Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

For Jackson it depends on which of the many versions of the different stories you believe. Some accounts have said...

He refused the $5000 twice and teammate Lefty Williams threw it on the hotel room floor. He then tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but he refused to meet with him.

It was said that in his grand jury appearance he said he would muff balls and he would be slow and make short throws back to the infield but there are
no stenographic records of him saying that.

Years later the other seven players who were supposedly involved said he was never at any of the meetings.

He was acquitted by a grand jury

So if you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty then Jackson does belong in the Hall of Fame.

Roger Clemens was acquitted, in a verdict that essentially meant the jury didn't believe he used.

[Jim65]

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.

Jackson was charged with perjury by his civil suite judge going against and AFTER the jury ruled in favor of Jackson in the case.

And the differing in testimony, if you are arguing for Jackson, between 1920 and 1924 you could say in 1920 he was without council and likely coached by Comiskey's lawyers...

Jackson is the most difficult of the 8 to try to understand his role. He obviously knew about it, was offered money, and kept money given to him debatable if he accepted it at first...testified it was thrown down in his room by Williams and that after the series he went to see Comiskey to ask about what to do with it and then again with Grabiner when he went to resign Jackson for the 1920 season to which Grabiner was indifferent and thus he and his wife kept it. Could he be making up things? Sure but still a lot of gray area around Jackson...Eddie Collins who was adamant about Weaver being guilty always had sympathy for only Jackson which mirrored many other players and managers of the time so there has to be something to that.

In the end this is all kind of moot as Landis had to treat them all the same regardless of levels of guilt, even Joe Gedeon who was banned bc he knew about the fix (and probably bet on it) but obviously didnt throw any games as he was on the Browns.

Jackson's knowledge and accepting money sealed his fate even though he had no idea what would happen and I feel if he did he would have handled things differently. Doesnt matter what he did on the field...honestly I believe his 1920 statements of playing to win which he never waivered on.

It would be interesting to actually hear his testimony in 1920 to get more context and meaning...or know exactly what he said and how he said what he did to Gandil...was he taking Gandil seriously and his reply a serious one or was it taken as a joke and Jackson's response a sarcastic/joking tone? Who knows.

It is worth noting that according to Edd Roush's graddaughter he told her that gamblers tried to bribe the Reds, specifically Hod Eller and he turned them down and when asked in a team meeting if anyone had been approached by gamblers Eller spoke up and told without hesitation...so while bribery and throwing games was a thing that happened honesty and integrity could still be leveled against such things.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.

If he was so guilty of perjury, why was he never prosecuted then? Even today people make lots of accusations that go nowhere. Also, if in trying to get through this he listens to different people, like the White Sox attorneys who were advising him at some point, and then others at different times, he's going to get thrown into a lot of different directions trying to do what everyone is telling him at that time. Not saying it is right, but his situation is a lot more gray than most of the others. Plus, hate to bring it up again, but there was no specific rule in place at the time of the 1919 scandal about what was done. Also, the actual trial wasn't about a specific law being broken, but about how the Black Sox players by throwing the World Series had cheated their their non-complicit teammates out of their share of the WS winning money. In fact, I believe teammate Shano Collins was named as the wronged party in the indictments, not baseball, the fans, or anyone else. Also heard that Comiskey supposedly went ahead and paid the difference in player's money earned between the winners and losers of the World Series to White Sox players not part of the scandal. So Collins and the others it seems were made whole and didn't suffer any financial loss after all. It is all very strange and confusing, and based on Comiskey's and the team's actions during all this has to make one wonder if they maybe had a bigger role in all this that they were trying to keep covered up.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

If he was so guilty of perjury, why was he never prosecuted then? Even today people make lots of accusations that go nowhere. Also, if in trying to get through this he listens to different people, like the White Sox attorneys who were advising him at some point, and then others at different times, he's going to get thrown into a lot of different directions trying to do what everyone is telling him at that time. Not saying it is right, but his situation is a lot more gray than most of the others. Plus, hate to bring it up again, but there was no specific rule in place at the time of the 1919 scandal about what was done. Also, the actual trial wasn't about a specific law being broken, but about how the Black Sox players by throwing the World Series had cheated their their non-complicit teammates out of their share of the WS winning money. In fact, I believe teammate Shano Collins was named as the wronged party in the indictments, not baseball, the fans, or anyone else. Also heard that Comiskey supposedly went ahead and paid the difference in player's money earned between the winners and losers of the World Series to White Sox players not part of the scandal. So Collins and the others it seems were made whole and didn't suffer any financial loss after all. It is all very strange and confusing, and based on Comiskey's and the team's actions during all this has to make one wonder if they maybe had a bigger role in all this that they were trying to keep covered up.

Jackson was charged with perjury, it was investigated and a warrant was issued for his arrest and he failed to show up for a pre-trial hearing.

In his civil trial, Jackson testified he never made the statements that were in grand jury transcripts, he claimed no one ever approached him about a fix, then admitted he took $5,000, there were just way too many inconsistencies to believe anything he said. No matter who was coaching him on what to say, the truth is the truth.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Jackson was charged with perjury, it was investigated and a warrant was issued for his arrest and he failed to show up for a pre-trial hearing.

In his civil trial, Jackson testified he never made the statements that were in grand jury transcripts, he claimed no one ever approached him about a fix, then admitted he took $5,000, there were just way too many inconsistencies to believe anything he said. No matter who was coaching him on what to say, the truth is the truth.

Don't disagree and hadn't heard that part of it. But if he did have a warrant issued, why was it never followed up? Something doesn't make sense. Here's an interesting story from a writer at the time with additional information maybe not well known.

https://chicagology.com/baseball/191...ejacksontrial/

And during the original trial, the same attorneys for Comiskey that were supposedly helping to defend him were then working against him in the later civil trial he brought against Comiskey for back pay. The hints, rumors and coincidental occurrences that point to all the collusion, bribery and underhanded tactics going on back then is appalling. During the 1919 trial, Jackson was told what to do and say by Comiskey's attorneys, and he was obviously very naive and foolish in thinking that Comiskey was ever looking out for him. By Comiskey's own testimony and actions he proves himself to be an even bigger liar than pretty much anyone else involved in the scandal. It is very obvious he is concerned solely with protecting himself and his interests, and that he would do virtually anything to do so, and at the detriment of anyone else. Here's a really good question for you. Since Jackson had told him about the scandal and everything, and he still worked to keep it secret and hide it from then AL President, Ban Johnson, along with re-signing all the guilty players for the next season, isn't he technically guilty of pretty much the same thing as all the accused in the case, even though his involvement was more after the fact? So when the truth started coming out about his knowledge, involvement and obvious cover-up, why wasn't he also immediately banned from baseball by either Johnson, or Landis later on? Hmmm, could it be because he was one of the owners that paid their salaries?????

It is very interesting how when you look at MLB's Rule 21 regarding gambling and the fixing of games, it specifically stops short of including exactly what Comiskey is clearly guilty of in regards to this whole cover-up. Does anyone not think he was given special treatment because of his place and ownership back then? He clearly wouldn't get away with that today and would likely be forced to sell the team immediately. I believe it was Landis who put Rule 21 in place, around 1927 or so. Do you really think it was a coincidence that the Federal League case against MLB that Landis oversaw, and purposely delayed to the benefit of the MLB owners, wasn't at least partially responsible for his being offered a lucrative job as their Commissioner? That sounds a lot like a payoff to me! Any reason then that he may not have given Comiskey a break when writing that Rule 21 then so it wouldn't specifically incriminate him for what he had done? In fact, wasn't he hired for 7 year terms as Commissioner? And oh yes, wasn't 1927 the 7th year of his initial term so WOW, another coincidence. He got voted to another 7 year term right after putting the new rule in place that didn't incriminate one of the MLB owners, how convenient.

So would it really be a shocking surprise for someone rich and powerful like Comiskey to have gotten his attorneys to draw up records and documents to improve his case, or to make Jackson look bad for his benefit. Or even reach out to the judge in the later civil case for help. Heck, look how the MLB owners sidled up to Landis for his help. Truth is, if Landis did knowingly handle things in the case brought by the Federal League in favor of MLB and its owners, he should have retired from the case due to his his inability to be impartial. And then accepting a job and money from MLB owners soon after only makes his potential collusion with them all the more plausible. And for all we know, Landis himself being a former federal judge could have intervened on behalf of Comiskey with the civil judge in the later case, and the claim and warrant for perjury were possibly done to deter Jackson and his attorney from even thinking about coming back after Comiskey ever again. So again, if they really intended to go after Jackson for perjury, why did it never go to trial if they went to the trouble of charging him and even issuing a warrant?

Despite the conflicting testimony of Jackson and him keeping the money, it appears that pretty much all of that damning evidence is due, at least in part, to Comiskey and his attorneys' involvement in the case and in all likelihood from telling Jackson what to do and say in the original trial. Just think about it, how coincidental is it that transcripts and grand jury testimony disappear from the original trial, which helps to get the Black Sox players acquitted, but then suddenly reappear and are produced by Comiskey's lawyers just in time in defense of his civil trial against Jackson?

So if Comiskey did tell Jackson to keep the money, and then tried to cover things up like it sounds, it seems Jackson was trying to do the right thing and do what his boss and employer said. And don't forget, back then with the reserve clause in baseball, Jackson was basically an indentured servant to Comiskey and he knew it. If he went against what Comiskey said he could be locked out of baseball forever anyway. In fact, in today's world what Comiskey did to Jackson could almost be considered criminal in some cases. So if Jackson doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, then Comiskey even more so, should be banned from baseball retroactively, and his name removed from the HOF immediately.

[Mark17]

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

[BobC]

Here's more of the story regarding the perjury charge against Jackson. It actually comes from a suit he brought against Comiskey for back pay on his contract after he got banned from baseball, and actually won via a jury trial. The judge however threw the case out and claimed that he wouldn't agree with the jury because he claimed Jackson had perjured himself. There was no actual indictment per se, and thus no charges ever brought. But it did get get Comiskey out of having to pay Jackson anything.

https://onmilwaukee.com/articles/sho...trialmilwaukee

Also, isn't it a bit odd how transcripts and documents that supposedly were lost and couldn't be found from back when the 1919 Black Sox trial was going on suddenly and miraculously appeared, coming from Comiskey's attorneys no less, to allow the judge in this civil case to find a reason to rule against Jackson and vacate a valid jury decision?

The more I see and hear about this, the more I come to believe that Jackson was a pawn in this whole thing and used and manipulated by those around him. Was he wrong for ever getting involved in this and supposedly keeping the money he admitted being given, yes? But when you read and hear about all the other circumstances surrounding this it appears that he was not a willing participant and clearly not an instigator of the of the whole mess. In law, intent and motive can play a big part in someone's guilt or innocence. It was said that he didn't ask for the money and it was literally thrown at him, and that he tried to give it back, but the others wouldn't take it, so he ended up keeping it. What if instead of just keeping the money Jackson and his wife had donated it to some charity? Would that change anyone's mind today, or have maybe swayed MLB and the HOF to have let him in? Of course we'll never know.

For all the people who are so righteous and strictly follow all rules and laws and say he's guilty and broke the rules, and therefore should have been banned from baseball and ineligible for the HOF, just remember, there was no specific rule about this in baseball at the time of his alleged offense. And if you go back through all the rules changes that have occurred in baseball over the last 150 or so years, never once has any change in the rules been retroactively applied. How many of you knew that prior to 1931, if a player hit a ball that bounced in the outfield and then it went over the fence that it was considered a home run? Has anyone ever gone back and asked about adjusting the records then so they comply with the modern rules? Or look at the current issue in baseball regarding pitchers using foreign substances, should there be a review and revision to all earlier pitchers now because of it? And here's a really good one. How many times in the history of MLB have you heard or seen of an instance where a pitcher deliberately threw at a batter? Happens quite a bit, unwritten rules of baseball and all that, right? How many of those pitchers have ever been arrested and charged with assault (and battery if they actually hit the batter)? Forget the fact that the baseball Commissioner can fine and suspend them per Rule 21, intentionally throwing at and hitting someone with a baseball is a clear violation of actual criminal laws pretty much everywhere in the U.S., and having it occur on the field during a ballgame is no exception or excuse. But no one ever gets arrested and charged do they? One big reason is probably because the players being thrown at and hit don't/won't ever press charges and the baseball community as a whole follows their unwritten rules that throwing at someone is part of the game and therefore, you don't go after them outside of baseball. So what if players suddenly started to ask authorities to press charges against these pitchers? Just think how police, prosecutors, the MLB itself, and even the fans, would initially react and how they would likely be against it and try to ignore the charges and such because of the negative impact on the game.

Back in Jackson's day the circumstances weren't that much different. People knew of the gamblers and their potential influence on ballplayers and the game, including the owners. They knew how wrong it really was, but nobody really said or did anything about it and the baseball community kind of just accepted it and took care of those issues internally, much like a pitcher intentionally throwing at another team's batter for an alleged baseball offense. It was only when the owners started to feel that their revenue was at stake from the fans getting fed up with the gambling that they did something about it. And make no mistake, they didn't do it exclusively for the good of the game, they did it for their own pocketbooks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't know that I would let him into the Hall because the evidence does suggest he took the money, but I don't disagree he probably just handled the whole thing terribly and didn't know what to do. Hopefully without sounding politically incorrect, he was not sophisticated, I believe he was functionally illiterate, and he may just have been out of his element and didn't have the confidence to go against much less report his teammates.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know that I would let him into the Hall because the evidence does suggest he took the money, but I don't disagree he probably just handled the whole thing terribly and didn't know what to do. Hopefully without sounding politically incorrect, he was not sophisticated, I believe he was functionally illiterate, and he may just have been out of his element and didn't have the confidence to go against much less report his teammates.

Can't disagree with you. Still say he was a pawn in all this and likely doesn't deserve the treatment he got as he was taken advantage of by both his teamates and Comiskey. Once he told Comiskey what had happened, I'm guessing he figured he did the right thing and then followed his orders. How was he to know just how crooked and conniving Comiskey and his attorneys could be. In his defense though, MLB should have gone after and similarly booted Comiskey for his actions in all this, or should I say inactions. The fact that nothing seemed to blow back on Comiskey just helps to show how corrupt and collusive the MLB owners could be. The fact that the rest of the owners didn't band together to oust Comiskey because of all this just makes you wonder what he had on all them that kept them quiet.