New Joe Jackson Innocence Poll/Survey

[Bill Burgess]

Comiskey did nothing? How so?

When Comiskey after game one realizes the fix is indeed in he runs to Johnson who tells him to bugger off. He then as even Carney will attest to applies pressure to the players to play it on the up and up. Remember Gleason threatened to pistol whip the players if they cheated. Carney himself believes by the 3rd game or so the fix is called off in part because the team knows and is applying pressure to the players. So Comiskey gets his boys to play straight.

Not quite. In our other thread, I thought it was pretty well established that Jackson didn't even agree to 'be with' the fixers, until game 3, which the Sox had all agreed to play to win. And they weren't scared by Comiskey, as much as they were furious that they hadn't gotten any payments from anyone. Don't you remember any of these recently fought details?

So now we want to crucify Comiskey for not hanging the players afterwards yet at the same time we want to honor Joe Jackson. So what exactly should Comiskey do afterwards?

Huh? Crucify him? Since when is not inducting a coverup artist a crucification? Jackson WAS crucified, in losing everything of importance. I am simply trying to hold EVERYONE to the same level of integrity.

Comiskey sinned over and over. He pretended to feign innocence of any knowledge and offered a $10K reward for info. He refused Jackson's offer to travel to Chicago in November, 1919 to hear his side. He signed 7 of the 8, and wanted to sign Gandil too. Neither he nor Johnson went public until the story came out without their efforts.

And after all of that, you still support his Hall presence? Double-standard. No crucification, just consistency.

Some of you want him to blab to the world that his team is corrupt.

Blab? You support the crucification of Jackson for 'not blabbing'. One of his 2 sins. Money/not blabbing.

Okay that is great in a utopian world but it is Comiskey's business and livelihood we are talking about. Secondly Comiskey has good reason to believe that he got through to the players and that they won't do this again. Joe in his GJ says he never wanted to do it again. Eddie Cicotte says he wished never done it and won't do it again. Buck Weaver was tempted and then backed out before it ever started. Chick Gandil "retired". So Comiskey is supposed to rip open a wound that he thinks he has already healed? That doesn't make sense to me.

His business and livelihood? Owning a team is not a right but a privilege, and has high standards of honor and responsibility. Commy failed in his public trust. He broke trust with his fans, when he pretended to know nothing, and that betrayed his duty/responsibilities. And he did it all for - money and lots of it, prestige, fame, long-term family security. He sold his integrity for coins of gold. The same mantra that you have droned on for many hundreds of posts. Greed. Dishonesty.

Then you have Johnson. Johnson and Comiskey don't get along. Rumors of fixes swirl around every World Series, he's been dealing with that for decades. So now here comes Comiskey "whining" about a fix, so he tells him to buzz off. That is a mistake no doubt about it. But at some point Ban changes gear and does exactly what some of you want, which is to bring this whole thing out in the open.

Yes, Ban did swing into action. But not to nail dishonest players, but to ruin one of the 'Disloyal 3', by gutting his team of his high-priced investments.

He couldn't drive him out of the league, so he settled for ruining him. And remember that Johnson sent Jackson a telegram of congratulations after winning the second trial!!! Talk about a queer duck.

All I ask of you is consistency of honesty. That's all I ask. Am I asking too much of you?

[Bill Burgess]

That he may have tried to cover it up after it was over doesn't reflect particularly well on him, but it pales in comparison to the men who were actually involved in the fix.

I am not even asking for any punishment for this person. All I seek is for everyone to not support his initial induction, which you claim honors him.

Since you make a big deal of not expelling an inductee after induction, all I seek is you not supporting his initial induction. Is that asking too much of you? Is asking you to hold a powerful exec to the same standards that you hold the hired help to, too much to ask?

Not calling for tar and feathers. Just asserting it was inappropriate to honor a person with such a record. Be consistent!

[Ubiquitous]

Not quite. In our other thread, I thought it was pretty well established that Jackson didn't even agree to 'be with' the fixers, until game 3, which the Sox had all agreed to play to win. And they weren't scared by Comiskey, as much as they were furious that they hadn't gotten any payments from anyone. Don't you remember any of these recently fought details?

I remember you making a bunch of stuff up, including this whole Jackson wasn't in with the fixers until game 3. I would say it was/is pretty well established that Jackson was in with the fixers before game 3. Talk to Carney.

Huh? Crucify him? Since when is not inducting a coverup artist a crucification? Jackson WAS crucified, in losing everything of importance. I am simply trying to hold EVERYONE to the same level of integrity.

Except Bill this thread wasn't created in a vacuum. There are hundreds of posts the preceed this one, and in those posts you try very very hard to paint Comiskey as the evil villain.

Comiskey sinned over and over. He pretended to feign innocence of any knowledge and offered a $10K reward for info. He refused Jackson's offer to travel to Chicago in November, 1919 to hear his side. He signed 7 of the 8, and wanted to sign Gandil too. Neither he nor Johnson went public until the story came out without their efforts.

He pretended to the public while doing his own investigations and coming up with his ways of solving the problem. Which based on the words of the fixers apparently worked.

And after all of that, you still support his Hall presence? Double-standard. No crucification, just consistency.

I am consistent and it isn't a double standard to think Comiskey belongs in the hall while Joe does not.

Blab? You support the crucification of Jackson for 'not blabbing'. One of his 2 sins. Money/not blabbing.

Nope, I support banning Joe Jackson because he agreed to throw the world series and he was paid for it.

His business and livelihood? Owning a team is not a right but a privilege, and has high standards of honor and responsibility.

No it doesn't

Commy failed in his public trust.

Never had a public trust to break or to uphold

He broke trust with his fans, when he pretended to know nothing, and that betrayed his duty/responsibilities.

No that would be the black sox who did that.

And he did it all for - money and lots of it, prestige, fame, long-term family security. He sold his integrity for coins of gold. The same mantra that you have droned on for many hundreds of posts. Greed. Dishonesty.

So let me get this straight according to you he did it for long term family security and yet that equates to greed and selling out for the coin? In most societies that is considered noble and a responsibility of the partiarch.

Yes, Ban did swing into action. But not to nail dishonest players, but to ruin one of the 'Disloyal 3', by gutting his team of his high-priced investments.

So Ban can only do what is right as long as he does it for reason you choose?

All I ask of you is consistency of honesty. That's all I ask. Am I asking too much of you?

considering that isn't really what you are asking, yeah that is too much.

[Bill Burgess]

I remember you making a bunch of stuff up, including this whole Jackson wasn't in with the fixers until game 3. I would say it was/is pretty well established that Jackson was in with the fixers before game 3. Talk to Carney.

Oops! There goes the GJ testimony! The one you hang your case on. The GJ testimony clearly says he wasn't in agreement with Gandil until they came back to Chicago. Reread your transcript.

Except Bill this thread wasn't created in a vacuum. There are hundreds of posts the preceed this one, and in those posts you try very very hard to paint Comiskey as the evil villain.

Plenty of culpability to go around, and as long as you're burning the hired help, we can use that same standard to not honor Commy/Johnson in the Hall.

He pretended to the public while doing his own investigations and coming up with his ways of solving the problem. Which based on the words of the fixers apparently worked.

So, the fixers were scared out of the fix by Commy, and the not getting money from gamblers was NOT the reason they won game 3?

I am consistent and it isn't a double standard to think Comiskey belongs in the hall while Joe does not.

Some people take pride in the consistency with which they apply their principles, while others take pride in the flexibility with which they apply theirs. You are of the second group.

Nope, I support banning Joe Jackson because he agreed to throw the world series and he was paid for it.

You are making stuff up. He played to win, while accepting the money. If you disagree, then stop using the GJ testimony. That is what he said. Said he played to win every single game.

No it doesn't.

Never had a public trust to break or to uphold

You are quite probably in a minority of one.

No that would be the black sox who did that.

So let me get this straight according to you he did it for long term family security and yet that equates to greed and selling out for the coin? In most societies that is considered noble and a responsibility of the partiarch.

When one does something good or honorable, I'd agree. When one behaves as Comiskey did, good people characterize that kind of behavior with much different language. He rationalized honor/honesty for a lot of money. Your principles are too fishy, flexible, and relative for my tastes.

So Ban can only do what is right as long as he does it for reason you choose?

Ban did the right thing when it was forced on him by the media discovering the scandal. He formerly swept Chase, Lajoie incident under the carpet.

considering that isn't really what you are asking, yeah that is too much.

Why am I not shocked?

[yanks0714]

Nope, I support banning Joe Jackson because he agreed to throw the world series and he was paid for it.

How do you know he "agreed" to throw the world series? What evidence do you have of this? I thought it was subsequently testified to later by several that Joe never 'agreed' to throw the world series.
Yes, he received money, but do you know for certain it was to throw the world series {or} for some other reason.

I take the position that if he never agreed to throw the world series he is not guilty because the whole shebang is strictly about that...throwing the world series. Whether he received money is not the smoking gun you are assuming it was.

[leecemark]

--Jackson received 25% of all the money the gamblers are known to have paiid the Black Sox for throwing the series. What do you think he got that money for? The ONLY logical explanation is he was either in on the deal or they paid him to keep quiet about it. Either way he deserved to be banned.

[EdTarbusz]

Then you have Johnson. Johnson and Comiskey don't get along. Rumors of fixes swirl around every World Series, he's been dealing with that for decades. So now here comes Comiskey "whining" about a fix, so he tells him to buzz off. That is a mistake no doubt about it. But at some point Ban changes gear and does exactly what some of you want, which is to bring this whole thing out in the open.

Johnson believed that the 1918 World Series had been thrown by the Cubs. He wanted to investigate the matter but couldn't get any money from his league so he let the matter drop. I think his first reaction to rumors in 1919 may have been 'why should bother this year?'

[EdTarbusz]

His business and livelihood? Owning a team is not a right but a privilege, and has high standards of honor and responsibility. Commy failed in his public trust. He broke trust with his fans, when he pretended to know nothing, and that betrayed his duty/responsibilities. And he did it all for - money and lots of it, prestige, fame, long-term family security. He sold his integrity for coins of gold. The same mantra that you have droned on for many hundreds of posts. Greed. Dishonesty.

?

What?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

What exactly is this public trust that you speak of?

What are these high standards you speak of?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED, that Comiskey wanted a return on his investment and that he was interested in his own financial well being.

I really enjoy how you make it sound like Major League Baseball is a gift bestowed on the masses by benevolant magnates and not some type of money-making endeavor.

[Bill Burgess]

Nope, I support banning Joe Jackson because he agreed to throw the world series and he was paid for it.

One thing you guys like to do is to cherry-pick which sentences in Joe Jackson's Grand Jury testimony transcript you want to chisel in stone tablets, while disregarding the ones that undermine your case.

You can't have it both ways. Either that transcript is trust-worthy or it isn't. We either believe all its sentences, or we don't.

When you cherry-pick which sentences you wish to prevail, you undermine your own credibility.

The one sentence where Joe Jackson says, 'So, we went ahead and threw the second game,' is outweighed by his assertions that he blew off Gandil's attempt to recruit him, until they returned to Chicago for Game 3, and his other sentences where he insisted he played at all time to win. I believe he said that 2-3 times.

So, either use the GJ testimony righteously, or stop cherry-picking your beloved sentences. It just doesn't work in this thread, or elsewhere, except in your head.

[leecemark]

--The contradictions in Jackson's testimony do leave many unanswered questions. The only thing they conclusively prove is that he was a liar. So we have a man we KNOW lied under oath, who we KNOW knew about the fix early on and we KNOW got a $5,000 payment (nearly a year's salary) from the conspirators. Why should we be looking for the best possible interpretation of his actions?

[Bill Burgess]

What?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

What exactly is this public trust that you speak of?

What are these high standards you speak of?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED, that Comiskey wanted a return on his investment and that he was interested in his own financial well being.

I really enjoy how you make it sound like Major League Baseball is a gift bestowed on the masses by benevolent magnates and not some type of money-making endeavor.

Ha ha. OK, Ed. You made me smile, so you can now drop the 'feigned shock'. You know very well of which I speak.

Your side often wails and laments how Joe Jackson 'betrayed the game', and hence deserves to be banned. RIGHT? Ever hear that theme in the other thread, or here?? It is your side which feigns shock that a man in 1919, who made $6K for the year, would accept $5K for not ratting out his teammates. Teammates who he expected to be playing with for a long time to come.

It is YOUR side which drones on and on about how he stabbed every fan in the heart by keeping his mouth shut. YOUR SIDE! YOUR SIDE! YOUR SIDE!

So, what is so wrong with MY SIDE holding Charles Comiskey, a rich man, responsible for KEEPING HIS BIG MOUTH SHUT, to us, the fans?

And he not only kept his big mouth shut, that his product had deceived his fans into believing that they had witnessed a sports event on the level, on the up and up, but further buried his honor/credibility in the mud by offering a $10K reward for knowledge he already had!!!

When Jackson offered Comiskey to travel from Savannah, GA to Chicago in November, 1919, why didn't Comiskey say, "WOW, Joe. Thanks, and here's that $10K reward for doing the right thing!" And then going public, and alerting the fans as to what had went down? What would have been so damning about that? If Comiskey had done that, I'd not be here now, damning his induction to the Hall of Fame, but admitting that he did have a grain of integrity about him.

I was not condemning him for wanting to make money. I was condemning him for not living up to the ideals that your side is forcing Jackson to live up to. If Jackson sold his honor for a promise of $20K, then Comiskey sold his for several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Whatever his annual profit margin was.
Once again, Ed. You can't have it both ways. If Jackson did his crime for money, so did his employer, Comiskey. And why is that not as plain as the nose on your face?

[Bill Burgess]

--The contradictions in Jackson's testimony do leave many unanswered questions. The only thing they conclusively prove is that he was a liar. So we have a man we KNOW lied under oath, who we KNOW knew about the fix early on and we KNOW got a $5,000 payment (nearly a year's salary) from the conspirators. Why should we be looking for the best possible interpretation of his actions?

To try as best we can to learn the truth? Same as any other thread.

We know he lied? Where is his lie, Mark? In the GJ testimony, I mean.

1. He admitted he spoke to Gandil, several times.

2. He seems to admit he let Gandil understand that he was 'in with them', after they returned to Chicago, for game 3, which they won, by the way.

3. He admitted he accepted the $5K, after game 3.

So, Mark. Where are the lies Joe Jackson told the Grand Jury? In the transcript? Your side so loves to paint Joe Jackson as a liar, so I challenge you now. Where are the lies in that GJ testimony? I bet you can't find any.

So, if Jackson agrees to Gandil to 'be in with them', sometime after they return to Chicago, until the fixers agree to call off the fix and win game 3, how much time has gone by? Less than 24 hours? That is the time that Jackson 'agreed' to let them use his name, to the time they called off the fix. How long is that, even if you don't care?

[EdTarbusz]

Once again, Ed. You can't have it both ways. If Jackson did his crime for money, so did his employer, Comiskey. And why is that not as plain as the nose on your face?

What crime did Comiskey commit? Trying to protect his investment? Comiskey didn't accept money from gamblers like Jackson did.

I'd still like to know what this public trust is.

[Ubiquitous]

Not worth it.

[Ubiquitous]

How do you know he "agreed" to throw the world series? What evidence do you have of this? I thought it was subsequently testified to later by several that Joe never 'agreed' to throw the world series.
Yes, he received money, but do you know for certain it was to throw the world series {or} for some other reason.

How do I know? Because Joe Jackson himself said he agreed. It is in the GJ testimony. He even said that he was part of the group that threw the second game.

[Bill Burgess]

What crime did Comiskey commit? Trying to protect his investment? Comiskey didn't accept money from gamblers like Jackson did.

I'd still like to know what this public trust is.

Comiskey's crime is he defrauded his fans. He let them believe they had witnessed a clean World Series when he knew better.

Comiskey knowingly sold a defective product to his customers. Like a car manufacturer who knowingly has a defective brake and doesn't correct it.

I'm not saying Comiskey threw the games, but he didn't alert the public after the fact.

'Protecting his investment'. What would his going to his fans and admitting the truth have hurt? It would have given him credibility, and honesty. And his honor.

Isn't protecting their investment what all those tobacco executives did, when they all heard up their right hands, and pretended to not know that cigarette nicotine caused cancer? Weren't they just protecting their investments?

Isn't that what dishonest, unsavory, unscrupulous people do? Like the Mafia, the Arnold Rothsteins do? They lie for decades, through their teeth, so that their customers don't leave them for better people.

If Comiskey had fessed up, gone to his fans and admitted what he knew, or suspected, his fans would not have boycotted his games, in favor of the Chicago Cubs. They merely would have expected expulsions for some, and fines/suspensions for the others, and a legal process to sort out the details.

And that's what he should have done, had he been a man of honor/integrity. That's what should have happened, could have happened, but didn't.

It didn't happen because Charles Comiskey was a normal man, beset with all the human temptations to 'protect what he had', and human weakness. Charles Comiskey succumbed to those human weaknesses, FOR MONEY, the same as Joe Jackson did.

But you burn Joe Jackson with moral indignation/outrage, for his human weakness, and you FORGIVE, EXONERATE, AND EXCUSE a rich man, for the same moral lapse.

Once again, get consistent. Be just as morally strict with the rich one as you are with 'the hired help'.

I'm not calling for the exhumation and crucification of Charles Comiskey's remains. All I'm calling for is for your side to stop supporting the initial, original induction to the Hall of Fame for both Comiskey/Johnson. They just didn't deserve baseball's highest honor. They just didn't. They sold that honor when they 'protected their investments'.

[Ubiquitous]

I just realized that all this is going to do is turn into the last thread, a thread which I walked away from because it became abundantly clear that it was turning to the absurd. I am immensely interested in the Black Sox and have no problem discussing the case based on the evidence we have and the evidence we discover but I'm not going to play the what if and head games that seem to be popular. So once again I'm done. If anybody wants to actually talk about the black sox, the evidence and so forth I'll be here ready to share if you want.

[EdTarbusz]

I just realized that all this is going to do is turn into the last thread, a thread which I walked away from because it became abundantly clear that it was turning to the absurd. \.

In this context, absurd is the understatement of the decade.

[Bill Burgess]

At this point, I support Joe Jackson's induction into the Hall of Fame because I feel his actual punishment was far, far too harsh. If he had received a suspension of 30 games and been required to return the $5K, and been fined $1,000., I might feel a lot more open to the arguments to not induct him.

So, that is where I stand on that.

My stand on Comiskey is very colored by the Jackson punishment. Of the 2, one was 'crucified', the other given BB's highest honor.

I am all about fairness, a level playing field, same justice for all concerned. My call to not induct Comiskey/Johnson came a lot out of the anti-Jackson's side's call for such harsh punishment for a 'hired hand'.

If such harsh punishment is meted out to Jackson, then I strongly feel that the same harsh standards must also apply to all concerned. To support the highest honors for rich men who did very dishonorable acts, 'to protect their investments', is not just anathema to me, but galling to the extreme.

And I also don't appreciate having my calls for equal justice characterized by words like 'what-if's, 'making stuff up', etc.

Why demean and belittle those who disagree, just because some of us are very sensitive to unequal justice.

Since the late 1930's, Charles Comiskey, Ban Johnson, and Judge Landis have all been honored by baseball, and enshrined in the Hall of Fame. And hundreds of baseball books have written of them very, very well.

Their sins against their fans have all been covered up, hushed up, and buried. Baseball historians have given all 3 of them a huge pass, when we know they did many, many things which require our censure, our just and constructive criticism.

Gene Carney, in his fabulous book, Burying the Black Sox, took several years digging out how both Comiskey/Johnson did all in their power to bury the scandal as deep as they could. Made every pretense to their fans as humanly possible.

The name of Jackson has been dragged through the mud since 1920. Even though the second trial jury, Gene Carney, myself, and several members here believe he did NOT receive justice in proportion to his wrong-doing.

We believe, yes, Joe Jackson did wrong. Very wrong. He took money when he should have known better. But did the harshness of his punishment fit the scope of his evil?

Was Judge Landis in a position to fit the punishment of Jackson to the crime? Or was Landis' position so wedged in by the circumstances, that any kind of measured response was unable to 'get the job done'.

So, was Jackson sacrificed on the altar of political expediency? Without a doubt. Did Jackson himself put himself in a position where he had to 'take one' for the greater good of his sport? Yes, he did. Let me repeat myself. YES, HE SURELY DID.

These are the questions of history that Ubi now finds himself wearied of. Most fatigued from.

Are my incessant questions, trying to get us to think 'out-of-the-box', to wonder what might have really happened, so bad? I see myself in a position of a criminal defense attorney. I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask so many questions.

So, I am not stumping for or lobbying for Jackson's induction into the Hall of Fame in a vacuum. I am applying 'situational ethics', if you will, to this process.

I am calling for the same moral standards being applied to whether or not Comiskey/Johnson belong in the Hall, as for Joe Jackson.

If those moral standards are good enough for Joe Jackson, then they are also necessary, and good enough for all the other Hall inductees. And wrongs of omission count. Just the same as wrongs of commission.

[Brian McKenna]

Oops! There goes the GJ testimony! The one you hang your case on. The GJ testimony clearly says he wasn't in agreement with Gandil until they came back to Chicago. Reread your transcript.

The GJ testimony clearly states that Jackson was looking for cash:
1) before the series started
2) after game 1
3) after game 2

[Brian McKenna]

You are making stuff up.

That is absolutely rich. I love it. Thanks for the laugh of the day Bill.

[Brian McKenna]

So, if Jackson agrees to Gandil to 'be in with them', sometime after they return to Chicago, until the fixers agree to call off the fix and win game 3, how much time has gone by? Less than 24 hours? That is the time that Jackson 'agreed' to let them use his name, to the time they called off the fix. How long is that, even if you don't care?

Ridiculous. Jackson clearly testified that he was in on it before the series even started. He expected cash from the get-go.

Q And you were to be paid $5,000 after each game, is that right?

A Well, Attel was supposed to give the $100,000. It was to be split up, paid to him, I believe, and $15,000 a day or something like that, after each game.

Q That is to Gandil?

A Yes.

Q At the end of the first game you didn?t get any money, did you?

A No, I did not, no, sir.

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??

[Brian McKenna]

Comiskey's crime is he defrauded his fans. He let them believe they had witnessed a clean World Series when he knew better.

Comiskey knowingly sold a defective product to his customers. Like a car dealer to knowingly has a defective brake and doesn't correct it.

I'm not saying Comiskey threw the games, but he didn't alert the public after the fact.

Comiskey didn't defraud anyone - the players did.

Comiskey did sell anything under a false pretense. The series was already sold. He merely found out later about the players' fraud.

You can't sell the series after the series has already been played. Ergo, Comiskey didn't unduly capitalize on anything as a conspirator of such. Therefore, he is completely innocent of any such charges - in fact, he was the incident's biggest victim.

[Brian McKenna]

If the argument is that Joe Jackson was aware of a fix, and failed to report it, what does that say about his owner, Charles Comiskey? Mr. Comiskey also heard about as much as Joe Jackson did, and failed to delay the start of the WS.

The difference is that Jackson had direct evidence - he was whispering and colluding with the conspirators. Comiskey only had unfounded dope.

"Comiskey also heard about as much as Joe" - Not even remotely factual.

[Brian McKenna]

It's amazing how Comiskey is supposedly being condemned for his great knowledge of the fix before it even happened and yet some, through fantasy, are arguing that a fix never took place.

Yet, Comiskey and Johnson had perfect knowledge of it??