This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
No. But thanks for addressing what was said. Was that better?
Comiskey and others were never banned, though there's ample evidence he and others knew about it. Jackson approached Comiskey several times, including before the Series, thinking Comiskey would be the person he should warn, but Comiskey sat on the information. Jackson even asked to be benched for the Series, but Comiskey refused. If we applied the standard of who knew something might be going on, we'd have most of MLB banned now for knowing about steroids, etc. All the other conspirators admitted that Jackson was not in on any of the planning. The guy was guilty of being a naive illiterate country bumpkin.
The judgment of history is very mixed, though the in the formal legal proceeding, Jackson was acquitted, so you're right that that should carry some weight. Landis was looking to make an example (and reasonably so), and he threw the book at all the players in question, regardless of individual circumstances (though as noted before, Comiskey and others weren't called to task as they should have been). Unlike Comiskey though, Jackson had no lawyer looking out for him. Rather, Comiskey had his lawyer mislead Jackson into thinking he represented Jackson also. If this happened today, I don't see any way Jackson goes down the way he did.
Also, show me any record of where he went to Commiskey? Why would Commiskey sit on info that his team was throwing the WS out from under his nose?
The court found him innocent, not guilty, so I beg to differ. I assumed weight of history referred to the actual court proceeding on this matter. In which Jackson was found innocent. I stand corrected that you are apparently referring to other things that the actual court case in the matter. There are certainly murky things related to Jackson's participation that will never be 100 percent know or proved either way. But there are also certainly many extenuating circumstances related to Jackson that cast significant doubt over whether he was guilty in the way others of the Black Sox were (Weaver being the other that one could argue got shafted).
When Williams brought him the money he said he didn't want it, and Williams left it on the floor. He then took it to Comiskey to give it to him and Comiskey avoided him. Hardly the actions of someone in it for the money. It's worth it to take the time to read about this and get past the surface perceptions that are often bandied about.Bob this makes no sense. He took 5 grand. What exactly did he think that was for, a sensual massage? His grand jury testimony is ****ing, and at some point he can't hide behind the "oh I'm stupid" claim. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for him.
Shoeless Joe Jackson took money. His grand jury testimony admits to dogging it when it mattered. He even complained about only getting five grand. What else do you need?
If I pay you 5 grand to off Old Pio, and you take the money and then he croaks while you guys are hanging out after the John Birch Society get together, you don't think you've brought suspicion on yourself? Here's a newsflash: don't take the money. He did, so he's screwed.
Just sayin that the court of law found him innocent, which at least in most discussions would carry some weight. If it doesn't with you in this particular case for whatever reason, that's up to you obviously.
Which has oh so much to do with Shoeless Joe Jackson's case.
As I said before, I suggest taking some time to read up on the case. It's quite fascinating really.
Sorry I suggested learning about stuff. Very un-American.