Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

He literally testified that he could not write his name until 1915...this photo predates that...this was written by the photographer most likely

Sure, no one has ever fudged the truth in a trial, especially one they have a stake in the outcome.

I don't think this testimony is as bullet proof as you think it is.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Sure, no one has ever fudged the truth in a trial, especially one they have a stake in the outcome.

I don't think this testimony is as bullet proof as you think it is.

Ok thats possible, now give a reason to lie about that as it relates to his civil suit. Have you read the 1924 testimony?

It is also possible for people to tell the truth.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Ok thats possible, now give a reason to lie about that as it relates to his civil suit. Have you read the 1924 testimony?

It is also possible for people to tell the truth.

Oh for sure. I'm just saying, the testimony isn't definitive proof regarding this auto. It could just as easily be false as it could be true. His literacy had been a well-worn argument even back then (as you can tell by the mere fact that the testimony was elicited by the lawyers at all). It's entirely possible that whole angle was exaggerated in the courts and the media for obvious reasons. You really can't think of any reason he might want to play up his illiteracy?

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Oh for sure. I'm just saying, the testimony isn't definitive proof regarding this auto. It could just as easily be false as it could be true. His literacy had been a well-worn argument even back then (as you can tell by the mere fact that the testimony was elicited by the lawyers at all). It's entirely possible that whole angle was exaggerated in the courts and the media for obvious reasons. You really can't think of any reason he might want to play up his illiteracy?

Well that is also a difficult question:

Through anecdotes of Jackson it appears he was embarrassed about his illiteracy and resented the "southern rube" stereotype and would do things like pretend to read a menu when out eating with teammates and just order what someone else ordered. Based on those I would say it was an issue he avoided and tried to hide. So he wouldnt want to highlight it let alone play it up.

However, I think his lawyers were trying to establish it in the civil trial to show the White Sox and particularly Harry Grabiner took advantage of him when he signed his contract in 1920. I have not gotten through the whole civil trial transcripts yet so dont know yet if this was brought up in cross. Even so given this situation in 1920 it had more to do with his inability to read and not sign his name...so I dont know why they would want to establish when he could sign his name other than it just happened to come up in the questioning related to his literacy.

I do have one document "signed" by Jackson dated Jan 1915...which is before he went to the White Sox by a few months...so it is either his signature was added by a forger (possible as it is in a different color ink), he was mistaken in 1924 recalling when he learned to sign his name by a few month (honest minor mistake) or he was lying for some reason which I cant come up with a reason why he would lie about it (other things in his case you could argue he had good reason to lie about but I dont see why he would lie about this).

It seem logical to believe he was telling the truth or trying to and was off by a few months. Or maybe was advised by his lawyers to answer "after I got to Chicago" to simplify it bc he couldnt remember exactly.