have to bring something up in order for it to be true. He was his own weakest link. Absolutely no agression, too passive, too easy-going. He never brought up that he was denied legal representation during the first trial, because he mistakenly believed that Comiskey's lawyer, Alfred Austrian, represented him and his best interests.

He never brought up that Austrian told him to sign away his immunity. He never brought up that either. He could have and should have, but was too ignorant of legal matters. To sue for his backpay is not the act of a guilty person. No other Black Sox felt justified in sueing. Jackson was not acting in the conscousness of guilt in sueing. That is the act of one who feels wronged, not in having done wrong.
Actually other black sox members did feel the need to sue. Their cases too were thrown out. Secondly what about Joe's new lawyer? Joe Jackson wasn't alone in this fight, yet his side never brings up any of the defenses that people many many decades later would argue to be absolute facts. You don't think Joe Jackson talked to his own lawyers? You don't think his own lawyers asked him about the first trial, the fix, and everything involved with that? You really think Joe's own lawyer would take a pass on Austrian's coaching/manipulating of Joe? Especially when the old GJ testimony was introduced.

I have not defended anyone but Jackson. I seldom even defend Weaver because I don't think he needs one. Not ratting out others is not a crime. Comiskey heard the same rumors and could have interrupted the World Series or delayed it but chose not to. Why not criticize his handling of the mess?

I'll say the same thing I said to Yank. What Comiskey did does not absolve Joe Jackson of anything. Can we crticize Charlie for his handling of the whole thing? Sure we can, but that isn't the title of this thread.

Bill Burgess

01-22-2007, 06:29 PM

What did he take the money for? In terms of real honest to goodness legality nothing he did or really anything the others did was illegal. It might be but it was a very gray and murky area. I suppose he picked up an evelope of bills because money is nice. But he didn't spend it at first. He took it to management and was denied entrance. That winter, he asked Harry Grabiner, "What should I do about the money?" And Grabiner told him, "Keep it." Since when is accepting money a crime?

In terms of law in baseball, which is what you keep wanting to make this about he was very much committing an illegal act. Conspiracy is a very emcompassing law, and it doesn't just include the planning and carrying out of the illegal act. It also includes things after the act. Things such as paying people off to stay quiet. Secondly it doesn't really matter what was going on in Joe's head, what matters is his overt acts. In terms of law it is his overt action that determine intention.What illegal act? Conspiracy to do what? In this case, YOU are making what was in Jackson's head the big deal. YOU are making it relevant, not I. You are the one who is presuming to know what he was thinking, why he took money, what he was considering to do. And if you aren't, then what's this all about?

If you really don't care about why Joe Jackson took money, then what are you debating? What is this thread about? Because if you can't tie the money to an intended, considered act, you lose. Your case goes away. But the ironic thing is, Ubi, you not only can't tie the money to an intended act, you can't point to an act at all. You carefully avoid any mention of on-field activity, because you have no case. Only a guy who took money. So, for the anti-Joe group, money is all you have to talk about. Because you sure can't talk about throwing games, telling your management about what you're heard, trying to win by cutting runs off at the plate, scoring the only run in game one by your hard-husling play!

So, all you're left holding is the money. MONEY. MONEY. MONEY. For your side the case is money. NOT baseball. Not selling out. Not betraying the public trust. All you have left is taking money and you can't even tie that to an act. What a case!

No it doesn't bother me at all. Though I do get a kick out people calling them "impartial", yet at the same time also remind me that we were not there to hear what they heard or see what they saw. So the first jury got it right with the acquittals?

First Black Sox jury had no choice. They had no case. No transcripts, no laws broken, no nothing. Was a joke. First OJ jury also had no choice. Too much BS, reasonable doubt thanks to Mark Furman, too much lying by Barry Scheck about not being able to trust the DNA, etc. Clark/Darman got out-prepared, out-lawyered by slick Johnny.

But why did they get it right? Why did the first one get it wrong? Look something up, look who represented him in the second trial. Look who opposed him (in terms of lawyers) in the first trial, look who opposed him in the second trial. Did they get it right becuase truth and justiced prevailed or did they get it right because somebody had a better lawyer?

Law, juries, and courts have very little to do with rightness and wrongness, honesty and justice. I understand and I happen to agree. But we are not debating the judicial system but this one particular case. And I think the juries got both Jackson verdicts right in this particular case. This does not mean any other verdict is right or wrong. We are having a hard enough time on this one verdict. Must I take on all other verdicts too? Isn't it enough to limit ourselves to this one?

Actually other black sox members did feel the need to sue. Their cases too were thrown out. Secondly what about Joe's new lawyer? Joe Jackson wasn't alone in this fight, yet his side never brings up any of the defenses that people many many decades later would argue to be absolute facts. You don't think Joe Jackson talked to his own lawyers? You don't think his own lawyers asked him about the first trial, the fix, and everything involved with that? You really think Joe's own lawyer would take a pass on Austrian's coaching/manipulating of Joe? Especially when the old GJ testimony was introduced. I haven't a clue as to why his lawyer did or didn't do something. Maybe he felt he had enough arguing points to win with what he had. After he made Comiskey admit that Jackson played to win, maybe he felt that was enough, and to bring in other issues would have opened up tricky issues. Maybe he wanted to separate the GJ testimoney to the minimum possible air time. But it WAS read. And maybe that is why he then put Comiskey on the stand and asked him if he thought Joe was a crook. Why did he re-sign a crook?

I'll say the same thing I said to Yank. What Comiskey did does not absolve Joe Jackson of anything. Can we crticize Charlie for his handling of the whole thing? Sure we can, but that isn't the title of this thread.

Looks like the money is the only card you're holding. Have you given up on throwing games? If I gave you an envelope with a lot of money in it and told you that you could keep it if you thought an impure thought, like considering helping me commit a crime, would you consider it?

Ubiquitous

01-22-2007, 07:03 PM

I suppose he picked up an evelope of bill because money is nice. But he didn't spend it at first. He took it to management and was denied entrance. That winter, he asked Harry Grabiner, "What should I do about the money?" And Grabiner told him, "Keep it." Since when is accepting money a crime?

Of course you are leaving a whole lot of conversations between the time he got the money to the time Grabiner told him to keep it.

What illegal act? Conspiracy to do what? In this case, YOU are making what was in Jackson's head the big deal. YOU are making it relevant, not I. You are the one who is presuming to know what he was thinking, why he took money, was he was considering to do. And if you aren't, then what's this all about?
There was a conspiracy to throw games. Joe Jackson was part of that conspiracy. Him accepting the money makes him part of that conspiracy.

If you really don't care about why Joe Jackson took money, what are you debating? What is this thread about? Because if you can't tie the money to an intended, considered act, you lose. What I said is that once he took the money it doesn't matter why he took it, since all the reasons for taking it make him party to the conspiracy.

Your case goes away. But the ironic thing is, Ubi, you not only can't tie the money to an intended act, you can't point to an act at all. You carefully avoid any mention of on-field activity, because you have no case. Only a guy who took money.
What he did on the field makes no difference. It doesn't change guilt in a conspiracy charge. If you are part of a group that plans a bank robbery and at the moment you are supposed to enter the building you chicken out and leave and your cohorts rob the bank you are just as guilty as they are.

So, all you're left holding is the money. MONEY. MONEY. MONEY. For your side the case is money. NOT baseball. Not selling out. Not betraying the public trust. All you have left is taking money and you can't even tie that to an act. What a case!
Joe Jackson did betray the publics trust and so did Buck Weaver

Looks like the money is the only card you're holding. Have you given up on throwing games? If I gave you an envelope with a lot of money in it and told you you could keep it if you thought an impure thought, would you consider it?

I have always maintained that there is no hard evidence proving that Joe Jackson threw baseball games. There is also very little evidence that anybody threw a game as well. Which is one of the reasons why this whole "they are all innocent" view is gaining steam as of late.

If somebody through down a lot of money at my feet and they just so happen to be involved in something shady I would definitely wonder about it. But your example isn't even the scenario for Joe Jackson. He knew exactly what the money was for, who gave it to him and why. After he got the money he went to see Chick, remember? Do you also remember what he told Chick? Have you truly read Joe's grand jury testimony?

Here is a passage from Joe talking about Cicotte and the money:

Q When did Eddie Cicotte tell you he got $10,000.

A The next morning after the meeting we had in his room.

Q Did you tell him how much you got?

A I did.

Q What did you tell him?

A I told him I got five thousand.

Q What did he say?

A He said I was a God damn fool for not getting it in my hand like he did.

Q What did he mean by that?

A I don?t know, that he wouldn?t trust anybody, I guess.

Q What did he mean, that?s what he meant by it?

A Why, he meant he would not trust them, they had to pay him before he did anything.

Q He meant then you ought to have got your money before you played, is that it?

A Yes, that?s it.

Later on talking about possibly fixing games to finish second in 1920

Q Did that ever occur to you, yourself?

A No sir. I wanted to win, this year, above all times.

Q Why?

A Because ? I wanted to get in there and try and beat some National League club to death, that?s what I wanted to do.

Q You didn?t want to do that so bad last year, did you?

A Well, down in my heart I did, yes.

About claude Williams and getting crossed

Q You think now Williams may have crossed you, too?

A Well, dealing with crooks, you know, you get croked every way. This is my first experience and last.

Q What did you say to him at that time, and what did he say to you?

A We just brought up the World?s Series, I told him what a damned fool I though I was, and he was of the same opinion, so we just let it go at that.

Here comes him admitting to being party to the fix

Q Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?

A They did.

Q How much did they pay?

A They promised me $20,000 and paid me five

Q Does she know that you got $5,000 for helping throw these games?

A She did that night, yes.

Q How much did he promise you?

A $20,000 if I would take part.

Q And you said you would?

A Yes, sir.

Q What did you say to Williams when he threw down the $5,000?

A I asked him what the hell had come off here.

Q What did he say?

A He said Gandil said we all got a screw through Abe Attel. Gandill said that we got double crossed through Abe Attel, he got the money and refused toturn it over to him. I don?t think Gandil was crossed as much as he crossed us.

Q You think Gandil may have gotten the money and held it from you, is that right?

A That?s what I think, I think he kept the majority of it.

Q What did you do then?

A I went to him and asked him what was the matter. He said Abe Attel game him the jazzing. He said, ?Take that or let it alone.? As quick as the series was over I left town, I went right on out.

Q Then you went ahead and throw the second game, thinking you would get it then, is that right?

A We went ahead and threw the second game, we went after him again. I said to him, ?What are you going to do?? ?Everything is all right,? he says, ?What the hell is the matter??

Q After the third game what did you say to him?

A After the third game I says, ?Somebody is getting a nice little jazz, everybody is crossed.? He said, ?Well, Abe Attel and Bill Burns had crossed him,? that is what he said to me.

Q Didn?t you think it was the right thing for you to go and tell Cominkey about it?

A I did tell them once, ?I am not going to be in it.? I will just get out of that altogether

Q Who did you tell that to

A Chick Gandil

Q What did he say?

A He said I was into it already and I might as well stay in. I said, ?I can got o the boss and have every damn one of you pulled out of the limelight.? He said, ?It wouldn?t be well for me if I did that.?

Q Gandil said to you?

A Yes, sir.

Q What did you say?

A Well, I told him any time they wanted to have me knocked off, to have me knocked off.

Q What did he say?

A Just laughed.

So here it is this innocent in the middle of the series telling Chick that he wanted out. Here is passage after passage of Joe Jackson revealing that he was knee deep in this scandal. He was no innocent lamb. His guilt isn't simply a line or two. His guilt is all over that testimony. His testimony in the second trial wasn't an "amplification" of his previous testimony but a total contradiction which is why perjury was charged. You don't get perjury for amplifying your previous testimony.

Bill Burgess

01-23-2007, 05:27 PM

I really don't know why I'm debating here. You're all about Joe Jackson talking about the money, money, money, getting jazzed, gettin the screw, blah, blah, blah.

Is that all you have? Of course it is. All you'll ever have. You mentioned 12 Angry Men. In the movie, all but Henry Fonda's character were so sure the kid murdered his father. Thought it was open/shut slam dunk. Didn't want to debate much, just wanted to vote and go home.

That is how I see the anti-Joe folks. Like the Lee J. Cobb holdout, the most bitterly-sure hater. I guess I see the pro-Joe folks as the Henry Fonda guy who wants to be sure, ask the probing questions.

Was Joe intoxicated when he told the GJ lawyer he agreed to the fix? Was he succumbing to the pressure of feeling guilty, simply because he was accused?

Was he telling them what he thought they wanted to hear?

What if he was tossed the envelope of money after the series ended? Would that have made a difference? Is that more or less incriminating?

Why is his second trial testimony perceived by you guys as less credible than when he was under intense pressure, intoxicated and feeling isolated during the GJ interrogation?

Why is the testimony of Lefty Williams, Mrs. Joe given no credibility in the second trial?

Just like the 12 Angry Men, it feels as if the implacable anti-Jackson cabal has a lot of reasons of their own, under the surface why they don't believe Joe Jackson. I suppose they have never heard of a false confession. Many people, upon being accused of anything serious, feel the need to tell an authority figure anything they want to hear. And that isn't even considering an authority figure like Alfred Austrian, who you mistakenly believe is own your side, pressuring you to do that very exact thing.

So, go on believing whatever your emotional needs require. We are not getting anywhere, nor will we ever. This is not a winnable subject, we're all heard the others arguments many times, nothing new is being brought to the table, and this is not a productive discussion anymore.

I had promised myself not to do this again.

BTW - Gene Carney is seeking Devil's Advocates to debate the anti-Joe side, in case anyone is not sick of the subject yet. This email came in today.
-----------------------------------------------
I'm looking for a few good Devil's Advocates (not that I'm canonizing anyone), to see if they can poke holes in something I'm calling "The Case for Shoeless Joe Jackson" ... it's in the current issue of NOTES at www.baseball1.com/carney ... it's also at http://www.baseball1.com/notes/, which will be the new home for NOTES at The Baseball Archive.

I am usually content to be unbiased (pro or con) about the "eight men out," but it was actually some recent discussion in this group that made me wonder if "the case for Jackson" could ever be made in a way that would convince the most skeptical.

So I'm looking for critics -- a few of you have had a shot at this already, as I was patting it into shape. I don't want this to turn into an endless debate. And feel free to contact me outside the group. Let me know what you see as problematic is the case presented. If you can think of ways to make the case even stronger (I must have forgotten Something), let me know that, too, please.

Feel free to invite others to take a look, too. Remind them it's easy to join this group!

Thanks,
Gene

Bill Burgess

02-09-2007, 05:49 AM

These Cooperstown Notes just arrived from Gene Carney, in case anyone is still following Gene's thoughts. Hope so.
------------------------------------------------------

http://www.baseball1.com/notes/

That's the new home for "Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown" -- still at Sean Lahman's The Baseball Archive but a slightly different address.

#388 is the first issue that I've posted there .. Sean posted #385, 386 and 387. EVENTUALLY, I expect the whole NOTES Archive (from #184, March 1999, to present) to be there, too. But right now, just those four recent issues.

#388 is going to be of interest to those who are still (like me) "on the B-Sox trail" ... it contains about six pages of research from my trip last summer to Milwaukee, a genuine smorgasbord of random nuggets from the whole cast of characters.

There's also a couple more short reviews of Burying the Black Sox (from Amazon.com), and an internet interview I did with an eighth-grader a couple months ago.

I hope you can all find the "new" site for NOTES, and bookmark it, and pass it on to others. Enjoy,

Two Finger Carney
------------------------------------------------------
Most recent email from Gene Carney.
------------------------------------------------
Notes #389 is now posted at
www.baseball1.com/notes/

No pun intended, but please "note" that this is a new site. Eventually the Notes Archive will be accessible there, too. Actually, you can find there a list of older issues, but there's still a glitch, and no matter which one you click on, you end up at #387, which is a nice issue, but you'll get tired of reading it over and over.

#389 is a visit to "The Trial of the Century" -- in baseball, that is. It's a look at the 1921 "Black Sox" trial with an eye out for what Bill Burns and Billy Maharg said there about how the Fix was planned. Since we do not have the transcripts from this trial, and the newspapers of the day only printed selected excerpts, it's hardly a complete record. But it's something, and I learned a few new things as I put this together. Enjoy,

Two Finger Carney
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent email from Gene Carney. Anyone on Fever want to assist him?
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-38422.html

Bill,

About a month ago, I sent you the attached "Case For" SJJ ... not sure it made it out of my computer. Anyway, I was reading at the Baseball Fever site today (at the link above), and it struck me that you have some excellent critics and advocates in that group, as the discussion about the "Greenville Joes" issue demonstrated.

I'm still looking for feedback from ALL sides, on this "Case For" paper I've put together. Any chance you could post it at your site, and ask folks to reply to me if they see any errors, or feel they can add to it?

Thanks,

Gene

PS: I saw a few mentions of my book in that discussion, too ... I'm still collecting reviews, if anyone wants to share their reactions. "Burying the Black Sox" will be in paperback soon, but it's the same book, not a revised edition (yet!)
NFSC387WORD.doc (49K)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent from Gene Carney:
------------------------------------------------

A new issue of Notes from the Snowdrifts -- I mean SHADOWS -- of Cooperstown, is now posted.
It is at www.baseball1.com/notes ... I hope by now everyone has edited that bookmark.
The old issues are still not accessible. I blame the weather, but I could be wrong.

#390 is a real old-fashioned mixed bag. It ranges from Awards to Errata ... has some great links to Hot Stove readings, including one to Eight Men Out on the internet (you can do searches!) .. it has some project ideas and some fun ideas ... on a serious note, there's a meditation on the Origin of the Fix (documented) ... another in-print interview, with my ideas on how I might have handled the Fix, If I Were Commish (no one ever asks me that, for some reason ... maybe if my hair was more like Judge Landis'?)

One of the highlights of 390 is a recent interview with Mel Durslag, who had the dubious pleasure in 1956 to sit and talk at length with a fellow who knew a little about the Fix -- Chick Gandil. I wonder why Mr Durslag hasn't been interviewed about that before? That's the theme of the issue -- WONDERING -- and believe it or not, there's lots more stuff in there, too. Enjoy!

Two Finger Carney
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent email from Gene Carney.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Bill,
Sent the note below to the Yahoo group last nite . not sure you're a member. Feel free to pass it on to the "Black Sox"- Shoeless fans at BB Fever.
Gene
*************

For all those interested -- I have posted an annotated "B-Sox" Index (it's not quite a Table of Contents) at www.baseball1.com/notes , The Baseball Archive, where "Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown" has appeared since 1999.

The B-Sox Index lists all of the items in NOTES related to the B-Sox, since I started my research, in September 2002 (with issue #268). That is roughly 385 different items -- most are article size, some are longer (taking up whole issues, 10-15 pages), and some are very short. The Index will enable readers to search for topics or people they want, and find them, without sifting thru 120+ different issues of Notes.

One caveat -- the issues of Notes are all in chronological order; the earlier issues may have information which is corrected or nuanced or discussed much more fully in later issues. No attempt has been made to go back to the early issues, and correct or change anything.

Much of the material found in "Burying the Black Sox" appeared first in Notes -- not all, but most. That would cover the issues between 268 and (roughly) 360.

As I look at the material in #361-391, I'm thinking I probably have enough for a sequel -- not just a new chapter or two.

And a final note -- the Notes Archive has been restored, so readers can now access all the issues back to #184. That includes about 90-some issues that do not have ANY B-Sox material at all. Let me again publicly thank Sean Lahman, the Baseball Archive webmaster, whose hospitality Notes has enjoyed for over eight years and counting.

Gene
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the most recent notes from Gene Carney.
------------------------
... at www.baseball1.com/notes ... this is a somewhat short issue with a little satire, a little criticism, a little commentary, and even an old poem ... it ranges from Fred Merkle to Barry Bonds, with two different Bud Selig items. Enjoy,
Two Finger Carney
-------------------------------------
In these notes, Gene petitions Bud Selig to declare that Jackson's 'lifetime ban', ended with Joe's death.

Somewhere, earlier in this debate, someone suggested that Joe Jackson had never been banned by Judge Landis, but only in the last 15 years.

I disputed that. The infamous '8 Men Out', had been declared by Landis that 'no one who sits with throwers, where throwing games is discussed, or who throws games, will ever play baseball again.'

I don't know who, but someone in this debate was wrong to imply that Judge Landis did not keep them on the ineligible list.

If Landis did not, then why did Buck Weaver continuously petition him for reinstatement? Someone in this debate was incorrect to assume that Jackson's ban was of recent doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent Notes from Gene Carney.
-----------------------------------
Go to www.baseball1.com/notes for the latest edition of NOTES from the Shadows of Cooperstown.

It has a long review of Nemec's "The Beer & Whiskey League" and some surprising info about Hal Chase, baseball's Black Prince -- or is he? Also a tidbit on Barry Bonds and HOF artifacts. Enjoy,

Two Finger Carney
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent notes from Gene Carney.
-------------
There are two new issues of NOTES posted at www.baseball1.com/notes --

#157 is from April 1998, and was prompted by an item or two in #402, on third basemen.

#157 contains an essay on Buck Weaver, from the days long before my "B-Sox" research ... it has a few items where Judge Landis appears, too, as well as lots of baseball history. It's a rare "theme" issue, and one of my favorites.

#402 has some stuff for Pirate fans, gathered over the past 50 years ... and a report on the brand-new NY State League, trying to take root in upstate NY.

Enjoy,

Two Finger Carney
------------------------------------------------
Most recent notes from Gene Carney.
----------------
Issue #403 of "Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown" is now posted at
www.baseball1.com/notes

Much of this issue is a quick jog on the B-Sox trail, nothing major, just some more little puzzle pieces ... the exception is a return up top to my review of CRAZY '08, a short interview with author Cait Murphy.

The SABR National convention is coming up next week (I'll be in St Louis July 25-30), so I'm not sure if this will be the last issue in July or not. Enjoy,

Two Finger Carney
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent from Gene Carney.

Issue #405 of "Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown" carries my report on the recent SABR convention in St Louis.
Click on www.baseball1.com/notes for my verbal snapshots (and a couple of framed pictures, also drawn in words). Once upon a time, when I traveled without a camera, I used to say that each picture I didn't take was worth a thousand words. So it is sobering to think that this issue could be replaced by four images. Or could it? You make the call!
Enjoy,
Two Finger Carney

Myankee4life

02-19-2007, 10:19 PM

I have just finished reading Joe Jackson's biography SHOELESS by David L. Felitz. Prior to reading the book I had no knowledge of the scandal. From the book it seems that Jackson INDEED "let up" in the ballgames.

"In addition, cotemporary accounts suggest that Jackson played out of position at crucial moments in the series. In Game 4, Cincinnati's Earle (Greasy) Neale hit a fly ball that dropped for a run-scoring double. Joe couldn't reach the ball, since he was playing all the way over near the left field line, despite the fact that Neale was a left-handed batter. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that Joe "played....Neale's fly to left like an old lady". In the first inning of Game 1, Heinie Groh hit a fly ball to Joe with a runner on third, and some felt that Joe's weak throw home allowed the runner (Morrie Rath) to score. Jackson also got a bad jump on Hod Eller's lazy fly in Gane 5 that fell for three bases and started Cincinatti's winning rally in that game."

Those are just a few examples.

After that I dont know how naybody could say that he went ALL-OUT in the series. Or am I missing something?

Ubiquitous

02-19-2007, 11:22 PM

quotes from Joe Jackson after he was leaving the courthouse:

TRfromBR

02-20-2007, 12:35 AM

Bill Burgess

02-20-2007, 01:08 PM

quotes from Joe Jackson after he was leaving the courthouse:

This is not good, nor fair. We all deserve to know the source of this 'information', and then I'll send it along to Gene Carney, and ask him why this 'testimony' is not covered in his book. If Gene missed this 'confession', we'll get to the bottom of this right now.

Anyone can claim someone said something, but the source must be critiqued to see if it has a shred of credibility or not. This sounds like a newspaperman claiming that he was there and heard the 'Say it ain't so, Joe' line. Which Joe claimed never happened.

This is not good, Ubi. I expect you to credit your sources by now. If I had shared something like this, in a pro-Joe vein, you'd challenge my sources, wouldn't you?

Ubiquitous

02-20-2007, 01:58 PM

This is not good, nor fair. We all deserve to know the source of this 'information', and then I'll send it along to Gene Carney, and ask him why this 'testimony' is not covered in his book. If Gene missed this 'confession', we'll get to the bottom of this right now.

Anyone can claim someone said something, but the source must be critiqued to see if it has a shred of credibility or not. This sounds like a newspaperman claiming that he was there and heard the 'Say it ain't so, Joe' line. Which Joe claimed never happened.

This is not good, Ubi. I expect you to credit your sources by now. If I had shared something like this, in a pro-Joe vein, you'd challenge my sources, wouldn't you?

It is from the New York Times september 29th 1920 page 1.

Ubiquitous

02-20-2007, 02:08 PM

Oh and Gene already has that article. He referenced it and reprinted some of it in his book. Though he conveniantly left out the part where Jackson is quoted as saying he helped throw game 3.

Bill Burgess

02-20-2007, 03:01 PM

Oh and Gene already has that article. He referenced it and reprinted some of it in his book. Though he conveniantly left out the part where Jackson is quoted as saying he helped throw game 3.
I would very much like to know who the NY Times credits with the quote.

Someone had to have claimed to hear it! I am quite suspicious of the sources of information, as both of us should be, I'm sure you'll agree.

I assume you want me to be very cynical of a source. Am I on solid grounds on that, Ubi? How confident are you on that source, Ubi? Are you 100% confortable beleiving Joe Jackson really said something like that?

Ubiquitous

02-20-2007, 03:21 PM

They credit Joe Jackson with the quote.

I'm not really suspicious, sure it could be false but what he is saying jives with a lot of what we know Joe felt and did say. What he says to me "feels" like something Joe would say. His views on his teammates, what happened, on baseball, and for himself.

Macker

02-20-2007, 07:50 PM

Neale hit a fly ball that dropped for a run-scoring double. Joe couldn't reach the ball, since he was playing all the way over near the left field line, despite the fact that Neale was a left-handed batter.

I'm on record in this thread and others in believing Jackson was in on the fix. Maybe Jackson dogged it on this play, but his positioning wasn't necessarily out of line. I don't know exactly where he was postioned, but with a lefthanded batter up, the leftfielder should be toward the line (and shallow.)

Bill Burgess

02-20-2007, 07:59 PM

I'm on record in this thread and others in believing Jackson was in on the fix. Maybe Jackson dogged it on this play, but his positioning wasn't necessarily out of line. I don't know exactly where he was positioned, but with a lefthanded batter up, the leftfielder should be toward the line (and shallow.)
For once I agree with you on a Jackson/scandal issue.

If a LH hitter is up, the LFer should not be positioned anywhere near the LF foul line. He should rightfully shade much more towards CF.

Bill Burgess

02-25-2007, 07:42 AM

THE CASE FOR SHOELESS JOE JACKSON

Background

A brief review of the events of the Fall of 1919 are in order, along with what we know about Joe Jackson's activities.

Just where or with whom the idea to fix or "frame" the 1919 World Series originated, is not at all certain. Nor is it clear that this was the first World Series to be tampered with by gamblers or "fixers" armed with bribe money. Rumors surrounded the 1919 Series, just as they surrounded any major sporting event (boxing matches, horse races) that held the nation's interest. As the amounts wagered grew larger, the chances of the outcomes of games being influenced by gamblers' money grew accordingly, and baseball players were particularly vulnerable. Why? Because they had no bargaining power when they renewed their contracts with their clubs, no real job security. While their income was better than the average American's, it was also (no pun intended) fixed, and typically it was lower than it would have been in an open market. This was demonstrated when the Federal League competed with the two major leagues in 1914-15.

World War I shortened the 1918 season and crippled the income of baseball teams, and the contracts of 1919 reflected that. Fans returned to baseball after the war, but most players did not benefit until the following season.

September 1919

If it is true that there was discussion in the gambling world about fixing the Series of 1919 as early as August, when the pennant races were still far from over, then it is unlikely that the impetus for the Fix came from the players. However, it seems that several members of the White Sox may have "pitched" the idea to gamblers, in mid-September. Joe Jackson claimed that he heard those rumors, and took his concerns to Charles Comiskey, the owner of the Sox; but those claims have not been corroborated. Jackson testified that he was approached by a teammate and offered a bribe of $10,000 for his participation, but he rejected the offer. (Jackson's annual salary was $6,000.) The teammate tried again later, offering $20,000, and Jackson's response is unclear. Told that the Fix was in, with him or without his participation, Jackson may have tacitly agreed to at least keep quiet about what he knew was afoot.

Planning Meetings

There is no clerar evidence suggesting that Joe Jackson attended any of the meetings where the Fix was discussed. One of his teammates later claimed to have "represented" Jackson in the meetings -- giving the gamblers the impression that he was an active participant in the plot -- without Jackson's knowledge or his permission. That was also Jackson's testimony, and a jury in a 1924 civil suit believed (11-1) that Jackson did not conspire with his teammates to lose or "throw" any games in the 1919 Series.

October 1, 1919 (Game One. Reds 9, White Sox 1)

Jackson said that on the morning of Game One, he was approached by Bill Burns, one of the fixers. The brief encounter may have convinced Jackson that the Fix was indeed in. He responded by asking (or begging) his manager to bench him for the first Game, so there could be no doubt about his participation in the plot. The evidence seems to support that this happened; in effect, he informed his team of his suspicions. There is also evidence that his team, as well as the baseball authorities, already knew that tampering had taken place.

Jackson went hitless in Game One. Aboard on an error, his hustle resulted in the only Sox run. He made no errors in the field. If any game was played under a cloud of suspicion, this is the game. The one Jackson wanted to skip.

October 2, 1919 (Game Two. Reds 4, White Sox 2)

There is some evidence that suggests that the Fix was called off after the gamblers did not deliver the promised bribe money after the first loss. It seems very probable that the players were playing to win after Game Two, with the possible exception of Claude Williams, the starting pitcher of Game Eight. If Game Two was thrown, Jackson was likely not playing to lose, as he made three hits in four at bats, and made no errors in the field.

The Rest of the Series

The performance of Joe Jackson in the 1919 World Series was not perfect, but his twelve hits led both teams. Statistics do not indicate a player's intentions, however. None of the White Sox’ opponents on the Reds felt that they were playing a team that was not trying hard to win each game; none of the umpires saw any crookedness. In fact, most of the players later banned said, at one time or another, that they had decided to play to win every game, and to double-cross the fixers.

October 10, 1919

Jackson received, probably sometime during the Series or possibly right after, $5,000 in cash from his teammate, Claude Williams. The day after the Series ended, he apparently took this money to show to Charles Comiskey, as hard evidence that gamblers had indeed "reached" some of the players. Jackson said that he was turned away by the team secretary, Harry Grabiner.

Fall/Winter 1919-1920

As rumors of crookedness in the Series swirled, Jackson wrote to Comiskey on November 15, expressing surprise that his name had been mentioned in the rumors. He insisted that he played the Series to win, and offered to travel to Chicago to clear his name.

All of his teammates knew of the tampering, from their manager, who had threatened them with his gun if they played to lose. Like them, and his team’s owner, Jackson did not go to the press. The press knew anyway, and chose to ignore the story, and when reporter Hugh Fullerton tried to blow a whistle, he was ridiculed.

Jackson said that when Harry Grabiner visited him in Savannah, GA, to sign him to his new three-year contract, he again asked Grabiner about the $5,000, and was told to keep it. Grabiner denied this. A jury believed (by 11-1) Jackson's version of events over Grabiner's.

The same jury also believed that Grabiner deceived Jackson by telling him that his new contract, for 1920 through 1922, had no "ten days clause" (giving the team the right to release a player without cause, giving only ten days' notice).

In any event, the White Sox offered Jackson a multi-year contract which included a raise of $2,000 per year, knowing that the 1919 Series had been tampered with, and knowing Jackson had taken $5,000; and perhaps also knowing that he could tell the world that his team had known about the Fix all along.

The 1920 Season

Joe Jackson batted .382 in 1920, with 218 hits, 20 triples, 105 runs, 121 RBI, and just 14 strikeouts in 570 AB.

September 28, 1920

A grand jury, convened in Cook County (Chicago), finally started looking into the rumors about a Fix in the 1919 Series. The names of eight players whose checks had been withheld after the Series, appeared in the press; Jackson's name was one of them. The grand jury did not intend to interfere with the pennant races in progress by calling players until after the season. But with three games still remaining, two White Sox players voluntarily went to the grand jury, and confirmed that gamblers had offered bribes and tainted the outcome of the 1919 Series.

The first player to step forward was Sox starter Eddie Cicotte, who said that he had accepted $10,000 before the Series. Cicotte also testified that he pitched the Series to win, after intentionally putting the first batter he faced on (with a hit batsman).

The next player to step forward was Joe Jackson. Jackson met first with the team lawyer, Alfred Austrian, as had Cicotte. They were both advised to sign a waiver of their immunity, so whatever they said to the grand jury, could be later used against them. It seems that Jackson was also permitted to appear before the grand jury "half drunk," which may help explain his somewhat contradictory statement, which is available today.

Jackson, like Cicotte, confirmed that there had been tampering. But he also stated that he played the entire Series to win, at bat and in the field. When the press characterized Jackson's grand jury statement as a confession, which suggested that he had deliberately thrown games, he immediately denied that. When the "Say it ain't so, Joe" story appeared soon after, it became generally believed that he had been in on the plot; Jackson denied that the meeting with the child took place. Historian Harold Seymour and others think the statements attributed to Jackson by the press, that suggest he gave less than his best effort, were for the consumption of the gamblers, and they are nowhere to be found in his grand jury testimony.

Jackson told the grand jury that he had accepted $5,000 from his teammate Williams, but not that he showed it to Grabiner. He said that Gandil had promised $20,000. His grand jury statement is vague and contradictory at times; a year later Jackson’s own lawyer advised him to repudiate it. Just what Jackson agreed to is not clear. He admitted to having limited knowledge that the Fix was in, from Williams. He did not tell the grand jury that he communicated what he knew to his team, before the Series; nor was he asked if he did.

Suspensions

The players whose names, in the words of Charles Comiskey, had been "bunched together" in the rumors were suspended, following their indictments, which followed on the heels of the grand jury testimony of Cicotte, Jackson, and (the next day) Claude Williams. In the Fall of 1920, the owners of major league baseball chose Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as the first Commissioner of the sport. A federal judge based in Chicago, Landis followed baseball and the grand jury gambling probe closely. Soon after taking office, in January 1921, he made known his opinion about the suspended players, stating that they were ineligible to play baseball until their names were cleared. He repeated this view when spring training camps opened.

The "Black Sox Trial"

The eight players (along with a number of gamblers or "fixers") were tried on charges of conspiracy in the summer of 1921. None of the players (including Jackson) testified, except to repudiate the statements that they had made to the 1920 grand jury. A jury found the players not guilty of the charges.

Judge Landis' Edict

Immediate;y after the trial, Commissioner Landis issued a statement that dashed any hopes that fans and players had about the return of the "eight men out." Landis said the men could apply for reinstatement, but their chances would not be good:

Regardless of the verdicts of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.

Appeals for Reinstatement

Although several of the banned players appealed for reinstatement, and fans and families petitioned the Commissioner, none of the players was ever removed from baseball's ineligible list.

The 1924 Milwaukee Trial

Another trial took place in the winter of 1924, in Milwaukee, WI, where the White Sox were incorporated. Joe Jackson sued the Sox, claiming that they owed him two years' back pay (for 1921-1922). In dispute was whether his contract contained the "ten days clause" -- if it did not, then the White Sox had to show cause for not paying the balance of the contract. Although a jury found for Jackson by 11-1, the judge overturned the verdict because Jackson's version of things in 1924 (presumably coached by his own lawyer) varied from the version he had given the grand jury in 1920 (when he was coached by Comiskey's lawyer). His grand jury testimony surfaced during the trial, inexplicably, from the briefcase of Comiskey's lawyer, after going missing since a few months after it was given.

Recent Attempts to Clear Jackson's Name

Over the decades, even well after Joe Jackson's death in 1951, many friends of his family, politicians, and fans have urged Judge Landis and his successors to reinstate Jackson. The best known advocate Jackson had was the late Ted Williams, who formally petitioned the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball on Jackson's behalf. Probably reluctant to rule on a case so cold, a sentence handed down so long ago, and a matter still shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, each Commissioner since Judge Landis has failed to take any action.

Some Possible Options

Without giving any new opinion about the facts in this case, or Jackson's participation, or his degree of guilt, a Commissioner could simply rule that the "lifetime ban" imposed on Jackson and the other banned players expired when their lifetimes ended. This would only remove them from baseball's ineligible list. It would then be up to others to decide whether Jackson or any of the others were worthy of the Hall of Fame ballot.

Another option would be to grant an amnesty, principally because there is reasonable doubt about the fairness of the original banishment. That Landis' edict was effective as a warning to ballplayers -- to merely associate with gamblers was now to risk one's career -- is not in question. However, there is little doubt that the men involved were denied due process, and that the harsh punishment they received was selective; that is, other players with similar "guilty knowledge" of the 1919 World Series fix, and who profited from that knowledge, were not banned; nor were the officials who might have called off the Series or postponed it to investigate the situation brought to their attention before Game One started, punished in any way.

A third option would be to finally treat each player as an individual case, and sort out what each did or did not do, based on all the evidence that can be found. If this was done in an impartial way, it may be that some players in fact could "pass" the test imposed by Landis' ex post facto edict. Jackson probably did not throw a game or promise to throw one; that was the testimony of Charles Comiskey in the 1924 trial, even though he faced the loss of many thousands of dollars if Jackson won the case against the Sox. Jackson almost certainly did not participate in the planning of the fix. And finally, it seems that Jackson did communicate with his team about the fix, if not weeks or days before the Series, then at least before Game One, when he asked to be benched.

Character

Few people alive today knew Shoeless Joe Jackson well. But he is recalled in his hometown as a hero worthy of a statue. He has been voted into many different sports Halls of Fame over the years, despite his unfavored status in baseball. He apparently was a simple man, not a saint, but not likely a sinister person, either. If we "follow the money" he took in October 1919, which his team apparently told him to keep after he showed it to them, we know that much of it paid hospital bills for his sister, or went to charity. Shoeless Joe Jackson was simply a great ballplayer, praised by his hitting peer Ty Cobb, his swing copied by no less an icon than Babe Ruth. Because no history of baseball can be complete without his chapter, it seems time for baseball to do the right thing, and let his story be told.

Macker

02-25-2007, 08:06 AM

For once I agree with you on a Jackson/scandal issue.

If a LH hitter is up, the LFer should not be positioned anywhere near the LF foul line. He should rightfully shade much more towards CF.

Bill, you said you agreed with me, but you posted the opposite. When a lefty is up, the leftfielder should shade toward the line (not ON the line, but toward the line) and play shallow. Shading the leftfielder toward CF with a lefty up is Little League coaching. Unless the batter is known to have power to the opposite field gap, the leftfielder shades toward the line and moves in a couple of steps.

Unless Neale was known to hit well to left-center, Jackson was right in playing toward the line. Without knowing more about Neale's tendencies, I'll have to give Jackson a pass as to his positioning.

Bill Burgess

02-25-2007, 02:50 PM

Bill, you said you agreed with me, but you posted the opposite. When a lefty is up, the leftfielder should shade toward the line (not ON the line, but toward the line) and play shallow. Shading the leftfielder toward CF with a lefty up is Little League coaching. Unless the batter is known to have power to the opposite field gap, the leftfielder shades toward the line and moves in a couple of steps.

Unless Neale was known to hit well to left-center, Jackson was right in playing toward the line. Without knowing more about Neale's tendencies, I'll have to give Jackson a pass as to his positioning.
One of the few times I thought we agreed! Maybe next year!

Macker

02-25-2007, 03:26 PM

One of the few times I thought we agreed! Maybe next year!

Okay. Go back to Little League.

Bill Burgess

02-25-2007, 03:52 PM

Okay. Go back to Little League.
Yes, sir. Right on it, sir.

leecemark

06-20-2007, 06:38 AM

Bill Burgess

06-20-2007, 07:02 AM

--I think the disconnect is that while Jackson was banned from baseball by Landis he wasn't banned from the Hall of Fame. It wasn't until the Rose case that the HoF officially barred players on the ineligible list from consideration. Prior to that, people just didn't vote for Jackson because they didn't think he deserved that kind of honor.
Maybe. It's not easy to know why the sports writers did/didn't do anything. When Landis banned the 8 Men Out from baseball, there was no Hall of Fame to ban him from. That came in 1936, 15 years later.

I suspect that the writers didn't feel that they were allowed to vote for anyone that was banned from the game. I think that Jackson did receive 2 votes for the Hall in its initial 1936 voting. And 2 more votes in an 1946 nominating round. I suspect that most of the writers drew no distinction in their minds between 'organized baseball' and the Hall of Fame. Were intertwined 'in their minds'.

How do I know what happened behind the scenes that will never come out.

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 10:22 AM

Here is an interview I found online, from October, 1949, by Furman Bisher. Hope someone finds it an interesting read.
-------------------------------------------
NOTE: Joe Jackson gave his account of the Black Sox scandal to a reporter for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Furman Bisher. The account was published in the October, 1949 issue of SPORT Magazine. The SPORT Magazine account follows:
THIS IS THE TRUTH !

Just 30 years ago this month, the infamous World Series between the Chicago White Sox and the Cincinnati Reds took place. The leading figure in the great scandal that followed, the famous White Sox slugger of 1919, tells in his own words his side of the story.

By SHOELESS JOE JACKSON AS TOLD TO FURMAN BISHER

EDITOR'S NOTE: Almost any day of the week, if you drive down East Wilborn Street on the South side of Greenville, South Carolina, you'll find an aging man with sparse white hair sitting in the shade of a sapling oak at No. 119. He will be Joe Jackson - Shoeless Joe Jackson, sometimes known as the greatest natural hitter in baseball history. But you'll never find Joe's name in the record books, because he was black-listed for life after the great baseball scandal broke in 1920. Jackson has never raised his voice in protest, though he has stoutly maintained his innocence. In his South Carolina textile country, where he lives comfortably, he is revered as an idol and as a persecuted man. They will always believe Joe innocent. Here, for the first time in national print, is Joe Jackson's own story, just as he tells it himself.

Jackson, one of the game's most brilliant batters, hit over .400 during the 1911 season.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN I walked out of Judge Dever's courtroom in Chicago in 1921, I turned my back completely on the World Series of 1919, the Chicago White Sox, and the major leagues. I had been acquitted by a twelve-man jury in a civil court of all charges and I was an innocent man in the records. I have never made any request to be reinstated in baseball, and I have never made any campaign to have my name cleared in the baseball records. This is not a plea of any kind. This is just my story. I'm telling it simply because it seems that 30 years after that World Series, the world may want to hear what I have to say.

If I had been the kind of fellow who brooded when things went wrong, I probably would have gone out of my mind when Judge Landis ruled me out of baseball. I would have lived in regret. I would have been bitter and resentful because I felt I had been wronged.

But I haven't been resentful at all. I thought when my trial was over that Judge Landis might have restored me to good standing. But he never did. And until he died I had never gone before him, sent a representative before him, or placed before him any written matter pleading my case. I gave baseball my best and if the game didn't care enough to see me get a square deal, then I wouldn't go out of my way to get back in it.

Baseball failed to keep faith with me. When I got notice of my suspension three days before the 1920 season ended -- it came on a rained-out day -- it read that if found innocent of any wrongdoing, I would be reinstated. If found guilty, I would be banned for life. I was found innocent, and I was still banned for life.

It was never explained to me officially, but I was told that Judge Landis had said I was banned because of the company I kept. I roomed with Claude Williams, the pitcher, one of the ringleaders, they told me, and one of the eight White Sox players banned. But I had to take whoever they assigned to room with me on the road. I had no power over that.

Sure I'd heard talk that there was something going on. I even had a fellow come to me one day and proposition me. It was on the 16th floor of a hotel and there were four other people there, two men and their wives. I told him: "Why you cheap so-and-so! Either me or you --one of us is going out that window."

I started for him, but he ran out the door and I never saw him again. Those four people offered their testimony at my trial. Oh, there was so much talk those days, but I didn't know anything was going on.

When the talk got so bad just before the World Series with Cincinnati, I went to Mr. Charles Comiskey's room the night before the Series started and asked him to keep me out of the line-up. Mr Comiskey was the owner of the White Sox. He refused, and I begged him: "Tell the newspapers you just suspended me for being drunk, or anything, but leave me out of the Series and then there can be no question."

Hugh Fullerton, the oldtime New York sportswriter who's dead now, was in the room and heard the whole thing. He offered to testify for me at my trial later, and he came all the way out to Chicago to do it.

I went out and played my heart out against Cincinnati. I set a record that stills stands for the most hits in a Series, though it has been tied, I think. I made 13 hits, but after all the trouble came out they took one away from me. Maurice Rath went over in the hole and knocked down a hot grounder, but he couldn't make a throw on it. They scored it a hit then, but changed it later.

I led both teams in hitting with .375. I hit the only home run of the Series, off Hod Eller in the last game. I came all the way home from first on a single and scored the winning run in that 5-4 game. I handled 30 balls in the outfield and never made an error or allowed a man to take an extra base. I threw out five men at home and could have had three others, if bad cutoffs hadn't been made. One of them was in the second game Eddie Cicotte lost, when he made two errors in one inning. One of the errors was on a throw I made trying to cut off a run. He deflected the ball to the grandstand and the run came in.

That's my record in the Series, and I was responsible only for Joe Jackson. I positively can't say that I recall anything out of the way in the Series. I mean, anything that might have turned the tide. There was just one thing that doesn't seem quite right, now that I think back over it. Cicotte seemed to let up on a pitch to Pat Duncan, and Pat hit it over my head. Duncan didn't have enough power to hit the ball that far, particularly if Cicotte had been bearing down.

Williams was a great control pitcher and they made a lot of fuss over him walking a few men. Swede Risberg missed the bag on a double-play ball at second and they made a lot out of that. But those are things that might happen to anybody. You just can't say out and out that that was shady baseball.

There were supposed to have been a lot of big gamblers and boxers and shady characters mixed up in it. Well, I wouldn't have recognized Abe Attell if he'd been sitting next to me. Or Arnold Rothstein, either. Rothstein told them on the witness stand that he might know me if he saw me in a baseball uniform, but not in street clothes.

I guess the biggest joke of all was that story that got out about "Say it ain't so, Joe." Charley Owens of the Chicago Daily News was responsible for that, but there wasn't a bit of truth in it. It was supposed to have happened the day I was arrested in September of 1920, when I came out of the courtroom.

There weren't any words passed between anybody except me and a deputy sheriff. When I came out of the building this deputy asked me where I was going, and I told him to the Southside. He asked me for a ride and we got in the car together and left. There was a big crowd hanging around the front of the building, but nobody else said anything to me. It just didn't happen, that's all. Charley Owens just made up a good story and wrote it. Oh, I would have said it ain't so, all right, just like I'm saying it now.

They write a lot about what a great team the White Sox had that year. It was a good team. I won't take that away from them. But it wasn't the same kind of team Mr. Connie Mack had at Philadelphia from 1910 to 1914. I think that was the greatest team of all time. Our team didn't have but two hitters high in the .300's, Mr Eddie Collins, as fine a man as there ever was in baseball, and me. It wasn't a hard-hitting team, not the kind they make out it was.

It was sort of a strange ball club, split up into two gangs, Collins and Chick Gandil were the two leaders. They played side by side at second and first, but they hadn't spoken to each other off the field in two seasons. Bill Gleason was the manager, but Collins ran the team out on the field. Cicotte was the best pitcher in the league, next to Walter Johnson, I guess.

They called Williams the biggest and the littlest man in baseball. He had a great big neck and shoulders, but a small body. He had only been up two or three years when he was kicked out. Looked like he would have been a real fine pitcher. They hadn't thought much about Dickie Kerr in the World Series, at least not for the sort of pitching he did. Red Faber was the relief man mostly. We had Swede Risberg at short and Buck Weaver at third, me and Hap Felsch and Nemo Liebold in the outfield, and one of the smartest catchers ever, Ray Schalk. It was a good ball club, but not like Mr. Mack's.

I'll tell you the story behind the whole thing. The trouble was in the front office. Ban Johnson, the president of the American League, had sworn he'd get even with Mr. Comiskey a few years before, and that was how he did it. It was all over some fish Mr. Comiskey had sent to Mr. Johnson from his Wisconsin hunting lodge back about 1917. Mr. Comiskey had caught two big trout and they were such beauties he sent them to Johnson. He packed the fish in ice and expressed them, but by the time they got to Chicago the ice had melted and the fish had spoiled. They smelled awful and Mr. Johnson always thought Mr. Comiskey had deliberately pulled a joke on him. He never would believe it any other way.

That fish incident was the cause of it all. When Mr. Johnson got a chance to get even with Mr. Comiskey, he did it. He was the man who ruled us ineligible. He was the man who caused the thing to go into the courts. he did everything he could against Mr. Comiskey.

I'll show you how much he had it in for him. I sued Mr. Comiskey for the salary I had coming to me under the five year contract I had with the White Sox. When I won the verdict --I got only a little out of it --the first one I heard from was Mr. Johnson. He wired me congratulations on beating Mr. Comiskey and his son, Louis.

I have heard the story that Mr. Comiskey went to Mr. Johnson on his deathbed, held out his had and asked that they let bygones be bygones. They say Mr. Johnson turned his head away and refused to speak to him.

I doubt if I'd have gone back into baseball, anyway, even if Judge Landis had reinstated me after the trial. I had a good valet business in Savannah, Georgia with 22 people working for me, and I had to look after it. I was away from it about a year waiting for the trial. They served papers on me which ordered me not to leave Illinois. I finally opened up a little place of business at 55th and Woodlawn, across from the University of Chicago. It was a sort of pool room and sports center and I got a lot of business from the University students.

I made my home in Chicago, but I didn't follow orders completely. I sneaked out of Illinois now and then to play with semi-pro teams in Indiana and Wisconsin. I always asked my lawyer, Mr. Benedictine Short, first and he told me to go if I could get that kind of money.

They kept delaying the trial until I personally went to the State Supreme Court judge, after which he ordered that the case be heard. They tried me and Buck Weaver together, and it took seven weeks. They used three weeks trying to get a jury, and I was on the witness stand one day and a half. After it was all over, Katie, my wife, and I went on back to Savannah, settled down there, and lived there until we came back to Greenville to bury my mother in 1935.

I have read now and then that I am one of the most tragic figures in baseball. Well, maybe that's the way some people look at it, but I don't quite see it that way myself. I guess on of the reasons I never fought my suspension any harder than I did was that I thought I had spent a pretty full life in the big leagues. I was 32 years old at the time, and I had been in the majors 13 years; I had a life time batting average of .356; I held the all-time throwing record for distance; and I had made pretty good salaries for those days. There wasn't much left for me in the big leagues.

All the big sportswriters seemed to enjoy writing about me as an ignorant cotton-mill boy with nothing but lint where my brains ought to be. That was all right with me. I was able to fool a lot of pitchers and managers and club owners I wouldn't have been able to fool if they'd thought I was smarter.

I guess right here is a good place for me to get the record straight on how I go to be "Shoeless Joe." I've read and heard every kind of yarn imaginable about how I got the name, but this is how it really happened: When I was with Greenville back in 1908, we only had 12 men on the roster. I was first off a pitcher, but when I wasn't pitching I played the outfield. I played in a new pair of shoes one day and they wore big blisters on my feet. The next day we came up short of players, a couple of men hurt and one missing. Tommy Stouch --he was a sportswriter in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the last I heard of him --was the manager, and he told me I'd just have to play, blisters or not.

I tried it with my old shoes on and just couldn't make it. He told me I'd have to play anyway, so I threw away the shoes and went to the outfield in my stockinged feet. I hadn't put out much until along about the seventh inning I hit a long triple and I turned it on. That was in Anderson, and the bleachers were close to the baselines there. As I pulled into third, some big guy stood up and hollered: "You shoeless sonofagun, you!"

They picked it up and started calling me Shoeless Joe all around the league, and it stuck. I never played the outfield barefoot, and that was the only day I ever played in my stockinged feet, but it stuck with me.

When I started out in the majors a fellow named Hyder Barr and me reported to the Athletics in the middle of the season. We got in right close to game time one day, so we checked our bags at the station and went straight to the park. They were playing the Yankees, and I hit the first pitch Jack Warhop threw me for a double. I got a single later and had two for three.

But I didn't stick around Philadelphia long then. I went back to the station to get my bag that night, and while I was waiting for it I heard the station announcer call out: "Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Danville, Greensboro, Charlotte, Spartanburg, Greenville, Anderson" and so on. I couldn't stand it. I went up to the window and bought a ticket to Greenville and caught that train.

Sam Kennedy came after me on the next train. He found out I'd gone from Barr. I was supposed to get Barr's bag, too. He was quite a ladies man and he'd taken up with some girl while I went for the bags. When I didn't come back, he came after me and found out I'd gone. That was just the first time. I went back with Sam Kennedy, after he offered me more money. But I came home three other times before the season was over. It wasn't anything I had against Mr. Mack or the ball club. Mr Mack was a mighty fine man, and he taught me more baseball than any other manager I had. I just didn't like Philadelphia. I was traded to Cleveland later on and I liked it there. Charley Somers, who owned the Indians, was the most generous club owner I have ever seen. We couldn't play Sunday ball in Washington then, and when we were playing the Senators over a weekend, we'd make a jump back to Cleveland for a Sunday game, then back to Washington Sunday night. There never was a time we made that jump that Charley Somers didn't come down the aisle of the train and give all the players $20 gold pieces.

He was a generous man when it came to contracts, too. The first year I came up to Cleveland, in 1910, I led the league unofficially in hitting. When I went to talk contract with him for 1911, I told him I wanted $10,000. He wasn't figuring on giving me more than $6,000, and he wouldn't listen to me.

"I'll make a deal with you," I told him. "If I hit .400 you give me $10,000. If I don't, you don't give me a cent."

It was a deal, I signed the contract, and I hit .408. But I still didn't win the American League batting title. That was the year Ty Cobb hit .420. I was hitting .420 about three weeks before the season was over and Mr. Somers called me in to pay off, told me I could sit it out the rest of the season. I told him to wait until the season was ended and I wasn't quitting. I wrote my own contract the rest of the time I was in Cleveland.

Babe Ruth used to say that he copied my batting stance, and I felt right complimented. I was a left-handed hitter, and I did have an unusual stance. I used to draw a line three inches out from the plate every time I went to bat. I drew a right-angle line at the end next to the catcher and put my left foot on it exactly three inches from the plate. I kept both feet together, then took a long stride into the ball.

They say I was the greatest natural hitter of all time. Well that's saying a lot with hitters like Wagner, Cobb, Speaker and Ruth around. I had good eyes and I guess that was the reason I hit as well as I did. I still don't use glasses today.

I have been pretty lucky since I left the big leagues. No man who has done the things they accuse me of doing could have been as successful. Everything I touched seemed to turn to money, and I've made my share down through the years. I've been blessed with a good banker, too -- my wife. Handing the money to her was just like putting it in the bank. We were married in 1908 when I was just 19 and she was 15, and she has stood by me through everything. We never had any children of our own, but we raised one of my brother's boys from babyhood.

He never was interested in baseball, but they used to tell me he would have been a fine football player. He didn't get to go to college. The war came along and he went into the Navy as a flier. He was killed accidentally a couple of years ago when a gun he was cleaning went off. Katie and me felt like we'd lost our own boy.

I hadn't been able to do much work for a year until last Summer because of liver trouble. A good doctor in Greenville took my case when I thought my time was about here, and he brought me back to good health. I went back to my liquor store last July and I'm running the business now myself, I had leased it out while I was sick. I've been doing about $50,000 to $100,000 a year business.

Some people might think it's odd, but I still have a connection in baseball, sort of a judicial connection, I guess you'd call it. I am chairman of the protest board of the Western Carolina Semi-Pro League. I think that is an indication of how I stand with my own people. They have stood by me all these years, the folks from my mill country, and I love them for their loyalty.

None of the other banned White Sox have had it quite as good as I have, I understand, unless it is Williams. He is a big Christian Science Church worker out on the West Coast. Last I heard Cicotte was working in the automobile industry in Detroit. Felsch was a bartender in Milwaukee. Risberg was working in the fruit business out in California. Buck Weaver was still in Chicago, tinkering with softball, I think. Gandil is down in Louisiana and Fred McMullin is out on the West Coast. I don't know what they're doing.

I'm 61 years old now, living quietly and happily out on my little street close to Brandon Mill. I weighed and stood six feet, one inch tall in my playing days. I'm still about the same size.

There never were any other ballplayers in my family that went to the big leagues. I had five brothers, but only one, Jerry, played pro ball long. He was a pretty good minor-league pitcher, they tell me. Jerry's 48 years old now and he's one of my umpires in the Western Carolina League.

Well, that's my story. I repeat what I said when I started out -- that I have no axe to grind, that I'm not asking anybody for anything. It's all water over the dam as far as I am concerned. I can say that my conscience is clear and that I'll stand on my record in that World Series. I'm not what you call a good Christian, but I believe in the Good Book, particularly where it says "what you sow, so shall you reap." I have asked the Lord for guidance before, and I am sure He gave it to me. I'm willing to let the Lord be my judge.
----------------------------------------------
Seated on the front lawn of his home with writer Bisher (left), Jackson tells his account of the scandal that rocked baseball.

Macker

11-17-2007, 01:08 PM

By 1949, either his memory was unreliable or he was just a liar. He didn't have 5 assists in the series. He also sought reinstatement to the game despite what he says in the artcile.

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 03:08 PM

By 1949, either his memory was unreliable or he was just a liar. He didn't have 5 assists in the series. He also sought reinstatement to the game despite what he says in the article.
Can you show the reference to which you refer?

Are you pretty sure he requested reinstatement, or did others request it on his behalf? There is a difference.

Also, Gene Carney is strongly considering joining us. Do you think he would receive a warm welcome? He does not consider himself pro/anti Jackson, although others might think he leans one way or the other.

Macker

11-17-2007, 03:39 PM

Can you show the reference to which you refer?

Just look at the AP stories of January 20, 1934, or page 4 of The Sporting News of January 25, 1934.

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 04:02 PM

31528--Sporting News, January 25, 1934, page 4.

I read the editorial write up. I am cynical as to what it really says. Since Jackson couldn't read/write, it is possible his wife wrote a letter, without input or encouragement from Joe, or it could have been requested by the Greenville, SC Historical Society.

I require convincing, with compelling evidence, that Joe would even consider requesting anything from that Commissioner on his own. In other words, I believe what Jackson wrote in that interview, and remain completely 100% cynical towards what an anonymous, unsigned editorial piece prints, without references, without specifics.

Macker

11-17-2007, 04:09 PM

Fair enough, but I remain cynical of anything Joe Jackson ever spoke. Just him saying he had 5 assists is either his memory playing tricks on him or a claim he didn't think was easy to check.

Brian McKenna

11-17-2007, 04:36 PM

New York Times 1/20/1934:

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 05:32 PM

I wonder how many think that Jackson felt bound by that Landis statement, and didn't manage the Greenville team anyway?

I also refuse to believe, without evidence, that Jackson himself lifted a finger to request anything of baseball ever, after the 1924 civil trial, where the jury believed everything he testified to, and awarded him his judgment.

But the judge made himself more powerful/important to the process than the jury. They must have felt like idiots, who were made to waste their time by the state of Wisconsin.

EdTarbusz

11-17-2007, 05:42 PM

?

I also refuse to believe, without evidence, that Jackson himself lifted a finger to request anything of baseball ever, after the 1924 civil trial, where the jury believed everything he testified to, and awarded him his judgment.

.

See bkmckenna's post.

Ubiquitous

11-17-2007, 07:29 PM

We've had this discussion before and I think it was in this very thread. In 1998 letters from Jackson asking to be reinstated that were sent to Landis were put up for auction and sold.

From blackbetsy:

Shoeless Joe Jackson pieces highlight Christie's East sale.
The November 3rd 1998 Christie's East auction featured a grouping of 30 lots from the estate of Joe Jackson including letters between Joe and AL President Ban Johnson and Commissioner Landis regarding possible reinstatement of Jackson into baseball's good graces. The grouping included a pair of letters from Landis essentially denying Jackson's request for reinstatement which brought $19,550.00 and another grouping of letters from Joe brought $9775.00. A group of 15 personal photographs brought in $7475.00, a letter to Jackson concerning his suit against Charles Comiskey netted $11,500.00, a Jackson signed mortgage note hammered down at $20,700.00. One of Joe's driver's license that was actually signed by Joe hammered down for $14,950.00. All in all the Christie's East auction was somewhat of a disappointment in that the total sales were only $1.3 million and the Jackson lots only accounted for 10 percent of these sales.

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 07:37 PM

Those letters were necessarily written by someone else, since Jackson was unable to write/read. And his involvement is speculative at best. I remain cynical as to his involvement, or his caring. There were others around him who hoped to clear him, throughout the years, including Ted Williams, and the South Carolina congressmen.

But that is not central to the debate of his innocence. I believe that when he told Furman Bisher what he told him, he was referring to himself personally.

But be that as it may, I have a nice announcement. Gene Carney is going to join this debate, and I will re-engage also. Here is what he just sent me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Burgess" <william_burgess@usa.net>
> To: ""Gene Carney" " <carneya6@adelphia.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 7:03 PM
>
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> I think it's time you joined the Jackson Innocence thread on Fever. You
> would
> have huge credibility with these guys. Far more than I could ever have. I
> would be willing to rejoin the thread if you were there.
>
> I'm not assuming you and I have the same assumptions. But you have a much
> more open mind to whatever possibilities than some of them have.
>
> What is holding you back?
>
> Bill

------ Original Message ------
Received: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:44:15 PM PST
From: "Gene Carney" <carneya6@adelphia.net>
To: "Bill Burgess" <william_burgess@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Jackson thread

> Until last April 1, when I "retired," the answer was simple -- not enough
> time.
>
> Right now, I am busier than ever, but many more hours per day/week are spent
> writing & editing baseball, and doing e-mail. So right now, this may be
> do-able. I'm willing to join you, especially if I won't get swamped with
> every message -- in your 11/13 note you said I could visit the thread as
> often as I want.
>
> Attached is the current version of "The Case For." I authored it, but I
> also have run it past everyone I knew who could check it for accuracy,
> including the B-Sox Yahoo group (which has some Jackson detractors -- is
> that the right word?), but also some SABR members and non-SABR members whose
> are the historians I respect most on the topic.
>
> Give me some guidance here ... I started my research on the B-Sox as a
> Jackson agnostic -- if anything, I thought he was guilty as sin. Five years
> and three months later, I've learned a lot, but I know that the information
> now available cannot convince all of his innocence (about being part of the
> Fix -- it actually CAN convince some skeptics that he played to win, I've
> witnessed that) ... just as in the past, the information could not convince
> Jackson "fans" that he was guilty of doing anything except taking $5,000 --
> a bad choice, I hope we all agree on THAT.
>
> Maybe I ought to enter the thread with "The Case For" -- asking for
> criticism and feedback. What do you suggest?
>
> I like to think that I respond to "both sides" of the Jackson debate with
> equal zeal -- I try to keep the debate accurate and in context, and the
> latter is hardest. I look at Jackson inside the big picture of the Fix and
> the Cover-Up. Focusing on just the Fix seems unfair, like hanging one of
> the Watergate burglars and refusing to follow the money.
>
> So yes, let's join, and see what happens. If the attachment is too large to
> post, then how about this link: http://www.baseball1.com/notes/?p=3
>
> Actually, the earlier version at that link has a nice intro, altho the
> attached version is probably stronger, the product of refinement and help.
>
> It occurs to me that I have no absolute convictions in this debate, I am
> open-minded and can be (I hope) persuaded by others, as they can (I hope) be
> open and persuaded by me. My goal is not to win an argument, but to LOOK AT
> EVERYTHING. If I believe one thing, or maybe two, it is that we are certain
> about darn little, and that there is REASONABLE DOUBT about so much. If I
> seem to advocate FOR Jackson, it is because he has nearly nine decades of
> history advocating against him.
>
> Gene
>
>
>

Ubiquitous

11-17-2007, 07:45 PM

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 07:51 PM

To those who do not know him, Gene 'Two-Finger' Carney is the author of 'Burying The Black Sox'. He is the most knowledgable person I know concerning the Black Sox scandal. He has been researching the cover-up of it, for many years now.

He is not that augmentative, and is open-minded, despite his awareness.

He should improve the quality of this debate immensely.

EdTarbusz

11-17-2007, 08:01 PM

Those letters were necessarily written by someone else, since Jackson was unable to write/read. And his involvement is speculative at best. I remain cynical as to his involvement, or his caring. >

Looking for some kind of paper-trail left by a man who was functionally illiterate seems like a very convenient position to take when you say that Jackson never had any interest in returning to the game. What's so hard to believe that he could have dictated them or at least laid out to the transcriber what he wanted to say?

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 08:03 PM

Except Bill those letters were in Joe's possession. It isn't like they were in Ban Johnson's stuff or his cousins stuff but in Joe's stuff. Sure his wife probably wrote them but he signed his name to them. Eveybody involved then and now all assumed and addressed Joe that his reinstatement was denied. Nobody said sorry honey your husband cannot be reinstated. The letters are asking Landis to reinstate him so that he can manage a minor league team. It was written in the first person not the third person.

Joe either had a faulty memory or he straight out lied.
I'll tell you why I'm skeptical. And this bothers me. Joe Jackson was one of the least aggressive, ambitious, motivated person I've read about. His passivity bothers me. It was inappropriate to me. But that was his nature.

I have a difficult time seeing him motivated enough to say, "You know, honey. Isn't it time we petitioned Judge Landis again." If anyone was interested, it was most probably his wife. I can see Joe wanting to play semi-pro ball around Greenville, and his wife using that as an excuse to petition Landis.

But I have a hard time imagining Joe feeling that it was relevant. I can't see him caring. And I'll just bet he did play/manage locally whenever he was asked to. Probably for free.

And that is the context that I believe he wrote in. So, maybe you are technically correct, Ubi. But since he was illiterate, I can't even see him personally keeping that kind of correspondence or letters. No doubt the wife did all the formal business book-keeping.

So, I don't think calling Jackson a liar is helping us understand the man, or the values that guided him. Was his 'involvement in the scandal' conducted in the same passive, casual, 'whatever' way? It's possible.

As Gene says, there is so little that we can be certain of, that we need to be careful what we assume. Criminal intent is a serious thing, and needs to be documented with deliberation. Jackson was the furthest thing from an anal, 'black and white' type thinker.

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 08:06 PM

Looking for some kind of paper-trail left by a man who was functionally illiterate seems like a very convenient position to take when you say that Jackson never had any interest in returning to the game. What's so hard to believe that he could have dictated them or at least laid out to the transcriber what he wanted to say?
If that is true, I'm open to that. Maybe his wife kept a diary, or told friends about this. I remain open to be persuaded, but before I condemn a man (or woman), I would like to be sure. Like Henda Fonda in '12 Angry Men'.

See my point?

EdTarbusz

11-17-2007, 08:11 PM

If that is true, I'm open to that. Maybe his wife kept a diary, or told friends about this. I remain open to be persuaded, but before I condemn a man (or woman), I would like to be sure. Like Henda Fonda in '12 Angry Men'.

See my point?

Not really. The letters in his possesion sound pretty substantial to me.

Brian McKenna

11-17-2007, 08:14 PM

Ubiquitous

11-17-2007, 08:19 PM

Bill are you actually reading the evidence that is being given here? Joe asked to be reinstated because Joe wanted to manage a class D minor league team. So obviously he found it relevant, obviously he cared. His asking for reinstatement wasn't some out of the blue thing that was done a whim. He wanted to do something but in order to do it he needed to get Landis' permission. So he asked and was turned down.

As for Joe not really seeing a reason to keep something, well, I'm not really going to try and assume what some guy born over a hundred years ago and died 50 some odd years ago found in his possession to be valuable and what he didn't find valuable. I've buried enough relatives and taken care of enough estates to realize that people find a lot things valuable or sentimental and hold on to a lot of stuff through the years.

Ubiquitous

11-17-2007, 08:22 PM

I'm lost in this whole argument - Jackson is a condemned man because he asked for reinstatement?? "Criminal intent is a serious thing" - is this about a request for reinstatement? What is the discussion here? - seems as biased as the thread title.

In the latest posting on the reinstatement I think it was simply an attempt to "activate" this dormant thread as well as warehouse "stuff" on Joe Jackson.

Bill Burgess

11-17-2007, 08:39 PM

I'm lost in this whole argument - Jackson is a condemned man because he asked for reinstatement?? "Criminal intent is a serious thing" - is this about a request for reinstatement? What is the discussion here? - seems as biased as the thread title.
I'm lost too.

Here is my best attempt at clarity. My friend Gene Carney emailed me recently, saying he was thinking of joining our debate here. That started me thinking about this thread again, after a lonnnnnngggg time. I found an interview online and posted it.

Someone challenges Jackson's assertion that he didn't ask Landis for reinstatement. Someone shows that A request for his reinstatement was sent to Landis' office. I assume it was his wife, or someone close to him.

I assert my skepticism that Joe actually cared at all. After all, we all know that he DID play locally, up until 1932. And so why should he care what Landis felt? I have no doubt that Joe Jackson DID in fact manage the locals, without Landis' permission.

I am just responding to someone's scepticism, as to Jackson's truthfulness, with skepticism of my own, that he would even care. I truly believe that those around him cared far more than he did. And that does bother me that he was so passive towards his own life and legacy. If it were Cobb/Speaker, they would never have tolerated Jackson's complete lack of core interest in his own legacy. I find that reprehensible.

If I were Jackson, I would have fought hard to clear my name, and use every legal resource available to me. Jackson's failure to do that, or think that way really pisses me off.

Macker

11-18-2007, 12:10 AM

we all know that he DID play locally, up until 1932. And so why should he care what Landis felt? I have no doubt that Joe Jackson DID in fact manage the locals, without Landis' permission.

He should care what Landis felt, because while he could slip under the radar playing semi-pro under a different name, it wouldn't be so easy to manage a ballclub in organized baseball without receiving attention.

I'm lost in this whole argument - Jackson is a condemned man because he asked for reinstatement??

No. I was merely pointing out the Bisher article does nothing to help Jackson.

yanks0714

11-18-2007, 06:19 AM

He should care what Landis felt, because while he could slip under the radar playing semi-pro under a different name, it wouldn't be so easy to manage a ballclub in organized baseball without receiving attention.

Thank you, Macker. As I read through the latest posts on this thread that is what I was thinking. I think Bill has missed this very important point.

Now I'm no expert by any means, but Bill's assertion that Joe didn't care just doesn't ring true with all I've ever read. He did care that he was banished. There is enough documentation to speak to that without resorting to assumed personal beliefs.

This isn't a criticism of you, Bill. I'm more on your side regarding Jackson. Hoever, you do seem to be making some assumptions to prove a point that cannot be proven.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 06:29 AM

He should care what Landis felt, because while he could slip under the radar playing semi-pro under a different name, it wouldn't be so easy to manage a ballclub in organized baseball without receiving attention.
I don't see why not. I suspect that Landis' reputation in and around Greenville was mud. They would have been as likely to respect Landis as they would be likely to attend communist rallies. I suspect that someone, maybe Jackson's wife, merely used that as a pretext to apply for Joe's reinstatement. But that is merely supposition on my part. And I also suspect, but have no inkling way of knowing, that Jackson himself was completely indifferent to her efforts on his behalf.

If it was indeed his wife who did write that request for reinstatement, he must have known about it, but it is only my opinion that he was indifferent/amused, or indifferent/curious.

I am not trying to be difficult or augmentative, but I just can't see a man as passive as Jackson putting any energy/encouragement behind such a letter. And I think he was bitter, regardless of what he tried hard to put on for the world. I do agree that he cared that he was banned, but by 1934 was too bitter to contact Landis on his own.

No. I was merely pointing out the Bisher article does nothing to help Jackson.
I do kinda agree with you on this one point, Macker. It does little to serve his interests or change opinions of others. Most people's opinions on him had been set long before, and this did little to change anything.

The only reason I posted it, was because I found it, and it is part of the historical record. I also wanted to prime the pump, and kind of restart interest in this debate, in anticipation of Gene's entry here.

I hope and pray you will not be as snide or closed to his commentary as you are to mine. I have worked my butt off to persuade him to join us, and would be crushed if he got disgusted and left after a post or two.

He is the most aware guy I know on this particular subject. Just as Wesley Frick is the most aware Cobb guy I know, and Norman Macht is the most aware Connie Mack guy I know, so Gene has earned at least a smidgen of respect coming in here. He is not coming here as my backup, but a free agent, with no vested interests on either side.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 06:37 AM

In anticipation of Gene Carney's eminent arrival in this debate, I am reposting his article on Joe Jackson. So everyone knows where Gene is coming from. He claims to be on neither the pro/anti Jackson camp's side.
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE CASE FOR SHOELESS JOE JACKSON

Background

A brief review of the events of the Fall of 1919 are in order, along with what we know about Joe Jackson's activities.

Just where or with whom the idea to fix or "frame" the 1919 World Series originated, is not at all certain. Nor is it clear that this was the first World Series to be tampered with by gamblers or "fixers" armed with bribe money. Rumors surrounded the 1919 Series, just as they surrounded any major sporting event (boxing matches, horse races) that held the nation's interest. As the amounts wagered grew larger, the chances of the outcomes of games being influenced by gamblers' money grew accordingly, and baseball players were particularly vulnerable. Why? Because they had no bargaining power when they renewed their contracts with their clubs, no real job security. While their income was better than the average American's, it was also (no pun intended) fixed, and typically it was lower than it would have been in an open market. This was demonstrated when the Federal League competed with the two major leagues in 1914-15.

World War I shortened the 1918 season and crippled the income of baseball teams, and the contracts of 1919 reflected that. Fans returned to baseball after the war, but most players did not benefit until the following season.

September 1919

If it is true that there was discussion in the gambling world about fixing the Series of 1919 as early as August, when the pennant races were still far from over, then it is unlikely that the impetus for the Fix came from the players. However, it seems that several members of the White Sox may have "pitched" the idea to gamblers, in mid-September. Joe Jackson claimed that he heard those rumors, and took his concerns to Charles Comiskey, the owner of the Sox; but those claims have not been corroborated. Jackson testified that he was approached by a teammate and offered a bribe of $10,000 for his participation, but he rejected the offer. (Jackson's annual salary was $6,000.) The teammate tried again later, offering $20,000, and Jackson's response is unclear. Told that the Fix was in, with him or without his participation, Jackson may have tacitly agreed to at least keep quiet about what he knew was afoot.

Planning Meetings

There is no clear evidence suggesting that Joe Jackson attended any of the meetings where the Fix was discussed. One of his teammates later claimed to have "represented" Jackson in the meetings -- giving the gamblers the impression that he was an active participant in the plot -- without Jackson's knowledge or his permission. That was also Jackson's testimony, and a jury in a 1924 civil suit believed (11-1) that Jackson did not conspire with his teammates to lose or "throw" any games in the 1919 Series.

October 1, 1919 (Game One. Reds 9, White Sox 1)

Jackson said that on the morning of Game One, he was approached by Bill Burns, one of the fixers. The brief encounter may have convinced Jackson that the Fix was indeed in. He responded by asking (or begging) his manager to bench him for the first Game, so there could be no doubt about his participation in the plot. The evidence seems to support that this happened; in effect, he informed his team of his suspicions. There is also evidence that his team, as well as the baseball authorities, already knew that tampering had taken place.

Jackson went hitless in Game One. Aboard on an error, his hustle resulted in the only Sox run. He made no errors in the field. If any game was played under a cloud of suspicion, this is the game. The one Jackson wanted to skip.

October 2, 1919 (Game Two. Reds 4, White Sox 2)

There is some evidence that suggests that the Fix was called off after the gamblers did not deliver the promised bribe money after the first loss. It seems very probable that the players were playing to win after Game Two, with the possible exception of Claude Williams, the starting pitcher of Game Eight. If Game Two was thrown, Jackson was likely not playing to lose, as he made three hits in four at bats, and made no errors in the field.

The Rest of the Series

The performance of Joe Jackson in the 1919 World Series was not perfect, but his twelve hits led both teams. Statistics do not indicate a player's intentions, however. None of the White Sox’ opponents on the Reds felt that they were playing a team that was not trying hard to win each game; none of the umpires saw any crookedness. In fact, most of the players later banned said, at one time or another, that they had decided to play to win every game, and to double-cross the fixers.

October 10, 1919

Jackson received, probably sometime during the Series or possibly right after, $5,000 in cash from his teammate, Claude Williams. The day after the Series ended, he apparently took this money to show to Charles Comiskey, as hard evidence that gamblers had indeed "reached" some of the players. Jackson said that he was turned away by the team secretary, Harry Grabiner.

Fall/Winter 1919-1920

As rumors of crookedness in the Series swirled, Jackson wrote to Comiskey on November 15, expressing surprise that his name had been mentioned in the rumors. He insisted that he played the Series to win, and offered to travel to Chicago to clear his name.

All of his teammates knew of the tampering, from their manager, who had threatened them with his gun if they played to lose. Like them, and his team’s owner, Jackson did not go to the press. The press knew anyway, and chose to ignore the story, and when reporter Hugh Fullerton tried to blow a whistle, he was ridiculed.

Jackson said that when Harry Grabiner visited him in Savannah, GA, to sign him to his new three-year contract, he again asked Grabiner about the $5,000, and was told to keep it. Grabiner denied this. A jury believed (by 11-1) Jackson's version of events over Grabiner's.

The same jury also believed that Grabiner deceived Jackson by telling him that his new contract, for 1920 through 1922, had no "ten days clause" (giving the team the right to release a player without cause, giving only ten days' notice).

In any event, the White Sox offered Jackson a multi-year contract which included a raise of $2,000 per year, knowing that the 1919 Series had been tampered with, and knowing Jackson had taken $5,000; and perhaps also knowing that he could tell the world that his team had known about the Fix all along.

The 1920 Season

Joe Jackson batted .382 in 1920, with 218 hits, 20 triples, 105 runs, 121 RBI, and just 14 strikeouts in 570 AB.

September 28, 1920

A grand jury, convened in Cook County (Chicago), finally started looking into the rumors about a Fix in the 1919 Series. The names of eight players whose checks had been withheld after the Series, appeared in the press; Jackson's name was one of them. The grand jury did not intend to interfere with the pennant races in progress by calling players until after the season. But with three games still remaining, two White Sox players voluntarily went to the grand jury, and confirmed that gamblers had offered bribes and tainted the outcome of the 1919 Series.

The first player to step forward was Sox starter Eddie Cicotte, who said that he had accepted $10,000 before the Series. Cicotte also testified that he pitched the Series to win, after intentionally putting the first batter he faced on (with a hit batsman).

The next player to step forward was Joe Jackson. Jackson met first with the team lawyer, Alfred Austrian, as had Cicotte. They were both advised to sign a waiver of their immunity, so whatever they said to the grand jury, could be later used against them. It seems that Jackson was also permitted to appear before the grand jury "half drunk," which may help explain his somewhat contradictory statement, which is available today.

Jackson, like Cicotte, confirmed that there had been tampering. But he also stated that he played the entire Series to win, at bat and in the field. When the press characterized Jackson's grand jury statement as a confession, which suggested that he had deliberately thrown games, he immediately denied that. When the "Say it ain't so, Joe" story appeared soon after, it became generally believed that he had been in on the plot; Jackson denied that the meeting with the child took place. Historian Harold Seymour and others think the statements attributed to Jackson by the press, that suggest he gave less than his best effort, were for the consumption of the gamblers, and they are nowhere to be found in his grand jury testimony.

Jackson told the grand jury that he had accepted $5,000 from his teammate Williams, but not that he showed it to Grabiner. He said that Gandil had promised $20,000. His grand jury statement is vague and contradictory at times; a year later Jackson’s own lawyer advised him to repudiate it. Just what Jackson agreed to is not clear. He admitted to having limited knowledge that the Fix was in, from Williams. He did not tell the grand jury that he communicated what he knew to his team, before the Series; nor was he asked if he did.

Suspensions

The players whose names, in the words of Charles Comiskey, had been "bunched together" in the rumors were suspended, following their indictments, which followed on the heels of the grand jury testimony of Cicotte, Jackson, and (the next day) Claude Williams. In the Fall of 1920, the owners of major league baseball chose Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as the first Commissioner of the sport. A federal judge based in Chicago, Landis followed baseball and the grand jury gambling probe closely. Soon after taking office, in January 1921, he made known his opinion about the suspended players, stating that they were ineligible to play baseball until their names were cleared. He repeated this view when spring training camps opened.

The "Black Sox Trial"

The eight players (along with a number of gamblers or "fixers") were tried on charges of conspiracy in the summer of 1921. None of the players (including Jackson) testified, except to repudiate the statements that they had made to the 1920 grand jury. A jury found the players not guilty of the charges.

Judge Landis' Edict

Immediate;y after the trial, Commissioner Landis issued a statement that dashed any hopes that fans and players had about the return of the "eight men out." Landis said the men could apply for reinstatement, but their chances would not be good:

Regardless of the verdicts of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.

Appeals for Reinstatement

Although several of the banned players appealed for reinstatement, and fans and families petitioned the Commissioner, none of the players was ever removed from baseball's ineligible list.

The 1924 Milwaukee Trial

Another trial took place in the winter of 1924, in Milwaukee, WI, where the White Sox were incorporated. Joe Jackson sued the Sox, claiming that they owed him two years' back pay (for 1921-1922). In dispute was whether his contract contained the "ten days clause" -- if it did not, then the White Sox had to show cause for not paying the balance of the contract. Although a jury found for Jackson by 11-1, the judge overturned the verdict because Jackson's version of things in 1924 (presumably coached by his own lawyer) varied from the version he had given the grand jury in 1920 (when he was coached by Comiskey's lawyer). His grand jury testimony surfaced during the trial, inexplicably, from the briefcase of Comiskey's lawyer, after going missing since a few months after it was given.

Recent Attempts to Clear Jackson's Name

Over the decades, even well after Joe Jackson's death in 1951, many friends of his family, politicians, and fans have urged Judge Landis and his successors to reinstate Jackson. The best known advocate Jackson had was the late Ted Williams, who formally petitioned the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball on Jackson's behalf. Probably reluctant to rule on a case so cold, a sentence handed down so long ago, and a matter still shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, each Commissioner since Judge Landis has failed to take any action.

Some Possible Options

Without giving any new opinion about the facts in this case, or Jackson's participation, or his degree of guilt, a Commissioner could simply rule that the "lifetime ban" imposed on Jackson and the other banned players expired when their lifetimes ended. This would only remove them from baseball's ineligible list. It would then be up to others to decide whether Jackson or any of the others were worthy of the Hall of Fame ballot.

Another option would be to grant an amnesty, principally because there is reasonable doubt about the fairness of the original banishment. That Landis' edict was effective as a warning to ballplayers -- to merely associate with gamblers was now to risk one's career -- is not in question. However, there is little doubt that the men involved were denied due process, and that the harsh punishment they received was selective; that is, other players with similar "guilty knowledge" of the 1919 World Series fix, and who profited from that knowledge, were not banned; nor were the officials who might have called off the Series or postponed it to investigate the situation brought to their attention before Game One started, punished in any way.

A third option would be to finally treat each player as an individual case, and sort out what each did or did not do, based on all the evidence that can be found. If this was done in an impartial way, it may be that some players in fact could "pass" the test imposed by Landis' ex post facto edict. Jackson probably did not throw a game or promise to throw one; that was the testimony of Charles Comiskey in the 1924 trial, even though he faced the loss of many thousands of dollars if Jackson won the case against the Sox. Jackson almost certainly did not participate in the planning of the fix. And finally, it seems that Jackson did communicate with his team about the fix, if not weeks or days before the Series, then at least before Game One, when he asked to be benched.

Character

Few people alive today knew Shoeless Joe Jackson well. But he is recalled in his hometown as a hero worthy of a statue. He has been voted into many different sports Halls of Fame over the years, despite his unfavored status in baseball. He apparently was a simple man, not a saint, but not likely a sinister person, either. If we "follow the money" he took in October 1919, which his team apparently told him to keep after he showed it to them, we know that much of it paid hospital bills for his sister, or went to charity. Shoeless Joe Jackson was simply a great ballplayer, praised by his hitting peer Ty Cobb, his swing copied by no less an icon than Babe Ruth. Because no history of baseball can be complete without his chapter, it seems time for baseball to do the right thing, and let his story be told.

Einstein'sCurve

11-18-2007, 08:42 AM

Fair enough, but I remain cynical of anything Joe Jackson ever spoke. Just him saying he had 5 assists is either his memory playing tricks on him or a claim he didn't think was easy to check.

Joe Jackson was an illiterate, country, unsophisticate in the kindest sense of the description. Compare to the cagey, explosive, manipulative Cobb who starts off with the same roots but was educated and of very high intelligence.

Anyone studying baseball history knows gamblers were buying into players long before 1919. Ty Cobb admits to taking money and coming up short early in his career. The owners all knew of this, and often as not had a piece of the action and certainly did little about it.

The fix of 1919 took it to another level with most of the key Sox players supposedly on the take. What are you going to do as a poor country boy when the big city boys come knocking with their big irons and legbreakers in tow?

From many if not most accounts I've read, Joe was greatly conflicted and did attempt to notify Comisky and wanted to return the money. Regardless, the accusations and proof were so weak that all the players were aquitted of criminal actions.

Landis had a major scandal that affected the mighty bottomline of fat cat owners, so he took the easy route by banning the players which gave the illusion that the baseball organization was above any taint to the game. Fortunately for Landis he had an ace in the hole he knew nothing about, and that was Babe Ruth who quickly knocked the BlackSox off the public pages and the rest is limited history written almost entirely by the baseball establishment, the victors as it were.

That Ted Williams appeared to throw his support behind Jackson speaks volumes as he was generally not much for excuses.

Ubiquitous

11-18-2007, 08:55 AM

Einstein's post.

This is an extremely simplified version of the what went on in that era and partially incorrect in its simplification.

Macker

11-18-2007, 08:59 AM

I hope and pray you will not be as snide or closed to his commentary as you are to mine.

I've seen Carney's work. I'm confident any opinions he states are based on documentation he has seen. This is very different from you as you base opinions on things that might possibly have happened with no basis other than it is possible it may have happened that way.

Regardless, the accusations and proof were so weak that all the players were aquitted of criminal actions.

This is exactly the type of post that shows most Jackson supporters aren't familiar enough to speak on the subject. Number one, there was no law against throwing games. It wasn't that the case was weak, there was no law on the books to break. That's why Landis banned the players despite the jury's verdict. I think Carney would agree this trial was a joke.

That Ted Williams appeared to throw his support behind Jackson speaks volumes as he was generally not much for excuses.

Williams is my favorite all-time player, but I've never let his athletic ability trick me into thinking he was particularly bright. I doubt Williams looked into the case thoroughly. Since Williams was a toddler at the time of the scandal, he had no first-hand knowledge of the 1919 events.

Einstein'sCurve

11-18-2007, 09:12 AM

This is exactly the type of post that shows most Jackson supporters aren't familiar enough to speak on the subject. Number one, there was no law against throwing games. It wasn't that the case was weak, there was no law on the books to break. That's why Landis banned the players despite the jury's verdict. I think Carney would agree this trial was a joke.

I agree, a joke, just like the official baseball history concerning the subject.

There were laws on the books dealing with gambling that the players would have fallen under. Regardless, the players to a man acquitted in what was obviously an aborted railroad job so, being a good company man, Landis took the job unto his own hands.

Don't kid yourself that I'm not familar enough to speak on the topic. I'm not a scholar on the topic, but I've read enough to come to general conclusions. Enough to see that Comiskey was elected to the HOF and has a public funded stadium named after him in spite of questionable dealings.

Ubiquitous

11-18-2007, 09:20 AM

Comiskey's middle name was U.S. Cellular Field?

The charges were for fraud to various peoples. The judge himself in giving instructions to the jurists specifically stated that you can't find the defendants guilty for simply throwing games. The defendants own lawyers all but admitted to agreeing to throw games in his closing arguments to the jurors.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 09:36 AM

It wasn't that the case was weak, there was no law on the books to break. That's why Landis banned the players despite the jury's verdict. I think Carney would agree this trial was a joke.
It wasn't that the case was weak? You must be kidding me, Macker.

You still cannot accept that the case WAS weak, can you? The case was almost all based on rumor, innuendo, hearsay. It was based almost on its entirety on Cicotte's/Jackson's Grand Jury testimony.

And that testimony would never, ever, ever be credible enough to stick today, with our improved standards of evidence.

When the evidence is weak, many cases do not even go to trial today. Many DAs refuse to go to trial with the level of (or should I say the lack of documentation) of the 1919 scandal.

When the evidence is light, the case should either not go to trial, or the jury should scrutinize the evidence carefully.

In this particular case, reasonable doubt should have decided the outcome. Today, in hindsight, there is far too much reasonable doubt to believe that Jackson under-performed onfield, or support a lifetime ban.

Cicotte believed Jackson was in on it entirely, 100% on Lefty Williams' say so. Williams only wanted Jackson to receive free gamblers' money, and had not asked Jackson's permission to use his name in any meetings.

Jackson consistently asserted his innocence of throwing anything on-field in his GJ testimony. And anything else he said is tainted beyond redemption by a multitude of factors.

He could have lied due to Comiskey attorney Alfred Austrian's coaching.
He could have lied because he believed that was what they wanted to hear.
He could have lied due to being 'half-drunk'.

Another possibility is that his so-called Grand Jury testimony was deliberately falsified by Comiskey's lawyer, and retyped for the benefit of the second trial.
The first, original copy was stolen from the prosecutor's office, and many have good reasons to suspect that Comiskey's hired someone to do it, or authorized Arnold Rothstein's connections to do it, and changed the text, for his own interests.

There are just so many good, solid reasons to distrust Jackson's testimony, that today, it isn't worth spit to rely on. And yet, those who wish to discredit Jackson, rely on it almost 100% in their efforts to blacken his name.

But some of us are not lily-white innocents, and realize that not everything that is said under oath is 100% free from lies, half-truths, slanted, distorted exaggerations. We do not depend on Joe Jackson's Grand Jury testimony.

It reeked of Alfred Austrian's influence. Whatever happened to Lefty Williams' Grand Jury testimony? In either trial?

I watch a ton of judge shows every single day. And few go by where I don't think that both sides are leaning so heavily on interpretation, that its tough to believe either side entirely. It's OK to present one's side to make one look as good as possible, but there are lines which one cannot cross, and still be truthful.

Macker

11-18-2007, 11:31 AM

You still cannot accept that the case WAS weak, can you?

You missed the point entirely. My point was there was no law against throwing games. No matter how much evidence was put forth, throwing games was not a crime for the jury to decide. So the jury verdict had nothing to do with lack of evidence and everything to do with the fact that no law was broken. Video & audio of every meeting, an audio of every phone call, admissions from the players, etc. would not have been enough to convict them of throwing games, because there was no law agaisnt throwing games. But you supporters cling to that jury verdict as if it exhonerates Jackson.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 12:05 PM

But you supporters cling to that jury verdict as if it exonerates Jackson.
No, no I don't, Macker. I have never even considered the effects of that jury verdict. In fact, we are in agreement that that first trial was a joke.

It was a media circus, complicated by the theft of the original Grand Jury testimonies.

But I do take very seriously the second Milwaukee trial of 1924. The jurists there did receive the chance to hear the entire 1920 Grand Jury transcripts, and hear Jackson testify, as well as Lefty Williams, Mrs. Jackson, Charles Comiskey, etc.

And I see no reason to discredit their collective beliefs in the truthfulness of Joe's testimony.

My simple point, is that when the evidence is light, reasonable doubt should decide/prevail. Judge Landis made his dictatorial edict based on hearsay, innuendo, and the convoluted Jackson GJ testimony.

Landis got Jackson/Weaver wrong. He felt pressured to issue a message to the gamblers, that baseball was off-limits. And he did succeed in his given mission objective. The Rothsteins of the times never again tried to mess with baseball, to my knowledge. But in his success, Landis also failed in his mission to deliver justice to Jackson/Weaver.

Those 2 had sufficient mitigating circumstances to conduct a separate, independent investigative process. Maybe if Judge Landis had had the moral fortitude to conduct such an independent investigation, privately, he could have learned what really happened, or didn't happen.

Maybe private investigators could have discovered things that hithertofore had been hushed up. And if that had happened, maybe today people like us would have to fight about Sisler, Traynor, Carl Mays, Rose, Bonds, etc., and not Jackson.

With so much still enshrouded in murkiness, I can't see how the Hang'em High Committee can support a lifetime ban. Seems way too harsh, in light of so little really established.

Ubiquitous

11-18-2007, 12:12 PM

And I see no reason to discredit their collective beliefs in the truthfulness of Joe's testimony.

Yes, 11 jurists believed that Comiskey did in fact waive the ten day clause.

That was all the second trial was about.

Neither trial was actually a trial about throwing games.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 01:06 PM

Yes, 11 jurists believed that Comiskey did in fact waive the ten day clause.

That was all the second trial was about.

Neither trial was actually a trial about throwing games.
Huh? You're joking with me, right?

Here is part of the transcript of the second trial.
---------------
Special Verdict:

1. Did the Defendant offer the Plaintiff a sum of money sufficient to make the Plaintiff's share of the World Series receipts, equal to $5000., if the defendant's base ball club won the 1917 pennant? Answer: YES.

2. If you answer Question number 1 "Yes," then answer this Question: Did the Plaintiff rely and act upon such information conveyed to him? Answer: YES.

3. Did Grabiner, at the time of the 1920 contract was signed, represent to the Plaintiff Jackson, that the contract did not contain a ten day clause? Answer: YES

4. If you answer Question number 3 "Yes," then answer this Question: Was the Plaintiff Jackson, induced to sign the 1920 contract in reliance upon such representation? Answer: YES.

5. If you answer Question number 4 "yes," then answer this Question: Did the Plaintiff Jackson, Have a right to rely upon such representation? Answer: YES.

6. Did the Plaintiff Jackson, unlawfully conspire with Gandil, Williams and other members of the White Sox Club, or any of them, to lose or "throw" any of the Base ball games of the 1919 World's Series to the Cincinnati Baseball Club? Answer: NO.

7. If you answer Question number 6 "yes," then answer this Question: Did the Defendant at the time the 1920 contract was signed by Mr. Comiskey about May 1st, 1920, know of the Plaintiff's participation in such conspiracy? Answer: [LEFT BLANK, NO ANSWER RENDERED]

8. Did Williams give Jackson the $5000. before all the games in the 1919 World's Series had been played? Answer: NO.

9. If you answer Question number 8 "No," then answer this Question: At the time Williams gave Jackson the $5000. did he tell Jackson that there had been an agreement between certain of the ball players on the White Sox team to lose or "throw" the games of the World's Series, and that the $5000 was his (Jackson's) share of the money received by the players for their part in the agreement? Answer: NO.

10. If you answer Question number 3 "Yes," then answer this Question: What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate the Plaintiff for the defendant's failure to give Plaintiff a contract in accordance with Defendant's representation? Answer: $16,711.04

Attached to Special verdict: "Certificate Number 9530 of authenticity of copy of Special Verdict, 16 February, 1924". Signed by C.C. Mass, Clerk. Fee fifty cents.

Ubiquitous

11-18-2007, 01:54 PM

Bill you act like this stuff has never been brought before in this thread. It is like you forget everything that happened 6 months ago and repeat the same old arguments as if they were the first time you bring them up.

Again for what has to be the 4th or 5th time. The jury cannot find that Joe or anybody else unlawfully conspired to do anything. They were already found innocent of any wrongdoing in the first sham (your own view as well) trial.

All that matter in this dispute was question 3. Did Comiskey waive the ten day clause? The jurists believed he did so they sided with Joe. The dispute has nothing to do with fixing games. Joe sued not to get his good name back or to get back into the game but to get back pay that he thought he was owed. Comiskey said I have the right to waive you, Joe said we took that out of our agreement, Charlie said no we didn't, Joe sued, jurists sided with Joe on the contract dispute, Judge understands that Joe is liar and that his words cannot be taken at face value and sets aside the verdict.

Again the trial is not about throwing games, no trial ever was.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 02:57 PM

While what you say is true enough, it is also simplistic. To say that nothing else was at stake, that nothing else mattered is to over-simplify the second trial.

But since you are certain to disagree with me, again, I will try to give context to this.

1. Joe asserted that the 10-day clause was deleted from the 1920 contract, by Harry Grabiner, Comiskey/Grabiner insisted it was not.

Since it was a he said/she said, their credibility comes into question. And that credibility led to the question of the previous scandal, and Joe's alleged participation in it.

That is why the original GJ testimony came into play. Why else would those testimonies have to be read for the jury, Ubi? Why??

Why would Lefty Williams be called on to testify, concerning the money? These questions go to character, integrity, and one's propensity to falsify under oath.

Why would Judge Hartley Replogle, of the second Milwaukee trial, accuse Jackson of perjury, if it was only a contract dispute? Perjury goes to motive, character, integrity.

While it was all very convenient to confine the discussion to the 10-day clause, such a trial wouldn't have riveted the attention of the sports community.

And why would question #6 be included in the list of relevant questions? Wouldn't that seem out of place in a simple contract dispute?

If that 1924 Milwaukee jury believed that Jackson would have thrown ballgames, what would have prevented him from lying about Grabiner deleting the clause from the 1920 contract?

It all goes to character/integrity. The 1924 jury believed Jackson to be more of a truth-teller than Grabiner/Comiskey. And it was on that basis that they awarded him the backpay.

Judge Replogle obviously didn't believe Jackson told the truth, since his testimony was contradictory. The Judge had the option of believing Jackson's contradictions stemmed from coaching that was not in his best interests.

Joe Jackson naively believed that Alfred Austrian was representing him and the other White Sox in the 1st trial, and half-followed his coaching. That in and of itself should have won him a separate legal process. Totally unethical of Austrian to allow the While Sox to believe such a thing. And one that would surely have gotten him disbarred in a later, more legally-stringent era.

Ubiquitous

11-18-2007, 04:29 PM

Since it was a he said/she said, their credibility comes into question. And that credibility led to the question of the previous scandal, and Joe's alleged participation in it.

That is why the original GJ testimony came into play. Why else would those testimonies have to be read for the jury, Ubi? Why??

To show that Joe Jackson is a liar. Which he was, which is why the judge set aside the verdict.

Why would Lefty Williams be called on to testify, concerning the money? These questions go to character, integrity, and one's propensity to falsify under oath.

Because Joe can call anybody up he wants to. What Joe and his lawyer tried to do and was succesful at was the same thing that OJ's lawyers tried to do and were succesful at. They tried to confuse the issue. They turned the trial into something else. OJ's lawyers put the LAPD on trial and the jury bought it. SO is OJ innocent? Joe's lawyer turned the court proceedings into a circus about the fix. For the most part Charlie's lawyers didn't bite and didn't throw around accusations or dispute much. They simply presented the GJ and showed that Joe was a liar and cannot be trusted to be honest in a he said/she said affair.

While it was all very convenient to confine the discussion to the 10-day clause, such a trial wouldn't have riveted the attention of the sports community.

It doesn't matter what riveted whom and for what reason. Heck they made a movie called the People vs. Larry Flynt and they made it look like it was a me against the world type thing going on in court when it was a simple dispute on what can and cannot be lampooned.

Joe sued to get backpay, yes or no? Charlie said no because he claimed the ten day clause was there, yes or no? Joe didn't sue because he believed he didn't throw games and Charlie didn't say I'm not paying you because you threw games.

It all goes to character/integrity. The 1924 jury believed Jackson to be more of a truth-teller than Grabiner/Comiskey. And it was on that basis that they awarded him the backpay.
Yes they did which is an incredible feat considering that the lies were right there in front of their face and read to them.

Judge Replogle obviously didn't believe Jackson told the truth, since his testimony was contradictory. The Judge had the option of believing Jackson's contradictions stemmed from coaching that was not in his best interests.

Joe Jackson naively believed that Alfred Austrian was representing him and the other White Sox in the 1st trial, and half-followed his coaching. That in and of itself should have won him a separate legal process. Totally unethical of Austrian to allow the While Sox to believe such a thing. And one that would surely have gotten him disbarred in a later, more legally-stringent era.

Oh gosh here comes the coaching defense right on time. Coaching defense is null and void as far as I am concerned. You want to bring it up that is fine but it doesn't exist, period. You won't find a single person connected with this case bringing that up. You won't find Joe, you won't find Eddie, you won't find Chick, you won't find their lawyers, you won't find their spouses, you won't find their relatives, you won't find their descendants trying to make that case. It is a make believe what if that some people try to put forward without a shred of evidence.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 04:48 PM

To show that Joe Jackson is a liar. Which he was, which is why the judge set aside the verdict.

Because Joe can call anybody up he wants to. What Joe and his lawyer tried to do and was succesful at was the same thing that OJ's lawyers tried to do and were succesful at. They tried to confuse the issue. They turned the trial into something else. OJ's lawyers put the LAPD on trial and the jury bought it. SO is OJ innocent? Joe's lawyer turned the court proceedings into a circus about the fix. For the most part Charlie's lawyers didn't bite and didn't throw around accusations or dispute much. They simply presented the GJ and showed that Joe was a liar and cannot be trusted to be honest in a he said/she said affair.
So, you are agreeing with me, after all! The case was NOT just about the 10-day clause as you alleged in your last post, but it went to their credibility, after all. I just knew you'd come around, Ubi, old friend. Glad to have you aboard!

Joe sued to get backpay, yes or no? Charlie said no because he claimed the ten day clause was there, yes or no? Joe didn't sue because he believed he didn't throw games and Charlie didn't say I'm not paying you because you threw games.
Yes and yes.

Yes they did which is an incredible feat considering that the lies were right there in front of their face and read to them.
Don't you just hate it when everyone who heard everything in the second trial disagrees with you, Ubi.

Oh gosh here comes the coaching defense right on time. Coaching defense is null and void as far as I am concerned. You want to bring it up that is fine but it doesn't exist, period. You won't find a single person connected with this case bringing that up. You won't find Joe, you won't find Eddie, you won't find Chick, you won't find their lawyers, you won't find their spouses, you won't find their relatives, you won't find their descendants trying to make that case. It is a make believe what if that some people try to put forward without a shred of evidence.
You are not holding me responsible for perceiving a valid angle that all the rest of them forgot, are you? Maybe I missed my calling. Perhaps the world lost a great attorney when I decided to become - nothing at all.

Ubiquitous

11-18-2007, 05:13 PM

So, you are agreeing with me, after all! The case was NOT just about the 10-day clause as you alleged in your last post, but it went to their credibility, after all. I just knew you'd come around, Ubi, old friend. Glad to have you aboard!

It was a contract dispute. A he said/she said affair. It was all about the contract, everything that when on in that case had to do with winning one sides or the others case, period.

Don't you just hate it when everyone who heard everything in the second trial disagrees with you, Ubi.

Nope, because the only one that truly mattered made the right call.

Bill Burgess

11-18-2007, 07:50 PM

It was a contract dispute. A he said/she said affair. It was all about the contract, everything that when on in that case had to do with winning one sides or the others case, period.

Nope, because the only one that truly mattered made the right call.
Wish Gene were here. Because no matter how valid or credible a point I bring up, you, Macker, Mark are pre-determined to disagree, just because you see me as a pro-Joe advocate. So it hardly matters how well I argue.

I hope you interact with him more flexibly. And I made a real effort this year to grow, become less argumentitive, and open to things I feel sceptical about. Wish the other side could too.

Ubiquitous

11-18-2007, 07:59 PM

Bill Burgess

11-19-2007, 06:16 AM

Bill I am pre-determined to voice my opinion. If you say Joe Jackson was a liar and was party to a group of players who threw the world series I would not disagree with you. I disagree with that which I do not agree with. I do not disagree with people regardless of what they have to say.
Fair enough. We'll see how well the other side interacts with Gene, who does not think of himself as pro-Jackson, but is open and flexible.

Macker

11-19-2007, 08:39 AM

I think we're all open and flexible. You've just never given anything convincing other than what 'might' have happened.

sturg1dj

11-19-2007, 09:00 AM

I think Joe's innocence can be looked at by seeing how society viewed similar actions prior to his

1) gambling on baseball was not seen as a big deal - if you go into the NY Times during the series you see they put the odds after every game, and there are several stories just concerning the betting

2) players threw games all of the time prior to that. see Hal Chase

Then look at the circumstances that led up to it

1) Charles Comiskey was a cheapskate - his cheapness even got to the point that it may have tampered with the outcome of a game (Cicottes chance at 30 wins which would have gotten him a bonus, which Comiskey made sure Cicotte did not pitch)
2) Charles Comiskey took advantage of Joe Jackson's ignorance - Joe was illiterate and signed his name with an 'x' he had no idea what was in his contract.

Now this does not touch on at all if he did or did not do it, but I feel you need to look at the situation and say, if he did do it, do you blame him? Everything that went on in the front office and outside of baseball pushed the 8 into this situation.

Ubiquitous

11-19-2007, 10:01 AM

Brian McKenna

11-19-2007, 10:02 AM

I think Joe's innocence can be looked at by seeing how society viewed similar actions prior to his.
You talk about everything but Jackson's innocence...or guilt.

players threw games all of the time prior to that. see Hal Chase
Games were not routinely thrown in any era within organized baseball. The rule is not defined by the exception.

Charles Comiskey was a cheapskate - his cheapness even got to the point that it may have tampered with the outcome of a game
Comiskey was no different than the average owner; in fact, i think he had a higher payroll than most.

Charles Comiskey took advantage of Joe Jackson's ignorance - Joe was illiterate and signed his name with an 'x' he had no idea what was in his contract.

Jackson's ignorance was his alone. I'm sure he could read numbers. Other than that his contract was just like everyone else's.

I feel you need to look at the situation and say, if he did do it, do you blame him?
Yes, of course. Who wouldn't? Are disgruntled employees to be excused for fraudulent behavior?

Everything that went on in the front office and outside of baseball pushed the 8 into this situation
Seven players freely choose to conspire to commit fraud - period - plain and simple - any comment after that is just a justification.

Ubiquitous

11-19-2007, 10:23 AM

sturg1dj

11-19-2007, 10:56 AM

By the way for all those who might say "oh it was 1917 that Cicotte had the bonus", let me just say that Cicotte had normal usage that year. He wasn't pulled out of any game early or skipped over to keep him from getting 30. He played all the way up to the end of the season even winning the Sox 100th game that year. Eddie went 7-0 in those 31 games. and in 8 starts. Of those 8 starts only 1 wasn't a complete game and that was the one game he didn't win. The A's and Sox were tied after 8 at one a piece. They brought in Liebold and threw a wild pitch to lose the game. And if you want to get technical Eddie went 8-0 in his last 9 games.

to that and the last two posts let me just say that I am very late to this discussion so I just have to ask was the book Eight Men Out already stricken from the record? I ask this because thats where I get my info.

and overall I would say since this country is based in the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty I would have to say the jerk comment that they are innocent since they were never proven guilty.

hellborn

11-19-2007, 11:00 AM

...
He felt pressured to issue a message to the gamblers, that baseball was off-limits. And he did succeed in his given mission objective. The Rothsteins of the times never again tried to mess with baseball, to my knowledge.
...

It was the intense publicity from the Black Sox scandal that kept Rothstein away from baseball from then on, which Landis was certainly a part of. None of the gamblers gave a squat about the ballplayers, of course. The Black Sox scandal kept pulling Rothstein into the news and, occasionally, into legal proceedings, which were the last things he wanted. Arnold wanted to make a ton of money and hobnob with famous people, but he didn't want to be in the newspapers.
Rothstein made good money from the '19 Series, but he wasn't exactly the mastermind of the whole thing. He played off two different groups of gamblers who were trying to achieve the same thing (Sport Sullivan and Abe Atell's groups), making money off the deal while putting himself at little risk. Except for the fact that his name started showing up in the papers a lot, which he hated. Rothstein made a lot more money from fixing horseraces, which attracted less publicity and was easier to disguise (just have a crony stuff a sponge into a horse's nose, or maybe just make it look like a top horse was going to miss a race when it wasn't).
Funny, it was gambling that led to Arnold's death. Instead of always playing the percentages, he started becoming a wild gambler, doing it for the thrill. He finally racked up a debt that he really may not have been able to pay promptly, despite his immense empire, and got killed over it. Started having cash flow problems due to his uncontrolled behavior...he also claimed that he had been cheated in the card game he lost big in, which may have contributed to him not wanting to pay the debt.

Ubiquitous

11-19-2007, 11:25 AM

to that and the last two posts let me just say that I am very late to this discussion so I just have to ask was the book Eight Men Out already stricken from the record? I ask this because thats where I get my info.

Eight Men Out was written a long time ago and he didn't have access to a lot of records that we have now. For the most part he got the overall facts correct. He misses some of the little stuff and that happens because he didn't have all the info.

and overall I would say since this country is based in the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty I would have to say the jerk comment that they are innocent since they were never proven guilty.

No, the view is in criminal court you are innocent until proven guilty. Joe Jackson wasn't sent to jail without a trial. Joe Jackson in the eyes of the law is innocent because for the most part what he did wasn't even a crime at the time. That doesn't mean his employer can't or won't fire him for what he did. Baseball found Joe Jackson and the 7 others guilty of being party to throwing of games and were removed from their organization.

Ubiquitous

11-19-2007, 11:28 AM

Baseball again would be in the public eye for a gambling scandal. About 20 years later teams in the minor leagues would be discovered throwing games for gamblers.

sturg1dj

11-19-2007, 11:51 AM

Eight Men Out was written a long time ago and he didn't have access to a lot of records that we have now. For the most part he got the overall facts correct. He misses some of the little stuff and that happens because he didn't have all the info.

No, the view is in criminal court you are innocent until proven guilty. Joe Jackson wasn't sent to jail without a trial. Joe Jackson in the eyes of the law is innocent because for the most part what he did wasn't even a crime at the time. That doesn't mean his employer can't or won't fire him for what he did. Baseball found Joe Jackson and the 7 others guilty of being party to throwing of games and were removed from their organization.

and on that last point I must apologize for not be as caught up on the facts of this thread; I took it as talking about the Court of Law and as soon as you pointed out that was not what you are talking about then I felt like a moron. Sorry....haha.

Bill Burgess

11-19-2007, 01:55 PM

Just a sidebar on Arnold Rothstein.
--------------

---Another article on Arnold Rothstein (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.carpenoctem.tv/img/rothstein.jpg&imgrefurl=http://carpenoctem.tv/mafia/rothstein.html&h=266&w=200&sz=10&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=XKUiPZIYnyRypM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=85&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2B%2522Arnold%2BRothstein%2522%26as_ st%3Dy%26svnum%3D100%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG)

Arnold Rothstein: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arnold RothsteinArnold Rothstein (January 17, 1882 - November 4, 1928) was a New York businessman and gambler who became a famous kingpin of organized crime. Rothstein was also widely reputed to have been behind baseball's Black Sox Scandal, in which the 1919 World Series was fixed. His notoriety inspired several fictional characters based on his life, including "Meyer Wolfsheim" in F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby, and "Nathan Detroit" in the Damon Runyon story The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown, which was made into the musical Guys and Dolls. He was also the basis of Nickie Arnstein in Funny Girl, starring Babra Streisand and Omar Sharif.

According to crime writer Leo Katcher, Rothstein "transformed organized crime from a thuggish activity by hoodlums into a big business, run like a corporation, with himself at the top."[1] According to Rich Cohen, Rothstein was the person who first saw in Prohibition a business opportunity, a means to enormous wealth, who "understood the truths of early century capitalism (hypocrisy, exclusion, greed) and came to dominate them". Rothstein was the Moses of the Jewish gangsters, according to Cohen, the progenitor, a rich man's son who showed the young hoodlums of the Bowery how to have style; indeed, the man who, the Sicilian-American gangster Lucky Luciano would later say, "taught me how to dress".[2]

Early life and successes
Arnold Rothstein was born in New York City, the son of a respectable Jewish businessman, Abraham Rothstein. Arnold was skilled at mathematics and developed an early interest in illegitimate business, whereas his older brother studied to become a rabbi. By 1910, Arnold had moved to the Tenderloin section of Manhattan, where he established an important gambling casino. During Prohibition, Rothstein purchased holdings in a number of speakeasies. He also invested in a horse racing track at Havre de Grace, Maryland, and it was widely reputed that he "fixed" many of the races that he won. Rothstein had a wide network of informants and very deep pockets when it came to paying for good information, regardless of how unscrupulous the sources were. His successes made him a millionaire by age thirty.

1919 World Series
In 1919, Rothstein's agents allegedly paid members of the Chicago White Sox to "throw", or deliberately lose, the World Series, enabling him to make a significant sum betting against Chicago.[3]

Summoned to Chicago to testify before a Grand Jury investigation of the incident, Rothstein stated that he was an innocent businessman intent on clearing his name and his reputation. Prosecutors could find no evidence linking Rothstein to the affair and he was never indicted. Rothstein's testimony is worth quoting. "The whole thing started when (Abe) Attell and some other cheap gamblers decided to frame the Series and make a killing. The world knows I was asked in on the deal and my friends know how I turned it down flat. I don't doubt that Attell used my name to put it over. That's been done by smarter men than Abe. But I was not in on it, would not have gone into it under any circumstances and did not bet a cent on the Series after I found out what was underway."[4]

The Grand Jury believed Rothstein, but the truth was a lot more complicated and Rothstein was a lot less innocent. One version of this story has Rothstein turning down the proposal relayed by Attel; however, this in fact had been the second "fix" he'd refused to bankroll. A gambler called Joseph "Sport" Sullivan had previously approached Rothstein with the same idea. After receiving Attel's offer, Rothstein reasoned he could now afford to reconsider the first offer from Sullivan's. Rothstein shrewdly figured that the field was becoming so crowded with would-be fixers that he could risk getting involved and still cover his tracks. As Rothstein explained it to Sullivan "If a girl goes to bed with nine guys, who's going to believe her when she says the tenth one's the father?".

Another version of this story has Rothstein working both ends of the fix with Sullivan and Attell.

1921 Travers Stakes
Rothstein is also attributed to having owned Sporting Blood, winner of the 1921 Travers Stakes. The race is known for its conspiracy theory between Rothstein and leading trainer, Sam Hildreth of the outstanding three year old, Grey Lag. Grey Lag entered on the morning of the race, immediately causing the odds on Rothstein's horse, Sporting Blood, to rise to 3-1. Rothstein then bet $150,000 through bookmakers, knowing that the second favorite, Prudery, was off her feed. Then, just before post time and without explanation, Hildreth scratched Grey Lag from the starting list. Rothstein collected over $500,000 in bets plus the purse and the conspiracy was never proven.

Prohibition and organized crime
With the advent of Prohibition, Rothstein diversified into bootlegging and narcotics. His criminal organization included such underworld luminaries as Meyer Lansky, Jack "Legs" Diamond, Charles "Lucky" Luciano, and Dutch Schultz. Rothstein's various nicknames were Mr. Big, The Fixer, The Man Uptown, The Big Bankroll and The Brain. Rothstein frequently mediated differences between the New York gangs and reportedly charged a hefty fee for his services. His favorite "office" was Lindy's Restaurant, at Broadway and 49th Street in Manhattan, where he would stand on the corner surrounded by his bodyguards and do business on the street. Rothstein made bets and collected debts from those who had lost the previous day.

Murder
On November 3, 1928, Arnold Rothstein was shot and mortally wounded while conducting some business affairs at Manhattan's Park Central Hotel. He died the next day at the Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital in Manhattan.[5] The shooting was allegedly linked to a gambling event that Rothstein had participated in the previous month with several associates and acquaintances. According to underworld folklore, it was a spectacular three-day, high-stakes poker game held somewhere in Manhattan. Rothstein apparently experienced a cold streak with the cards and ended up owing $320,000 at the end of the game. However, Rothstein refused to pay the debt, claiming the game was fixed. The hit was arranged to punish Rothstein for welshing on this debt. Gambler George "Hump" McManus was arrested for the murder, but later acquitted for lack of evidence.[6] Rothstein, on his deathbed, refused to identify his killer answering police inquiries with "Me Mudder did it" ("My Mother did it"). Rothstein was buried in Union Field Cemetery, Queens in an Jewish Orthodox ceremony.

Another theory about Rothstein's death is offered by crime reporter Paul Sann in his book Kill the Dutchman. Sann alleges that Dutch Schultz murdered Rothstein in retaliation for the murder of Schultz's friend and associate, Joey Noe, by Rothstein's protégé, Jack "Legs" Diamond.

Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, and other former associates inherited Rothstein's various "enterprises" after his death. Politically, Rothstein's death contributed to the fall of the corrupt Democratic political machine known as Tammany Hall and the rise of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia.

Arnold Rothstein's estate was finally declared bankrupt ten years after his death by his only surviving brother, but he left a legacy of shaping the form of American organized crime in the 20th century.

In popular culture
The author F. Scott Fitzgerald used Arnold Rothstein as the inspiration for the character "Meyer Wolfsheim", "Jay Gatsby's" crooked associate in the novel The Great Gatsby. At one point, the Gatsby character says to narrator "Nick Carraway", "that's the man who fixed the 1919 World Series".
Rothstein's legendary pool playing marathon, against a Philadelphia pool shark called Jack Conway who was shipped in by Rothstein's enemies to humiliate him, took place over two days and nights in 1911 at McGraw's Billiard Parlor, off Herald Square in Manhattan. Rothstein just kept playing and betting until Conway's backers had lost $10,000. Eventually, the owner John McGraw stepped in and shut down the hall, saying "That's it. If I let you go on I'll have one o' youse dead on my hands." This was the real life inspiration for the opening pool contest between "Minnesota Fats" (Jackie Gleason) and "Fast Eddie Felson" (Paul Newman) in the 1961 film "The Hustler." Rothstein's patronage of floating crap games also provided the model for the character of gambler "Nathan Detroit" in the musical Guys and Dolls. Rothstein also appears as "The Brain" in several of Damon Runyon's short stories, including a fictional version of his death in The Brain Goes Home.
The character of Hyman Roth in the film The Godfather, Part II mentions that Rothstein is his inspiration. In a sequence cut from the original film, Roth adopts his surname after Rothstein's in honor of his part in the Black Sox Scandal.
Rothstein was portrayed in several films by actors F. Murray Abraham in the 1991 Mobsters, David Janssen in the 1961 King of the Roaring 20's - The Story of Arnold Rothstein, and Michael Lerner in the 1988 Eight Men Out, based on the Black Sox Scandal.
The director Martin Scorsese supposedly used Rothstein as the inspiration for Robert DeNiro's gambler "Sam 'Ace' Rothstein" in the 1995 film Casino.

References
^ Katcher, Leo (1959/1994). The Big Bankroll. The Life and Times of Arnold Rothstein, New York: Da Capo Press
^ Defenders of the faith, The Guardian, Saturday July 6, 2002; Cohen, Rich (1999). Tough Jews: Fathers, Sons, and Gangster Dreams, London: Vintage
^ Arnold Rothstein and Baseball's 1919 Black Sox Scandal
^ The Big Fix: Arnold Rothstein rigged the 1919 World Series. Or did he?, Legal Affairs, March-April, 2004
^ In Room 349, Time, December 24, 1928
^ Tammany's Rothstein, Time, December 16, 1929
Cohen, Rich (1999). Tough Jews: Fathers, Sons, and Gangster Dreams, London: Vintage ISBN 0-099-75791-5
Henderson Clarke, Donald (1929). In the Reign of Rothstein, New York: The Vanguard Press.
Katcher, Leo (1959/1994). The Big Bankroll. The Life and Times of Arnold Rothstein, New York: Da Capo Press ISBN 0-306-80565-0
Pietrusza, David (2003). Rothstein: The Life, Times and Murder of the Criminal Genius Who Fixed the 1919 World Series, New York: Carroll & Graf.
Rothstein, Carolyn (with Donald Henderson Clarke) (1934), Now I'll Tell, New York: Vantage Press.
Tosches, Nick (2005). King of the Jews. The Arnold Rothstein Story, London: Hamish Hamilton ISBN 0-241-14144-3

hellborn

11-19-2007, 02:13 PM

Rothstein's operation for bringing booze in from overseas was of truly massive proportions. Big ships to bring the booze up to the limits of international waters, little skiffs to fetch it from there, lots of Coast Guards people to bribe to avoid problems.
He also paid no attention to ethnicity of the hoods he dealt with as long as they had the talent to help him, and was instrumental in the rise of the biggest NYC crime families, including the Gambinos, Lucianos, Lanskys, and Gottis. These groups were all born during Prohibition when they went to work for Rothstein.
Rothstein set up a public meeting with the Attell (who had been a bodyguard of his) group so he could loudly turn them down in their request for help in fixing the Series with lots of witnesses. Then, behind the scenes, he took advantage of the plot(s) to enrich his own pocketbook. He also bet on both sides for cover.
Rothstein lost $300,000 in a rigged card game to Nate Raymond from SF. McManus intentionally lost $51,000 in the game to make it look legit, and was to be forgiven of the debt once Raymond collected from Rothstein...but, when Arnold didn't pay, Raymond told McManus that he had to pay on his own debt. This is why McManus was threatening Rothstein, and, apparently, killed him in a fit of anger. Two of McManus' brothers, who were policemen, were in the room to assure Arnold that nothing bad was going to happen, and totally freaked when their brother lost his cool. The killing was very badly covered up, since it was not planned...gun thrown in the street, McManus' topcoat left in the room when he grabbed Rothstein's very similar one by accident.

EdTarbusz

11-19-2007, 03:14 PM

Because Ate Attell was a sometime member of Gene Tunney's entourage, boxing insiders were wooried that Rothstein would try to fix the second Tunney/Dempsey Title fight (remembered for the Long Count) in Tunney's favor. Dempsey had only been knocked out once before, and was believed to have taken a dive. The loser of that fight was likely to have taken home half a million dollars, so it's doubtful that either would listen to gamblers. Tunney ended up making around a million dollars from this fight.

Also about Rothstein: Norman Macht, in his new book about Connie Mack, brushes aside questions about the 1914 World Series by saying that Rothstein is not known for having any role or interest in that Series. In Gene Carney's book, it is revealed that in the first decades of the 20th century, that New York was not the center of sports gambling in the US, but that Boston was. Maybe a Series could be fixed without Rothstein's aid. He seems to have been altecomer to the 1919 World Series.

Bill Burgess

11-19-2007, 07:03 PM

From Gene Carney's lastest notes.
-------------------------------------------
An Informal, Partial List of the Documents
To Be Auctioned Off Soon in Chicago
Starting Bid: $5,000

September 4, 1919. Comiskey, Frazee and Ruppert call a special meeting of the AL Board of Directors to consider the statements by Ban Johnson, that suggest gambling exists to the menace of baseball, and a good purging is needed. Wow!

November 14, 1919. Report of detective Hunter from Milwaukee, where he is looking for information about Happy Felsch — to Alfred Austrian. He is also looking for Happy, who is off hunting. The letter is empty — but look at the date. And he reports to Austrian, not Comiskey, who is telling the public he has confidence in his players.

September 28, 1920. Synopsis of Eddie Cicotte’s grand jury statement. This meshes with the statements read to Cicotte when he was deposed in January 1924 for the Milwaukee trial. Other statements from Eddie are in the collection, in what looks like Austrian’s typed notes. Nothing too startling, but in one list of comments, Cicotte says that when he returned to Chicago after Game Two, he went to his sister’s at 3909 Grand Boulevard. “Her name is Henrietta D. Kelly” — the mystery woman. Has anyone ever seen Mrs Kelly identified anywhere as Cicotte’s sister? I thought she was his landlady. I also have a couple pages of handwritten notes — Austrian’s? — from Cicotte’s meeting with Austrian, it looks like. “Pitched first game / tried to walk Rath — hit him / Risberg stumbled / Pitched 2nd game / Would have won anyway if he could [the line is struck out] / Couldn’t sleep / Felsch in room / Conf? at Sinton / Risberg Felsch & Cicotte.” The jottings line up with the statement Cicotte gave to the grand jury.

September 29, 1920. Lefty Williams STATEMENT. My take is that Williams was questioned by Austrian, signed the statement (it is in Q & A form), then went with it and probably read it to the grand jury. The eight pages I have contain familiar information. Like Jackson, Lefty said he was promised $20,000 but had to settle for $5,000; he says he delivered $5,000 to Jackson, after the fourth game — the last time he spoke with Gandil. He didn’t know if Game Three was fixed or not but Gandil told him after Game Four that the gamblers had called it off. Lefty appears almost a fuzzy about things as Jackson, even though he was at meetings, while Jackson was not. “You took care of him [Jackson], is that the idea?” Lefty was asked. His reply: “He made the remark whatever he done would be agreeable with him.”

October 25, 1920. Letter from Albert Lasker — remember the Lasker Plan? — to Cubs’ president William Veeck. There are quite a few more documents related to the transition from the National Commission, to the one-man-rule of the Commissioner.

October 26, 1920. Harry G. Redman before the Cook County Grand Jury. Asinof, and hence most sources, have it Redmon, but this legal document has it man. It’s definitely the same fellow, and the three pages of this document raises the hope that not all of the grand jury material that went missing in the deep Chicago winter of 1919-20 was forever buried or shredded. The snippet I have has Redman fingering Pesch, the Levy brothers, Abe Attell, and Nick the Greek. Harry is asked about Game Two: “What Jews were in on that bet?” Redman says he lost $3,500.

Joe Jackson on the witness stand, 1921 Trial. I’ve seen pages 561-564, but these are the first transcript pages I’ve ever seen from the 1921 trial. In Bleeding Between the Lines, where Asinof describes his search for any trace of the trial, forty years after it happened, he was “laughed at by the clerk” in the courthouse and told that the transcript no longer existed. Eight Men Out drew on accounts that appeared in the newspapers; some, like the NY Times, filled their pages with long columns of Q’s and A’s. But to think that material from that trial may exist has seemed impossible. Yet I have now read part of Joe Jackson’s version of his fateful session with Alfred Austrian, before he went to the grand jury. As he sat with Austrian and Gleason, he was asked if he knew that he was indicted, or was about to be. “I said, No, I didn’t know it, though I knew there were some scandal.” Gleason then takes an envelope from his pocket, gives it to Jackson and says “I am going to get out of here,” and leaves. The envelope contains — Austrian reads it to him — his suspension from the Sox and his final paycheck. Austrian tells Jackson that he needs a lawyer “damn bad” and Jackson starts to leave, to find himself a lawyer. But Austrian says, “‘Just sit down there a minute,’ and he walked between me and the door.” Then he calls McDonald. Jackson has nothing to tell him. He wants a lawyer, he wants Austrian to find him one, he says he would pay for a lawyer. Austrian seems to want Jackson to stay put, until he knows what Jackson will say, what he has to say. Jackson (and it seems he refers to Austrian, nit McDonald): “Well, I told him I would tell him what little I had heard about it.” The pages I have run out there — cliffhanger!

July 5, 1922. Letter from detective J.R. Hunter to Alfred Austrian, four pages, describing a meeting with Eddie Cicotte in Detroit. Comiskey’s legal team is recruiting Cicotte for the battle with Ray Cannon, the lawyer trying to win back pay and damages for Swede Risberg, Happy Felsch, and Joe Jackson. Cicotte seems agreeable to give a statement that will be helpful, but he asks that his own lawyer and friend, Daniel Cassidy, be brought in. Cicotte is so strikingly contrite and cooperative, that you would think he owed Comiskey a $10,000 bonus that went unpaid. I will definitely return to this letter, although in the end it is Hunter’s words, not Eddie’s, and I sense that Hunter may be telling Austrian what he wants to hear — I base that on the statements Cicotte actually gave, when he was deposed (twice).

April 9, 1923. Notes on Kate Jackson’s deposition. I’m guessing at the date, I got that from the deposition. The document I have is just a page or two of notes, handwritten, and I’m starting to recognize it as the hand of Austrian, but that is not certain. My best guess at the content is below — the writing is sloppy and shorthand. Nothing new from Kate in the notes.

But a second page, to the left — more notes — is very interesting. It’s not clear who is answering the questions — Kate? Joe? And who are they talking about? Harry Grabiner? Tell me if this is not intriguing: Q: “And did mention Jackson’s name?” A: “And he mentioned Jackson’s name.” Q: What did he say about it, if anything?” A: “Well, he told me that he knew that Gandil got money, and he knew Cicotte got money, and he knew that Williams got money, and he knew that Williams gave Jackson money.” (The italics were underlined.) “And I told him that was something new to me, I never knew nothing about it — and I told him right then and there that I wasn’t absolutely in anything to throw a game.” Again, that’s my best guess at the content. This begs for the pages before and after. But the not ends there, except for one more fragment, under a drawn line: “no letter to or from Club.”

Agonizingly — that’s all, folks. All I’ve seen so far. In a perfect world, I would be whisked away to Chicago, to join other B-Sox addicts or scholars (take your pick), like Bob Hoie. We would be chained to tables until we have deciphered all we can, then forced to write about it. Suddenly, the opening asking price for the collection is $5,000,000 instead of $5,000, and we are forced to accept a small stipend for our work. Shucks, OK, I say in my best Joe Jackson drawl. JUST KIDDING! Anyway, there you have it for now. Enjoy your thanksgiving!

Gene Carney

11-20-2007, 08:41 AM

In baseball, timing is everything. As I join this list, I'm also in conversation with a reporter in Chicago who is writing about Lot #13 in a coming Mastro Auction -- see
http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=76398&LastLotListing=Lot%20Search%20List&CurrentRow=1#photographs

I'm also lobbying as hard as I can to be sure that the Natl Baseball Library (Cooperstown) gets photocopies of this material -- some is definitely "new" (not in any book or newspaper that I've seen). Some will duplicate the material in Milwaukee from the 1924 trial (1,700 pages of transcript, but also affidavits, exhibits, and other stuff), but there is new material, too. It also looks like there is material (transcripts) from the 1921 trial -- Asinof was told all that was long gone, when he went searching in 1961 -- and the 1920 grand jury, much of which went missing (stolen) 87 years ago.

Anyway, to introduce myself a bit -- I became addicted to the subject of the "Black Sox" a little over five years ago. My main interest has been the cover-up of the Fix (from after the Series till the scandal broke, late in September 1920) and in figuring out who were the "Woodward and Bernsteins" who deserve credit for ending the cover-up. Along the way, I've learned a lot about the players, reporters, gamblers, & others in the story. I am not a Joe Jackson expert, and while I *can* advocate for him, I can also spot inaccuracies in his zealous boosters' arguments. Especially with new information kneeling on deck, it is really best to be open-minded about what he said and did. One of the documents is Jackson at the 1921 trial, on the stand, recalling his day in 1920 with Alfred Austrian, and that may be eye-opening, just from the little I've seen.

I thank Bill Burgess for inviting me into this group. All my research is at www.baseball1.com/notes -- starting with issue #268 (Sept 2002). My book (Burying the Black Sox) sums up about 3 years, to Fall 2005. Right now, I'm working on a second book that will cover what we've learned since then.

I regard this subject as a cold case, not a closed case, so I welcome any and all new evidence, as well as new theories, based on the evidence. As Bill said, I try not to argue, but I'll give my opinions, if asked.

Now, let's see if this post works!

Macker

11-20-2007, 08:54 AM

Gene,

Welcome. In your opinion, did Jackson ask to be benched prior to the World Series? I don't believe he did. However, if he did ask to be benched, doesn't that indicate he knew of the fix? (Unlike some, I'm not saying any of this makes him innocent or guilty; I'm just asking for your opinion on this one point.)

Brian McKenna

11-20-2007, 09:11 AM

Mr. Carney,

Thanks for joining us.

Just to start at the beginning.

Did Jackson conspire with others to throw the 1919 World Series?

Did he agree to accept money?

Did he receive money?

Macker

11-20-2007, 09:18 AM

Gene,

There seems to be no dispute that Jackson ended up with $5,000 of dirty money. Apparently, Jackson threw down the money in disgust when it was delivered.

In your opinion, was Jackson angry at the thought of receiving dirty money, or was he angry at the thought of receiving only $5,000 instead of the $20,000 he was expecting?

Gene Carney

11-20-2007, 11:16 AM

There is no conclusive evidence that Jackson asked to be benched before the Series. Eliot asinof has that in 8MO (Eight Men Out) but cannot recall where he got it -- I've pressed him on this several times. However, I have found references to this in several other pre-8MO sources, the earliest a 1932 interview with Jackson, the latest a 1961 Sporting News column out of Greenville. Taken altogether, I am leaning toward believing he asked to sit. And not because that would help the Reds, he was NOT that shrewd.

Was it the first time he tried to warn his team, before the Series? He says not. We can't corroborate yet, Jackson said Fullerton was there and COULD back him up, but I don't think Jackson realized that Hughie and Commy were very close friends. Fullerton DID write (in 1935) that Commy (and Ban Johnson, and others who might have acted to halt the WS to investigate) knew about the Fix before Game One, and I think they knew it was not just your average October rumors, because Hughie called them "whitewashing ********" for letting the crooks get away with it. (Can I use that word here? It was in The Sporting News.) So I believe Comiskey and Gleason knew before the Series that there had been bribes offered, knew from a variety of sources. Didn't have to be Jackson. Or Weaver.

Jackson definitely took $5,000 from Lefty Williams, that's undisputed. WHEN, we don't know, after Game 4, 5, or 8. From all I've read, yes, they both expected $20 G, tho what they were supposed to do in return is not clear, at least for Jackson, who was never placed at any meeting (by his teammates or by the gamblers who went on record). Based on the 1924 Milwaukee trial material, and that jury verdict (which was 11-1, not unanimous), I believe Jackson showed his team the $5 G right after the Series and asked them (Grabiner) again about it that winter. They told him to keep it. BAD choice. I do NOT believe he tried to give them the money, tho -- just SHOWED it to them. I think he and his wife saw it as tainted, nothing to be proud of ... nothing earned? We aren't sure. If we follow the money, it ends up paying hospital bills for Joe's sister, at least a chunk of it.

I have to go, back later, let me know what I missed.

Gene

Gene Carney

11-20-2007, 02:16 PM

>Did Jackson conspire with others to throw the 1919 World Series?
>Did he agree to accept money?

I did not address these questions directly in my previous post. I have a little more time now.

First, the word "conspire" is a problem. For some people, Jackson "conspired" merely by taking the money. Case closed. I tend to avoid the word "conspire" because conspiracy was precisely what the 1921 trial was about, and the players were acquitted, so that enables some to argue that there was no conspiracy. But of course there WAS, by any definition, I think. The trial was actually conspiracy to defraud, and proving that the players (& fixers) were out to hurt baseball, their livelihood, was an uphill climb.

I see Jackson as on the fringe of the conspiracy, knowing something was afoot (from Gandil, then from Williams) ... whether he took his concerns to Comiskey, we don't know, he said he did. I think his knowledge of the Fix was incomplete, but that was true of almost everybody ... his 1920 grand jury statement, to me, shows a very poor understanding of what was going on. If he made the statement about Game 3 being fixed (not certain that the words are his), that's further proof he was out of the loop. From the little I've seen of the "brand new" material, he may have known less than I thought, may have picked up some stuff from Austrian (who had spoken with Cicotte).

Did he agree to accept money? Well, he accepted it, and expected more than he received. Again, his grand jury statement is not conclusive. He flatly turns down $10,000, but does he say YES, loud and clear, to $20 G? I don't think so, but he may have tacitly agreed to SOMEthing, even to just keeping the bribe offer to himself. He said he played to win, so what did he promise in exchange for the money? Or DID he play to win? From reading back some in this discussion, I think you all know how complicated a question that is. My view is that he played the whole Series to win, but if I learned tomorrow that new evidence shows he agreed to toss Game One (for example), I wouldn't fall off my chair. Jackson made a HUGE mistake, I think, in accepting the money. Weaver didn't, and no one said he played to lose, and he's still banned, so without that mistake, Jackson may still have gone down with the rest.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 03:18 PM

Gene,

Given the level of information we know/don't know, do you support reinstating Joe Jackson to the eligible list for the Hall of Fame?

Or do you support his lifetime ban?

Would you consider voting in our little poll?

Macker

11-20-2007, 03:51 PM

Or do you support his lifetime ban?

Put another way, do you support his ban based on the criteria set down by Landis?

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 03:53 PM

Put another way, do you support his ban based on the criteria set down by Landis?
That would be too easy, if you read Landis' criteria literally. Joe passes. Go back and reread his exact wording.

Gene Carney

11-20-2007, 04:37 PM

Bill asked:
>>Given the level of information we know/don't know, do you support reinstating Joe Jackson to the eligible list for the Hall of Fame?
>>Or do you support his lifetime ban?
>>Would you consider voting in our little poll?

Reinstating Jackson is an easy question, and I'm encouraging Selig to take the easy way out for MLB: it's Ted Williams' logic -- lifetime bans end with their lifetimes. That puts the burden of the HOF question back on the BBWAA or Veterans Committee or whoever can pulls strings (Buck O'Neil being a test case).

To dodge the question a bit less, I do happen to believe there is "reasonable doubt" that whatever Jackson did, deserved a lifetime ban ... especially when some who may have done worse, ended up in Cooperstown, and here I mean Ban Johnson and Charles Comiskey, for their part in the cover-up of the Fix. I'll check out the poll. I do not believe petitions and PR pressure will make MLB change its mind, and could have a negative effect. If you've read the first chapter of BURYING THE BLACK SOX, you know I believe MLB's official historian Jerome Holtzman has a blind spot about Jackson ... while he's still "in office" I doubt Selig will do much. But I could be wrong.

Macker

11-20-2007, 05:01 PM

That would be too easy, if you read Landis' criteria literally. Joe passes. Go back and reread his exact wording.

You read it. Here it is:
"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball!"

So, just why was Jackson expecting to receive $20K?

Gene Carney

11-20-2007, 05:03 PM

The JJ poll results here are a bit puzzling. I once decided to "poll" the "real experts" on Jackson, so I picked twelve folks (a jury) who had written biographies or baseball histories (including Seymour). But I soon realized the problem -- they were not sitting on a jury, listening together to the same evidence being presented. What would 8MO look like if Asinof had had access to Jackson's 1920 transcript, and/or the Milwaukee trial material?

I suspect that could be at work in the poll. I've sure changed my thinking a lot over the past five years, on Jackson, Cicotte, Weaver, Gandil, the Series itself, and much more.

15% think Jackson underperformed, but does that mean 85% think he played to win? No, that's 47% But 55% want to reinstate, so does that mean 8% don't think what he DID in the Series should count?

I had trouble with the wording of two items. He took the money -- that is NOT in dispute, any more than his .356 lifetime average. WHY he took it? Well, let's take a poll, your best friend hands you $5,000 and tells you to keep it. What do you do? (a) keep it (b) send it into space.

I also had a problem with "tried to RETURN" the money to management. It didn't come from management. It came from his friend, Williams, who got if from his teammate, Gandil. ) Maybe soon we can all read this on page 1374 of the Milwaukee trial transcripts: Jackson talking: "He [Wms] didn't want the damn stuff [the $], and I thought just this way, since that lousey so-called gambling outfit had used my name, I might as well have their money as for him [Wms?]."
Q: How did you know they had used your name?
A: I had Williams' word for it.

Jackson was not about to leave the hotel maid a $5,000 tip. Looking back, he may have regretted that. But it was impossible to RETURN the money. Eddie Cicotte said he felt in the same bind -- if he COULD have returned the $10 G he got before Game One, he would have, "with interest" -- but it was too late. Returning the money AFTER the Series could have been risky -- sending the message to the thugs that you played to win, sorry. Go to the police? Right. I think Jackson was seriously confused, and followed the advice of his team (Grabiner) -- take the money and go home. Maybe that made Harry feel better too, since they underpaid Jackson. By the way, I do not see Comiskey as a Scrooge and do not think "getting even" with Commy for low wages or bonuses denied were in the players' motivation. They just saw a chance for easy money, and decided to go for it.

If my answers are too long, let me know, I don't yet have a feel for that. I've seen some long posts and some very brief ones. I'm a writer and find short answers elusive at times.

Gene

jalbright

11-20-2007, 05:19 PM

He took the money -- that is NOT in dispute, any more than his .356 lifetime average. WHY he took it? Well, let's take a poll, your best friend hands you $5,000 and tells you to keep it. What do you do? (a) keep it (b) send it into space.

If you've got a "friend" who is paying you a year's salary, and you expect even more, and you know this so-called friend is involved in a shady deal that he certainly doesn't want you to tell anybody in a position of authority about, if you are honest, you try to give the money back, but you sure as hell don't leave the room with it. If you are honest, you want nothing to do with that money, and because of that, it's not yours. It belongs to your friend, and if he wants to send it into space or leave such a huge tip for the hotel's service staff, that's on him. If you leave with the money, you've tacitly agreed to sell your integrity. You can't "return" it to someone else, and you certainly aren't demonstrating any integrity at all when you stay silent about the matter for nearly a year until the heat is on. I'm sorry, but Joe's story rings hollow IMO. The bottom line for me is that Landis had ample reason to think Joe Jackson would sell out the game at a figure that could easily be met by gambling interests--and such a person in no way shape or form belongs in any position which can influence the outcome on the field. If baseball is a "sport" rather than pro-wrestling style "entertainment", the integrity of the games must be as beyond question as reasonably possible. If Joe Jackson participated after the scandal broke, and his team lost because he made a "bonehead" play or struck out four times, all with the bases loaded, or so forth, the integrity of the result would clearly be in question.

Jim Albright

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 06:11 PM

You read it. Here it is:
"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball!"
Joe passes on every count.

1. Didn't throw a game.
2. Never sat in conference with fixers.
3. Never promised to throw a game.
4. Possibly did try to tell his team. Asked to be benched.

So, just why was Jackson expecting to receive $20K?
Because he was told he would receive free money, for doing absolutely - NOTHING. Yes, you heard me right. The burden is on you to show something - anything - to indicate he was even asked to do something. Was he even asked? Can you show me a single scintilla of anything? I'm pleading with you. Can you show me ANYTHING? ANYTHING at all? Besides a theory of logic?

So, even by Landis' stringent criteria, Joe Jackson is absolutely, 100% not guilty of any wrong-doing. HIs judgment in accepting an envelope of cash was ill-advised, legally. But since when is accepting money a crime? He was not even asked to do wrong.

Macker

11-20-2007, 06:23 PM

How predictable. Bill, your friend Gene stated Jackson expected to receive 20K. Why would he have those expectations? It is because he knew what was going on. This is where "conspired to throw a game" comes into play. When he received only 5K, he felt cheated. Such irony.

This is where we get into opinion. I believe Jackson knew what was going on. Jackson was smarter than most people give him credit for. He wasn't at the meetings, but he gave his tacit approval. You can believe otherwise, but you can't explain away the 5K he did take. That alone is enough to convict. Remember, this isn't a murder trial where reasonable doubt comes into play. It's a preponderance of the evidence. That 5K just doesn't go away.

Do you think it's a case of Williams saying, "Hey, Joe. I'm telling the gang you're in and you'll collect some G's." Joe says, "Sure, fine. I won't throw a game, but say what you want." The only surprise of the 5K is that it wasn't 20K. Joe was expecting a payoff. With that comes guilt and party to the conspiracy.

If you think a lifetime ban was too harsh, fine. Nobody is saying Jackson was the ringleader. Just don't tell me he was squeaky clean in all of this.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 06:24 PM

Reinstating Jackson is an easy question, and I'm encouraging Selig to take the easy way out for MLB: it's Ted Williams' logic -- lifetime bans end with their lifetimes. That puts the burden of the HOF question back on the BBWAA or Veterans Committee or whoever can pulls strings (Buck O'Neil being a test case).

When you send somebody to jail and then they die in jail you don't pardon them.

You don't name a convicted pedophile Father of the Year.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 06:26 PM

Because he was told he would receive free money, for doing absolutely - NOTHING. Yes, you heard me right. The burden is on you to show something - anything - to indicate he was even asked to do something. Was he even asked? Can you show me a single scintilla of anything? I'm pleading with you. Can you show me ANYTHING? ANYTHING at all? Besides a theory of logic?

Actually the burden isn't on us, he is banned. Secondly Bill as you well know one need not look any further then the GJ testimony to see that Joe knew full well what the money was for and he knew what they needed to do. Joe Jackson said he and his teammates threw game two.

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 06:30 PM

If you've got a "friend" who is paying you a year's salary, and you expect even more, and you know this so-called friend is involved in a shady deal that he certainly doesn't want you to tell anybody in a position of authority about, if you are honest, you try to give the money back, but you sure as hell don't leave the room with it. If you are honest, you want nothing to do with that money, and because of that, it's not yours. It belongs to your friend, and if he wants to send it into space or leave such a huge tip for the hotel's service staff, that's on him.
I agree so far. He should never have left the room with that envelope of bills. His judgment was wrong. But touching/leaving with that envelope, despite proving greed, is not a criminal act, in and of itself. Why? Because it does not imply criminal intent to throw a game, or betray the public. It merely proved the human failing of greed. To go a step beyond makes the person judging wrong.

It's a common human failing to feel a compulsion to over-react to wrong motives, and over-punish another who was weak willed.

If you leave with the money, you've tacitly agreed to sell your integrity.
This is so over-the-line. There is no cause/effect relationship that can be demonstrated. One is making a blind leap of faith by trying to put oneself in another's head, and assume they can intuit their feelings/motives.

The bottom line for me is that Landis had ample reason to think Joe Jackson would sell out the game at a figure that could easily be met by gambling interests--and such a person in no way shape or form belongs in any position which can influence the outcome on the field. If baseball is a "sport" rather than pro-wrestling style "entertainment", the integrity of the games must be as beyond question as reasonably possible. If Joe Jackson participated after the scandal broke, and his team lost because he made a "bonehead" play or struck out four times, all with the bases loaded, or so forth, the integrity of the result would clearly be in question.
This is such a breath-taking blind leap of an assumption. Not even professional psychiatrists assume they know what another will do in a given situation.

This reminds me of prosecutors, upon learning that DNA evidence exonerates a prisoner incarcerated for 10 years, that do everything in their power to block the liberation of said prisoners, blithely spouting their skepticism, hiding their mortification that they 'got it wrong', and imprisoned innocent folk for a very long time.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 06:34 PM

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 06:55 PM

How predictable. Bill, your friend Gene stated Jackson expected to receive 20K. Why would he have those expectations?
He expected 20K because he was told he could have 20K from gamblers for him doing nothing at all.

In fact, in that GJ testimony that you often quote stated, "Gandil told him that 'You might as well be in. We're going to do this with or without you.'

So, that is why he expected 20K. NOT because he was asked to do something wrong, or betray the public. I agree he shouldn't have even spoken to them, but that is not the question.

His guilt/innocence stands/falls on whether or not he threw a game, or agreed to throw a game. Even in a verbal contract, there must first be a meeting of the minds of 2 parties. In this case, you cannot even raise the standard of a verbal contract. There is no discussion of particulars, if he will lie down at the plate, misplay balls to his area - nothing. There was never an understanding that he was expected to participate in a conspiracy to throw a game, or do something unethical.

Your entire case rests on his accepting money is an 'implied' understanding to 'be with them'? What? One cannot even write what he did wrong with any degree of coherence. So, in your losing cause, you throw up your hands, and say, "If he accepted money, he is guilty of . . . of . . . of what? Of something? The anti-Jackson side cannot even phrase what he is guilty of! Accepting money for what others intend to do is suddenly a crime, punishable by a lifetime ban?

It is because he knew what was going on. This is where "conspired to throw a game" comes into play. When he received only 5K, he felt cheated. Such irony.

This is where we get into opinion. I believe Jackson knew what was going on. Jackson was smarter than most people give him credit for. He wasn't at the meetings, but he gave his tacit approval. You can believe otherwise, but you can't explain away the 5K he did take. That alone is enough to convict. Remember, this isn't a murder trial where reasonable doubt comes into play. It's a preponderance of the evidence. That 5K just doesn't go away.

Do you think it's a case of Williams saying, "Hey, Joe. I'm telling the gang you're in and you'll collect some G's." Joe says, "Sure, fine. I won't throw a game, but say what you want." The only surprise of the 5K is that it wasn't 20K. Joe was expecting a payoff. With that comes guilt and party to the conspiracy.

If you think a lifetime ban was too harsh, fine. Nobody is saying Jackson was the ringleader. Just don't tell me he was squeaky clean in all of this.
This just is a logical disconnect. Jackson knew no more details that Collins, Schalk, Comiskey, Gleason. The only thing we can assume with confidence is he was guilty of greed. And greed should be punishable, unless you can connect it to a willingness to do wrong against baseball. And so far, you have never even tried to do that. He was offered free money, and had the bad judgment to sucker into it. And there is indications that he right away felt remorse for removing that envelope from that room.

If he deserved such harsh punishment, what did Comiskey/Grabiner deserve for refusing to hear him out and discuss the situation? Do you support both Comiskey/Ban Johnson being expelled from the Hall for not stopping the World Series, and getting to the bottom of it, and actually trying to cover it up? Is covering up a fraud betraying the public? What should their sentence be?

I've never called Jackson a lily-white. I call him a very greedy man, for a moment of weakness. For a moment, he was morally weak. And he should have a punishment for that. What? I don't know, Macker. But he did earn a punishment. Perhaps a combo $1,000. fine/30 game suspension for the start of the following season, plus a public reprimand, on the record.

But a lifetime ban? Not even remotely close.

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 07:00 PM

Actually Bill it is a criminal act if we wish to view this in strictly legal matters. Technically none of it was illegal at the time but if you wish to view this through your "this is a trial" type view then yes taking the money is a criminal act.
My understanding of law may be inferior to yours, Jim, but I thought it must be accompanied by a manifest willingness to commit a crime.

In the past, you used the example of a person paying to murder another. But that is not an exact parallel to this situation.

The criminal act was the person paying the money, who intended to have another murdered. Joe did not expect or intend to commit a crime. He was just morally weak, and succumbed to greed, for a brief window of time.

At least that's how I perceive it. I may be wrong.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 07:05 PM

Q When did Eddie Cicotte tell you he got $10,000.

A The next morning after the meeting we had in his room.

Q Did you tell him how much you got?

A I did.

Q What did you tell him?

A I told him I got five thousand.

Q What did he say?

A He said I was a God damn fool for not getting it in my hand like he did.

Q What did he mean by that?

A I don?t know, that he wouldn?t trust anybody, I guess.

Q What did he mean, that?s what he meant by it?

A Why, he meant he would not trust them, they had to pay him before he did anything.

Q He meant then you ought to have got your money before you played, is that it?

A Yes, that?s it.

Later on talking about possibly fixing games to finish second in 1920

Q Did that ever occur to you, yourself?

A No sir. I wanted to win, this year, above all times.

Q Why?

A Because ? I wanted to get in there and try and beat some National League club to death, that?s what I wanted to do.

Q You didn?t want to do that so bad last year, did you?

A Well, down in my heart I did, yes.

Q You think now Williams may have crossed you, too?

A Well, dealing with crooks, you know, you get croked every way. This is my first experience and last.

Q What did you say to him at that time, and what did he say to you?

A We just brought up the World?s Series, I told him what a damned fool I though I was, and he was of the same opinion, so we just let it go at that

Q Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?

A They did.

Q How much did they pay?

A They promised me $20,000 and paid me five

Q How much did he promise you?

A $20,000 if I would take part.

Q And you said you would?

A Yes, sir.

Q What did you say to Williams when he threw down the $5,000?

A I asked him what the hell had come off here.

Q What did he say?

A He said Gandil said we all got a screw through Abe Attel. Gandill said that we got double crossed through Abe Attel, he got the money and refused toturn it over to him. I don?t think Gandil was crossed as much as he crossed us.

Q You think Gandil may have gotten the money and held it from you, is that right?

A That?s what I think, I think he kept the majority of it.

Q What did you do then?

A I went to him and asked him what was the matter. He said Abe Attel game him the jazzing. He said, ?Take that or let it alone.? As quick as the series was over I left town, I went right on out.

Q Then you went ahead and throw the second game, thinking you would get it then, is that right?

A We went ahead and threw the second game, we went after him again. I said to him, ?What are you going to do?? ?Everything is all right,? he says, ?What the hell is the matter??

Macker

11-20-2007, 07:06 PM

Gandil told him that 'You might as well be in. We're going to do this with or without you.'

So, that is why he expected 20K. NOT because he was asked to do something wrong, or betray the public.

Then why would he be angry at receiving only 5K? If he was going to get 20K for doing nothing, why not say, "Oh, it's not the 20, but, hey, thanks for the 5 Gs."

By allowing Williams, Gandil, or anyone else to think he was in, he was now part of the conspiracy. Even if he let them think he was in and had no intent to throw games, he's still part of the conspiracy.

As despicable Comiskey & Johnson could be, one could say they acted in the best interests of baseball by doing the cover-up. I'm not saying that makes them great guys, but what shape would baseball have been for the next few years? And, no, I don't think Ruth 'saved' baseball.

As for the logical disconnect you claim, as well as your responses to jalbright and others, you have again shown you're blinded by your own imagination. I will no longer waste my time responding to you.

Where's Gene?

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 07:09 PM

My understanding of law may be inferior to yours, Jim, but I thought it must be accompanied by a manifest willingness to commit a crime.

In the past, you used the example of a person paying to murder another. But that is not an exact parallel to this situation.

The criminal act was the person paying the money, who intended to have another murdered. Joe did not expect or intend to commit a crime. He was just morally weak, and succumbed to greed, for a brief window of time.

At least that's how I perceive it. I may be wrong.

The only way Joe can be simply greedy and not part of some conspiracy is if he is totally and absolutely in the dark about the money and what was going on. If somebody plopped down $5,000 and said here you go buddy you are a great guy and that was that and you got absolutely nothing else then yeah you got a guy who isn't taking part in a crime. But that isn't what we got here. No matter what version of the truth one wants to use Joe Jackson knew what the money was for. If it was to not say anything he is guilty. If it was for partaking in the fix he is guilty. If the money was for using his name he is guilty.

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 07:09 PM

Actually the burden isn't on us, he is banned. Secondly Bill as you well know one need not look any further then the GJ testimony to see that Joe knew full well what the money was for and he knew what they needed to do. Joe Jackson said he and his teammates threw game two.
Actually, in this debate, the burden is on the prosecution to prove Joe's guilt. We are not trying to get ML baseball to change its position in this thread.

We are simply debating Joe Jackson's relative innocence/guilt with respect to the 1919 World Series. And in the context of OUR debate, with the murkiness enshrouding most of the details, reasonable doubt defeats the prosecution's position that Joe deserved a lifetime ban.

But I have grown throughout this debate. I have evolved sufficient flexibility to agree that Joe's manifestation of greed, and poor judgment did indeed merit him a combo punishment of a stiff fine/ and suspension. A $1,000. fine was 1/6 of his annual salary. And a 30 game suspension at the start of the 1920 season, plus a public reprimand, on the record should have been plenty of punishment for his level of bad judgment. That would have entailed public mortification/embarrassment.

Have any of the 'Pro-Justice' side evolved in any small ways. Have any of you guys grown by anything we've shown.

Where is Gene? Once again, I find myself battling alone, with my back to the wall.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 07:17 PM

Actually, in this debate, the burden is on the prosecution to prove Joe's guilt. We are not trying to get ML baseball to change its position in this thread.

Okay, is it reasonable to doubt that Joe Jackson was involved in some way with the fixing of world series games? Answer, no it isn't reasonable to doubt it. We all know and you even just admitted that he played some kind of role in it. So then it comes down to punishment. You think a light sentence is sufficient, I happen to agree with the lifetime ban. I think any player that is involved in the fixing of games should be drummed out of the game, period. No if ands or buts.

Do I think Comiskey and any of the owners or officials should get off scot free? Nope, but this isn't about them. Their punishment or lack of punishment has no bearing on the case before us.

Bill what you are doing isn't arguing whether Joe is innocent or not. What you are arguing about is his punishment.

Have any of the 'Pro-Justice' side evolved in any small ways. Have any of you guys grown by anything we've shown.

Yes, I think Joe is guilty even more then I did before this thread.

Gene Carney

11-20-2007, 07:26 PM

When I wrote, "He took the money -- that is NOT in dispute, any more than his .356 lifetime average. WHY he took it? Well, let's take a poll, your best friend hands you $5,000 and tells you to keep it. What do you do? (a) keep it (b) send it into space." -- that was an oversimplification. I attached no conditions, only asked if most people would tend to keep money given to them by a friend.

That Jackson kept the money -- we know this looking back -- was a mistake, and it is all some folks want or need to know. It's not in dispute. However, when he took the money, the fix was OFF, so it wasn't to influence him to do something in the future. Did it reward him for what he'd already done? Well, what had he done? Played pretty well in the Series. MAY have tried to inform his team about the Fix but they knew about it anyway.

Did he lend his NAME to the bargain with the fixers? Gandil & Cicotte wanted to raise the prize money to $100,000 -- better chance of that if they TELL the fixers they have5, 6, 7, 8, 10 others. Jackson's NAME was worth something. Did he knowingly OK its use in the deal? We don't know -- but we DO know that 12 jurors in Milwaukee listened to Jackson, Comiskey, Grabiner and Austrian, and then voted 11-1 for Jackson's story, which said that Williams used Jackson's name -- without his knowledge or permission. Sure Jackson knew something was happening, but not the details. He was upset that his name ended up being mixed up in this mess. He tried showing his team the money RIGHT AWAY, not a year later -- again, we don't know, but the Milwaukee jury believed that, too. And we have proof that he also offered to come to Chicago & tell his team what he knew (from Williams) in November 1919 (I think -- see Gropman's books appendices) -- we have the letters he/Kate exchanged with Comiskey. At a time when Commy is very publicly offering $10 G for evidence, he won't see Jackson. Hmmm.

Reinstating is not pardoning. It just means he's not longer banned from playing ball. A criminal serves a sentence, and to some, Jackson served his when he died. Jackson was, of course, never convicted of tossing games (not a crime) or conspiracy.

Jackson is no doubt innocent -- of some things -- and no doubt guilty of others, including keeping money (and possibly not paying taxes on it). When his grand jury statement was reported by the press as a confession that he tossed games, he reacted at once and denied it, then and forever after. And at that 1924 trial, the grand jury foreman went on the stand and confirmed that that is how the grand jury heard him -- he said he played to win.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 07:28 PM

Then why would he be angry at receiving only 5K? If he was going to get 20K for doing nothing, why not say, "Oh, it's not the 20, but, hey, thanks for the 5 Gs."

By allowing Williams, Gandil, or anyone else to think he was in, he was now part of the conspiracy. Even if he let them think he was in and had no intent to throw games, he's still part of the conspiracy.
This is just so rhetorical. This is your interpretation. By 'letting them think he was in', that could just as easily be interpreted other ways.

One might interpret that as him not turning them in. It could be interpreted as him just saying whatever he chose to receive free money for nothing. One might interpret it as Jackson wanting to get free money to help his sister with her medical bills, without ever having to do wrong.

Your position is so inherently weak, that you can't even define what he was conspiring to do, can you? If you are trying to argue that he conspired to throw games, and hence earned a life ban, then you must show some evidence beyond accepting free money. That just doesn't make it for your side, does it, Macker? I don't blame you for feeling frustrated that you can't come close to proving anything. So, reasonable doubt wins.

As despicable Comiskey & Johnson could be, one could say they acted in the best interests of baseball by doing the cover-up. I'm not saying that makes them great guys, but what shape would baseball have been for the next few years?
Covering up a fraud is acting in the best interests of the game? Whew. I guess if you live long enough, you will hear everything. Did it ever occur to you that there were more options available to them both? They could have interrupted the series and did a quick 1-week investigation, and that would have brought so much heat that the fixers would have in all likelihood, have abandoned any foolish thoughts. As it was, they did their level best to bury the problem, much like Selig did with steroids, until it bit him in the butt.

As for the logical disconnect you claim, as well as your responses to jalbright and others, you have again shown you're blinded by your own imagination. I will no longer waste my time responding to you.

Where's Gene?
Insulting me is the last refuge of someone out of good answers/arguments. Waste your time? Now I remember why I left this discussion the first time.

And I don't blame you for not wanting to debate me. If I were you, I wouldn't either. I'm just a little too well-equipped.

And I've noticed that you've avoided any of the content that Gene has already provided. Why don't you even try to address the great points he's brought to the table already.

I especially notice that you have avoided like the plague, the parts that Joe said about his meeting with Austrian. Which well you must!

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 07:37 PM

Gene Carney's latest post

But once again we come back to why would Williams give Joe money if Joe isn't aware of anything going on? If the players simply used his name to increase their pay then why would they give their increase away? Especially so if they are getting ripped off? Secondly why does Joe know he is supposed to get 20K? Why does Joe know that getting 5K is getting ripped off? The only way that works is if Joe knows what the money is for.

11 jurists believed that the Sox and Joe agreed to take out the 10 day clause out. Personally I don't buy that Joe and Harry actually agreed on that. I think the whole 1924 was one big ball of lies by Cannon, Joe, and the rest of their witness, and also Mr. Comiskey as well. I think Joe's whole timeline for the fix in 1924 is an obvious lie. The jurists for whatever reason felt that yes the two had agreed to the removal of the clause and that is all there really was to that trial. A civil court cannot find that a man found innocent of a crime to then be guilty of that crime. IT isn't their jurisdiction to do so. Did Joe "unlawfully" conspire or whatever question 6 is? And the answer is no, the first criminal trial answered that question.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 07:41 PM

can you? If you are trying to argue that he conspired to throw games, and hence earned a life ban, then you must show some evidence beyond accepting free money

Nope actually you don't need to do a single thing beyond that.

I especially notice that you have avoided like the plague, the parts that Joe said about his meeting with Austrian. Which well you must!

Why, what is so damaging about that? If anything it confirms what I have believed for a long time which was that Austrian did not coach Joe.

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 07:48 PM

Okay, is it reasonable to doubt that Joe Jackson was involved in some way with the fixing of world series games? Answer, no it isn't reasonable to doubt it. We all know and you even just admitted that he played some kind of role in it. So then it comes down to punishment. You think a light sentence is sufficient, I happen to agree with the lifetime ban. I think any player that is involved in the fixing of games should be drummed out of the game, period. No if ands or buts.
I said that Joe deserved some punishment for bad judgment. I did not say he 'conspired', or agreed to throw baseball games, Jim. I still do not agree that he was involved with 'fixing games'. Accepting money cannot be made to mean 'he conspired, or agreed' to throw games, or do wrong.

The Achilles Heel of the Anti-Jackson camp, is to try to translate 'accepting money', as 'participating in a conspiracy to throw games.' While I can easily understand how/why many may wish to see them interchangeably, I can see other possibilities. And that is not even addressing the sentencing.

Do I think Comiskey and any of the owners or officials should get off scot free? Nope, but this isn't about them. Their punishment or lack of punishment has no bearing on the case before us.

Bill what you are doing isn't arguing whether Joe is innocent or not. What you are arguing about is his punishment.
No. I am still believing that Joe Jackson, at no time, threw a game, agreed to throw a game, agreed to participate in a conspiracy to throw a game, or intend to ever under-perform on the ballfield.

I charge him with greed, bad judgment bordering on idiocy. He clearly demonstrated remorse soon after, and offered to go to Chicago to discuss what he had been told to his owner. He was rebuffed by his team, which couldn't risk been accused of having 'guilty knowledge'.

Yes, I think Joe is guilty even more then I did before this thread.
Such are my gifts at debate. Thank you, thank you. Bow, bow.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 07:57 PM

I charge him with greed, bad judgment bordering on idiocy. He clearly demonstrated remorse soon after, and offered to go to Chicago to discuss what he had been told to his owner. He was rebuffed by his team, which couldn't risk been accused of having 'guilty knowledge'.

Eddie Cicotte showed remorse pretty darn quickly too.

Accepting money cannot be made to mean 'he conspired, or agreed' to throw games, or do wrong.

Bill if your friend says "hey drive me over to Fred's house I want to kill him" and you do you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

If you walk into another buddies house and you see him chopping up a corpse and he gives you 100K to stay quiet about it you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

That is what a conspiracy is. It is a group of people that are involved in some way in a criminal act, it really doesn't matter if they are involved before, during, or after committing whatever it is they are conspiring to do. If a year later Joe happened to walk in on a meeting of the other black sox talking about what happened in the world series and then Joe demands a cut to stay quiet he is now involved in the conspiracy.

Brian McKenna

11-20-2007, 08:00 PM

I don't like this thread. I don't like the title. The arguments escalate and Burgess gets pressed against the wall. I don't agree with his opinions here; in fact, I find some just plain mind boggling and detached from reality. But, that's what happens when one is fighting a cause.

Mr. Carney has greater interests than one damn outfielder in the fix. The whole issue is not about Jackson and shouldn't be made to seem so. Let's not scare him off.

In fact, this whole thread would be a nonissue if Jackson didn't have HOF numbers; just because he does is absolutely no reason to deem him more special than say Fred McMullin.

To me, he participated in the fix of the 1919 World Series and he benefitted financially. I would never want to see the Hall of Fame condone such activity by knowingly inducting such an individual. In my mind he should now and forever remain on the ineligible list.

Is he the devil? No. A month of bad judgments doesn't make a life. He was a hell of a hitter that's for sure. He should be remembered and represented in the Hall with pictures, equipment and stories and the like. Baseball history should never be covered up or ignored but he should never be inducted into the Hall of Fame proper.

I disagree with 90% of Landis' baseball career after this ruling but he got this one right.

Macker

11-20-2007, 08:03 PM

Well, let's take a poll, your best friend hands you $5,000 and tells you to keep it. What do you do? (a) keep it (b) send it into space." -- that was an oversimplification. I attached no conditions, only asked if most people would tend to keep money given to them by a friend.

But it's not that simple. Jackson was expecting $20,000. Why was he expecting $20,000? How could he have any expectation of receiving that kind of money without being involved in the conspiracy, even if he planned to play his best?

As far as your poll, though, I think the answer depends on the amount. Despite not hurting for money, I wouldn't expect any of my friends to hand me 5K. I'd be a bit insulted, actually. Adjusted for inflation, 5K in 1919 is about 65K today. How many people would just keep 65K handed to them without asking a bunch of questions, like did they just rob a bank?

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 08:04 PM

But once again we come back to why would Williams give Joe money if Joe isn't aware of anything going on?
Because they were close friends, and Lefty liked him. They all believed that they were getting 'free money'. Without stipulations. If there are stipulations or conditions, it is the prosecutions burden to prove them. And as a former law and order person, you know that very well.

If the players simply used his name to increase their pay then why would they give their increase away? Especially so if they are getting ripped off? Secondly why does Joe know he is supposed to get 20K?
Joe said that Gandil told him that the fix was on with/without him, and he might as well get some money. Gandil offered him $20K for absolutely nothing. Nothing.

Why does Joe know that getting 5K is getting ripped off? The only way that works is if Joe knows what the money is for.
Jackson never felt ripped off. You have often alluded that he was, but he was just being factual and informational. How can you tell from a transcript, without hearing his tone, inflection, body language, demeanor, etc. Again, huge assumption. I'd agree if we were talking about Arnold Rothstein. But we're talking about Joe Jackson, who refused a 3-yr. contract at $20K/per, in 1914, and 1915. He twice passed on a big, multi-year contract, when he was making $6K/per. This puts the burden on you to show he felt ripped off.

11 jurists believed that the Sox and Joe agreed to take out the 10 day clause out. Personally I don't buy that Joe and Harry actually agreed on that. I think the whole 1924 was one big ball of lies by Cannon, Joe, and the rest of their witness, and also Mr. Comiskey as well. I think Joe's whole timeline for the fix in 1924 is an obvious lie. The jurists for whatever reason felt that yes the two had agreed to the removal of the clause and that is all there really was to that trial. A civil court cannot find that a man found innocent of a crime to then be guilty of that crime. IT isn't their jurisdiction to do so. Did Joe "unlawfully" conspire or whatever question 6 is? And the answer is no, the first criminal trial answered that question.
Once again, you err on the side of non-safe assumption. Those jurists addressed the issue of throwing or conspiring to throw, and you can't accept it. To put the onus on the word 'lawful' is a lawyer's slant.

Those jurists knew exactly what they were being asked to address, and it wasn't a technical prosecutor's angle. They were not focusing on the word 'lawful'. They were focusing on the words, 'conspiring', and throwing.

leecemark

11-20-2007, 08:11 PM

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 08:19 PM

--Bill, How can you say in one paragraph that Ubi can't know what was in Jackson's mind, but in the very next one assume that you know what the jurers were thinking? Try and keep some logical consistency in your arguments.
Because the wording of the transcripts is not in Chinese. It was written in English. It was only logical that they addressed the obvious, not the intensely technical.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Let's keep it simple.

Where's Gene?

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 08:21 PM

Because they were close friends, and Lefty liked him. They all believed that they were getting 'free money'. Without stipulations. If there are stipulations or conditions, it is the prosecutions burden to prove them. And as a former law and order person, you know that very well.

Who all believed they were getting free money? Certainly not the ballplayers throwing games. They knew exactly why they were getting money, they certainly knew it wasn't free. Bill when someone hands somebody else a huge wad of cash and one of those people are neck deep in crime it isn't exactly a "burden" to prove anything. In fact Bill I don't think any defense lawyer in the world would try to use the defense you just used.

Hey I just wanted to give my good buddy a huge wad of cash, no reason really. I just like him. I've never done it before and I'll never do it again and I have no idea where this money came from but I said what the heck and gave it to my old pal.

Doesn't work.

Joe said that Gandil told him that the fix was on with/without him, and he might as well get some money. Gandil offered him $20K for absolutely nothing. Nothing.

So Bill if I told you that I am going to kill Fred with or without you so you might as well take the 20K I'm offering would you take it? Again Bill Gandil was propositioning Joe and by taking the money he was accepting to be part of the fix. Joe could have said you know what I don't care if the fix is in I'm not going to have anything to do with it. But he didn't do that, he took the money.

Jackson never felt ripped off.

Oh yes he did. You are either being incredibly facetious or well I don't really know what if you honestly think this statement is true.

Once again, you err on the side of non-safe assumption. Those jurists addressed the issue of throwing or conspiring to throw, and you can't accept it. To put the onus on the word 'lawful' is a lawyer's slant.

Those jurists knew exactly what they were being asked to address, and it wasn't a technical prosecutor's angle. They were not focusing on the word 'lawful'. They were focusing on the words, 'conspiring', and throwing.

I'll steal one of your stances, "prove it"

AstrosFan

11-20-2007, 08:21 PM

Not intending to disrupt the flow of this, but I thought I'd point out that this is now the most successful thread in the history of the History Forum, based on number of posts.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 08:22 PM

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Let's keep it simple.

You are exactly right. Where there is smoke there is fire. When a criminal hands you cash it is for bad reasons.

AstrosFan

11-20-2007, 08:33 PM

I agree with Ubi on the "free money" part. Perhaps they thought they were getting "easy" money, but definitely not free money. They knew they had to make a sacrifice to earn the money. Economically, the opportunity cost for each player (in financial terms) is the difference between a winner's and loser's share in World Series money.

Joe was probably an easy mark. The players drew him in because they knew he was unlikely to fight back, or that any attempt could be easily stopped. I think Joe probably felt guilty about it, which is how he ended up providing the best offense of the series, plus, I believe, errorless defense. But it has been detailed time and again that one can undermine their team by doing things that don't show up in the stats, like being too aggressive taking the extra base, or throwing to the wrong base, or taking a little off a throw. Joe could have easily helped throw games while appearing to give his all. Finally, regardless of whether he was victimized by his own simpleness, he is still an accomplice for not turning in his teammates when he knew they were crooked. Joe apparently valued being liked more than he valued the integrity of the game.

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 08:33 PM

You are exactly right. Where there is smoke there is fire. When a criminal hands you cash it is for bad reasons.
I've already agreed that Joe deserved some punishment, but we disagree on why.

We disagree that he committed a crime, or did wrong. I suggest he be punished mainly for being stupid. You think he conspired with evil-doers.

leecemark

11-20-2007, 08:35 PM

--Hasn't it been like half a dozen posts repeated over and over again? Several hundred posts later and the same arguments are still being recycled.
--There remain two things we know for sure. Joe Jackson knew about the fix and he accepted a cut of the money. What he was thinking and whether he actually tried to throw games are something only Jackson knew the answer to.
--For the logical amoung us the two damning facts are plenty to justify his ban. For the more sentimental (to put it nicely) amoung us those facts are not the end of the story. The harsh truth is prettied up with all kinds of rationalizations.

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 08:55 PM

In fact Bill I don't think any defense lawyer in the world would try to use the defense you just used.
Oh no? You think not? Next year, watch the OJ trial and the second Phil Specter retrial. If you don't think defense attorneys are capable of my level of BS, you would be amazed!

Hey I just wanted to give my good buddy a huge wad of cash, no reason really. I just like him. I've never done it before and I'll never do it again and I have no idea where this money came from but I said what the heck and gave it to my old pal.

Doesn't work.
Oh no? You give me that huge wad of cash and see how fast I take it, no questions asked. You won't hear a peep outta me. You could hear a pin drop. Works for me!

So Bill if I told you that I am going to kill Fred with or without you so you might as well take the 20K I'm offering would you take it? Again Bill Gandil was propositioning Joe and by taking the money he was accepting to be part of the fix. Joe could have said you know what I don't care if the fix is in I'm not going to have anything to do with it. But he didn't do that, he took the money.
I wouldn't take the money, but I am smart. Joe was stupid. Not normally, but in this case, with the benefit of hindsight, he was terribly stupid. But we disagree with his intentions, and we also disagree that 'accepting' carries all these stipulations that you want to attach to the act.

In your attempt to prove your case, Jim, you must make so many assumptions, carry so much excess baggage, that your case sinks under its own weight.

Remember: We're debating whether or not Joe did something worthy of being permanently banned not only from the Hall of Fame, but from his job as a ballplayer.

With so little actually established, reasonable doubt wins. This is a reasonable doubt case. All you have is the money accepted. And you cannot change that into a criminal act. You cannot change money into throwing games.

Far too many problems based on too few known facts. It is a very serious thing to ban a man from the game. And before that happens, good proof is necessary.

And you showed that 'they' went ahead and threw the second game. Didn't Gene show that Joe went 4x4 in game 2?

Bill Burgess

11-20-2007, 10:50 PM

--Hasn't it been like half a dozen posts repeated over and over again? Several hundred posts later and the same arguments are still being recycled.
I bring in a world class man, he posts, and you all ignore his great knowledge, because no one is bold enough to take him on. And pile on me!

--There remain two things we know for sure. Joe Jackson knew about the fix and he accepted a cut of the money. What he was thinking and whether he actually tried to throw games are something only Jackson knew the answer to.
--For the logical amoung us the two damning facts are plenty to justify his ban. For the more sentimental (to put it nicely) amoung us those facts are not the end of the story. The harsh truth is prettied up with all kinds of rationalizations.
Preposderous. Logical? You'd shoot a man for shop-lifting. All you know is he was greedy, and you'd ban him for what you believe he was thinking.

If that's logical, save us from that brand of logic. You require more and better evidence for a ban than you have. Comiskey/Johnson committed worse 'crimes against the fans', by trying to cover up a fraud, yet, I hear no one arguing to expel them from the game, permanently.

Oh wait. We're not talking about that. But for the record, do you support punishment for their coverup attempts. Isn't that trying to defraud the fans? What should their punishment be for not delaying the series and dealing with the problem?

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 11:43 PM

Oh no? You think not? Next year, watch the OJ trial and the second Phil Specter retrial. If you don't think defense attorneys are capable of my level of BS, you would be amazed!
It has nothing to do with "BS" it is just a very very very very very weak defense. If I was sitting on the jury and that was the defense offered to me I would immediately assume the defendant is lying and that he is guilty.

Oh no? You give me that huge wad of cash and see how fast I take it, no questions asked. You won't hear a peep outta me. You could hear a pin drop. Works for me!
That is fine, you'll likely be facing jail time. To each his own.

I wouldn't take the money, but I am smart. Joe was stupid. Not normally, but in this case, with the benefit of hindsight, he was terribly stupid. But we disagree with his intentions, and we also disagree that 'accepting' carries all these stipulations that you want to attach to the act.
Well, no Bill we disagree on virtually everything. Joe admits to being part of the fix, you say hogwash. Joe admits to grousing about the promised 20K, you say hogwash.

In your attempt to prove your case, Jim, you must make so many assumptions, carry so much excess baggage, that your case sinks under its own weight.
Except that if it sinks it is taking Joe with it. Joe has been banned now for 80 plus years. I think it is safe to assume and time for you start realizing that my case is a lot more plausible then you keep insisting here on fever. My side has been winning for 86 years and counting, your side has been losing for 86 years and counting, which side needs to reconsider their views?

Remember: We're debating whether or not Joe did something worthy of being permanently banned not only from the Hall of Fame, but from his job as a ballplayer.
I have not forgotten what we are debating and Joe after 1919 never should have played professional baseball again.

With so little actually established, reasonable doubt wins. This is a reasonable doubt case. All you have is the money accepted. And you cannot change that into a criminal act. You cannot change money into throwing games.
Bill you have no real idea what "reasonable doubt" is. You think reasonable doubt is whatever comes to your mind regardless of the facts. Joe Jackson confessed to being part of the fix. How you can keep insisting on innocence after that is beyond me.

And you showed that 'they' went ahead and threw the second game. Didn't Gene show that Joe went 4x4 in game 2?

So let me get this straight Joe Jackson says on the stand that they (meaning all of them) went ahead and threw the second game but that isn't good enough because Joe went 3/4? So if a group of us rob a bank but one guy doesn't take any money out with him then that guy isn't guilty of a crime? Is that what you are trying to infer here Bill?

It is a very serious thing to ban a man from the game. And before that happens, good proof is necessary.

Actually it isn't a very serious thing. People get fired all the time and with far far less evidence. You can get expelled from school based on a rumor. What happened was simple. His place of employement felt that Joe was involved in something detrimental to their business so they fired him.

PS my name isn't Jim.

Ubiquitous

11-20-2007, 11:50 PM

I bring in a world class man, he posts, and you all ignore his great knowledge, because no one is bold enough to take him on. And pile on me!

Except their is nothing to take on Bill. For some reason you seem to think what he is saying is going against what I and others are saying and somehow reinforcing what you believe. That isn't so. What Gene is saying is that this is what we know, from this you can infer this, you can infer that, we are missing the absolute truth but I'm trying to find it.

And for that I say kudos and keep going, but again what is he saying that I am supposed to dispute that I haven't already disputed?

Preposderous. Logical? You'd shoot a man for shop-lifting. All you know is he was greedy, and you'd ban him for what you believe he was thinking.

No i wouldn't shoot him I would ban him from my store which is exactly what baseball did. Baseball didn't kill Joe Jackson.

Comiskey/Johnson committed worse 'crimes against the fans', by trying to cover up a fraud, yet, I hear no one arguing to expel them from the game, permanently.

Okay ban them, now can we keep Joe banned?

Gene Carney

11-21-2007, 05:51 AM

I haven't figured out how everyone uses that "quotation" feature (yet), but I like it. Let me introduce myself a little more. I am enjoying my eighth month of "retirement" (61 in May) but I'm busier than ever. I do e-mail throughout the day, when I'm home, but not 24/7, I let it go four hours at a time when I'm occupied on other projects -- like my next book.

I'd love to reply to every post, but I just can't, and I'm starting to feel bad about that, because I don't want anyone to feel I'm ignoring them or not reading what they wrote. I am, but I only have so much time.

I noticed that Bill B posted my "Case For" Jackson recently. I tried there to sort this discussion out into chronological segments, and see if there was a consensus about the "facts" of the case as well as the various theories. That "Case For" is not just my work (unless Bill posted the first draft), it is something that has been through the gauntlet, criticized by pro/anti-Jackson folks and the best SABR historians I could find. It could be a framework for discussion here -- obviously many in this group have strong opinions and have done their homework, and I want to keep testing "the Case For" even as I try to bring it to the attention of MLB -- which ain't easy.

We should all realize by now that the discussion about Jackson has a number of dead ends. Some see his 1920 grand jury statement as crystal-clear proof that condemns him, while others see it as vague and contradictory. Some are convinced he tossed at least one game, others are sure he played the whole Series to win, others don't care about that and focus on the money he took.

I think it is most productive, we'll all learn more from each other, if we can focus on one thing at a time. This is not easy, everything is connected. But it is frustrating to move from "Did he beg to be benched?" to "Why did he keep the money?" to "Was the 1924 trial bogus?" to the Cooperstown question, all at once. At least it is for me.

The "B-Sox Yahoo Group" was never this busy! And there, I'm used to getting one daily (digest) message a day, so even if ten people are "talking," I can add my two cents and move on. I'm not complaining, the pace here is encouraging. But I can't keep up with it like I'd like to.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-21-2007, 06:34 AM

Gene is quite correct here. We could be more productive if we do one point at a time. For our convenience, I will give the links to a few of the relevant posts recently.

1. Gene's 'Case For' Jackson - http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1051069&postcount=837

2. excerpt of Jackson's GJ testimony - http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1053249&postcount=891
----------------------------------------
I suggest we take it one item at a time.

May I offer the first item for discussion? Why don't we start off with the biggest item of the anti-Joe camp? Why don't we start off with his acceptance of the $5,000. and its relevance on his relative guilt/innocence. Since that is the one big thing that we can all agree on.

We all agree he accepted the money, from Lefty Williams. We don't agree on why, did it constitute what some insist it did, when he took it, etc.

In his grand jury testimony, he says, "We went ahead and threw the second game,"

Some say he spoke for the fixers, others he spoke for himself, or included himself in the "We".

That was what is called, 'a leading question'. He was 'asked', "Q Then you went ahead and throw the second game, thinking you would get it then, is that right?"

And he paul-parrots back the exact, verbatim wording. In a GJ proceeding, Joe never had an attorney to object with, "Leading the witness, Your Honor", and get sustained. None of the players had legal representation in the 1st trial.

But if he went 3x4, cut off a run, how can you take his GJ testimony seriously? How can you assume he wasn't responding with false testimony, based on coaching?

Anyway, why not focus on his accepting the dirty money and all its implications, pro/con?

Is this a better way to proceed? Maybe this will draw order out of chaos.

Or if someone wishes to begin with another point of contention, that's fine with me too.

What say ye all?

All rise!

Gene Carney

11-21-2007, 07:28 AM

Bill,
I just peeked back here before leaving my computer for a while. I already covered this topic yesterday, but I'll say a few more things and hope more join in.

Just as Jackson's accepting the $5,000 from Williams is not in dispute, I think we can also agree that he expected more -- $20,000. Gandil had "promised" him that, but whatever understanding there was between them, is not clear to me. What comes up with Williams, too, and with Felsch (I think), is that in their quest to maximize the number of players they had "IN" on the deal -- so they could pry more money loose from the various syndicates, who would be more impressed with 8 Men In, than with 3 Men In -- Gandil & Cicotte seemed to hound Jackson by saying it was all happening anyway, whether he was in or out, so he might as well get "in" for a piece of the $100,000 pie (or maybe more). Jackson's response to Gandil is (to me) vague -- "Whatever" -- and he trusts his friend Williams to keep him posted. Does he also report the tampering to his team? No evidence, except his team knew of the Fix. What is noteworthy here, perhaps, is that tampering was ordinary, as ordinary as the rumors of fixes, which swirled (always "swirled") around every Series. No big deal that gamblers were on the prowl, offering bribes (maybe for tips, maybe to tip things a certain way) ... more often they tried to get the starting pitchers and key players drunk (another way of "fixing") and this happened in 1919 to the Reds, making Pat Moran livid. In one story, Jackson tells Commy and Commy assures him, not to worry, we have policemen on the case -- this will be a Closely Watched Series.

I don't think Jackson knew much about the plot, or who was in on it, what he knew, he got from Williams. What WE know is who attended the meetings, but not whether all who attended would go thru with it. Even Cicotte, who got his $10 G up front, was not a sure thing -- hence, that first-batter signal, to let his intentions be known. This was a very loose arrangement, nobody signed on the dotted line, in or out. We have that from Weaver, who was in the meetings, but apparently out of the fix (and the money) ... Buck insisted he wasn't certain who was in or out, and he didn't want to accuse anyone and ruin their reputation (I know -- attending the meetings ruined them already -- but again, meetings with gamblers were commonplace and the rule forbidding association came along in 1921). Comiskey used the same logic, when asked why he signed up all his players (except Chick), knowing what had happened, and he did know, he withheld the suspected players' Series checks ... that went to the attention of the league President, Ban Johnson, who also knew).

Gleason had confronted the whole team, NO LATER than before Game 3, and probably he confronted his pitchers earlier. He mentioned the $100,000 that was in the rumors. Jackson heard that, so his hopes were raised that the $20,000 Gandil "promised" was on its way. He probably did not know if the fix was on or off, the players said little about it to each other. He probably heard there was double-crossing going on. I think Jackson just played his game, trusting in Williams (too much) and his team (also too much) to take care of the monkey business with the fixers. So Jackson is disappointed at seeing just $5,000 but also upset that his name is mixed up in the rumors, "bunched together" (Commy's phrase) with six or seven others. All he knew for sure is what he did. If the knowledge he had about the fix was "guilty knowledge," well, Gleason and Comiskey seemed to have it, too. So did the whole team, from the beginning. He had asked/begged to be benched so he couldn't possibly be accused of playing less than his best, but Gleason would have none of that, he needed Jackson in the lineup. Now Lefty gives him $5,000 -- hard evidence, proof of tampering, bribery, proof that the rumors were more than the usual rumors. What does he do with the cash? It cannot be returned to Williams or Gandil, they won't take it, or maybe they would, but it doesn't belong to them, either. It seems to Jackson that it belongs to no one. It's dirty money. He decides to take it, he'll show it to his team. He cannot get past Grabiner to show Comiskey, right after the Series. A few weeks later, he writes, offers to come & tell what he knows. When Grabiner comes to Savannah to sign him up for 1920 (a first), Jackson again asks advice about the money. His employer tells him to keep it. He uses most of it to pay his sister's hospital bills. (His wife handled their money, took it from him before they left Chicago, deposited it in their Greenville bank account, detailed how it was spent -- witnesses, including a banker, supported her story, at the 1924 trial.)

At worst, Jackson took the money because he thought he earned it -- by sloughing off in the Series, by shutting up about the Fix, or just by lending his name for use in negotiations with the fixers. At best, he gave a tacit OK to whatever his teammates were up to, if it meant a $20,000 bonus ... he didn't want the details, it all seemed too complicated, too many strangers involved, he'd trust Williams to do the right thing for him. He must play, so he does play, and his conscience tells him to play his best and everything will work out. He gets the money, and deals with it.

There is no doubt that keeping the money was a huge mistake. No matter what his teammates said, or his team. But I think there is reasonable doubt about his motives and about what he did to earn that money. And I'm hoping the new material, sitting today in a Chicago auction house, will shed some light on this!

Gene

Ubiquitous

11-21-2007, 09:44 AM

And he paul-parrots back the exact, verbatim wording. In a GJ proceeding, Joe never had an attorney to object with, "Leading the witness, Your Honor", and get sustained. None of the players had legal representation in the 1st trial.

Bill I ask you, I beg you to either stop watching TV Law shows and study the real law or to stop trying to tell us how the law works because Bill to be perfectly honest you do not understand how the law works at all. If this was a trial and Joe had a lawyer he would not object and if he did object it would be over-ruled. You can lead a witness on cross exmanination or if it is a hostile witness. Joe's lawyer could not lead him but the DA can and does do that, well actually to be technical Joe's lawyer could lead Joe but it has to be done carefully and usually with the Judge's permission. Finally even if Joe's lawyer objected and somehow it got sustained the DA would simply rephrase the question.

But if he went 3x4, cut off a run, how can you take his GJ testimony seriously? How can you assume he wasn't responding with false testimony, based on coaching?

Because there is aboslutely no evidence that he was coached, that is why. Joe Jackson not once says he was coached.

So we want to talk about the money, okay. Here it is probably 45th post about the money.

Joe Jackson was asked by Gandil to be in the fixed. He gave at the very least tacit approval to be in the fix. Buck Weaver who was in the meetings somehow made it very very clear he wasn't part of it and consequently didn't get a dime. Joe Jackson during the series was demanding his money, his cut. Somewhere in the middle of the series Lefty Williams gave him 5K. Joe was not happy it was 20K, he went to see Chick about it. They got into an argument and at that point Joe finally makes it clear that he is no longer in the fix and makes some threats about revealing the fix to Charlie. laughs

Macker

11-21-2007, 09:54 AM

Lefty gives him $5,000 . . . What does he do with the cash? It cannot be returned to Williams or Gandil, they won't take it, or maybe they would, but it doesn't belong to them, either.

I have a hard time believing Williams or Gandil, especially Gandil, wouldn't take the money. Why would Gandil hesitate at collecting an easy 5 grand?

These guys were crooks. Would they really turn down Jackson's share if he said he didn't want it?

Ubiquitous

11-21-2007, 10:04 AM

I have a hard time believing Williams or Gandil, especially Gandil, wouldn't take the money. Why would Gandil hesitate at collecting an easy 5 grand?

These guys were crooks. Would they really turn down Jackson's share if he said he didn't want it?

More importantly, since I think the notion that Joe was going to give it back is absurd, is why did crooks like Gandil give Joe money in the first place? Chick was no good dirty crook who made sure he got his "share". Chick did not give money to Buck, did not give money to McMullin yet gave money to Joe? Again why? Why give money to somebody who isn't part of the fix? The whole get Joe's name in the group to get more money thing makes no sense. Because adding another name might increase your pay but it also creates another mouth to feed. The math doesn't work for this theory. If 4 guys are in on the fix and they just make up the other 4 names to try and show the gamblers they got more players then why would the 4 guys then agree to split their money with 4 guys who are doing absolutely nothing to losing and in fact are trying to win? Which would cause lots and lots of problems for the 4 fixers? For the theory to work Joe cannot get the money. If Lefty never gives Joe the money I would say it is very plausible that Joe is not in on the fix, that yes indeed they merely used his name to try and pump up the price of the throwing of games. But that didn't happen, the throwees handling the money felt that even though they were getting screwed out of vast sums of money that Joe should in fact get some. They didn't feel Buck should or Fred should but that yes indeed Joe should get a cut of what little money they did get.

jalbright

11-21-2007, 12:24 PM

I agree so far. He should never have left the room with that envelope of bills. His judgment was wrong. But touching/leaving with that envelope, despite proving greed, is not a criminal act, in and of itself. Why? Because it does not imply criminal intent to throw a game, or betray the public. It merely proved the human failing of greed. To go a step beyond makes the person judging wrong.

It's a common human failing to feel a compulsion to over-react to wrong motives, and over-punish another who was weak willed.

This is so over-the-line. There is no cause/effect relationship that can be demonstrated. One is making a blind leap of faith by trying to put oneself in another's head, and assume they can intuit their feelings/motives.

This is such a breath-taking blind leap of an assumption. Not even professional psychiatrists assume they know what another will do in a given situation.

This reminds me of prosecutors, upon learning that DNA evidence exonerates a prisoner incarcerated for 10 years, that do everything in their power to block the liberation of said prisoners, blithely spouting their skepticism, hiding their mortification that they 'got it wrong', and imprisoned innocent folk for a very long time.

Bill,

Jackson's actions, plus the overall set of facts, IMO add up to precisely what I have stated. In law, one is allowed to prove motivation by a set of facts, and I have provided those facts. If you, in what I consider at best a rahter naive view of those facts, do not share my conclusion, that is your privilege. However, IMO the best way to determine the thinking of one accused of wrongdoing isn't to ask them, as 1) their honesty is already in question, and 2) they have a vested interest in providing an "innocent" spin as to their motivation. Joe Jackson left that room with the money. No one was coercing him to do so. He didn't tell anyone for a long time, though he claimed to have tried to do so a while later. Pardon me if I find it most convenient that the person he supposedly tried to tell 1) according to Joe wasn't interested, and 2) doesn't remember Joe's supposed attempt. Joe kept quiet until the heat was on, and then all this came out. Joe wasn't getting a year's salary as a baseball player, which was considerably more than the working man of the time for nothing. Joe said he expected even more. For what, if not at least his silence or engaging in prohibited gambling on games or both?

As for reinstating Jackson, my stance is simple. The Hall of Fame is for honoring those who made important contributions to the game. I think it is a requirement that to be worthy of being honored by the game, it is only fair to expect that the prospective honoree was not tainted by furthering a conspiracy to fix the very championship of the game in a season. I believe it is unreasonable to believe that Jackson did not in some way shape or form agree to further that conspiracy, at a bare minimum by keeping his knowledge of the shady dealings quiet. That's the only way such a large payment makes sense. And if Joe Jackson is guilty of dishonoring the game in that fashion, he deserves a spot in baseball hell, not a place of honor. Such a man does not deserve being honored by the game, ever.

It isn't the fixers who made this game great. It's the athletes who honestly strove to win, the managers and other front office folks who toiled endlessly to win, the umpires who strove to make sure the results on the field were honestly arrived at, and the fans who cheered their boys on. Only if we honor every single individual who never sold out the game should we then take time out to consider the cases of those who cannot be said to have honored the game in that most basic fashion. I'm waiting for my turn, and I'm sure everyone involved in this discussion is, too. Once we get through the list of all of us and everyone like us for nearly a century and a half, plus the time it takes for all of us to get our due, then we can turn our attention to sell-outs like Joe Jackson.

Jim Albright

Gene Carney

11-21-2007, 12:32 PM

To the best of my knowledge, Williams testified that Gandil gave him two envelopes with $5,000 in each, and he instructed Lefty to give one to Jackson. I'd have to check my notes to be sure, but Gandil himself never admitted taking any money -- also pointed to his record (like Jackson did) as proof he was playing the Series to win. On the other hand, a lot of folks from Jackson to Ban Johnson (quite a range) thought Gandil cleaned up. Does anyone know of any evidence that Gandil himself kept any money? I don't.

Anyway, based on Williams' testimony, we can rule out the theory that Williams got his $10 G, just like the other starter Cicotte, then he felt awful for having dragged his pal Jackson's name into the mess, making the other players and the gamblers think Jackson was IN it, so he gave Jackson half of his loot. As I said, we can rule that out.

And we don't know if Gandil was just dividing up everything he had received, or doling out a fraction ... nor do we know if other players got $5,000 -- I think Felsch did, but Risberg & McMullin, we don't know. Swede & Fred were close to Gandil, so you'd THINK if he had the money, they would share it. I have not seen anyone suggest that anyone outside the 8MO got anything.

The scene we have of Williams delivering the money and Jackson taking it is not crystal clear. Jackson's wife denied that she cried, for example, which is a detail in Jackson's 1920 statement. By all accounts, the envelope was dirty, but was it tossed on the bed, on the floor, or handed to Jackson? In one version, Lefty is tipsy. Was it after Game 4, or after game 5, or Game 8? If the Fix was OFF no later than Game 2 (a big IF, but that is what Burns & Maharg & Attell & Cicotte & Gandil & others said later) -- the money came after.
Jackson knew something was going on, but did he know it was over? If his source of knowledge was Williams, we can't be sure. Burns & Maharg were out of the picture; Attell was not, and St Louis gamblers were trying to restart things, and Sport Sullivan was on the scene, and there may have been other syndicates at work, too. I don't think Gandil told Cicotte everything and vice-versa! Williams' testimony, in 1920 and 1924, is very muddled -- he may have tanked three games, or played all three to win, he said things to support both positions and a few in between. From what I gather, Williams attended the meetings, but said little. He was thought to be representing Jackson -- but was he?

WHY people in this story did what they did is very obscured, and WHAT they did is only a bit clearer. The money came from Gandil, who almost certainly got it from Burns who got it from Attell. Follow it in the other direction, and it goes to a hospital, a charity, or the Jacksons' modest bank account.

Did Grabiner ever see the money? I think so. That might be a good question to tackle next, after we finish with this one.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-21-2007, 12:45 PM

More importantly, since I think the notion that Joe was going to give it back is absurd, is why did crooks like Gandil give Joe money in the first place? Chick was no good dirty crook who made sure he got his "share". Chick did not give money to Buck, did not give money to McMullin yet gave money to Joe? Again why? Why give money to somebody who isn't part of the fix? The whole get Joe's name in the group to get more money thing makes no sense. Because adding another name might increase your pay but it also creates another mouth to feed. The math doesn't work for this theory. If 4 guys are in on the fix and they just make up the other 4 names to try and show the gamblers they got more players then why would the 4 guys then agree to split their money with 4 guys who are doing absolutely nothing to losing and in fact are trying to win? Which would cause lots and lots of problems for the 4 fixers? For the theory to work Joe cannot get the money. If Lefty never gives Joe the money I would say it is very plausible that Joe is not in on the fix, that yes indeed they merely used his name to try and pump up the price of the throwing of games. But that didn't happen, the throwees handling the money felt that even though they were getting screwed out of vast sums of money that Joe should in fact get some. They didn't feel Buck should or Fred should but that yes indeed Joe should get a cut of what little money they did get.
Well, at least you are asking the right questions, even if you are coming up short in the right answers.

As I understand it, Fixer Gandil did not initially ask for $100 grand. He asked for much less. It seems plausible that Gandil wanted Jackson to 'be in' to fatten the pot with both gambler groups. They might have feared that without Jackson's name, the gamblers might fear he could get a timely hit.

The conspiracy seems more about swindling the gamblers than throwing games to the Reds. The makes sense because Gandil does not even discuss what Jackson would have to "do", to earn a cut of the dirty pot. Gandil seems more interested in Jackson not going to Commy and blowing the whistle.

Joe often ask what Jackson had to do to get money, and why would they give him a cut, but not Weaver/McMullen. Neither Weaver/McMullen threatened Gandil with blowing the whistle. Crooks are very sensitive to been ratted out, so obviously, Gandil felt threatened by Jackson's outburst. Must have unnerved him to where he felt compelled to part with a small wad of bills.

Jackson's real 'conspiracy' was to conspire to get cut in on dirty money, which is a conspiracy against gamblers, not baseball fans. Joe betrayed the gamblers, not the clean members trying to win the series.

However, even if you were to believe this, I doubt you can apply the appropriate labels to these matters, Ubi. (Sorry I called you Jim before. I got confused, thinking I was talking with Jalbright.)

Conspiracy to defraud gamblers is not ennobling. In fact, it is sad. But it doesn't rise to the level of banning.

Gene Carney

11-21-2007, 02:58 PM

A few comments about "the asking price." First, the assumption here is that the players initiated the Fix -- and I think that's right. The players and gamblers both testified to that, yet the belief persisted and continues, that the gamblers "scouted" the Sox and preyed on them, poor, vulnerable, underpaid wanting-to-get-even players. But that 8MO, esp the movie.

Cicotte & Gandil and probably a third player (I'm thinking McMullin) came up with this idea, but it was not a NEW idea. They didn't know that altho apparently they were aware of the tampering in 1918. (Maybe 1914 & other WS, too -- irrelevant.)

Cicotte insisted on $10,000, not less, and up front. You will read $80,000 as the asking price, or $100,000, and you will read in the grand jury leaks that there were multiple syndicates involved, so who knows the total possible income? You will also read 5 players @ $20,000 each, at one point. $5,000 emerges as the smallest cut -- something to toss to a McMullin, who won't play much.

In his most recent interview (for the 20th anniv DVD of 8MO, the movie), Asinof says the gamblers REALLY needed just the two ace starters. So most likely, Williams was under the most pressure to join Cicotte & Gandil, and why he may have expected $20,000.

In his 1920 statement, Jackson talks about rejecting a $10,000 offer from Gandil, but maybe not the $20,000. Was that 2nd offer after Jackson already talked to Comiskey (unnecessary, Commy heard the rumors already)? If so, the Gandil may be offering it for Jackson not so much to keep his mouth shut, but not to say who was involved. Jackson could name Gandil and Williams, and they probably convinced him Eddie was on the dark side. From what he said later, he may have guessed/known about Felsch, and about Swede (when the hard guy threatened him, if not sooner). McMullin? Weaver? Jackson said when he went to Austrian, Austrian told him that Cicotte had named him, among the 8. If there was communication among the players whose checks had been held up after the Series, then they all knew who was on the suspect list.

I've said elsewhere -- to me, the 1920 Jackson testimony is maddening. He hints at being in, then out, it's "we" then it's "them" ... and I am amazed at the lack of follow-up questions, that left certain things so hazy.

As for money paid -- there was the $10 G Cicotte received under his pillow (the tooth fairy had been generous, he might have argued). Where did that come from? Not from the Burns/Maharg/Attell gang -- they tossed the boys $10 G later, to put down a mutiny, as the thing fell apart. Gandil seemed to be the most suspicious of a double-cross, quickest to change direction, right after that first $20,000-per-game promise was broken. So he gets the $10 G from Attell ... and I think that's what Williams & Jackson split. Does ANY more money come their way? From Sullivan? From the Des Moines/ St Louis boys? We can speculate, but I've seen no hard evidence of it. Has anyone?

Gene

jalbright

11-21-2007, 04:35 PM

Jackson's real 'conspiracy' was to conspire to get cut in on dirty money, which is a conspiracy against gamblers, not baseball fans. Joe betrayed the gamblers, not the clean members trying to win the series.

However, even if you were to believe this, I doubt you can apply the appropriate labels to these matters, Ubi. (Sorry I called you Jim before. I got confused, thinking I was talking with Jalbright.)

Conspiracy to defraud gamblers is not ennobling. In fact, it is sad. But it doesn't rise to the level of banning.

That assumes you buy the after the fact story told by at least one of the participants. Further, I don't think the conspirators are lined up on this, which has a tremendous impact on its credibility, given that the conspirators have definite motive to tell such a story (think preserve their ballplaying careers). Frankly, Bill, I see it as not Ubi's ability to come up with "right" answers as the issue, but rather either your credulity in buying this load of crap story or your inherent bias in favor of Jackson pushing you to grasp at straws.

The gambling interests guys were not the kind of folks to trifle with, especially not in Chicago in those days. We're talking stone killers of the Al Capone ilk (ever heard of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre? It was these kind of guys). They killed over far less than being double crossed in the way you're suggesting these ballplayers were trying to take the crooks. Furthermore, isn't it at least curious for this scenario that the outcome the gamblers wanted is the one which actually occurred (i.e. a Cincinnati upset win in the Series)?

The credibility of the conspirators is the key question, and, were I in Landis' shoes at the time he banned these guys, I too would be exceptionally hard pressed to believe this version of events from a bunch of admittedly dishonest people who were admittedly involved with discussions with gamblers about fixing the World Series. Landis was never bound by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, as is the situation with any employer. He logically should have followed the "preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more likely than not)" standard, and under that standard, I think it is entirely reasonable to have adjudged the Black Sox as guilty of behavoir that merited their complete exclusion from the game.

Jim Albright

Gene Carney

11-21-2007, 05:23 PM

Replying here to Jim (I haven't figured out the quote excerpting thing yet).
Jim: "The gambling interests guys were not the kind of folks to trifle with, especially not in Chicago in those days. We're talking stone killers of the Al Capone ilk (ever heard of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre? It was these kind of guys). They killed over far less than being double crossed in the way you're suggesting these ballplayers were trying to take the crooks. Furthermore, isn't it at least curious for this scenario that the outcome the gamblers wanted is the one which actually occurred (i.e. a Cincinnati upset win in the Series)?"

Just want to note that in 1919, Capone was still in the minors, but would soon be in Chicago, and did fix an occasional sporting event. The closest I could tie in Capone is via Jake Lingle, a reporter pal of Gandil's, who was gunned down some years later & found to be on Scarface's payroll. But I'd like to ask, what is the evidence that any player was threatened by a hit man? We know Asinof invented the name of the assassin "Harry F." -- but did he also invent that threat of violence? I don't find the players saying anything about it, and they were almost bullying toward the point men Burns & Maharg. Remember, the players initiated this thing ... Rothstein was officially OUT, so no threat there (the "A.R." telegram to Attell was regarded as a fake -- right away). I don't find the threat of violence being much of a factor, again, based on everything the players said for the record later. (I also like to point out that Hugh Fullerton wrote, when the scandal broke, that manager Kid Gleason DID threaten his team -- with his "iron", his gun -- if they laid down. Not clear if this was just before Game 8, or sooner. Either way, Williams was apparently under the gun in Game 8. But it might have been pointing from his own dugout.)

Jim: "The credibility of the conspirators is the key question, and, were I in Landis' shoes at the time he banned these guys, I too would be exceptionally hard pressed to believe this version of events from a bunch of admittedly dishonest people who were admittedly involved with discussions with gamblers about fixing the World Series. Landis was never bound by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, as is the situation with any employer. He logically should have followed the "preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more likely than not)" standard, and under that standard, I think it is entirely reasonable to have adjudged the Black Sox as guilty of behavoir that merited their complete exclusion from the game."

I strongly agree, credibility is a key question. I put a lot of weight on Hugh Fullerton, but even there, I've found problems (in his 1924 testimony). The papers contained spin, too, they may be pro-Johnson or pro-Comiskey.

Hal Chase had been exonerated earlier in 1918, despite a number of affidavits that looked pretty damning. Joe Gedeon, for one, said that sent a message that "anything goes," that baseball didn't care about such stuff. (Gedeon said if Heydler had come down hard on Chase & bounced him out, Gedeon would never have gotten involved in the Big Fix of Oct 1919 -- Gandil solicited him, apparently, to place bets for "the gambling Sox" -- Gedeon made $900? -- who knows how many Sox made bets.)

I mention Chase because when we think of the RISK involved for the players, there was no way they could have imagined that they could lose their livelihoods. What is striking to many is how ordinary a deal this seemed to be to at least some of them. They could count on baseball (their team, their league) -- if they found out anything -- to cover it up, lest the game's image be smudged. Which is exactly what happened. No feud between Comiskey & Johnson, and this whole thing would likely have been swept under a thick rug, forever ... the the fixes we've never heard about?

Comiskey himself thought they would be fined, suspended, maybe for a year, maybe more -- he always left a door open so they could return, after they served their sentences, so to speak. One reason this story is still alive, I think, is that Landis issued a blanket punishment -- effective, but not fair in the eyes of many. Something in all of us, I think, would prefer that baseball dug a bit deeper, and made the punishments individual, to fit whatever each player had done. But that was, perhaps, impossible, the public was calling for hangings and jail sentences (OK, not for hangings). Landis came doen like a sledge hammer, and that sent the message baseball had needed for years. (I say "effective" -- but bribery & fixing DID live on.) And it didn't help that he was so inconsistent -- Rube Benton being exhibit A (had guilty knowledge, bet on it, profited, confessed -- allowed to play on).

The other reason the story lives is Jackson. A superstar at the time but already eclipsed by Ruth. It seems that the creation of the Hall of Fame, 20 years later, helped keep his case alive, when he wasn't voted in with Cobb and the rest. Certainly, Kinsella's fiction has helped, too. Unfortunately for internet discussion groups, his case is --I think -- the most complicated by far. (And we wonder: if there was a Hall of Fame in 1919, and Shoeless was a Shoo-In -- would Baseball have protected him, as a courtesy to the future 'Famer? As Landis protected Cobb and Speaker in 1927?) In Jackson's case, because of all the uncertainty about his actions and vagueness in his statements, HIS credibility becomes crucial in our judgement about whether what he did merits eternal punishment ... or just for his lifetime ... or was he in some way a scapegoat, "bunched together" in something he never really understood, something he may have supported, without realizing it? Is the context of all this important -- baseball's cover up of the gambling menace's ties with MANY players, for many years, and then the cover up of the Fix of Oct 1919, for almost a year? Was Jackson in any sense "sacrificed" by his team so the larger lies would remain hidden? Great hot stove questions.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-21-2007, 05:51 PM

Frankly, Bill, I see it as not Ubi's ability to come up with "right" answers as the issue, but rather either your credulity in buying this load of crap story or your inherent bias in favor of Jackson pushing you to grasp at straws.
Why are you so sure of yourself here, Jim? Haven't you ever heard of cases that take more twists than is credible. I wish you could, even for a moment, be open to the possibility that this time, your compass is off. That your instincts, normally good, are not privy to certain factors that drove this unusual case.

The credibility of the conspirators is the key question, and, were I in Landis' shoes at the time he banned these guys, I too would be exceptionally hard pressed to believe this version of events from a bunch of admittedly dishonest people who were admittedly involved with discussions with gamblers about fixing the World Series. Landis was never bound by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, as is the situation with any employer. He logically should have followed the "preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more likely than not)" standard, and under that standard, I think it is entirely reasonable to have adjudged the Black Sox as guilty of behavior that merited their complete exclusion from the game.
If your gut is correct, then if Landis had conducted a quiet, private investigation, then maybe more facts could have been ferreted out, and proven your beliefs. But his ego didn't allow him to conduct a more sensible, subtle, nuanced, layered process. He wanted a meat cleaver solution, where a scalpel might have discovered good information.

If someone like Gene can, so long after, find good information, imagine how much more easily Landis could have hired quality investigators. There were doubtless countless people ready to talk, especially for renumeration. A little cash can work wonders on loosening tongues. Like I said, if your instincts are right on, an investigation could only confirm your suspicions, and then we could all have moved on to others things. Instead of this mess, of legendary, epic proportions.

Gene Carney

11-21-2007, 06:31 PM

Bill B wrote: "If someone like Gene can, so long after, find good information, imagine how much more easily Landis could have hired quality investigators. There were doubtless countless people ready to talk, especially for renumeration. A little cash can work wonders on loosening tongues."

This is a Joe Jackson thread, so my main interest, the cover-up, is not central. But Bill's mention of what Baseball could have dug up, starting even before the 1919 World Series began, obliges me to mention a newspaper named Collyer's Eye. (Landis came aboard in 1921 and had no interest in digging up stuff that might embarass his employers -- the magnates. He also did not really want this thing to go to trial -- thank Ban Johnson for that.)

Anyway, the press in 1919 could have brought a LOT to light, before & after the 1919 WS, but they were not the press of 2007. The only newspaper that truly investigated was a little weekly out of Chicago, Collyer's Eye. You can read all the books and articles written on the Black Sox, and (with the exception of my book), you'll find one fleeting reference to the EYE and their role in ending the cover-up -- in Lee Allen's "The AL Story" (1962). My book has the highlights of their investigative series.

But since my book went to press (Fall 2005), more issues of the Eye have been discovered. Today, anyone can read the EYE on microfilm, via inter-library loan, from the U of Chicago, Urbana-Champaign library. If anyone wants a contact at UIUC, let me know.

I have read 5 of the 8 reels of microfilm now available. If you are interested, go to my newsletter "Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown" (I live in Utica, NY) -- www.baseball1.com/notes -- and look up issues #406-411, and 416. There you can read about not just the EYE's investigation of the Big Fix (this is the paper where Ray Schalk said "seven teammates will not be back," Dec 13, 1919) ... which includes their naming of the players later indicted (except Weaver -- they thought Buck was clean) ... but also the Duncan-Bohne scandal, "Cobb-Speakergate," the Risberg charges at the end of 1926, the Cozy Dolan scandal in 1924 (on Landis' watch!), and baseball's continuing wrestling with the gambling issue.

I'd say for my book, BURYING THE BLACK SOX, the discovery of Collyer's Eye, my access to the material from the 1924 Milwaukee trial (Jax vs Sox), and to a collection of Ban Johnson's papers at the Cooperstown library, were three of the main "new" sources, for shedding light on "Baseball's Darkest Hour" (Seymour).

Gene

jalbright

11-22-2007, 04:37 AM

Why are you so sure of yourself here, Jim? Haven't you ever heard of cases that take more twists than is credible. I wish you could, even for a moment, be open to the possibility that this time, your compass is off. That your instincts, normally good, are not privy to certain factors that drove this unusual case.

If your gut is correct, then if Landis had conducted a quiet, private investigation, then maybe more facts could have been ferreted out, and proven your beliefs. But his ego didn't allow him to conduct a more sensible, subtle, nuanced, layered process. He wanted a meat cleaver solution, where a scalpel might have discovered good information.

If someone like Gene can, so long after, find good information, imagine how much more easily Landis could have hired quality investigators. There were doubtless countless people ready to talk, especially for renumeration. A little cash can work wonders on loosening tongues. Like I said, if your instincts are right on, an investigation could only confirm your suspicions, and then we could all have moved on to others things. Instead of this mess, of legendary, epic proportions.

We agree Landis wasn't a very good judge. He could have done better. But I haven't seen anything which changes my view that Jackson was what you think he was. Sorry. It further seems that we're not going anywhere here, just as we didn't earlier. I think I'm done with this sad episode in baseball history for a while again.

Jim Albright

yanks0714

11-22-2007, 06:17 AM

Thanksgiving morning and I'm sitting here reading vith avid interest the past several days of posters on this thread. I never seem to get tired of reading about the 1919 fix and the people involved.

I'd like to also thank Gene Carney for joining this thread and providing his outstanding insights. I felt 'Burying the Black Sox' was a great read. It was educational, well researched, and well written. I've suggested it as a must read to friends interested in the subject.

Lord knows, I have disagreed with Bill Burgess more than a few times in others posts. However, is this case, I feel Bill is presenting his arguments much more eloquently and convincingly than do his opposition.

I feel that I am pretty much 'on-the-fence' regarding Joe Jackson. I used to be more pro-Jackson. Another book, 'The Black Prince of Baseball', about Hal Chase, has references to Jackson being perhaps a bit 'shady' prior to 1919. That made me actually lean a bit anti-Jackson. Easily swayed? Not really.

In regard to the question of Jackson taking the $5K, which seems to be the sticking point for the anti-Jackson crowd, I can see it Bill's way: Pure greed. Stupid? Absolutely. Criminal? No.
Jackson's name was used by Gandil and/or Williams already. In a manner of speaking, they besmirched his name and reputation. I can see an individual, even one more intelligent that Joe, accepting the money without agreeing to throw the game(s). 'You wanna give me $20,000 even if I don't go along with it? Fine. You can give it to me but I make no promises at all.' Greed, yes. Stupidity, yes. Joining the conspiracy? I hardly think so. He may well have never committed to the throwing of any games or series.
Then when given $5,000 when told he would get $20,000, I can see him stating, 'Hey, I was told $20,000'. Okay, big deal. He WAS told $20,000 and only got $5,000. I might well have asked what was going on too if simply out of curiosity than anything else. And you know what/ That is exactly what he testified to...he was promised $20,000 and only got $5,000.

Yes, he kept the money. Dumb. I suspect I might have taken it to Williams and demanded that he take it back. But I can understand how he felt it was 'free' money as he promised nothing in return. If my friends and teammates are going to deny me a chance at the WS winning share, well then, dammit, I'm gonna get some dough for being denied it.

I'm with Bill on the punishment. I've long felt Jackson and Weaver should have been given fines and suspension. A year's suspension for not reporting what was going on. But not banned. The other 6. May they rot in H.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Commiskey was a rotten dog and should have been punished also if we knew then what we know today.

Ubiquitous

11-22-2007, 06:30 AM

Then when given $5,000 when told he would get $20,000, I can see him stating, 'Hey, I was told $20,000'. Okay, big deal. He WAS told $20,000 and only got $5,000. I might well have asked what was going on too if simply out of curiosity than anything else. And you know what/ That is exactly what he testified to...he was promised $20,000 and only got $5,000.

Yes and then he said he was out.

So if someone at your work was stealing from the company and you knew they were and they were saying to their fence that you were also part of their gang that was stealing from your employer you would have no problem with that? If they then decided to give you some of the money that they stole from your employer you would be okay with that too?

I hate to break it to you but you would then be criminal if that happened.

The other 6. May they rot in H

Okay so why should Fred McMullin get banned? What did Fred do that was that much worse then Joe or Buck that deserves a trip to hell yet Buck and Joe get a year?

Macker

11-22-2007, 07:01 AM

Jackson's name was used by Gandil and/or Williams already. . . . 'You wanna give me $20,000 even if I don't go along with it? Fine. You can give it to me but I make no promises at all.' . . . Joining the conspiracy? I hardly think so. He may well have never committed to the throwing of any games or series.

If Jackson spoke the words you used in your example, then he is part of the conspiracy. He would be giving tacit approval, which may have helped make the fix go from 'maybe we can do it' to 'hey, we can do this.' At that point, whether he actually committed to throw a game is irrelevant.

I think the ban should stand, but I wouldn't have a big problem had Jackson's punishment been less than a lifetime ban. However, the thread title is "Joe Jackson's Innocence," and the guy just isn't innocent.

jalbright

11-22-2007, 07:09 AM

Thanksgiving morning and I'm sitting here reading vith avid interest the past several days of posters on this thread. I never seem to get tired of reading about the 1919 fix and the people involved.

I'd like to also thank Gene Carney for joining this thread and providing his outstanding insights. I felt 'Burying the Black Sox' was a great read. It was educational, well researched, and well written. I've suggested it as a must read to friends interested in the subject.

Lord knows, I have disagreed with Bill Burgess more than a few times in others posts. However, is this case, I feel Bill is presenting his arguments much more eloquently and convincingly than do his opposition.

.......
In regard to the question of Jackson taking the $5K, which seems to be the sticking point for the anti-Jackson crowd, I can see it Bill's way: Pure greed. Stupid? Absolutely. Criminal? No.
Jackson's name was used by Gandil and/or Williams already. In a manner of speaking, they besmirched his name and reputation. I can see an individual, even one more intelligent that Joe, accepting the money without agreeing to throw the game(s). 'You wanna give me $20,000 even if I don't go along with it? Fine. You can give it to me but I make no promises at all.' Greed, yes. Stupidity, yes. Joining the conspiracy? I hardly think so. He may well have never committed to the throwing of any games or series.
Then when given $5,000 when told he would get $20,000, I can see him stating, 'Hey, I was told $20,000'. Okay, big deal. He WAS told $20,000 and only got $5,000. I might well have asked what was going on too if simply out of curiosity than anything else. And you know what/ That is exactly what he testified to...he was promised $20,000 and only got $5,000.

Yes, he kept the money. Dumb. I suspect I might have taken it to Williams and demanded that he take it back. But I can understand how he felt it was 'free' money as he promised nothing in return. If my friends and teammates are going to deny me a chance at the WS winning share, well then, dammit, I'm gonna get some dough for being denied it.

You have the right to see it however you wish, but you oversimplify at least my view of the facts. There are several:

1) yes, the leaving the hotel room with the $5k. That's a critical piece, but isn't the whole story.

2) The Reds won the World Series.

3) The gamblers were not the kind of folks you toyed with unless you wanted to die. The gamblers were certainly aware of the World Series results.

4) Joe Jackson not only took the money, but he kept quiet about what he knew. An honest man interested in protecting his integrity and reputation would have turned in the crooks immediately.

5) Joe Jackson's story has to be looked at in view of facts #1 and #4. Those facts clearly place his credibility in question. Even if you believe Joe, he's not an "innocent" in this matter. Truth is, we're arguing about how culpable he was.

6) I agree it's unclear exactly how much Jackson did to further the conspiracy other than keep his mouth shut. However, from baseball's point of view, it was on Jackson to demonstrate that was his only involvement after his culpability in a far less than honest endeavor was established.

7) Joe Jackson, while admittedly unschooled, was smart enough to run a business after his playing days. In short, he wasn't an idiot or as mentally challenged as someone like Rube Waddell may well have been.

Jim Albright

EdTarbusz

11-22-2007, 07:38 AM

Robert Cottrell's book about the 1920 season says that contemporary reporters were questioning Jackson's performance in the 1919 World Series while the Series was going on. They were mainly commenting that at times Jackson looked to be playing out of position on defense and moving slowly after batted balls.

Gene Carney

11-22-2007, 08:30 AM

Happy holiday to all. This may well be my only post today, I'll be on the road soon.
Happy 50th Anniversary to yanks0714, a Yankee fan since 1957. I celebrated my 50th anniv as a Pirate fan this year, I'm a native Pittsburgher, exiled in upstate NY since 1974. In response to his "Commy was a rotten dog" comment -- my view on Commy changed as I got into this story more. He was tight, but perhaps not a Scrooge, as portrayed in 8MO, but the movie has cemented that image in our heads. I don't think there was any $10,000 bonus promised to Cicotte for winning 30 (the book 8MO has that in 1917, but in any case, it's a legend that cannot be verified). Commy was a TYPICAL owner, they all had the reserve clause to keep salaries low. If we think of Commy as typical, and not an extraordinary tightwad, it may be even more sobering. But I don't think the Sox made the deal with the fixers to get even with him or to protest their low pay. It was very ordinary greed, and a bit of good old American chance -- buy any Lotto tickets lately?

I'll never catch up with the whole history of this discussion, but I went back to see how it began, and found this: BMckenna post #4.

>>Judge Landis entered with a bang. There is no doubt he was the best man for that particular job. He did it swiftly and he did it correctly. There is no second chance when it comes to game-fixing. Americans will excuse anyone for anything and love to criticize those that must take a stand and act. Jackson is as guilty as the rest. There is no degree of culpability here. He was in the meetings, he wispered like the rest, he deceived his teammates, he received his payoff and he took the field and watched Cicotte plunk the first batter as a symbol of the fix. Argue the merits of his involvement but nevertheless he was involved. I'll grant you Landis was arbitrary and basically a hinderance to the evolution of the game but this one time he got it right.<<

Landis enters this story late, and is hired to repair the game's image, more than to conduct a thorough housecleaning of crooked players, which could cost every team a number of players. As Pietrusza noted in his Landis biography JUDGE & JURY, Landis' genius was that he did the MINIMUM -- just 8MO, not 80. No question that he did what was long overdue and needed, no question it was effective. Fair, we can argue.

The "degree of culpability" is worth pondering, I think. Some do not believe in degrees of guilt, at least when it comes to conspiracy to toss a game. Yet to punish McMullin (who hit .500 in the Series) the same as Williams (3 L's) seems unfair. Same with Weaver, who apparently played to win, never took money, and refused to inform on his teammates, using the same reasoning Comiskey did when asked why he signed up his players when he suspected some of them had tanked -- he just wasn't sure about each player, who was in or out, and he'd rather not ruin anyone's reputation by wrongly accusing them without proof. Buck knew who was in the meetings, because HE was in, but he knew he was not in the Fix. (Jackson said he never attended a meeting, and no player or gambler ever placed him in meetings.) Buck needed an Al Pacino (see SCENT OF A WOMAN) to advocate for his ethics.
(I'm giving Buck the benefit of the doubt here, for the sake of argument -- his case is not that simple, nor should we assume he was 100% clean.)

Cicotte's plunking of Rath in Game One, inning one, is -- contrary to common belief -- the only crooked thing Cicotte admitted to doing. That's right, he said he pitched to win after that, in every inning that followed. He said that to Austrian, to the grand jury in 1920, and that was read into the 1921 trial. He confirmed it later in depositions for the 1924 trial. He was also VERY clear that he had cooked up the scheme, with Gandil, and received $10,000 before the Series. Cicotte is a fascinating case -- is there a Cicotte thread here on BB Fever?

Finally, I'd like to comment on a couple items in a recent post -- by Jim?

>>2) The Reds won the World Series.
Many people -- led by Edd Roush & the Reds, of course -- thought the Reds won on their own merits. What fix? The Reds thought the Sox were playing hard, to win, as did the umpires. The Reds had deeper pitching, the Sox were thin, just three starters and no bullpen at all. Anyway, my point is that the Reds' win proves as much as Jackson's .375 average. Not much.

>>4) Joe Jackson not only took the money, but he kept quiet about what he knew. An honest man interested in protecting his integrity and reputation would have turned in the crooks immediately.

Those who believe this must dismiss Jackson's claims that he DID warn his team before the Series (and asked to be benched), as well as his claim that he showed the money to his team right after the Series. Keep in mind that his team knew about the tampering, the bribery, anyway. A point in Buck's favor, too? Who was he to tell, who didn't already know, if Gleason told the team about it?

>>6) I agree it's unclear exactly how much Jackson did to further the conspiracy other than keep his mouth shut. However, from baseball's point of view, it was on Jackson to demonstrate that was his only involvement after his culpability in a far less than honest endeavor was established.

Jackson was acquitted of conspiracy in 1921, and a Milwaukee jury believed his version of things by 11-1 in 1924. I put some weight on the latter, because those folks got to listen to Jackson, Comiskey, Austrian, Grabiner and others. We have to settle for transcripts. And that Milwaukee jury included some folks who knew little or nothing about baseball. Now he did get charged with perjury after the 1924 trial, because his story varied from his 1920 testimony, which suddenly appeared from the briefcase of Comiskey's lawyers (Jackson's lawyer had asked about it before the trial but it was nowhere to be found ... it's not clear that he got a copy in the trial, either!) Perjury ... star LF headed for Cooperstown ... sound familiar?

>>7) Joe Jackson, while admittedly unschooled, was smart enough to run a business after his playing days. In short, he wasn't an idiot or as mentally challenged as someone like Rube Waddell may well have been.

Agreed. My impression is that Jackson was a simple person, but not a simpleton. Many people who knew him use the phrase "easily led" and I think that fits. He was guilty of poor judgement, if he said "Whatever" in response to the invitation to the get-rich-quick invitation of Gandil, guilty again when he trusted his pal Williams. Many also believed Jackson so competitive an athlete, that he couldn't play to lose if he wanted to -- I don't buy that, but I think there's some kernal of truth there. Edd Roush told a story about a game where he decided to make a deliberate error, if a ball came his way (CF), to thwart some fixers ... but when the ball was in the air, he found himself unable to go thru with it, all his instincts made him catch it. That may have been the case with Cicotte -- after he hit Rath, intentionally, his conscience kicked in and he could go no farther. For a great treatment of Cicotte, I like Victor Luhrs' 1966 THE GREAT BASEBALL MYSTERY ... and I often wish it came out a few years earlier, before Asinof's version.

Gene

EdTarbusz

11-22-2007, 09:14 AM

Pietrusza also stated that the banishment of Weaver was a smart move on the part of Landis because it made very clear that merely possesing guilty knowledge would no longer be tolerated and not coming forward had the most serious consequences.

Bill Burgess

11-22-2007, 12:02 PM

Bill Burgess

11-22-2007, 12:05 PM

EdTarbusz

11-22-2007, 12:15 PM

Both Gene and I would like very much to see those reports for ourselves. Very, very much.

Check out Cottrell's book. It is mentioned in a footnote in Burying the Black Sox.

jalbright

11-22-2007, 04:49 PM

>>2) The Reds won the World Series.
Many people -- led by Edd Roush & the Reds, of course -- thought the Reds won on their own merits. What fix? The Reds thought the Sox were playing hard, to win, as did the umpires. The Reds had deeper pitching, the Sox were thin, just three starters and no bullpen at all. Anyway, my point is that the Reds' win proves as much as Jackson's .375 average. Not much.

>>4) Joe Jackson not only took the money, but he kept quiet about what he knew. An honest man interested in protecting his integrity and reputation would have turned in the crooks immediately.

Those who believe this must dismiss Jackson's claims that he DID warn his team before the Series (and asked to be benched), as well as his claim that he showed the money to his team right after the Series. Keep in mind that his team knew about the tampering, the bribery, anyway. A point in Buck's favor, too? Who was he to tell, who didn't already know, if Gleason told the team about it?

>>6) I agree it's unclear exactly how much Jackson did to further the conspiracy other than keep his mouth shut. However, from baseball's point of view, it was on Jackson to demonstrate that was his only involvement after his culpability in a far less than honest endeavor was established.

Jackson was acquitted of conspiracy in 1921, and a Milwaukee jury believed his version of things by 11-1 in 1924. I put some weight on the latter, because those folks got to listen to Jackson, Comiskey, Austrian, Grabiner and others. We have to settle for transcripts. And that Milwaukee jury included some folks who knew little or nothing about baseball. Now he did get charged with perjury after the 1924 trial, because his story varied from his 1920 testimony, which suddenly appeared from the briefcase of Comiskey's lawyers (Jackson's lawyer had asked about it before the trial but it was nowhere to be found ... it's not clear that he got a copy in the trial, either!) Perjury ... star LF headed for Cooperstown ... sound familiar?

I agree that standing alone, the fact the Reds won proves little. But if one denies there was a fix, it certainly doesn't help the case that the upset winner favored by the gambling interests won. If it weren't intertwined with other facts, I could dismiss it as coincidental. However, those other facts do exist. Had the White Sox won, there might well have never been any investigation (or at most a perfunctory one), and we wouldn't even know as much as we do now.

As for the legal case findings, I know far too well how legal proceedings can be manipulated--it was my career for fifteen years. I can also tell you that legal proceedings back then were easier to manipulate than they would be today as the rules have changed to limit the potential for such abuses. Furthermore, Mr. Burgess made the argument that there was a conspiracy against the gambling interests, and not baseball, and that this excused Jackson. In addition, I don't think any jury was put in the position of whether or not it was advisable for baseball to allow Jackson in the game after the story broke. That was the call Landis had to make--and he also had the opportunity to talk to the individuals involved and to people who actually viewed the testimony.

Yes, I'm skeptical of Jackson's claims in this regard. In this situation, he didn't behave as I believe an honest man would have, and that calls into question how much of his statements one can accept as honest, especially when those statements are self-serving.

Gene Carney

11-22-2007, 05:27 PM

Regarding the theory that Jackson played out of position in the 1919 Series, there are a few things to keep in mind. One is that the Sox were probably not familiar with the Reds, so they relied on scouting reports. Fred McMullin scouted the Reds -- uh oh. I do not know if Gleason was the kind of manager who watched his fielders, and moved them left/right, in and out, but he was, I think, pretty sharp, and I doubt he'd let a fielder stray far from where they should be. I think Jackson took the most heat -- correct me if I'm wrong -- on the hit by Greasy Neale that went over his head ... Game 4? I think it followed the second Cicotte error in game 4. In any case, Jax looked bad on the play. But Greasy Neale himself, interviewed about it later, defended Jackson for playing shallow, as Neale was not a long ball hitter. The other factor -- he may have played where he thought he should play, assuming the pitchers are bearing down and on their game. That is doubtful, except for Kerr.

Landis' ban of Weaver was the one that had the greatest impact -- because it sent the message that just TALKING about tossing was now jeopardizing one's career in baseball. Even though he'd sat in on the meetings (best case scenario -- he argued with his teammates, trying to convince them that this was one VERY BAD idea -- and maybe he did. I found just one reference to Buck arguing -- and it wasn't quoting Buck), Buck claimed from the day the scandal broke (9/28/1920) that he was innocent and played to win, and he was not as "bunched together" in the rumors as the other 7MO ... do we know if his check was withheld after the Series? I think it was, but I think there is not an agreement about that. McMullin, too.

Were the Reds an "upset winner"? Again, I think Asinof's 8MO and the movie color our views. The odds were not that lop-sided. Collyer's Eye had the two teams pretty even, and made the home team the Game One favorite, before the coin toss decided where the Series would start. Our views are also colored by the dopester Hugh Fullerton, who emerged as the chief whistleblower, and therefore his views carried a bit more weight AFTER the scandal broke. Hughie's system gave the edge to the Sox. But many people picked the Reds to win, on their stronger, DEEPER pitching. The AL was regarded as a stronger league, which meant many favored ANY AL team over any NL team. The Reds had "one of those seasons" where everything clicked and they saw themselves as the best team.

Landis' decision to punish the players with a permanent ban was also important for Landis -- a rookie Commish, showing what authority he had over the game. Comiskey had a hand in his ascent, and might have hoped for a more lenient sentencing (fines & suspensions). But Landis showed his clout, and his "edict" -- fair or not -- was very popular with just about everyone. And Landis was seen as fair by most players, I think, he'd declare someone a free agent in a minute if they were abused by a magnate. I think Landis himself tried to cultivate that image of being "the fan's Commissioner" -- keeping baseball safe from the owners, who almost ruined the game by failing to rid the parks of gamblers, were soft on fixers (like Hal Chase), and he also kept players in their place -- even Babe Ruth.

No jury ever ruled on the reinstatement issue. I was just reading in Collyer's Eye, that after the Cozy Dolan-O'Connell scandal in 1924 -- NY Giants' coach Cozy and the OF were both banished -- a number of owners were dissatisfied with that call, and were going to discuss reinstatement, next time they got together. And that prompted some to wonder if this would open up the B-Sox can of worms, opening a door for Weaver and others who wanted back in the game. Landis took a lot of heat in Dolan-O'Connell for being overly harsh on the young O'Connell, who seemed to be simply the victim of a cruel prank (he was told, he said, to offer a bribe to Phillies' Heinie Sand, by coach Dolan). Landis occasionally changed his mind, but usually not. He was quirky and unpredictable, setting precedents more than following them. But in the end, he was also an employee of the owners, and limited by that.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-22-2007, 05:32 PM

Furthermore, Mr. Burgess made the argument that there was a conspiracy against the gambling interests, and not baseball, and that this excused Jackson.
I said nothing of the kind. As what's further, I didn't even imply that at all. I said that from what we have to go on, which is skimpy, Joe Jackson earned himself a hefty fine of 1/6 of his annual salary ($1,000.0), as well as a 30 game suspension at the beginning of the 1920 season, and a public reprimand, which would have brought much public embarrassment, and probably would have required a public apology.

We disagree on what earned him that, Jim. I believe he was trying to milk the gamblers, (via Williams, via Gandil), of easy money. That in itself was avarice. But his sister required medical care, and he succumbed to greed. And for that, I'm willing to punish him severely. How the heck is that letting him off easy, or excusing his stupidity/greed?

In addition, I don't think any jury was put in the position of whether or not it was advisable for baseball to allow Jackson in the game after the story broke. That was the call Landis had to make--and he also had the opportunity to talk to the individuals involved and to people who actually viewed the testimony.
To my knowledge, it was a sign of Landis' arrogance/chutzpah, that he didn't feel he needed to even question the accused. Never felt it helpful to interview ANY of the accused. He didn't feel he needed to look them in the eye, observe their voice tone, demeanor, body language, level of comfort/discomfort, etc. NOTHING. Nothing whatsoever. Who ever heard of such levels of arrogance?

This is especially damaging to Landis' reputation as a judge/adjudicator, since he was brought in especially to address this particular situation. He never did. He basically told the universe, "See here now, world. I'm God. I know all things without investigating, based on this reliable heresy and innuendo. Where there's smoke, I believe there is fire, and you all must take my word on this. Due process is highly over-rated. Grand Jury testimony is almost always truthful, and we can all bet our pensions on it. Or Jackson's career anyway. And if anyone doesn't like it, let the future generations be frustrated."

That is about what his lack of investigation says about the man. Total, 100% abdication of any responsibility for learning what he was specially brought in to find out. Just passed the buck to the future. To US. Thanks, Ken! You're such a hero!

Yes, I'm skeptical of Jackson's claims in this regard. In this situation, he didn't behave as I believe an honest man would have, and that calls into question how much of his statements one can accept as honest, especially when those statements are self-serving.
That's the point, Jim. Landis could have conducted a credible process to find out what happened, but refused to lift a finger. Landis didn't even want a trial!!

What Ban Johnson asked him what he was doing in regard to the Sox, he said, "Nothing." That was when Johnson took the case away from him and prosecuted the case with AL funds. Imagine not even wanting a trial!

And after judging Jackson unworthy on moral grounds, Landis spent the next 23 years, sitting in conference with crooked team owners, discussing the ways and means of defrauding black ballplayers of their rights to play ML baseball. This educated, learned scholar.

leecemark

11-22-2007, 05:57 PM

--I wonder about that myself sometimes, Bill. Don't be so hard on yourself though. I think you're just mildly delusional:).
--Oh sure Bill. Edit your closing statement and spoil my joke :).

Bill Burgess

11-22-2007, 06:49 PM

--I wonder about that myself sometimes, Bill. Don't be so hard on yourself though. I think you're just mildly delusional:).
--Oh sure Bill. Edit your closing statement and spoil my joke :).
Ha ha. I hadn't intended to spoil your joke, Mark. But it is good that we can still find some humor in this thread.

I apologize to Macker, Jalbright and yourself for my shrill tone. I do get into this stuff at times.

Considering we're in sleepy Hot Stove mode, it's now rare that we get too into our discussions of recent vintage. But I'm trying to keep us on our toes occasionally.

But this one issue of Jackson, and of Landis does get me going, sometimes into hyper-aggressive gear. Can anyone imagine if any of the parties were still living? Isn't it strange how we can still get upset over people who died so long ago? But the principles are still relevant, I think.

Gene Carney

11-22-2007, 06:51 PM

Kenesaw M. Landis is a fascinating, colorful person who probably deserves his own discussion group. But in the B-Sox story, he enters later, and makes his footprint by his famous edict, which should not have been a surprise, really, he had ruled on the indicted/suspended players prior to the 1921 season, when the question came up about whether they should report for spring training.
Landis, I'm pretty sure, observed the 1921 trial, altho he may not have sat in on every session. But the players didn't say much there anyway, their dream team of lawyers (the phrase is from the OJ trial) wouldn't let them. I believe Jackson, Cicotte and Williams did take the stand, only to repudiate their 1920 statements. That new batch of documents going up for auction next week in Chicago seems to have a transcript of Jackson's testimony at the trial, which I've never seen anywhere. The few pages I've seen suggest that -- well, here is a snippet from my newsletter at www.baseball1.com/notes :

Joe Jackson on the witness stand, 1921 Trial. I have only pages 561-564, but these are the first transcript pages I’ve ever seen from the 1921 trial. I have now read part of Joe Jackson’s version of his fateful session with Alfred Austrian, before he went to the grand jury. As he sat with Austrian and Gleason, he was asked if he knew that he was indicted, or was about to be. “I said, No, I didn’t know it, though I knew there were some scandal.” Gleason then takes an envelope from his pocket, gives it to Jackson and says “I am going to get out of here,” and leaves. The envelope contains — Austrian reads it to him — his suspension from the Sox and his final paycheck. Austrian tells Jackson that he needs a lawyer “damn bad” and Jackson starts to leave, to find himself a lawyer. But Austrian says, “‘Just sit down there a minute,’ and he walked between me and the door.” Then he calls McDonald. Jackson has nothing to tell him. He wants a lawyer, he wants Austrian to find him one, he says he would pay for a lawyer. Austrian seems to want Jackson to stay put, until he knows what Jackson will say, what he has to say. Jackson (and it seems he refers to Austrian, not McDonald): “Well, I told him I would tell him what little I had heard about it.”

Anyway, Landis MAY have seen/heard at least 3 players on the stand and under cross-questioning, perhaps.

Again, his post-trial edict was immensely popular, because compared to the jury verdict of not guilty, it looked like he did the right thing -- when most fans wanted and expected. And he did something else, he showed Baseball could police itself -- at a time when there were politicians clamoring for the game to be placed under governmental supervision (believe it or not). You could not trust the courts, but you could trust Landis -- that was his message.

At the last SABR convention (does everyone know the Society for American Baseball Research?), Landis' role in maintaining "the color line" came up in a few sessions. Norman Macht, whose opinion I respect, made the point that IF Landis wanted to end the game's segregation, he likely could not have done it all by himself. The owners were not ready, and they all judged that their fans were not ready. All I want to do is underline again that Landis, in the end, was an employee, who could be fired if he went too far -- and that might include investigating too deeply into past ties with gambling, or banning any player who ever sat with a gambler or who gambled themselves -- OR by digging into who covered up the Fix of the 1919 Series!

Gene

Ubiquitous

11-22-2007, 07:02 PM

But his sister required medical care, and he succumbed to greed. And for that, I'm willing to punish him severely..

Except when this happened she didn't and it was for many many months if not years before he spent some of the money on his sister Gertrude. Kate doesn't even deposit the money until December. When did Grabiner meet with Joe to sign the contract, in the spring?

Oh and for the Cicotte was simply double crossing the fixers:

"The day before I went to Cincinnati I put it up to them squarely for the last time that there would be nothing doing unless I had the money. That night I found the money under my pillow. There was $10,000. I counted it. I don't know who put it there. It was my price. I had sold out 'Commy'. I had sold out the other boys. Sold them for $10,000 to pay off a mortgage on a farm and for the wife and kids...$10,000...what I had asked, cash in advance, there in my fingers. I had been paid and I went on. I threw the game.

"It's easy. Just a slight hesitation on the player's part will let a man get to base or make a run. I did it by not putting a thing on the ball. You could have read the trade mark on it the way I lobbed it over the plate. A baby could have hit 'em. Schalk was wise the moment I started pitching. Then, in one of the games, the first I think, there was a man on first and the Reds' batter hit a slow grounder to me. I could have made a double play out of it without any trouble at all. But I was slow--slow enough to prevent the double play. It did not necessarily look crooked on my part. It is hard to tell when a game is on the square and when it is not. A player can make a crooked error that will look on the square as easy as he can make a square one. Sometimes the square ones look crooked.

"Then, in the fourth game, which I also lost, on a tap to the box I deliberately threw badly to first, allowing a man to get on. At another time, I intercepted a throw from the outfield and deliberately bobbled it, allowing a run to score. All the runs scored against me were due to my own deliberate errors. In those two games, I did not try to win...

So no Cicotte didn't always maintain his innocences. Secondly Happy Felsch also admitted to throwing games.

Gene Carney

11-22-2007, 08:25 PM

Cicotte told Austrian (according to Austrian's notes, in that "new" Chicago collection), the grand jury, and agreed again in 1924 with what he said to them, that he tried to win after hitting Rath.

Regarding his other words -- and the words of Jackson that he "poked at the ball, fanned in the clutch, etc" -- we have at least 3 possibilities:

1) They lied to the grand jury when they said they played to win.
2) The words were invented by reporters, who were guessing at what they said to the grand jury, embellishing on leaks;
3) Cicotte and Jackson spoke those words, but intended them for the gamblers -- to make the gamblers think they had played to lose (so there would be no reason to come back to the players and punish them); if that last idea sounds far-fetched, consider the source -- Harold Seymour, whose version of this chapter is baseball history is pretty solidly based.

In any case, the words are NOT in their grand jury statements. Cicotte never make any loud statements denying that he played to lose -- my take is that he was ashamed and sorry for starting the whole thing and taking the money (his went to pay off a mortgage of $4,000, and the other $6,000 for livestock, feed and improvements to his farm). He admitted his mistake and pretty much left baseball behind. Played a little outlaw ball with Swede, but couldn't go on, felt awful for the FANS, because how could they trust him or the others to play straight, when they had taken bribes to play crooked? (That's from the new collection, too, Austrian's notes? Not sure.)

But Jackson immediately denied that stories that said he played to lose.

Gene

Ubiquitous

11-22-2007, 08:42 PM

I don't really understand this, apparently Joe & Cos best defense is that they are habitual liars. The lie to the gamblers, they lie to each other, they lie to their manager, they lie the fans, they lie to the reporters, they lie to the law, they lie to their lawyers, and they lie to history. And yet because they do all this you guys want to claim reasonable doubt. As I said way way back when that is certainly an odd position to take when confronted with so many lies.

So Happy Felsch was lying when he said he and the boys threw the series? Eddie Cicotte is lying when he says he threw his games? Joe Jackson is lying when he say that they threw the second game? So Lefty Williams is lying when he says they were supposed to lose the first two games (and he pitched the second game and expected his money afterwords) and that they called it off in the middle of the series?

Ubiquitous

11-22-2007, 08:57 PM

Second thing about the money. If Joe is in the dark or is somehow telling the truth in his 1924 trial that he didn't get the money until after the series and didn't know why he was getting the money until Williams told him then why does he say Chick and all the other guys were double crossing him? Why does he say in his GJ trial that he has had conversations with the guys during the 1920 spring and season about how much each got and how he thinks they are lying and cheating him? For some guy who simply got "free" money he sure does seem to be awfully interested on whether or not he got screwed.

Ubiquitous

11-22-2007, 09:01 PM

From the 1924 trial

Q What talk did you have with Williams at the time?

A Mr. Williams came in my room and held out a couple of envelopes and said, "Here, do you want on of these?" I said, "No, what is it?" He pushed it over to me again. I said, "Go on: what is it that you got?" He told me; "Why," he says "it is money." I says, "I don't want your money." He said it was part of what he got in a frame-up with some eastern gamblers and they had used my name.

Q Who had used your name?

A Cicotte and Gandil.

Q And Williams?

A And Williams.

Q Did you give him permission to use your name?

A No, sir.

Q At any time?

A No, sir.

Q Did you know before that time that your name had been used by Williams with the gamblers?

A Not up to that time, no sir.

Q Or by Cicotte or Gandil?

A Or by Cicotte or Gandil.

Q What did you say to Williams then?

A I told him they had a lot of nerve. I don't know just the word I used, but "Big bums" or something, to be out pulling that of stuff on me, knowing that it was the only way I had of making a livelihood.

So here is Joe on the stand suing Charlie for backpay and he comes up with this wonderful story about how Mr. Williams came up to him after the series and gave him money, for up and until the point Charlie told him, for no reason at all. Only problem of course is that it goes totally against everything Joe said in the GJ testimony. So yes obviously Joe is lying somewhere and for some reason some people want to say Joe was lying to get himself into trouble but when he wanted money out of Comiskey well then Joe got all honest and told the truth. Somehow the logic on that one fails me.

yanks0714

11-23-2007, 05:04 AM

Yes and then he said he was out.
So if someone at your work was stealing from the company and you knew they were and they were saying to their fence that you were also part of their gang that was stealing from your employer you would have no problem with that? If they then decided to give you some of the money that they stole from your employer you would be okay with that too?

First off, if I knew someone was stealing from the company, KNEW, not suspected, I would report it. Secondly, we're talking about what Jackson did or did not do, not me. To me, if someone is intent on using your name to do something illegal, there is not a lot you're going to be able to do. I happen to believe that Gandil used Jackson's name with the gamblers because Joe was their top player and Gandil suspected the gamblers would be more comfortable thinking Jackson was in on it and be more willing to payout more to Gandil.
I suspect Jackson took the money, knowing that he himself was going to do nothing wrong. But because of it's taint, he never really used it for personal gain if we can believe his subsequent testimony. I tend to beleive that his wife did use it to pay hospital bills.

I hate to break it to you but you would then be criminal if that happened.

As I state above, I suspect Jackson took it knowing in his heart that he wasn't going to do anything wrong in the Series. The proff is on the prosecution to prove that he actually took actions to throw the WS.
How's this: 'Yes, I was given $5,000 in a dirty envelope. No, I wasn't sure what it was for...maybe a 'gift' from Commy. No, I told {Williams/Gandil} that I would not be party to fixing the WS. Yes, I tried to ask my managment about the money. Yes, I played to win every game.

Okay so why should Fred McMullin get banned? What did Fred do that was that much worse then Joe or Buck that deserves a trip to hell yet Buck and Joe get a year?

From what I understand is that McMullin was one of the guys who initiated this along with Gandil and possibly Cicotte. Endorsed it. Probably would have taken actions to 'earn' it if he had played enough to make a difference.
I really do not beleive that Joe and Buck took steps to throw the WS.

yanks0714

11-23-2007, 05:08 AM

If Jackson spoke the words you used in your example, then he is part of the conspiracy. He would be giving tacit approval, which may have helped make the fix go from 'maybe we can do it' to 'hey, we can do this.' At that point, whether he actually committed to throw a game is irrelevant.

I think the ban should stand, but I wouldn't have a big problem had Jackson's punishment been less than a lifetime ban. However, the thread title is "Joe Jackson's Innocence," and the guy just isn't innocent.

Your reply makes sense to me. Innocent? Nope. Guilty? Nope. They give him money? Yes. Will he help them? He states he won't do anything to help them throw the WS. Certainly not innocent but not guilty for a lifetime ban. Suspension? Absolutely.

yanks0714

11-23-2007, 05:25 AM

[QUOTE=jalbright;1054118]You have the right to see it however you wish, but you oversimplify at least my view of the facts. There are several:

1) yes, the leaving the hotel room with the $5k. That's a critical piece, but isn't the whole story.

I agree 100%. It's not the whole story at all.

2) The Reds won the World Series.

No disagreement here.

3) The gamblers were not the kind of folks you toyed with unless you wanted to die. The gamblers were certainly aware of the World Series results.

No disagreement here either. But there is no evidence that Jackson ever talked to the gamblers. I suspect they would have been after whoever they were dealing with directly. Most likely Gandil and Williams. If they confront Jackson he can honestly tell them I didn't agree to go along with the fix and if Gandil told you I did he's a liar. Of course, they could have killed him anyway. But a major point is that as far as we know Jackson did not have any direct interface with the gamblers themselves.

4) Joe Jackson not only took the money, but he kept quiet about what he knew. An honest man interested in protecting his integrity and reputation would have turned in the crooks immediately.

I agree. That is one reason I feel he deserved a suspension. Weaver sat in on the meetings although he didn't go along with the fix. he's even more cupable.

5) Joe Jackson's story has to be looked at in view of facts #1 and #4. Those facts clearly place his credibility in question. Even if you believe Joe, he's not an "innocent" in this matter. Truth is, we're arguing about how culpable he was.

Innocent? No. Guilty of throwing the Ws? Not guilty.

6) I agree it's unclear exactly how much Jackson did to further the conspiracy other than keep his mouth shut. However, from baseball's point of view, it was on Jackson to demonstrate that was his only involvement after his culpability in a far less than honest endeavor was established.

I can't disagree with this statement. I feel I make a differential between those that actually planned the fix, worked directly with the gamblers, and above all actually took steps to throw the games. In none of those do we have any evidence that Jackson did ANY of the three.

7) Joe Jackson, while admittedly unschooled, was smart enough to run a business after his playing days. In short, he wasn't an idiot or as mentally challenged as someone like Rube Waddell may well have been.

Run a business? I'd hardly think Joe "ran" the business. I suspect his wife kept the books and so forth. Joe did the daily work but his wife probably handled the business end of the store.
No, Joe wasn't like Waddell. However, I do think Joe very very well may have had dyslexia, a learning disability although it probably wasn't known back then.

leecemark

11-23-2007, 05:43 AM

Run a business? I'd hardly think Joe "ran" the business. I suspect his wife kept the books and so forth. Joe did the daily work but his wife probably handled the business end of the store.
No, Joe wasn't like Waddell. However, I do think Joe very very well may have had dyslexia, a learning disability although it probably wasn't known back then.

--Do you have some reason to think Jackson did not actually run the business or is that just speculation? Same question on the dyslexia. If dyslexia was the cause of his illiteracy that actually would detract was the "simple minded defense". That is a reading disorder, not a thining disorder.
--There is no reason to believe Jackson couldn't tell right from wrong. He knew the fix was a serious violation of trust and endangered his future in baseball. He still, at a minimum, kept quiet about it and profited from it. The details beyond that make for interesting discussion, but those 2 points are sufficient to justify his banning and make it inappropriate for him to receive baseballs highest honor.

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 05:55 AM

In response to the post a few back (Ubiquitous, I believe) -- a lot of what we each believe in this whole story, depends a lot on who we trust to be telling the truth. We can make a strong case against Jackson, with going on nine decades of history on our side, and we can make a case "for" him, giving him every benefit of every doubt. In the end, I think, the truth will be found somewhere in the middle, or in our conversation, or in the future.

The contrast between what Jackson said in 1920 and in 1924 is striking enough that Judge Gregory (the '24 judge) -- who was not at all a Landis, by the way, a hanging judge with a simplistic approach to justice -- made the call of perjury. Before both statements, Jackson spoke with lawyers. In 1920, it was team lawyer Austrian, who wound up on the stand himself in '24. In 1924, it was Ray Cannon. We must face the possibility that in neither case was Jackson really telling everything he knew, in his own way.

I think the exchange of money between Williams and Jackson took place after game 4 or 5, not after the Series. (If Cannon had access to the 1920 statement to the grand jury -- which he didn't -- the 1924 story might mesh. But I think Cannon moved the exchange back, to after the Series, so it looked like Jackson didn't sit on the cash for five or six days, before taking it to show to his team. That's my best guess.)

Jackson never spoke with the gamblers, never attended a meeting (here I mean 3+ people in a conversation) ... he did talk with Gandil, Williams ... not sure about Cicotte. Later Felsch. Later Risberg, if Swede threatened him if he "squawked." When Bill Burns runs into Jackson the morning of Game One (if that part of his 1920 statement is true -- we don't have Burns confirming it), Jackson seems clueless. But whatever they say convinces Jackson that the rumors are true, the fix is ON, and he better stay on the bench, if he can.

Again, I'd like to ask what we all collectively know about the statements of Cicotte & Jackson, that they played to lose -- tossing up easy pitches in Eddie's case, tossing away Game 4 on purpose; in Jax' case, poking at the ball, fanning in the clutch. When did they make them? To whom? Both were taken to the grand jury under wraps, and Cicotte slipped out the back door afterwards. Jackson apparently pushed thru a crowd of reporters and into a taxi, but he might have said something. (He denied the more widely spread story that he paused to confirm to an urchin that the fix was in -- does anyone here believe he did that? Putting words into the mouths of athletes was not unusual then, was it?)

Anyway, I think it is worth asking about the agendas of Austrian and Cannon, in 1920 and 1924 respectively. What was at state for each of them?

Cicotte's claim in 1920 that he pitched to win, was not leaked. When it was read into the trial in 1921, few papers picked up on it -- altho the Boston Globe gave it a headline, so it did not go totally unnoticed. (In 1924, Cicotte's 2 depositions were read into the trial between Kate Jackson's and Comiskey's detective, JR Hunter's report, and didn't raise many eyebrows then, either.) When I first read Victor 1966 Luhrs' analysis, in which he said Cicotte pitched to win, I thought he was crazy. When I read Bill Werber's book, where he claimed Ray Schalk, of all people, said Cicotte pitched to win, I called Werber and checked that out; still very lucid, Werber insisted, and even cited Cicotte's ERA for the series. Schalk had managed Werber early in his minor league career.

I'm sure this has been noted here a hundred times. Watch any ballgame, with the assumption that the fix is in, and you WILL see intentional errors, pitchers who let up, batters who wilt in the clutch. Because every game is full of errors or near-errors; for every plus, there's a minus. If the batter hits, the pitcher is suspect; if he fans, the batter might not be trying. (Has anyone read about how, in Vandermeer's 2nd no-hitter, the opposing team started rooting for him to get it, at some point later in the game?) And in a World Series, a pressure-cooker of an event, so many heroes fold, so many obscure players succeed wildly. It's a great game!

Gene

yanks0714

11-23-2007, 06:01 AM

Except when this happened she didn't and it was for many many months if not years before he spent some of the money on his sister Gertrude. Kate doesn't even deposit the money until December. When did Grabiner meet with Joe to sign the contract, in the spring?

I find this part fascinating and telling. What is it telling us? I'm really not sure. I suspect that Joe and his wife felt it was tainted money that they were not entitled to. The fact that they used it to a good cause in paying for hosptital bills as opposed to spending it for their own personal use.

yanks0714

11-23-2007, 06:19 AM

--Do you have some reason to think Jackson did not actually run the business or is that just speculation? Same question on the dyslexia. If dyslexia was the cause of his illiteracy that actually would detract was the "simple minded defense". That is a reading disorder, not a thinking disorder.

I wasn't clear enough. I said that I "think" rather than 'suspect' he was dyslexic simply because he could neither read nor write. It would be difficult to say the least handling the business end of his store if he could do neither. That's why I suspect his wife handled that end of it. On top of that, Joe was very uneducated with little or no formal schooling. I also don't think Joe was what you would call a 'thinking man' either. Bottom line is that I really don't think he was the brightest bulb around. As Gene and Bill mentioned, I think he was easily led, fooled, whatever you want to call it.

--There is no reason to believe Jackson couldn't tell right from wrong. He knew the fix was a serious violation of trust and endangered his future in baseball. He still, at a minimum, kept quiet about it and profited from it. The details beyond that make for interesting discussion, but those 2 points are sufficient to justify his banning and make it inappropriate for him to receive baseballs highest honor.

I'm sure he knew right from wrong. I'd think that is why he told Williams that he didn't want to participate in the 'fix' when first broached to him.

Yes, he kept quit about it and he did profit from it. Who was he to tell. It appears that Commy and his top aides as well as Gleason were already aware of it. Secondly, the money he received as noted in an earlier post you made. Joe and his wife didn't use it for some time until they used in for hospital expense.
Two points sufficient to justify his banning?
His receiving money for what? To throw games, keep quiet about what he knew, make good on an earlier promise of $, not sure? Did Joe ever agree to throw games? No evidence of that. Simply taking the money does not convict his of that. Profit? Not for their own use.

Keep quiet? Are you saying that he deserved the same fate as the guys who hatched the plan, contacted and dealt with the gamblers, actually admitted to throwing games? Joe didn't attend any meetings; didn't meet with the gamblers; resisted joining the fix when asked about it by Williams; was given money for what?
Suspension, yes. Ban, no. The errors of his ways do not match what Gandil and company did.

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 06:31 AM

You have the right to see it however you wish, but you oversimplify at least my view of the facts. There are several:

1) yes, the leaving the hotel room with the $5k. That's a critical piece, but isn't the whole story.
This is critical in hindsight. But it needs to be coupled with something more conclusive to let us arrive at a definitive culpable state.

2) The Reds won the World Series.
This is valid, but doesn't really nail down what it needs to nail down.

3) The gamblers were not the kind of folks you toyed with unless you wanted to die. The gamblers were certainly aware of the World Series results.
This is relevant. Announcing you crossed them in public by playing to win, from the witness chair no less, is inviting retaliation, and a motive to lie under oath in his GJ testimony. Which is one of my points all along, and has been blown off consistently.

When he told the GJ, "Yes, we took the money and threw game two", is quite possible to appease dangerous people, who might have come after him, had they felt they had been double-crossed.

4) Joe Jackson not only took the money, but he kept quiet about what he knew. An honest man interested in protecting his integrity and reputation would have turned in the crooks immediately.
--------------------
Here, we have several cases, all of them hard to verify, that Jackson did go to his team to tell them what he knew.

1. Before the series, he asked to be benched. Gene's quote - (There is no conclusive evidence that Jackson asked to be benched before the Series. Eliot Asimov has that in 8MO (Eight Men Out) but cannot recall where he got it -- I've pressed him on this several times. However, I have found references to this in several other pre-8MO sources, the earliest a 1932 interview with Jackson, the latest a 1961 Sporting News column out of Greenville. Taken altogether, I am leaning toward believing he asked to sit.

2. Gene's quote - (Based on the 1924 Milwaukee trial material, and that jury verdict (which was 11-1, not unanimous), I believe Jackson showed his team the $5 G right after the Series - He tried showing his team the money RIGHT AWAY, not a year later -- again, we don't know, but the Milwaukee jury believed that, too.

3. Gene's quote - (And we have proof that he also offered to come to Chicago & tell his team what he knew (from Williams) in November 1919 (I think -- see Gropman's books appendices) -- we have the letters he/Kate exchanged with Comiskey. At a time when Commy is very publicly offering $10 G for evidence, he won't see Jackson.

So, there we have 3 purported instances where Jackson is bothered by it all, and trying to tell someone, anyone, that something is untoward, his conscience is tweaked, and no one will listen. Now me - I'd make someone listen to me, but I'm not passive in my nature like Jackson.
-------------------------------------------

5) Joe Jackson's story has to be looked at in view of facts #1 and #4. Those facts clearly place his credibility in question. Even if you believe Joe, he's not an "innocent" in this matter. Truth is, we're arguing about how culpable he was.
From the very start of this debate, I have never said/implied that Joe was a 'lily-white', as some have put in my big mouth. I have argued, consistently, that we need to ascertain his degree of culpability. And somewhere in this long, convoluted process, I have recently articulated what his punishment should be. For his moral lapse in letting Gandil believe he was 'in on it, and one of them', at least for Gandil's purposes of telling the gamblers that they had a star name, and needed more dirty money to keep his mouth shut.

For that, he is culpable, and requires a punishment. I'm arguing that his punishment doesn't rise to the level of a life ban. Those 2 points have been the bedrock of my personal argument all along.

6) I agree it's unclear exactly how much Jackson did to further the conspiracy other than keep his mouth shut. However, from baseball's point of view, it was on Jackson to demonstrate that was his only involvement after his culpability in a far less than honest endeavor was established.

7) Joe Jackson, while admittedly unschooled, was smart enough to run a business after his playing days. In short, he wasn't an idiot or as mentally challenged as someone like Rube Waddell may well have been.
I also don't think Joe was aggressive enough to make a business fly, and it was his wife who did all the reading/writing/books that made it a profitable venture.

And from his GJ testimony, it sounds more like they were talking about 'using his name', which means trying to get the gamblers to fatten the pot. That sounds like trying to sucker the bad guys more than throw games.

I don't know if it's my imagination, but Jim Albright sounds like he moving incrementally in my direction, if very cautiously, and tentatively.

Can it be true? Dare I say it? Are we actually making a tiny bit of progress towards moving towards a consensus, now that Gene has arrived? I fear typing it, lest it evaporate into wisps of smoke.

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 06:51 AM

I think the ban should stand, but I wouldn't have a big problem had Jackson's punishment been less than a lifetime ban.
Dare I say it? If Macker can actually write this, and Jim Albright is asking the right questions concerning culpability, we may actually be moving towards a consensus, in terms of his sentencing.

But this is premature. We may back-slide yet.

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 08:14 AM

To return to Landis' "sentence" of lifetime bans across the board for some players, a light slap for others (don't forget Rube Benton), and no punishment at all for others who had tolerated gambling (the magnates) or had guilty knowledge before the Series (Comiskey & Ban Johnson, I think, and Garry Herrmann's papers will soon be available for researchers -- also Gleason, I think). What else could Landis have done? I think he could have suspended the Sox for a year, and during that year, encouraged each of them to consult their own lawyers and bring to him their individual stories. After a year, he'd then either extend their suspensions, fine them (perhaps for the money they took), and reinstate or not. He could also have declared a broad amnesty, acknowledging that these players were not the first to plot fixes and accept bribes, but we want them to be the last, so FROM NOW ON (ETC ETC). That would have kept the Cobb-Speaker case from coming up later, by the way. And the charges from 1917.

Ty Cobb had an idea. I don't think all players were comfortable with the part in Landis' edict about their being required to inform on their teammates and friends. There was a LOT of pressure from BB writers (and the public, I think) for the HONEST players to keep baseball clean, by turning on their SUSPECTED teammates. But I think Cobb's idea was an alternative. He suggested that baseball hire a kind of secret service -- undercover "police" who would routinely contact players and offer bribes. Sting operations, but perhaps more like random drug tests. After a few succeeded, resulting in high-profile expulsions, players would get the message. Anyway, this pressure to "rat out" or "squeal" or "squawk" was poisonous in the clubhouse. It had potential for setting up players who were disliked. Westbrook Pegler (a kind of cranky sportswriter in 1919 who became a political critic later) recalled how baseball could "whisper out" undesirable players. The word "collusion" was not dirty, the owners could all agree not to sign a player and that was it for him. Pegler thought this was Weaver's dilemma in October 1919 -- Buck did not want to make waves, makes charges he couldn't prove ... to speak up was to be labeled a troublemaker, and therefore to risk your career. Pegler notes the lack of union support among the employees/players. The Federal League (1914-15) showed what players could command in salaries in a free market. Don't rock the boat, Buck.

Gene

Macker

11-23-2007, 08:46 AM

I don't believe Jackson asked to be benched prior to the WS, but if he did, then how could the reasons for the 5K have been such a mystery to him?

And to clarify this earlier statement:

I think the ban should stand, but I wouldn't have a big problem had Jackson's punishment been less than a lifetime ban.

I do not condone lifting Jackson's ban. All I am saying is that had he been banned for 5 years, 10 years or whatever, I wouldn't have set out to get that changed to a lifetime ban well after the fact. Jackson was declared permanently ineligible. I believe Landis did what he needed to do in this situation. I see no reason to change that. So don't think I'm in any way swayed by what is mostly nothing but guessework brought on by too many hours of watching Judge Judy.

leecemark

11-23-2007, 08:50 AM

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 09:12 AM

--Jackson obviously wasn't the MOST guilty. He is the kind of guy prosecutors would generally give immunity to in exchange for testifying against the ringleaders. That doesn't mean he didn't deserve to lose his job. And it certainly doesn't mean he deserves baseball's highest honor.
I think we are on the right track to try to assign a degree of culpability to Jackson.

At this point, I don't think that anyone, including me, is arguing for him to receive a free pass. If he even consented to Gandil, to use his name to the gamblers, that constitutes some degree of wrong-doings, and deserves a fitting punishment.

But it remains for us to reach, if we can, a consensus as to what that culpability really was, and not reach for things in the dark.

It is quite possible, even reasonable to assume, that when he 'confessed' to throwing game number two, he was lying under oath (perjury), for fear of gambler retribution. He might even have been warned to this effect by Alfred Austrian, before he entered the GJ chambers.

But, if he did allow Gandil to believe he was in on it, even if just to fatten the pot of dirty money, he is culpable, and earned himself a punishment.

Now, after having said that, I still maintain that his degree of punishment must fit his degree of culpability. What do you do with a guy who does the wrong thing, to sucker the bad guys?

Does that rise to the level of a life ban? Hardly.

And I think it is reasonable for an intelligent person to assume that Landis found himself in a position that he felt required to 'send a message' to the gambling community, that Baseball was henceforth 'off-limits'.

Landis was obviously trying to use Jackson/Weaver as sacrificial lambs, to make an example out of those on the fringe, as well as the ring-leaders.

I don't know about anyone else, but whenever judges set out to make examples, bad things happen. Remember that movie, "Midnight Expres", where a young American was caught smuggling drugs out of Turkey, and the Turkish judge had to make an example out of him. Sentenced him to life imprison in Turkey. Based on a true story. Guy made an escape and got out and got back to US.

So, making examples might achive a political result, but is seldom fair to the poor guy who is the example.

Regardless of where you stand of Jackson's 'innocense', can we all agree that Landis would have been on more solid ground if he had conducted an indepth investigation, to arrive at justice in a more sober, deliberative, legal process?

Can we all agree that that would have resulted in a better result than the murky mess we now have inherited? And if that process had found him guilty, so be it. No one would have then been able to whine.

jalbright

11-23-2007, 10:11 AM

I don't know if it's my imagination, but Jim Albright sounds like he moving incrementally in my direction, if very cautiously, and tentatively.

Can it be true? Dare I say it? Are we actually making a tiny bit of progress towards moving towards a consensus, now that Gene has arrived? I fear typing it, lest it evaporate into wisps of smoke.

Trust me Bill, it's your wishful thinking striking again, perhaps mixed with a slight lessening of the shrillness of your defense making where we agree and disagree clearer. Nothing more. Joe Jackson stinks on ice as far as I'm concerned, and can rot in baseball hell until every honest person who made the game great is honored. In that assembly, I mean every fan, every bat boy, concessionaire, organist, bench warmer, front office type, starting player, and, yes, star players. Every single one of them. If we ever get through giving all those folks their due, then we can move on to those who in some way or form sold out the game to line their own pockets. The one concession is I'll allow Joe Jackson to be the first we consider when we get to looking at what is an appropriate way to "honor" such sellouts.

Jim Albright

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 10:14 AM

I find this part fascinating and telling. What is it telling us? I'm really not sure. I suspect that Joe and his wife felt it was tainted money that they were not entitled to. The fact that they used it to a good cause in paying for hosptital bills as opposed to spending it for their own personal use.

Except the sister's medical bills didn't cost $5,000. Over a $1,000? Kate says yes, $5,000? No way. Joe's sister was in the hospital for 4 weeks and according to the two expenses she lists the cost comes out to three or four hundred I forget the exact amount each expense was, Gene knows.

Money is money once you deposit it. You can't tell a banker to make a withdrawal of 100 dollars but take it from the stack I gave you last month.

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 10:24 AM

What do you do with a guy who does the wrong thing, to sucker the bad guys?

If you are an employer you fire him. If you are the law and these guys were breaking the law you prosecute him. If you are some sort of awards service you certainly don't give him an award.

Bill again if you are working for a company and are approached by some people to join them in their stealing from the company the right option is not to try and rip them off or to profit from them. If it is discovered do you really think your employer is only going to tsk tsk you with a reprimand or a suspension? Do you think they are going to want to name you employee of the month?

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 10:31 AM

2. Gene's quote - (Based on the 1924 Milwaukee trial material, and that jury verdict (which was 11-1, not unanimous), I believe Jackson showed his team the $5 G right after the Series - He tried showing his team the money RIGHT AWAY, not a year later -- again, we don't know, but the Milwaukee jury believed that, too.

Except Gene also fully admits that he thinks Joe lied when he said he got the money after the series so the whole 11-1 jury decision is pointless. In fact what you and Gene and everybody keep saying when you keep repeating the jury verdict is that the jury by the count of 11-1 believed a lie. Now for some oddball reason you think that is a big point for your side. I don't really understand why, "Hey look 11 people believed this guys lies that means he was honest".

According to you guys 11 people believed that Joe was not involved in a conspiracy, got the money after the series. Yet at the same time you also know that Joe did not get the money after the series and most certainly knew what the money was for.

So again why bring up the jury verdict? I notice you don't bring up the first jury verdict, why is that? Is it because it has already been established that the first jury verdict is a farce and that you are hoping that the second jury verdict and how it was arrived at goes unnoticed?

Joe Jackson guite obviously lied in his second trial, he lied because he and Cannon thought they could get away with it. Why someone would look at what Joe said in that trial and viewed it as the truth is beyond me.

Macker

11-23-2007, 10:42 AM

Reinstating Jackson is an easy question, and I'm encouraging Selig to take the easy way out for MLB: . . .it's Ted Williams' logic . . . lifetime bans end with their lifetimes. That puts the burden of the HOF question back on the BBWAA or Veterans Committee or whoever can pulls strings . . . I believe MLB's official historian Jerome Holtzman has a blind spot about Jackson ... while he's still "in office" I doubt Selig will do much.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Suppose a player has a gambling problem. He throws a number of games. He gets teammates involved and they manage to throw the WS. They get banned from baseball, meaning they can't work in the game in any capacity. One of these guys has HOF numbers.

I don't have a problem with a ban ending once the guy dies. Since the guy is dead, there is no way he could work in baseball. But what you seem to be asking for is MLB to say, "Hey, remember that guy who threw dozens of games 2012-14 and rigged the 2014 World Series? We threw him out of baseball for life, making him ineligible to be elected to the HOF. But he died yesterday, so now he's eligible for the HOF vote."

If you think Jackson received too severe a penalty, then your example can work. However, it sets a precedent that Rose and anyone else who becomes banned suddenly becomes a HOF candidate if they die. I don't like it.

There is absolutely no reason to reinstate a dead person. Therefore, the issue is not with the commissioner, but with the HOF board of directors. As for Jackson, he's already passed through the BBWAA voting process, was judged by those who saw him play, and by some who probably knew more about 1919 than we'll ever know.

Rather than Ted Williams' logic, I prefer to apply Johnny Bench's logic. When asked when Rose should be reinstated, he answered, "When he's innocent." That's why Rose is out, and that's why Jackson should stay out.

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 11:56 AM

Trust me Bill, it's your wishful thinking striking again, perhaps mixed with a slight lessening of the shrillness of your defense making where we agree and disagree clearer. Nothing more. Joe Jackson stinks on ice as far as I'm concerned, and can rot in baseball hell until every honest person who made the game great is honored. In that assembly, I mean every fan, every bat boy, concessionaire, organist, bench warmer, front office type, starting player, and, yes, star players. Every single one of them. If we ever get through giving all those folks their due, then we can move on to those who in some way or form sold out the game to line their own pockets. The one concession is I'll allow Joe Jackson to be the first we consider when we get to looking at what is an appropriate way to "honor" such sellouts.

Jim Albright
Shucks, Jim. When you get over your shyness, I think you'll be alright.

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 12:11 PM

Bill Burgess wrote:
"At this point, I don't think that anyone, including me, is arguing for him to receive a free pass. If he even consented to Gandil, to use his name to the gamblers, that constitutes some degree of wrong-doings, and deserves a fitting punishment."

I'm not sure this was ever discussed between Jackson & Gandil. I mean, Jackson being asked for the use of his name, and him tacitly or explicitly giving it. What part of his 1920 statement are you looking at?

Bill also said:
"It is quite possible, even reasonable to assume, that when he 'confessed' to throwing game number two, he was lying under oath (perjury), for fear of gambler retribution. He might even have been warned to this effect by Alfred Austrian, before he entered the GJ chambers."

Under oath in 1920 and 1924, Jackson never confessed to throwing a game. Those quotes do not come from his testimony. They were in the newspapers, along with "Say it ain't so, Joe" which seems less harmful than the others, but somehow came to symbolize his complicity. I addressed the other quotes above; their source is uncertain.

UBIQUITOUS wrote:
>>"Except Gene also fully admits that he thinks Joe lied when he said he got the money after the series so the whole 11-1 jury decision is pointless. In fact what you and Gene and everybody keep saying when you keep repeating the jury verdict is that the jury by the count of 11-1 believed a lie. Now for some oddball reason you think that is a big point for your side. I don't really understand why, "Hey look 11 people believed this guys lies that means he was honest". <<

The reason I place some weight on the Milwaukee jury verdicts (on 10 different points, it wasn't a simple guilty/not guilty), is because that jury seemed to be a fairly average, random group with no axes to grind. Unlike you and me and everyone in this discussion today, they had no Hall of Fame to think about. No 8 decades of history to sort thru. Much as I criticize "Eight Men Out" (more the film than the book) for its inaccuracies, the book will always be unique, because Asinof spoke with some of the folks in the story. I only got to talk with Asinof. The Milwaukee jurors got to do something none of us can ever do -- listen & watch Jackson, Comiskey, Austrian, Grabiner, and others, tell their stories. THEN they gave their verdict. But THAT'S why it mean more than our opinions, I think. Their verdict, again, was not unanimous, but in that trial, just 10 votes were needed for Jackson's case. He got eleven. YES, the judge blew the perjury whistle and the play was called back ... but did that change the jury's minds? They saw it as a simple breech of contract question. It was a kind of uncluttered verdict. I'm hoping that soon those transcripts will be accessible to all (there was a copy in Jermore Holtzman's collection). Reading them STILL won't be the same as hearing & seeing the statements. But it will be better than nothing, and I really don't think the Milwaukee material can be easily reduced to nothing.

By the way, you know what shocked many people after the 1924 trial? That Comiskey's early knowledge of the Fix was confirmed, and that he KNEW about the crookedness -- and STILL signed up his players. My take is that, in the Milwaukee trial, the Sox never really tried to prove Jackson played to lose in the Series -- they seemed to concede that he played to win, even Comiskey, under oath, said Jackson never played a crooked game in a Sox uniform. They went after him for what he did OFF the field.

MACKER wrote:
"If you think Jackson received too severe a penalty, then your example can work. [Reinstatement after the lifetime is over] However, it sets a precedent that Rose and anyone else who becomes banned suddenly becomes a HOF candidate if they die. I don't like it. There is absolutely no reason to reinstate a dead person."

Well, by itself, reinstating Jackson would not mean much, in practice. I say that because before he was hit by the "stray bullet" shot at Pete Rose (Bill Deane's image), he WAS eligible for election to Cooperstown. He got a few votes in the first election and a few later, but how many of you think that if the BBWAA voted him in, Landis might have blocked it? OR, might have taken the vote away from the BBWAA ... his statement would begin, "Regardless of the verdict of juries...."

So the reinstatement, to mean something, would have to be accompanied by some explanation. If I'm allowed to go outside baseball here, I'll bring up Galileo, who was "reinstated" in a way, centuries after his death. But since the ban reflects on Jackson's character, then removing it would mean something to any family still alive -- the same way folks fight to have "dishonorably discharged" removed from their military record, or why Purple Hearts sometimes get awarded years after they were earned, and posthumously.

Even tho I live near Cooperstown, the HOF thing is not a big deal for me. I argue Rose should be admitted, just to get him out of the limelight, to deny him the attention he gets, waiting on the doorstep. No asterisk needed, we know his sins. The HOF question also brings in the character question, and someone will start listing all the rogues in the Hall. The folks in Jackson's story who count are Comiskey, Johnson, and Landis -- who undeniably made great contributions to baseball, that's why they are in. They, too, were not perfect.

I'm reading Montville's recent biography of Ruth right now -- speaking of the character question. Good grief. Read about Ruth before getting into the discussions kneeling on deck, about Barry Bonds and the HOF. Discussion which will likely bring up Jackson again.

I guess on the reinstatement question, my view is that it is never too late to do the right thing, or to undo a wrong. I don't expect MLB to admit that Landis made a mistake, I don't see that happening -- does anyone? But to take another look at the punishments, what's the harm? To say all bans end when the lifetimes end -- what's wrong with that? Dead men don't place bets, don't toss, don't gamble, and if they try to lend their name to a conspiracy, I say let them. Just kidding. The Hall is very political, like many institutions. Let's follow Buck O'Neil's case -- the Hall wants him in, but he didn't get the votes. You can bet Pete is watching.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 12:16 PM

Except the sister's medical bills didn't cost $5,000. Over a $1,000? Kate says yes, $5,000? No way. Joe's sister was in the hospital for 4 weeks and according to the two expenses she lists the cost comes out to three or four hundred I forget the exact amount each expense was, Gene knows.

Money is money once you deposit it. You can't tell a banker to make a withdrawal of 100 dollars but take it from the stack I gave you last month.
We know that the game 8 of the 1919 WS ended on October 9, 1919, and Katie Jackson didn't deposit the $5,000. dollars in their Greenville account until December, 1919. We also are told that Joe asked Harry Grabiner what to do with the money, in February, 1920. Joe says that Harry told him to keep it, and Harry testified in the 1924 Milwaukee trial that he did not.

So, an impartial observer can infer that the Jacksons delayed depositing the money for around 60 days. We also know that in November, 1919, Joe offered to travel to Chicago, and tell what he knew to his employer, Charles Comiskey, and was rebuffed.

So, an impartial observer can further infer that the Jacksons didn't initially consider the tainted envelope theirs to do with as they pleased. They probably had strong reasons to believe that their offer to go to Chicago would result in their turning over the dirty envelope of bills to somebody, perhaps to be donated to charity.

If the Jacksons were as dirty as they're being painted as in this thread, they would have went, "Horay for us! We really put one over on the world! Let's go on a spending spree before someone comes and asks for the money!"

But no such thing happened. Grabiner traveled to Savannah, SC to sign Joe in February, 1920. Apparently, the Jacksons still had the money and were fully prepared to turn the envelope over to Grabiner. That is not the attitude of greedy pigs, but a man who felt remorse for being a fool.

And this was before the 1921 trial, before Landis issued his famous edict, before Joe knew if his behavior would ever come to light. NOT AFTER he was discovered.

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 12:21 PM

UBIQUITOUS wrote:
>>"Except Gene also fully admits that he thinks Joe lied when he said he got the money after the series so the whole 11-1 jury decision is pointless.

I missed this before. I didn't say "lied" -- Jackson probably followed the advice of his lawyer. Jackson had a selectively terrible memory -- he thought the HR hit he in Game 8 came with two runners on, for example. If no one had his 1920 statement, it is possible Jackson didn't recall exactly what he said, and his lawyer had no clues ... Jackson just remembered taking $5,000 -- that was the essetial thing here. If he couldn't recall exactly when, then why not follow his lawyer's advice, and say after the Series. In any case, the money was exchanged after Gandil said the Fix was off (we don't know if Jackson knew -- it seems not). And it wasn't payment for something coming up. "Lie" is possible, don't get me know, but I didn't use that word.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 12:26 PM

If you are an employer you fire him. If you are the law and these guys were breaking the law you prosecute him. If you are some sort of awards service you certainly don't give him an award.

Bill again if you are working for a company and are approached by some people to join them in their stealing from the company the right option is not to try and rip them off or to profit from them. If it is discovered do you really think your employer is only going to tsk tsk you with a reprimand or a suspension? Do you think they are going to want to name you employee of the month?
I have a big problem with your analogy, Jim. You/leecemark/Macker continually say, "Fire him". But the situation is not parallel. Not by a mile.

If an employee misbehaves, steals from a normal employer, they can seek other jobs in their profession. If the same situation happens in baseball, before free agency, you were locked out of your profession. The one you prepared for for many years, and have honed your skill set for.

A baseball player cannot transfer his hitting skills to a job in the garment industry, or a farm, mill, factory, docks, or mines.

If a secretary is fired from a bank, there are countless other banks, and businesses to which she can apply.

So, your comparison, while well-intended, doesn't work.

And the misbehavior to which you're referring, was not investigated properly in the first place. And that's where your reaction feels extreme to me. If the details were better defined, that would be different.

And the skimpy details, that you, leecemark, Macker feel are more than sufficient to base a life ban on, not only are not carrying the day in this debate (see the poll results), but are less than meets the eye.

Hopefully, Gene will be able to get access to those documents now being auctioned in Chicago. Maybe there will be something that will shed new light on the proceedings. Hoped we were moving slowly towards a plea deal for Joe. Guess not.

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 12:39 PM

I forgot to reply to the questions above about the money. I agree, the hospital bills for Gert, Joe's sister, were sizeable, but not $5,000 -- Kate Jackson was not pressed on the point, so the defense (the Sox) were content to demonstrate that Jackson took the money and it ended up in his bank account.

Here are some snippets from my research:
* In any case, Jackson consistently said that he wanted to tell the club owner on the morning after the Series, what he knew of the Fix from Williams. Asinof has this in his book, and the story is found in different sources, too. Some accounts have Grabiner saying, "Go home, we know what you want," and slamming shut the window on the office door. Some accounts have Jackson hanging around a while. None of the accounts have him meeting with Comiskey.

*Here is how Jackson described it on the stand in Milwaukee: Q: Did you tell Grabiner why you wanted to see the old man [after the Series]? A: Why should I tell him? I told him it was important that I see Mr Comiskey. (MT page1374) Grabiner was apparently so rude that Jackson was still upset with him months later, when they met in Savannah to talk contract.

* According to Jackson, Grabiner also said in Savannah: "'We have the goods on three fellows, Cicotte, Williams and Gandil,' and he [Grabiner] said, 'We know Williams gave you $5000, but your record speaks for itself. We know you play baseball to win." (MT 1380) Grabiner denied this conversation took place.

* Then there's this colorful account from Elden Auker: Comiskey is the guy who should have been kicked out. The mob gave Jackson $5,000; he took it to Comiskey, put it on his desk, and said, "Here, I don't want this money. I don't want in on this deal." Comiskey said, "Get the hell out of here. I don't want it and keep your mouth shut." Comiskey was afraid that if word of the bribe got out it would cause attendance to drop. He's the guilty man for not reporting it, for not standing up and protecting his player. Comiskey sat there and never said a word at the trial; he just let Jackson go down the drain.(This is in Auker's book.)

* Mr Auker is a member of the Society for American Baseball Research. I asked him, "Where did you get this information?" And he promptly wrote back: "Yes, Ted Williams had done a lot of research on Jackson because he felt Jackson should be in Baseball's Hall of Fame. Ted had a lot of detailed information and some of it was the Comiskey story. Best wishes, Elden Auker"
(Obviously, Ted Williams raised this to a dramatic scene ... now there's a guy who wanted Jackson in Cooperstown. And Comiskey out.)

* "What made the situation dangerous was the simple fact that the circumstances and facts that exonerated Jackson condemned Comiskey," writes William R. Herzog II. Herzog's long essay in The Faith of Fifty Million details better than most books, the connection between the cover-up and Jackson's banishment.

* To answer Bill's question: In his Milwaukee testimony, Jackson recalls when Grabiner came to Savannah in February 1920, to sign him up for the new season. Jackson was worried, his sister was in the hospital with appendicitis. He mentions to Grabiner that he had offered to come to Chicago. "'What's the matter with you people up there, anyway,' I said, 'that you didn't have me come up and give you that information that I knew?' 'Oh, well,' he [Grabiner] says, 'we made that investigation...'"

Gene

EdTarbusz

11-23-2007, 12:42 PM

We know that the game 8 of the 1919 WS ended on October 9, 1919, and Katie Jackson didn't deposit the $5,000. dollars in their Greenville account until December, 1919. We also are told that Joe asked Harry Grabiner what to do with the money. Joe says that Harry told him to keep it, and Harry testified in the 1924 Milwaukee trial that he did not.

So, an impartial observer can infer that the Jacksons delayed depositing the money for around 60 days. We also know that in November, 1919, Joe offered to travel to Chicago, and tell what he knew to his employer, Charles Comiskey, and was rebuffed.

So, an impartial observer can further infer that the Jacksons didn't initially consider the tainted envelope theirs to do with as they pleased. They probably had strong reasons to believe that their offer to go to Chicago would result in their turning over the dirty envelope of bills to somebody, perhaps to be donated to charity.

.

An impartial observer can also infer that the Jacksons' were nervous about depositing money in a bank in a rural region while a severe recession, which hit farmers especially hard, was going on.

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 01:05 PM

Odds & ends:

Did Charles Comiskey really think Jackson threw games on him, and merely deny it in the 1924 Milwaukee trial, so his fans wouldn't see him as the dishonest man who offered $10,000. to anyone with good information on a fix?

1. He said Joe never played a dishonest game in a White Sox uniform in the 1924 trial?

2. Charles' grandson, Charles A. Comiskey II, said that in the family conversation all his life, it was commonly understood that Jackson had never played dishonestly. Made an affidavit to that effect on February 26, 1986, under the supervision of David B. Carlson, attorney; and sworn to and subscribed to on January 18, 1991, notary public.
-----------------------
Both Comiskey/Landis did not want a trial. Comiskey to cover up, and Landis because he felt he was enough, and a jury was unnecessary. Ban Johnson was the one who pushed for the trial.
------------------------------------
Ban Johnson: What a piece of work!

1. When Comiskey goes to him after game one, and whines that his team is throwing the games on him, Ban tells him, "That is the whelp of a beaten cur."
Ban could have delayed the games to put the fear of God into the fixers, but chooses not to.

2. A year later, Johnson decides to prosecute the case, over the indifference of Commy/Landis.

3. After Joe Jackson wins his award, and before the Judge can invalidate the verdict, Ban Johnson sends a congratulatory telegram to Joe, for his victory over Comiskey!

Talk about one convoluted guy! Such was his hatred of Commy, that he refused to stop the series. Wanted to see the Sox lose.

Then wanted to prosecute his players, to ruin his team. THEN, send a congratulatory telegram to a man he might have thought cheated, just to rub Commy's nose in it! What a guy!

jalbright

11-23-2007, 02:11 PM

I have a big problem with your analogy, Jim. You/leecemark/Macker continually say, "Fire him". But the situation is not parallel. Not by a mile.

If an employee misbehaves, steals from a normal employer, they can seek other jobs in their profession. If the same situation happens in baseball, before free agency, you were locked out of your profession. The one you prepared for for many years, and have honed your skill set for.

A baseball player cannot transfer his hitting skills to a job in the garment industry, or a farm, mill, factory, docks, or mines.

If a secretary is fired from a bank, there are countless other banks, and businesses to which she can apply.

So, your comparison, while well-intended, doesn't work.

And the misbehavior to which you're referring, was not investigated properly in the first place. And that's where your reaction feels extreme to me. If the details were better defined, that would be different.

And the skimpy details, that you, leecemark, Macker feel are more than sufficient to base a life ban on, not only are not carrying the day in this debate (see the poll results), but are less than meets the eye.

Hopefully, Gene will be able to get access to those documents now being auctioned in Chicago. Maybe there will be something that will shed new light on the proceedings. Hoped we were moving slowly towards a plea deal for Joe. Guess not.

Bill,

I'm mostly talking about the Hall of Fame, which is all that's relevant in terms of "punishment" at this point. It's a place to honor people. Joe Jackson's actions dishonored the game. He simply does not deserve to be given one of the highest honors the game has to give. You have the right to feel however you wish. Macker, leecemark and I have the same right. Frankly, I think that over 25% of the folks who actually look at the case carefully would share our position, and that's sufficient to keep Joe out of the Hall even if he were reinstated.

Jim Albright

jalbright

11-23-2007, 02:19 PM

You invited a look at the poll. Well, over half believe Joe accepted money to fix games. However, over a half think he should be eligible for the Hall. That means that there are some folks who think he a) took money to fix games, but b) still should be eligible for one of baseball's highest honors. To me, that is ludicrous. If you believe him guilty of some lesser agreement, I still don't buy it, as he was dirty, and I think that being dirty in a fix of the World Series should be sufficient to disqualify him from such a high honor from the game. Remember, the Hall expressly directs voters to consider such things as sportsmanship and the like. If someone who dishonors the game by being dirty in a fix of its championship should still be voted in, I think that directive is absolutely meaningless.

Jim Albright

AstrosFan

11-23-2007, 02:30 PM

I wonder if it's not so much a matter of voters arguing that Jackson doesn't deserve to be banned for being in on a fix, so much as it is they support his reinstatement, because the guy has served a lifetime ban. Once you're dead, is a lifetime ban complete? I have heard from some that that is what separates Jackson from Pete Rose, that Rose hasn't completed his lifetime ban.

leecemark

11-23-2007, 02:40 PM

--I believe the ban was permanent rather than lifetime.

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 02:47 PM

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 02:49 PM

--I believe the ban was permanent rather than lifetime.
I'd hate to be a jay-walker, loiterer, litterer, prostitute, grafetti artist or illegal parker in a district where you, Jim and Macker worked in the DA's office. I'd never see the street again.

leecemark

11-23-2007, 02:53 PM

--I don't know that Jackson should have done time for his actions and obviously his sentence would long be over if he had. That doesn't mean he deserves to be honored for his place in baseball history though.

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 03:10 PM

Except their is nothing to take on Bill. For some reason you seem to think what he is saying is going against what I and others are saying and somehow reinforcing what you believe. That isn't so.
Your kidding, right, Ubi? Gene has actually supported much more of my positions than yours.

Gene has voted to support Joe being reinstated to the eligible list for the Hall of Fame.

He believes Jackson played to win.

He thinks there is more evidence than not that Joe asked to be benched before the series.

He has shown that Joe tried on at least 2 occasions to tell Commy what he knew.

He considers a life ban way excessive, and would be fine with letting the sports writers vote as they see fit. Only the Veterans Committee would handle his case, based on mitigating circumstances.

Gene doesn't agree that Commy only said Jackson played clean in the 1924 trial just to save his (Commy's) rep, but because he really believed it.

Gene takes the verdict of the 1924 trial much more seriously than you do, Ubi. No knock on you.

So far, those who knew the most facts (Commy, 1924 jury, Gene) all support the Jackson side more to my opinions than to yours, Ubi.

Nothing wrong with being in the minority. I am most of the time on Fever. But on this particular issue of Joe Jackson, 54.72% of Fever members, I and Gene feel that Joe Jackson's sentence was far too severe than you, Jim, leecemark and Macker do.

How you think that Gene's opinions haven't leaned much more my way is unclear.

Gene does support your belief that Commy wasn't a big cheapskate, and that Landis' decree was very popular with the BB community.

Do you really think that if Landis had conducted an in-depth investigation, it would have caused the fans to accuse Landis of a sellout? I don't know why they would have felt that way. Might have validated your worst fears, and hung Jackson. But if anything substantial came out that would have cleared him, or shown him to be in a less horrible light, that would only have served baseball to know the truth.

Macker

11-23-2007, 03:42 PM

I guess on the reinstatement question, my view is that it is never too late to do the right thing, or to undo a wrong.

Okay, but that differs what you said earlier (ascribing to Ted Williams' logic that the ban ends with the death of the player.)

I don't expect MLB to admit that Landis made a mistake, I don't see that happening -- does anyone?

No, because I don't think Landis made a mistake. I think Landis knew not all players were equally involved in this, but he decided to throw out the whole lot to make a statement. Whether that is fair is a matter of opinion, but under the circumstances, I don't disagree with it.

jalbright

11-23-2007, 04:51 PM

Jim, Jim, Jim. Shucks, Gosh, and good golly Miss Molly! You are one hard man. If Fever ever has a DA, you surely would qualify. The man who never entertained a plea deal.

Tell me this, Jim. To measure your degree of consistentcy - Knowing what you know how Landis sat in conference with owners, and colluded to keep blacks out of baseball (fraud in its most naked form), would you have voted for Landis to be 'HONORED' by voting for him for the Hall of Fame? Do you think you'd still feel that way if you were a black man? Be honest here, Jim. Keep it real.

Bill,

Show me where it was against baseball's rules to exclude blacks. It wasn't. It's an ugly part of American history, and Landis is unquestionably a part of that ugly history. However, at the time, Landis' position was the position of the majority of American whites. It would have been great if he could have risen above that and persuaded the owners to do so as well, but he didn't. The fact is, Happy Chandler certainly caught a great deal of heat (including from some owners) for allowing Jackie Robinson to break the color line after WW II had changed the minds of a great many white Americans. It wasn't a fraud, it was racism. Frankly, I doubt Landis could have gotten the owners to agree to ending the color line even if he had been so inclined.

If you want to impose modern standards on folks in the past, Abe Lincoln would qualify as a racist, though he was well ahead of most of white America in his day. People are a product of their time and place. I'm not honoring Landis for his stance on this issue, and it's not to his credit--but I'm not going to condemn him for being a man of his time and place, either. Jackson, by contrast, furthered (at least by silence) a fix of the championship of baseball. Please tell me when that kind of behavoir was ever regarded as acceptable by the baseball community. We both know the answer is never, as fixes run precisely contrary to the whole idea of sport--honest competition.

Why in the world should baseball honor a man who spit on one of the core values of the game in his own time and place in the name of lining his own pockets? I don't think there is any reason to do so.

Jim Albright

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 05:06 PM

That was after Ban called him a "wild-eyed nut." Ah, the good old days.

Let me clarify a few things, I think I'm getting misquoted more than misunderstood.

Regarding the money -- my sense is that once Jackson took the money, he regarded it as his, taint and all. He wanted to SHOW the Sox the money but I find nowhere anything that suggests he wanted to give it to them. I believe that if the team asked him for it -- Exhibit A in an investigation of the Fix, but he'd get it back later -- he probabvly would have loaned it to them ... but maybe not. He was upset, he was in a terrible mess, and he saw that money as something that fell his way, so he might as well keep it. There is no rationalizing, no justifying, and not enought thought here. He took it and kept it, and it has haunted him ever since. Even after his lifetime has ended.

Bill mentioned the "yelp of a beaten cur" -- there are a half dozen variations on that saying. Ban Johnson denied ever saying it, like Jax with "Say it ain't so." But it was in the papers -- hadda be true. It really was part of Commy's spin -- "See? I did my part, I told Johnson -- it was HIS baby after that." But they both knew. I've written and said this so often it's a cliche -- to really understand what happened in 1919-20, you need to understand the relationship between Comiskey & Johnson. Absolutely critical in how the Fix happens, gets covered up, and gets uncovered.

Bill, you mentioned a telegram Johnson sent to Joe Jackson in Milwaukee? Where did you find that detail? (Don't say my book! But I confess I've forgotten a few things that I once knew.) Johnson did not go to Milwaukee, and was advised by lawyer Killelea (Milwaukee, I think, did work for the AL?) to stay away. I think because baseball didn't need to give more exposure to the feud between BBJ & Commy ... and they wanted to keep the spotlight OFF Milwaukee. But Johnson followed the trial -- when Jackson's 1920 statement is pulled out of Hudnall's briefcase -- like a rabbit out of a magician's hat -- Johnson wires someone (Killilea, I think) to make sure Cannon follows up on that -- what the HECK was Comiskey's boys doing with THAT? But Judge Gregory let it slide.

Bill, please do not keep score of the times I agree with others in this discussion. I am not infallible. My opinions may be based on more info than most other people, but they are still opinions, not facts. I'm in this thing to listen and learn, and I hope when I write something that is wrong, it gets corrected.

I do believe Jackson played to win in the 1919 Series, and by now I think I've shared most of my reasons here. But I could be wrong. And I want to feel free to change my mind, as we learn more. I realize that I sometimes preach, but you can tell when I'm on a limb or soapbox, I think. My own thinking on Jackson has changed considerably over the years, but I have very few "fixed" ideas that I feel deserve my defending them. Little is certain in the story. I like the puzzle analogy or comparison -- we are all looking at a picture by looking at hundreds of pieces, some connected (but maybe they don't really fit there...) -- there is no box, we don't know what the end result "should" look like. When we all pick up a piece, we can examine it (too much sometimes) and give our opinion on where it fits -- or does it fit THIS puzzle after all? In discussions, we kind of test the pieces to see which fit together. "Cicotte, justified because that cheap blankety-blank Comiskey cheated him out of a -- wait a minute ... no promise of a bonus? Oh, then never mind."

Let me end with a question I haven't seen before, here or anywhere else. If the Sox had rallied to win Game 8, 13-12 in 17 innings (or whatever), and Wee Dickie Kerr came back strong to win his 3rd in Game 9 -- are the players still guilty of conspiring to lose?

I'll say this much -- if the Sox won the Series, I doubt we would ever have heard of ANYTHING. How ridiculous would anyone look, trying to prove that the winning team played crooked or sold themselves to gamblers? If it comes out that Cicotte took $10,000 -- well, those rotten gamblers deserved to be double-crossed, now let's all toast those World Champs! Oops -- with lemonade, I mean. Fullerton is celebrating, no one writes or talks about the dynasty breaking up. Rothstein was never officially in it, and losing big bucks is no big deal for Arnie, he'll drop $100 G at the Derby, make it up in one night at his Casino.

Landis will still become Commish -- enough magnates are turned off by Ban Johnson's style (geez, the guy wants gamblers OUT of the ballparks!) -- but with no scandal, Landis comes aboard with much less power. If it's too little, he may pass, as he did before.

But you see what I'm getting at? Was "JUST" talking about tanking, and taking money -- was that enough to earn suspensions? Lifetime bans? We know it was, after Landis' edict in 1921. I'll stop there!

Gene

jalbright

11-23-2007, 05:18 PM

Well, if you want to excuse Jackson, you're going to have to excuse Pete Rose some day unless a lot of new evidence that he actually had any involvement in fixing games comes to light. Pete got his ban because his gambling on baseball made him an unacceptable risk of throwing games. Joe was involved in some way, shape or form in the fix, or he wouldn't have gotten $5k for it. If Pete deserves his ban, Joe unquestionably deserves his. Frankly, I feel Pete cannot be a part of baseball because he's a compulsive gambler who hasn't faced his addiction, and he's proven he will violate the rule on gambling on baseball. Whether he deserves a permanent versus a lifetime ban is an issue I'd be willing to consider, but there's no way he can be allowed back into the game without showing he's gotten the better of his addiction.

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 05:48 PM

Well, if you want to excuse Jackson, you're going to have to excuse Pete Rose some day unless a lot of new evidence that he actually had any involvement in fixing games comes to light. ... If Pete deserves his ban, Joe unquestionably deserves his. .

I'm trying out this QUOTE thing. Let's see if it works.

Rose usually comes up, sooner or later, in discussion about Shoeless Joe. Very different lives & times & crimes. Briefly, I also see Pete as an addict who needs to be kept away from baseball, but he was treated unfairly by the Commish (familiar?) and that helps keep his case going ... he also keeps shotting himself in the foot, which doesn't help. Yet fans are, I think, willing to forgive later transgressions and honor Pete for all those hits. Jackson's case is harder to make because his problem came up while he was playing in a World Series. (I ought to add that makes this a mortal sin today, but in 1919, it might -- might -- have been venial. It was an exhibition series, not in the "championship season" ... players openly talked about skipping the Series, finishing second, because playing in the City Series in Chi or NY could be more lucrative. Contracts ran out Oct 1, and the dream team toyed with the idea of that defense, they were not OBLIGED to play their best. Thank goodness they didn't try using it!)

http://www.baseball1.com/carney/index.php?storyid=175 is a link to something I wrote a long time ago on the question of whether Jackson asked to be benched. It has some interesting ideas from other folks on this, if anyone is interested. Since my book, I've seen a 1932 interview with Jackson where he says he asked to sit -- the earliest documentation I know of. I'm hoping Asinof's tapes will someday shed more light on it -- especially if he got the detail from Red Faber AND Felsch, and maybe a third source, too. As it is, I hate to cite 8MO as a source.

My question: Does asking to be benched before Game One constitute informing his team? Is it in any way a warning? We must assume, I think, that he'd have to give a reason. If he claimed to be sick or hung over -- that's not a warning. But if he said, "I don't want to be accused of doing anything to help the Reds win! You all know there's been bribery and tampering, I told you and everyone know all about it!" -- I'd say that's a warning. Wonder if Faber or Felsch elaborated?

Gene

jalbright

11-23-2007, 05:48 PM

I'd hate to be a jay-walker, loiterer, litterer, prostitute, grafetti artist or illegal parker in a district where you, Jim and Macker worked in the DA's office. I'd never see the street again.

Bill,

There are two issues here. One is Joe's punishment, and the other is whether Joe deserves to be honored by the game. The punishment by MLB ended with his death, as baseball has no ability to affect Joe in the afterlife. However, baseball continues to refuse to honor him, and I believe that is appropriate. In fact, I will never support the idea that Joe Jackson should be honored by the game. Not many companies give gold watches to folks fired for embezzling company funds, and rightly so. If that's harsh, so be it--he's the one who put a $5k price tag on his devotion to the game. He got his $5k, and he deserves nothing more.

Jim Albright

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 06:07 PM

Bill,

There are two issues here. One is Joe's punishment, and the other is whether Joe deserves to be honored by the game. The punishment by MLB ended with his death, as baseball has no ability to affect Joe in the afterlife. However, baseball continues to refuse to honor him, and I believe that is appropriate. In fact, I will never support the idea that Joe Jackson should be honored by the game. Not many companies give gold watches to folks fired for embezzling company funds, and rightly so. If that's harsh, so be it--he's the one who put a $5k price tag on his devotion to the game. He got his $5k, and he deserves nothing more.

Jim Albright
I think you are a little off the point here, Jim. From what I understand, when the sports writers vote to induct a player into the Hall, it is not to honor the man, but his play.

How else can we fathom inducting Cobb/Ruth? They were inducted because their play forced their induction, above others. If the Hall were honoring the person behind the play, Cobb wouldn't have stood a chance in hell. And Babe would have had a lot to answer for too, but a lot less than Cobb.

And there are others too. McGraw/Hornsby/Williams were hardly model human beings.

So, I think you're reaching here when you use Jackson as your poster bad boy/whipping boy.

You have simply gotten so used to thinking of him as a dishonest, game-throwing villain, that you are finding it impossible to alter a long-held belief.

Gene has supplied new information that I didn't know. Gene has told us that Cicotte/Jackson never said they threw games. That transcript that Ubi loves so much to show us, is not from the authentic transcripts, but newspaper reports.

So, why doesn't that influence you, Jim? It shocks me, and strengthens my position, and completely pulls the rug out from your entire case!!!!

If that transcript that Ubi shows is NOT AUTHENTIC COURT TRANSCRIPTS, but merely leaked newspaper reports, then that CHANGES EVERYTHING. AND I MEAN EVERYTHING.
Seems that disembowels/excoriates your entire case buildup.

And for the record, Judge Judy is a terrible judge, who goes by her gut and ignores the law. Judge Marilyn Milian and Judge Alex are much better. And yes, I do like very much to watch 'judge shows'. (Judge Brown also stinks, as did Judge Koch.)

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 06:19 PM

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 06:23 PM

If a secretary is fired from a bank, there are countless other banks, and businesses to which she can apply

Lawyers, doctors, policemen, . . .

And the misbehavior to which you're referring, was not investigated properly in the first place. And that's where your reaction feels extreme to me. If the details were better defined, that would be different.

Except they were investigated, remember Comiskey started investigating the fix almost as soon as the series was over and baseball knew almost exactly what had happened.

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 06:35 PM

Your kidding, right, Ubi? Gene has actually supported much more of my positions than yours.

Actually no Bill, you simply don't understand my position.

Gene has voted to support Joe being reinstated to the eligible list for the Hall of Fame.
He believes Jackson played to win.

He believes that but he also states that it is only a probability.

He thinks there is more evidence than not that Joe asked to be benched before the series.
where is that in dispute?

He has shown that Joe tried on at least 2 occasions to tell Commy what he knew.

Where is that in dispute?

He considers a life ban way excessive, and would be fine with letting the sports writers vote as they see fit. Only the Veterans Committee would handle his case, based on mitigating circumstances.
What does this have to do with 1919?

Gene doesn't agree that Commy only said Jackson played clean in the 1924 trial just to save his (Commy's) rep, but because he really believed it.
And he is entitled to his opinion of what was going on in Comiskey's mind.

Gene takes the verdict of the 1924 trial much more seriously than you do, Ubi. No knock on you.

And like I said in the post you snippeted I've disagreed in places with Gene's view.

So far, those who knew the most facts (Commy, 1924 jury, Gene) all support the Jackson side more to my opinions than to yours, Ubi.
Except again you have no idea what my position is. Gene accepts that Joe took the money and he knew why he got the money. I believe that also. I say no to the hall, Gene says he is dead lets honor him. WE disagree on that but nothing he has said has disputed any of the reasons why I think Joe should be banned.

Nothing wrong with being in the majority. I am most of the time on Fever. But on this particular issue of Joe Jackson, 54.72% of Fever members, I and Gene feel that Joe Jackson's sentence was far too severe than you, Jim, leecemark and Macker do.

Well, that is nice and I got 80 some odd years of history on my side

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 06:45 PM

Gene has supplied new information that I didn't know. Gene has told us that Cicotte/Jackson never said they threw games. That transcript that Ubi loves so much to show us, is not from the authentic transcripts, but newspaper reports.

No, I didn't say that, Bill. I said that the familiar quotes (Cicotte: "Served up the ball so they could read the stitches" -- Jax: "Poked at the ball, fanned in the clutch" -- these are not exact quotes) are nowhere to be found in their under-oath statements. On the contrary, under oath, both Cicotte and Jackson specifically said that they played to win -- in Eddie's case, AFTER he hit Rath, that was intentional. He didn't say it was a signal, tho, that came from the always-reliable Abe Attell ... a prime source for Asinof's 8MO.

And we just aren't sure if the players said the words themselves -- they may have, may have done that at Austrian's suggestion, to let the GAMBLERS know they had not done anything to deserve bodily harm. (Good old Alfred, always protecting Commy's investment!) See Harold Seymour, that was his theory. THE GOLDEN AGE -- must reading.

The other possibility is that reporters made up the quotes. Don't think they would? "Say it ain't so!"

And of course, the other chance is the players said it and meant it, but lied to the grand jury and forever after.

There is PLENTY of troubling stuff for Jackson supporters in his 1920 statement. It is not an easy read for anyone, though, because when asked if he played to win, he says YES, and it's as clear as the $5,000 he took.

I'm a little surprised no one has brought up the circumstances of that 1920 statement ... I hesitate to say much here NOW, because the new material in the Chicago auction could be very enlightening on that subject, especially if Jackson says he asked for his own lawyer but had to settle for Austrian.

Just as taking the $5,000 is all some folks need to know about Jackson, the fact that he advised the players to sign away their immunity is all that some folks need or want to know about Austrian -- it is 100% proof that he was not acting in their interests. Yet he spent significant time with them before they spoke to the grand jury. Where was Matlock when Joe needed him?

The other factor -- and I really put very little weight on it -- is Jackson being "half drunk" (some will argue half sober) at the grand jury, thanx to the friendly bailiffs. One one hand it relaxed him, loosened his tongue, gave him the couragfe (?) to do a little public speaking in the unfriendly North, where he was Shoeless Joe, the rube from Greenville, SC. On the other hand, it may have further impaired his demonstated poor judgement, confused him, made him easy to lead on. But I don't see, from the transcript we have, anyone putting words in his mouth. But don't you wish they asked him, "Did you ever talk to your team about this monkey business, before Game One? Did you ask to be benched, like Eliot Asinof will surely suggest in 1963?" Don't get me started, the 1920 statement is maddening.

Gene

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 07:01 PM

Actually no Bill, you simply don't understand my position.

He believes that but he also states that it is only a probability.

where is that in dispute?

Where is that in dispute?

And he is entitled to his opinion of what was going on in Comiskey's mind.

And like I said in the post you snippeted I've disagreed in places with Gene's view.

Except again you have no idea what my position is. Gene accepts that Joe took the money and he knew why he got the money. I believe that also. I say no to the hall, Gene says he is dead lets honor him. WE disagree on that but nothing he has said has disputed any of the reasons why I think Joe should be banned.

Well, that is nice and I got 80 some odd years of history on my side
If you say I don't know what your position is, and then refuse to state what it is, then I can't debate with you. But you can't win either. I suppose you have a reason to evade my simple direct points.

Gene is in support of most of my bedrock positions, and seems to not support your 2 big positions. Gene believes Joe played to win. That is an opinion. Of course he realizes it might not be true. All we're doing here is expressing opinions, not changing the past. And Gene supports reinstating Jackson to the eligible list for the Hall.

If those aren't the 2 biggest issues, they are the most relevant.

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 07:11 PM

If you say I don't know what your position is, and then refuse to state what it is, then I can't debate with you. But you can't win either
I've got over 100 posts in this thread, I have stated my position numerous times, over and over and over and over. Secondly I'm not in this to "win", I'm in this to learn. But I will say I am winning. Joe is banned and not in the hall. He wasn't in yesterday, he isn't in today, and he won't be in tomorrow. So how am I losing?

Gene is in support of most of my bedrock positions, and seems to not support your 2 big positions. Gene believes Joe played to win. That is an opinion. Of course he realizes it might not be true. All we're doing here is expressing opinions, not changing the past. And Gene supports reinstating Jackson to the eligible list for the Hall.

So Gene doesn't support the view that Joe got 5K? Gene doesn't believe that Joe got the money because of 1919 World Series fix?

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 07:15 PM

On the contrary, under oath, both Cicotte and Jackson specifically said that they played to win -- in Eddie's case, AFTER he hit Rath, that was intentional. He didn't say it was a signal, tho, that came from the always-reliable Abe Attell

So all of this is made up stuff?

"I don't know why I did it...I must have been crazy! Risberg, Gandil, and McMullin were at me for a week before the Series began. They wanted me to go crooked. I don't know. I needed the money. I had the wife and the kids. The wife and kids don't know about this. I don't know what they'll think.
"Before Gandil was a ballplayer, he was mixed up with gamblers and low characters back in Arizona. That's where he got the hunch to fix the Series. Eight of us, we got together in my room three or four days before the Series started. Gandil was master of ceremonies. We talked about it, and decided we could get away with it. We agreed to do it.

"I was thinking of the wife and kids. I'd bought a farm. There was a four-thousand-dollar mortgage on it. There isn't any mortgage on it now. I paid it off with the crooked money. I told Gandil I had to have the cash in advance. I didn't want and checks. I didn't want any promises. I wanted the money in bills. I wanted it before I pitched a ball. We talked quite a while about it. Yes, we decided to do our best to throw the games at Cincinnati.

"Then Gandil and McMullin took us all, one by one, away from the others and we talked turkey. Gandil asked me my price. I told him $10,000. And I told him $10,000 was to be paid in advance. It was Gandil I was talking to. He wanted to give me some money at the time, the rest after the games were played and lost. But it didn't go with me. Well, the argument went on for days, the argument for some now, some later. But I stood pat. I wanted that $10,000 and I got it.

"The day before I went to Cincinnati I put it up to them squarely for the last time that there would be nothing doing unless I had the money. That night I found the money under my pillow. There was $10,000. I counted it. I don't know who put it there. It was my price. I had sold out 'Commy'. I had sold out the other boys. Sold them for $10,000 to pay off a mortgage on a farm and for the wife and kids...$10,000...what I had asked, cash in advance, there in my fingers. I had been paid and I went on. I threw the game.

(Answering as to the manner in which the games were thrown Cicotte replied) "It's easy. Just a slight hesitation on the player's part will let a man get to base or make a run. I did it by not putting a thing on the ball. You could have read the trade mark on it the way I lobbed it over the plate. A baby could have hit 'em. Schalk was wise the moment I started pitching. Then, in one of the games, the first I think, there was a man on first and the Reds' batter hit a slow grounder to me. I could have made a double play out of it without any trouble at all. But I was slow--slow enough to prevent the double play. It did not necessarily look crooked on my part. It is hard to tell when a game is on the square and when it is not. A player can make a crooked error that will look on the square as easy as he can make a square one. Sometimes the square ones look crooked.

"Then, in the fourth game, which I also lost, on a tap to the box I deliberately threw badly to first, allowing a man to get on. At another time, I intercepted a throw from the outfield and deliberately bobbled it, allowing a run to score. All the runs scored against me were due to my own deliberate errors. In those two games, I did not try to win...

"I've lived a thousand years in the last twelve months. I would not have done that thing for a million dollars. Now I've lost everything, job, reputation, everything. My friends all be on the Sox. I knew it, but I couldn't tell them. I had to double-cross them.

"I'm through with baseball. I'm going to lose myself if I can and start life over again."

Bill Burgess

11-23-2007, 07:29 PM

So Gene doesn't support the view that Joe got 5K? Gene doesn't believe that Joe got the money because of 1919 World Series fix?
To take a page from your play book, when was that in dispute. That is one of the few uncontested items.

Gene Carney

11-23-2007, 07:57 PM

In reply to Ubiquitous:

Well, what is the source for that statement, which is very familiar to me, and probably to the group? It's not an under-oath statement, is it?

Why does the under-oath statement contradict this one?

The one you cite got a LOT more publicity, but that doesn't make it true. Being UNDER-OATH does not make anything true, either. But I'm curious about your reasoning here.

I'm pointing to the difficulty BOTH "sides" (if you take sides) have of explaining everything. It's JUST NOT FAIR that only one side has to explain ... can we all agree on that? (How to add questions to the poll?)

I must add -- Bill, I'm surprised at your reaction to my earlier post(s) about this ... you need to re-read my book! As the Prego folks liked to say (once upon a time) -- "It's in there!"

There is a TON of stuff in "Burying the Black Sox" (not my working title, the publisher gets to decide -- same with 8MO, by the way) -- subtitle "How Baseball's Cover-Up of the Fix of the 1919 WS Almost Succeeded" (that's mine, altho I had "the Cover-Up" instead of "BB's"). But I've learned a lot since it went to press, a bit over 2 years ago, and want very much to publish a new book, with all the new stuff. (But not "made up stuff"). Any editors or agents or publishers read this web site? (Just kidding, my attitude toward commercials is the same as Alfred Hitchcock's.)

This is my last post today, I'm Eastern Time Zone. And retire, usually, at 11. I'm enjoyng this discussion, but it's taking up too much time, maybe. I'm at carneya6@adelphia.net if anyone has new information. Like that stuff that goes up for auction next Monday! Has everyone here visted the auction listing at Mastro:

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=76398&LastLotListing=Lot%20Search%20List&CurrentRow=1#photographs

If not -- why not??!!

Gene

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 08:16 PM

To take a page from your play book, when was that in dispute. That is one of the few uncontested items.

That was my point Bill. You said Gene does not support by two biggest points. Well, my two biggest points would be that Joe Jackson was paid 5K by people who tried to fix the world series. That is all I really need to know, everything else is smoke and mirrors and I am not going to sit there and let somebody off because they are lying and muddling the storyline. Which is all Joe and everyone else has done for quite some time.

Ubiquitous

11-23-2007, 08:30 PM

Has everyone here visted the auction listing at Mastro:

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=76398&LastLotListing=Lot%20Search%20List&CurrentRow=1#photographs

If not -- why not??!!

Gene

When I get home I'm going to look closer at it but one thing jumped out at me at once:

Who is saying this? Lefty Williams or Joe Jackson?

"I said 'For $5,000 I wouldn't throw no world's series,' I said, 'That is not enough money for an ordinary working man to do a dirty trick.' They said 'What do you think?', I said , 'In my estimation I wouldn't consider nothing under $10,000.' They said, "What does Mr. Jackson think, $10,000?' I said, 'Whatever they do it is all right with Mr. Jackson'. I said, 'I figured if I wouldn't get in on it it would be done anyway, and I haven't got any money, and I might as well get what I can get. It was agreed upon and we all left"

Okay literally reading between the lines it is Lefty Williams testifying and he says between the lines that Gandil gave him two envelopes. Now this is important because one of the defenses is that LEfty simply split his take with Joe because he felt bad. Which according to Lefty is bull. Gandil gave him two envelopes one for himself and one for Joe. Joe and LEfty then spent the rest of the night counting their money.

jalbright

11-24-2007, 04:02 AM

Bill,

I have stated numerous times that I don't know if Jackson threw games. I do know he accepted $5K as part of a fix of the World Series, and he kept his mouth shut. That's enough for me.

You're not getting as much support from Gene Carney as you think, IMO. He certainly has posted that you are misinterpreting him/misrepresenting him on occasion in this thread.

As for reinstating Joe, it's totally irrelevant if baseball isn't willing to honor him. And I've stated quite clearly why I don't think baseball should do that.

The bottom line is, we're going round and round and not changing anything, and I'm definitely inclined to get off the merry-go-round.

Jim Albright

yanks0714

11-24-2007, 06:11 AM

Let me end with a question I haven't seen before, here or anywhere else. If the Sox had rallied to win Game 8, 13-12 in 17 innings (or whatever), and Wee Dickie Kerr came back strong to win his 3rd in Game 9 -- are the players still guilty of conspiring to lose?

I'll say this much -- if the Sox won the Series, I doubt we would ever have heard of ANYTHING. How ridiculous would anyone look, trying to prove that the winning team played crooked or sold themselves to gamblers? If it comes out that Cicotte took $10,000 -- well, those rotten gamblers deserved to be double-crossed, now let's all toast those World Champs! Oops -- with lemonade, I mean. Fullerton is celebrating, no one writes or talks about the dynasty breaking up. Rothstein was never officially in it, and losing big bucks is no big deal for Arnie, he'll drop $100 G at the Derby, make it up in one night at his Casino.

Landis will still become Commish -- enough magnates are turned off by Ban Johnson's style (geez, the guy wants gamblers OUT of the ballparks!) -- but with no scandal, Landis comes aboard with much less power. If it's too little, he may pass, as he did before.

But you see what I'm getting at? Was "JUST" talking about tanking, and taking money -- was that enough to earn suspensions? Lifetime bans? We know it was, after Landis' edict in 1921. I'll stop there!

Gene

If the Black Sox had won the WS in 1919 we wouldn't be having this conversation, this thread would probably not exist, and unfortunately Gene may well not have written 'Burying the Black Sox'.
I doubt that any of the playerts would have been banned. Joe Jackson would probably be in the HOF. Landis would be the Commish, but might not have the power he wielded because his ban of the 8 Sox solidified his power through fear if nothing else.

yanks0714

11-24-2007, 06:38 AM

Except they were investigated, remember Comiskey started investigating the fix almost as soon as the series was over and baseball knew almost exactly what had happened.

I hardly think that Comiskey's investigation of the fix to be supportive of anything. He apparently knew of the fix beforehand, or at least during the WS, as it was. The $10,000 offer was nothing more than a smokescreen to deflect any charges against him.

leecemark

11-24-2007, 06:58 AM

yanks0714

11-24-2007, 07:06 AM

Strip away all the discussion in this entire issue and it boils down to one thing...the $5,000 Joe Jackson received.

The anti-Jackson crowd sees the $5,000 as justification of guilt and justifiable resulting lifetime ban whether or not he threw games or played to win.

The pro-Jackson crowd does not deny that Jackson received $5,000 but feels he played to win, that he played to win is what counts, thereby, the lifetime ban is not justified.

That's it....that's what it all boils down to.

Being in the pro-Jackson camp, I don't deny that he received the money. But that does not satisfy me that he is guilty and deserved the ban. The basis for my viewpoint is the following:

* Did Jackson ever actively participate in any player and/or gambler meetings in plotting the fix? No, I don't believe there is any evidence of it.

* Did Jackson ever flat out tell a teammate, Gandil or Williams, to count him in on the fix and/or that would go along with it? No, I don't beleive there is any evidence that he did so.

* His actual performance in the WS. He well may have been the MVP. No errors (the one play that was 'suspicious', the triple, was actually seen by the hitter (Greasy Neale) as not being suspcious. He felt Joe was playing him the right way). Hit .375 and the only HR.

* Did any fellow Black Sox player or gambler in the Post WS testimony specifically target Jackson's participation in the fix beyond his getting the money? No, I don't believe they did. In fact, wasn't it said flat out that he wasn't involved by Felsch and one of the gamblers?

* In a lesser supportive viewpoint, Jackson's post 1919 testimony and comments. I do believe there is a strong possibility that Jackson's memory was hazy, possibly added in situations to support his position, embellished his actions, and shaded the truth a bit.

I would have liked to have seen Landis take more time to investigate each individuals actions and participation. I do think that he would have handed down diverse penaties. However, given the climate of the times, I believe he felt he was brought onboard as Commish to 'clean up' baseball's gambling mess, taking a hard stance in order to send a message.

If any of my viewpoints (*) above are incorrect please let me know as I take this thread as educational in a subject that fascinates me.

yanks0714

11-24-2007, 07:13 AM

--Rumors of the fix were there for everyone to "know" about. I have never seen evidence that Commisky had any inside knowledge of the fix before or during the series. He was in a pretty difficult spot regardless. If you think - even if you are pretty sure - that your players are taking a dive what do you do? You can't stop the games. You could I suppose bench the guys you knew for sure were laying down, but he couldn't know the full list. If he had known the full list he couldn't have fielded much of a team without such a large group of untrustworthy players.

I firmly believe that Comiskey, if he had strong suspicions, could have/should have, along with Ban Johnson and the NL President, halted the Series at least temporarily. Why allow a fraud to actually take place?
Not wanting to misquote Mr. Carney, or anybody else for that matter, but I do feel the animosity between Comiskey and Johnson prevented such a thing from happening. Their personal feelings for one another allowed the fraud to continue.

leecemark

11-24-2007, 07:28 AM

Macker

11-24-2007, 07:40 AM

Gene,

I doubt you've gone back and read through this whole thread, so I'd like to ask you about a discussion way back on Page 6. The 1956 Sports Illustrated article of Gandil's story by Melvin Durslag was posted. Key points:

Cicotte and I tried to figure out first which players might be interested. . .
We finally decided on Jackson, Weaver, Risberg, Felsch, McMullin and Williams . . . That night Cicotte and I called the other six together for a meeting and told them of Sullivan's offer. They were all interested and thought we should reconnoiter to see if the dough would really be put on the line. Weaver suggested we get paid in advance; then if things got too hot, we could double-cross the gambler, keep the cash and also take the big end of the Series cut by beating the Reds. We agreed this was a hell of a brainy plan. "

Vidor then responded with this:

thanks for posting that article by Gandil, which apparently establishes that Jackson DID attend meetings devoted to fixing the Series, as well as accepting money for doing so

to which Bill Burgess responded thusly:

If you really want to designate the "Jackson attended the Meetings" as the hill you choose to die on, then you must tell the rest of us Fever members why Lefty Williams told the fixers that he was representing Jackson! No need if Joe was there, right?! Or do such contradictions cause you no bother?

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

I think the answer to Bill's question is that we've never said Jackson sat in with gamblers. I won't speak for the others, but I do believe Jackson sat in on meetings with the other players (meetings in which no gamblers were present.) When Williams says he is representing Jackson, he is doing so at a meeting with gamblers.

Gene, I realize much of Gandil's claims in that article are almost comical, such as the money split, but what do you make of the fact that he puts the number at eight, and he includes Jackson among those eight?

yanks0714

11-24-2007, 08:28 AM

--Even if that is true (which may or may not be the case) is their failure to act to stop someone else's suspected crime as bad as the criminal act itself? Does it in any way excuse the actions of the men who actually participated in the conspiracy?

Absolutely not. The criminal act in itself is much more critial and unexcusable. However, if you suspected a crime being committed, would you just let it go forth to it's bitter end {or} attempt to halt it?
The excuse of 'I suspected a crime of being committed but wasn't sure so I left it alone' make any sense?
My point in my earlier post is that I agree with the statement that the animosity between Comiskey and Ban Johnson may well have prevented immediate investigation into a possible crame being committed.

Gene Carney

11-24-2007, 08:32 AM

In the CAC -- usually it stands for Comiskey, but I'm using it as short for the Chicago Auction Collection -- it looks like we have Lefty Williams' whole statement. If others have studied this, correctme -- my take is that Lefty went to Austrian Sept 29 (the day after Cicotte/Jax) at Jackson's prodding, was deposed by Austrian, and the statement he made (in Q/A) form was then taken to the grand jury, where I *think* Lefty read it, but no Q/A. In the CAC, he says at one point that he expected $20 K, maybe $30 K (and that 30 is a hint that maybe he knew of the multiple syndicates). He states clearly that Gandil handed him two envelopes, $5,000 in each, and instructed him to give one to Jackson. After Game 4, but maybe 5, because I think he also said the night before returning to Cincy.

What did Commy know and when did he know it? Great question, but only relevant for Jackson if you are comparing "crimes" -- whatever Joe did and said, with whatever Hall of Famer Commy did and said. Repeating myself, I'm sure, I place a lot of weight on Fullerton's memoir, in 1935 ... his pal Commy is dead, so is Johnson & Herrmann. Hughie writes that Commy & Ban knew before the Series started, and he called the baseball leaders "whitewashing ********" for letting the tampering happen. Even Fullerton is not infallible and may have had a rusty memory by 1935, so it's not absolute truth -- but it sure makes you think.

MACKER asked about the 1956 Gandil interview with Mel Durslag:
"I think the answer to Bill's question is that we've never said Jackson sat in with gamblers. I won't speak for the others, but I do believe Jackson sat in on meetings with the other players (meetings in which no gamblers were present.) When Williams says he is representing Jackson, he is doing so at a meeting with gamblers.
"Gene, I realize much of Gandil's claims in that article are almost comical, such as the money split, but what do you make of the fact that he puts the number at eight, and he includes Jackson among those eight?"

Mel Durslag is still alive, and I talked to him maybe a year ago? You can look it up in NOTES #390 (www.baseball1.com/notes). He didn't think Gandil was telling the whole truth, but he presented it as Chick told it, and let Chick read it before it was published. As I recall, Cicotte and Weaver (?) challenged the veracity of some things, but didn't say much more.

I think you could read into this that Jackson attended a meeting -- as you say, not with gamblers, but with teammates. And I think Jackson himself said he went to someone's room, Cicotte's or Gandil's, he couldn't recall, and this was not a random meeting of ballplayers talking baseball, it was about the Fix, and it isn't clear if it was just Jackson & Gandil, or if Cicotte was there, too. But I don't believe it was ever more than a threesome, with Jackson. It sounds like this meeting was not a "recruitment" meeting, where Chick is nagging at Jackson, offering $10 G, then $20 G. My best guess is that Cicotte and Gandil were talking a poll, counting heads, to see how many AT THAT POINT they had IN. They could tell the gamblers, passing a lie detector test if necessary, that they had TALKED with eight -- including themselves. Never mind that it included a guy who might not play (Fred). Never mind that not all 8 were "committed" ... "leaning" was good enough. By the way, these meetings, including those with the gamblers, do not help Weaver. In one, he's a sentry, on the lookout for Gleason. Buck may have eventually opted out, but he seemed to like meetings -- maybe for the free beer & chips? I have suggested a few times that perhaps the illiterate Jackson just HATED meetings -- isn't there one in every office? They get out of them if they can ... "Just send me the minutes."

Bottom line: I think the evidence from everyone (including Burns, Maharg & Attell) says Jackson did not attend any meetings with gamblers -- when he is pressed by the grand jury for names -- Jewish names -- he comes up empty. Of course he met with his teammates, and may well have dropped by that room where Eddie and/or Chick tried to cement him into the scheme. Did he inhale? Did he tell his team about it?

Whether he told him team or not is a really hard question. If he did, he would not want ANYONE to know. "The Swede was a hard guy" and that might have been a factor for Buck, too. We like to say the ethic was "Don't squeal, don't rat out your pals" but there may have been a flip side to that, "If you do, you will pay dearly for it." No need for "Harry F" and the thugs to do the job, Swede and Chick were capable.

At least we can agree on this -- Jackson did NOT write a note to Gleason, "The fix is in". Gleason did get a bunch of telegrams, tho.

I'll ask again -- is asking/begging to be benched before the Series, the same as telling his team that he (Jax) thinks the fix is in? I doubt we'll agree that it was. But there is at least SOME evidence for that, but only Jackson's word for his private conversations with Commy. Alas, unlike Nixon, Commy did not record every conversation for history, so -- no "B-Sox tapes" -- except Eliot Asinof's. Buried in his attic?

Gene

yanks0714

11-24-2007, 08:42 AM

Gene,
I think the answer to Bill's question is that we've never said Jackson sat in with gamblers. I won't speak for the others, but I do believe Jackson sat in on meetings with the other players (meetings in which no gamblers were present.) When Williams says he is representing Jackson, he is doing so at a meeting with gamblers.

Gene, I realize much of Gandil's claims in that article are almost comical, such as the money split, but what do you make of the fact that he puts the number at eight, and he includes Jackson among those eight?

I'm aware this was directed to Gene but allow me my $.02.
I dropped the quotes in an effort to save space.

While the above sounds entirely plausible I don't think I would trust Chick Gandil to tell the turth about anything. The rest of his interview is a bit off-the-wall so to speak, why not this part as well?

If, however, this were true, which I doubt, it would change my stance on Jackson and Weaver entirely. For me, this would be a the smoking gun.

1956 interview...37 years later...an old man reminiscing...one who cannot be trusted (I suspect Chick got the money from the gamblers and made off with it short of what he gave a few of the players, shortchanging them)...sensationalizing...keeping his name 'alive'...perhaps getting back at ex-teammates who named him the ringleader...'hiding' out west, unwilling to come forth after 1919...an old man's attempt to at least say he wasn't alone in this crime...

jalbright

11-24-2007, 08:47 AM

from yanks0714

The anti-Jackson crowd sees the $5,000 as justification of guilt and justifiable resulting lifetime ban whether or not he threw games or played to win.

The pro-Jackson crowd does not deny that Jackson received $5,000 but feels he played to win, that he played to win is what counts, thereby, the lifetime ban is not justified.

If Jackson played to win, but knowingly aided the fixers by his silence, who had paid him off, to carry out the fix, what exactly does that make Jackson? It isn't an honest man, and it isn't someone baseball could allow in the game, as he had made it clear his integrity was for sale. Should baseball honor a man who sold the game out? BTW, it was a permanent, not lifetime, ban. Of course, at the time, the distinction was irrelevant, there being no HOF. However, lifting the permanent ban after Jackson's death is only relevant if baseball is willing to honor Jackson with a spot in the HOF. I think it entirely reasonable for baseball to decline to do so.

When it comes to being honored by the game, playing to win is not all that counts. Not being a conspirator in the fix of the World Series by virtue of (at an absolute minimum) having his silence purchased counts heavily as well.

Jim Albright

Bill Burgess

11-24-2007, 09:34 AM

I'm aware this was directed to Gene but allow me my $.02.
I dropped the quotes in an effort to save space.

While the above sounds entirely plausible I don't think I would trust Chick Gandil to tell the turth about anything. The rest of his interview is a bit off-the-wall so to speak, why not this part as well?

If, however, this were true, which I doubt, it would change my stance on Jackson and Weaver entirely. For me, this would be a the smoking gun.

1956 interview...37 years later...an old man reminiscing...one who cannot be trusted (I suspect Chick got the money from the gamblers and made off with it short of what he gave a few of the players, shortchanging them)...sensationalizing...keeping his name 'alive'...perhaps getting back at ex-teammates who named him the ringleader...'hiding' out west, unwilling to come forth after 1919...an old man's attempt to at least say he wasn't alone in this crime...
That Chick Gandil interview by Melvin Durslag, places Arnold Rothstein himself at one of the meeting! I hardly would think that Rothstein would go anywhere near those meetings!

Why would anyone be so stupid as to do that? Rothstein might have been as corrupt as they come, but he wasn't stupid.

Gene Carney

11-24-2007, 10:15 AM

Since Gandil came up -- I am always on the lookout for interviews he gave. He gave some right after the scandal broke, in 1920 -- in one, he uses the "Jackson defense": Look at my record, I played to win, drove in the winning runs in first couple of wins in the 1919 WS, etc. And he was playing hurt, too. The picture Chick liked to paint was that the Fix was in, but the players never went thru with it -- too many people KNEW and were watching, and the money did not materialize ($20,000 after each loss was the minimum), and the picture I get, from the versions told by all the players and the fixers, is that Chick was the most hard-nosed and skeptical and WOULD have been the first to double-cross the syndicates (meaning here, groups of gamblers -- including funders, folks who placed bets, folks who lined up suckers, and so on -- not necessarily gun-carrying mobsters).

When Gandil gives Williams $5,000 for Jackson, the Fix was OFF, Gleason had spoken to the team about it (so no need to buy anyone's silence, except maybe about who was behind it). Whatever it was for, we can bet that Gandil did not expect or want Jackson to show the money to Comiskey, but that SEEMS like what Jackson decided to do (maybe hounded by his wife, but she never claimed that ... a good wife lets her man make all the decisions, right? Or at least, she makes it look that way).

I've never seen Gandil admit taking a cent. Even at the end, and he was talking about getting Melvin Belli, a famous trial lawyer, to clear his name.

* * * * *

The Cooperstown question is really a reflection of our own values, I think. Do we tear Uncle Harry's picture out of the family album if he goes to jail for grand larceny? No, we let it there and tell a cautionary tale about Uncle Harry the Crook to the kids. We could admit Jackson to the Hall without honoring him too much, and for some, his story is a happier one than those connected to other bronze plaques that have been there a long time.

Do we remove a plaque if the player LATER (after he's inducted) commits a horrible crime? No, because the plaque is for what he did in baseball. MANY fans think Pete Rose should be in the Hall, with a plaque that is very explicit about why he merits the bronze -- it's the HITS, stupid, not the character.

We don't have a fix (pardon the term) on Jackson's character. Skim the posts just in this group, and they range almost from angel to devil. We all probably know someone who used to see Jackson as evil incarnate, but now thinks maybe he was just a victim of circumstance -- or vice-versa. Many people object to judging people at all -- I think that's a Biblical thing, no? But it's fun, so we do it, knowing we are not gods.

It says something about Jackson's character that back home, in Savannah or Greenville, he was never villainized. His stores were not boycotted, he was not harrassed and forced to wear a mustache or move out of town. He was a hero to those who knew him best. Greenville has honored him with a statue, and his home is going to open next year as a museum ... fittingly, I think, it will include a library or research center. Shoes required?

Let's face it, Cooperstown has always been about politics. Ted Williams, who was instrumental in getting MLB to recognize Negro Leaguers in the HOF, was an advocate for Jackson, too ... and was bothered that Comiskey had a plaque, not far from his own. With Ted gone, I don't know that Jackson has anyone who is interested in pursuing his Cooperstown case, dealing with MLB and "the politics of glory" (Bill James' phrase). Maybe Kevin Costner -- anyone here in touch with him? We need a new movie, more substantial than Field of Dreams.

Dan Nathan's book SAYING ITS SO is probably the best one out there for reading up on how the "Black Sox" have been seen, from "history's first draft" in the days of the scandal, on thru to today, decade by decade with tremendous documentation. My take is that as an individual, Jackson has always had sympathizers (maybe not as many as Buck, in Chicago) ... but when he is "bunched together" as one of the "Black Sox" he is condemned with the guilty group (which, many still believe, played every inning of every game in the Series to lose, becoming weathly).

Gene

Ubiquitous

11-24-2007, 10:46 AM

sturg1dj

11-24-2007, 10:53 AM

The HoF has two parts (okay three) one is the musuem and one is the honor of the hall. Putting him in the hall is honoring him too much period. Being in the hall is an honor not a right. Nobody has the right to be in the hall regardless of what they did on the ballfield or off of it. Being in that hall is an honor and one should deserve to be there. Joe Jackson doesn't deserve to be there. Can in be in the musuem? Certainly, he is afterall part of baseball history and no part of baseball history should be ignored or glossed over.

have we put the hall of fame on too high a pedestal?

well this is just a personal thing, but I just want my hall of fame to basically be a baseball history museum. there may be some inducted that may not belong, but I am not going to sit there and complain about it. I am just going to enjoy the history. Which means at the same time there is going to be a gaping hole without Joe Jackson or Pete Rose (and I don't like Pete Rose and for a long time was on the side that said he should never get in, and I think the banning should stick).

what if you went into a presidential museum and Nixon was missing? it would be a sham....right? Sure he messed up, but you can't just erase him.

Bill Burgess

11-24-2007, 11:08 AM

I have stated numerous times that I don't know if Jackson threw games. I do know he accepted $5K as part of a fix of the World Series, and he kept his mouth shut. That's enough for me.
And that's fine if that's enough for you, Jim. You're as entitled to your opinion as I and everyone else.

You're not getting as much support from Gene Carney as you think, IMO. He certainly has posted that you are misinterpreting him/misrepresenting him on occasion in this thread.
Gene did say that I may have not gotten his words exactly right, but the inconvenient fact for you, Jim, is that Gene does support my bedrock opinions over yours. He supports Joe for the Hall.

As for reinstating Joe, it's totally irrelevant if baseball isn't willing to honor him. And I've stated quite clearly why I don't think baseball should do that.
And that's just fine too, Jim. We disagree, that's all.

The bottom line is, we're going round and round and not changing anything, and I'm definitely inclined to get off the merry-go-round.
If you do disembark from this fun chat, that is your choice. But I suspect you don't understand why I re-engaged, when Gene arrived.

I am not optimistic that I, or Gene, or anyone else, or any argument will change the opinions of yourself, Macker, leecemark or Ubi.

But that is not my only goal. But it is one of mine. Another of my goals is aimed at the large number of unregistered guests, and even those members who follow along with us, without posting. At any one time, if one looks at the bottom of the History of the Game Forum page, they will notice that less than 5 registered members are viewing a thread on History Forum, but around 30 unregistered guests are viewing History Forum.

So, it is to those members of the 'Peanut Gallery', that I write. My purpose is to so clarify our issues, that few will be left in support of your position. Like a good defense attorney, I am playing to the people, the newspapers, the masses who follow the trial. I am trying to solicit the widest possible degree of support.

And I think I've been able to isolate your prosecutorial position to its smallest possible acreage. The solid ground on which you stake your case has shrunken to its tiny minuscule amount of square inches.

So far, I've been successful in denying your position of all collateral support. The Anti-Jackson Camp has now been reduced to this.

1. Jackson accepted $5,000.

That's it, Jim. That's the total sum of your case. You cannot account for why he took it, when he took it, and the results of his taking it. You are left with a single, undisputed fact. And I submit, to all who follow this, that such a case, if tried properly, with all the facts on the table, with the purpose of expelling Joe Jackson from baseball, via due process, would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER go to trial. Not in anyone's lifetime.

If Landis wasn't a Dictator, and was required to prove his case, via due process, without the media circus, and with all sober, deliberative legal processes in place, Landis himself would never have chosen to go to trial.

And this is what I am aiming to do, Jim. Isolate your position to its minuscule size. You really have no case. That's not your fault. Landis never had a case either. But Landis had something better. He had an exemption from America's national Sherman Anti-Trust Laws. He was appointed a King without need to prove a thing. And that lack of requirement allowed him to 'make an example', 'send a message'.

And because he chose the easy way out, and not conduct ANY kind of in-depth, sober, deliberative process, the future (us), are left with his stinking, uninvestigated mess.

So, Jim, you and the rest of the Anti-Jackson Camp are left there in your isolated Ivory Tower of Over-Zealous Law and Order Extremism. In the darkness of unknown, blind murkiness, you over-charge your suspect, praying that others will assume, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." No way to bring justice to a suspect. Or order out of confusion.
-----------------------------
To the unregistered guests:
When the prosecution speaks of conspiracy to fix games, they cannot prove any such thing ever existed. When Joe Jackson speaks to Chick Gandil, no such fix is ever even brought up, or mentioned. They DO speak about conspiring to fool gamblers. Lower-echelon racketeers like Abe Attel, Bill Maharg, and Billy Sullivan.

But that is all the conspiracy is about. How to fool some dumb, naive racketeers into giving them money. Lefty Williams talks about representing Jackson to the other players, not gamblers. Jackson never attends the 2 player meetings to discuss conspiring to fool gamblers.

When Jackson talks with Chick Gandil, he is discussing whether or not he is giving Gandil permission to use his name to gamblers, not to conspire to fix a game.

So, if baseball wanted to expel Joe Jackson, it should have had a reason, based on Jackson betraying the game by under-performing. All Jackson is guilty of, and deserving of a much lesser punishment, is for trying to fool gamblers to fatten the pot.

Does that rise to the level of baseball expelling him permanently? Like I said, it would never even go to trial, for lack of corroborating evidence.

Landis, Johnson, or Comiskey could have delayed the start of the WS, and called all in question in, and interrogated them all, to see if their stories were straight, before the WS. And any caught of wrong-doing, could have been suspended from the series, denied their WS paychecks, and fined/suspended accordingly.

Maybe Commy wanted to do just that, and Ban Johnson, in his hatred of him, blocked him from doing so.