Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Sorry I suggested learning about stuff. Very un-American.

Nearing a century after the fix, the liklihood that Jackson will be exonerated and restored to HOF eligibility is practically nil. While it's possible at this late date some documentary evidence would emerge that would clear Joe of any involvement, it seems a very long shot. He's always struck me like the piano player in the fancy house who claims not to know what's going on upstairs. Not entirely convincing. Like Mr. Arbogast says in "Psycho," "If it doesn't jell it isn't aspic, and this ain't jellin."

Being from Chicagoland, I'm not as convinced about the infallibility and integrity of the Cook County legal system as you seem to be. Especially in those days. What is it Newman says in "The Sting?" "Chicago was a rigged town."

It would be nice if we could resolve this matter one way or another to the satisfaction of all. Especially if, in doing so, we overturn what would then be one of the all time great injustices.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Yes [OJ was found 'not guilty' of murder].

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit

He was then sued by Goldmans in civil court for wrongful death and lost that case. Different standard of evidence. He was not guilty of murder and he was found liable for wrongful death. There was a several million dollar judgment granted.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Nearing a century after the fix, the liklihood that Jackson will be exonerated and restored to HOF eligibility is practically nil. While it's possible at this late date some documentary evidence would emerge that would clear Joe of any involvement, it seems a very long shot. He's always struck me like the piano player in the fancy house who claims not to know what's going on upstairs. Not entirely convincing. Like Mr. Arbogast says in "Psycho," "If it doesn't jell it isn't aspic, and this ain't jellin."

Being from Chicagoland, I'm not as convinced about the infallibility and integrity of the Cook County legal system as you seem to be. Especially in those days. What is it Newman says in "The Sting?" "Chicago was a rigged town."

It would be nice if we could resolve this matter one way or another to the satisfaction of all. Especially if, in doing so, we overturn what would then be one of the all time great injustices.

Agreed on the Cook County legal system. Which I would think strengthens Jackson's case. Here's an illiterate southerner with no attorney in court with the wealthy Sox owner and his attorney trying to avoid getting caught up in the mess and going down with everyone else. In such a situation, if anybody could work a very fallible Cook County legal system to their advantage it would certainly be Comiskey, not Jackson. I firmly believe that if Jackson's case had come up at any time other than under Landis, he wouldn't have been banned. It's fascinating reading all the folks Landis banished. Many were legit for associating with gamblers and all, but there were a few cases where people really got whacked for not a whole lot.

I agree it's unlikely Jackson's case gets revisited in a substantive way. I would argue though that there's more nuances and uncertainties about his situation than that of Pete Rose, so if Jackson doesn't get revisited, neither should Rose.

 

[Rover]

Agreed on the Cook County legal system. Which I would think strengthens Jackson's case. Here's an illiterate southerner with no attorney in court with the wealthy Sox owner and his attorney trying to avoid getting caught up in the mess and going down with everyone else. In such a situation, if anybody could work a very fallible Cook County legal system to their advantage it would certainly be Comiskey, not Jackson. I firmly believe that if Jackson's case had come up at any time other than under Landis, he wouldn't have been banned. It's fascinating reading all the folks Landis banished. Many were legit for associating with gamblers and all, but there were a few cases where people really got whacked for not a whole lot.

I agree it's unlikely Jackson's case gets revisited in a substantive way. I would argue though that there's more nuances and uncertainties about his situation than that of Pete Rose, so if Jackson doesn't get revisited, neither should Rose.

Again this makes no sense. If Jackson was aquitted under dubious circumstances (like his signed confession got "lost") how does that stengthen his case?!? Also, I'll ask again, why would Comiskey do nothing if told his team was throwing the series? What did he have to gain from letting that happen?

Lastly, what happened to the 5K he received?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Again this makes no sense. If Jackson was aquitted under dubious circumstances (like his signed confession got "lost") how does that stengthen his case?!? Also, I'll ask again, why would Comiskey do nothing if told his team was throwing the series? What did he have to gain from letting that happen?

Lastly, what happened to the 5K he received?

I'm saying Jackson was acquitted in a situation where he had no lawyer, being illiterate couldn't even read court documents, etc. So he was acquitted in a very disadvantageous situation.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Agreed on the Cook County legal system. Which I would think strengthens Jackson's case. Here's an illiterate southerner with no attorney in court with the wealthy Sox owner and his attorney trying to avoid getting caught up in the mess and going down with everyone else. In such a situation, if anybody could work a very fallible Cook County legal system to their advantage it would certainly be Comiskey, not Jackson. I firmly believe that if Jackson's case had come up at any time other than under Landis, he wouldn't have been banned. It's fascinating reading all the folks Landis banished. Many were legit for associating with gamblers and all, but there were a few cases where people really got whacked for not a whole lot.

I agree it's unlikely Jackson's case gets revisited in a substantive way. I would argue though that there's more nuances and uncertainties about his situation than that of Pete Rose, so if Jackson doesn't get revisited, neither should Rose.

Rose allowed friends and supporters to carry water for him for years. Standing up for him. Defending him. Denying he'd bet on Reds' games. Until he needed money. Then he wrote a book amitting what he'd done. He is persona non grata in baseball for the rest of his life--and should be. The question of HOF postumously is a different matter, IMO. And I believe a good argument can be made for inclusion, particularly if the record reflects his many off field crimes against the game.

And it's truly a shame. This was the textbook guy you hated in a visitors' uniform, and loved in your own. Because you knew he wasn't going to shortchange the paying customers. If any play epitomizes Rose, think back to that All-Star game and the collision at the plate with Ray Fosse. This is an "exhibition" game. Who cares? Well, Pete Rose cared and so did 3rd base coach Leo Durocher. The video shows Leo very nearly in the on deck circle, waving Rose toward the plate. Those two guys understood.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

He was then sued by Goldmans in civil court for wrongful death and lost that case. Different standard of evidence. He was not guilty of murder and he was found liable for wrongful death. There was a several million dollar judgment granted.

And in the civil action he had to testify. Evidently he made a very bad witness. I'm shocked, shocked.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Agreed on the Cook County legal system. Which I would think strengthens Jackson's case. Here's an illiterate southerner with no attorney in court with the wealthy Sox owner and his attorney trying to avoid getting caught up in the mess and going down with everyone else. In such a situation, if anybody could work a very fallible Cook County legal system to their advantage it would certainly be Comiskey, not Jackson. I firmly believe that if Jackson's case had come up at any time other than under Landis, he wouldn't have been banned. It's fascinating reading all the folks Landis banished. Many were legit for associating with gamblers and all, but there were a few cases where people really got whacked for not a whole lot.

I agree it's unlikely Jackson's case gets revisited in a substantive way. I would argue though that there's more nuances and uncertainties about his situation than that of Pete Rose, so if Jackson doesn't get revisited, neither should Rose.

Except in this case it seems like any rigging was done to help both Jackson and Comiskey. Somehow, magically, Jackson's confession from the grand jury proceedings disappear. And the case against him is fatally weakened. He's acquitted. Then, several years later those missing documents are found in the possession of the White Sox lawyer. It's not unreasonable to infer the fix was in, in favor of Jackson, because if those documents were admitted at trial his chances of being convicted soared. So despite concerns about him being illiterate (which is not the same as stupid) it seems like Comiskey's lawyers, in protecting Comiskey, also did a pretty good job of protecting Jackson (including, apparantly, the purloining of critical evidence). And concerns about whether or not Landis may have been inconsistent in his rulings is a separate matter from whether or not he got it right with Jackson.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Except in this case it seems like any rigging was done to help both Jackson and Comiskey. Somehow, magically, Jackson's confession from the grand jury proceedings disappear. And the case against him is fatally weakened. He's acquitted. Then, several years later those missing documents are found in the possession of the White Sox lawyer. It's not unreasonable to infer the fix was in, in favor of Jackson, because if those documents were admitted at trial his chances of being convicted soared. So despite concerns about him being illiterate (which is not the same as stupid) it seems like Comiskey's lawyers, in protecting Comiskey, also did a pretty good job of protecting Jackson (including, apparantly, the purloining of critical evidence). And concerns about whether or not Landis may have been inconsistent in his rulings is a separate matter from whether or not he got it right with Jackson.

If the White Sox and their lawyers were looking out for Jackson, why did he testify to everything he did? Jackson would have been far better off to just plead the 5th and not say anything remotely incriminating. But he didn't. So to me it's clear the Sox owner and his lawyers weren't looking out for Jackson.

Landis pattern of behavior certainly would be germain to this discussion.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

If the White Sox and their lawyers were looking out for Jackson, why did he testify to everything he did? Jackson would have been far better off to just plead the 5th and not say anything remotely incriminating. But he didn't. So to me it's clear the Sox owner and his lawyers weren't looking out for Jackson.

Landis pattern of behavior certainly would be germain to this discussion.

the god dammmed germans got nothing to do with it!!!!

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

If the White Sox and their lawyers were looking out for Jackson, why did he testify to everything he did? Jackson would have been far better off to just plead the 5th and not say anything remotely incriminating. But he didn't. So to me it's clear the Sox owner and his lawyers weren't looking out for Jackson.

Landis pattern of behavior certainly would be germain to this discussion.

Sadly, those are post hoc ergo proptor hoc type questions. Typical of conspiracy theories. Everything is "clear" when one has made up his mind about what went on, and gauges the known facts based on those presumptions. Grand juries issue indictments. Petit juries convict or acquit. In this case, the criminal jury acquitted because of the remarkable, impossible to explain, disappearance of virtal evidence, which by the merest coincidence found its way into the hands of the White Sox lawyer. As you say, Jackson "testified to everything he did." It could be he disregarded the advice of counsel. Who knows? Let me ask: if, as you suggest, these lawyers had conficts of interest, wanting to protect Comiskey, why on earth would they encourage or at least acquiesce in Jackson giving testimony before the grand jury that would confirm a plan by Comiskey's players to throw the World Series? Woudln't they do everything possible to keep that testimony out of the record? For whatever reason Jackson "testified to everything he did," and has been given the appropriate punishment for it.

I understand how appealing it is to fight to reverse a grave injustice. Especially if the "victim" of a monstrous conspiracy is "illiterate," "from the south," "not very sophisticated" and all the rest. Sometimes, however, these people are guilty as charged. Especially since, as you say, he "testified to everything he did." For baseball the question is not whether Johnny Cochran would have done a better job protecting Jackson's interests than lawyers with alleged conflicts of interest. It is not whether Jackson received ineffective counsel because of those conflicts. It's not whether the proceedings nearly a century ago weren't as nuanced as they would be today. The question is, did he conspire (or at least know about a conspiracy) to throw the world series. The evidence would indicate he did.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

the god dammmed germans got nothing to do with it!!!!

We blame them for everything. Not surprising, considering they attacked Pearl Harbor.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Sadly, those are post hoc ergo proptor hoc type questions. Typical of conspiracy theories. Everything is "clear" when one has made up his mind about what went on, and gauges the known facts based on those presumptions. Grand juries issue indictments. Petit juries convict or acquit. In this case, the criminal jury acquitted because of the remarkable, impossible to explain, disappearance of virtal evidence, which by the merest coincidence found its way into the hands of the White Sox lawyer. As you say, Jackson "testified to everything he did." It could be he disregarded the advice of counsel. Who knows? Let me ask: if, as you suggest, these lawyers had conficts of interest, wanting to protect Comiskey, why on earth would they encourage or at least acquiesce in Jackson giving testimony before the grand jury that would confirm a plan by Comiskey's players to throw the World Series? Woudln't they do everything possible to keep that testimony out of the record? For whatever reason Jackson "testified to everything he did," and has been given the appropriate punishment for it.

I understand how appealing it is to fight to reverse a grave injustice. Especially if the "victim" of a monstrous conspiracy is "illiterate," "from the south," "not very sophisticated" and all the rest. Sometimes, however, these people are guilty as charged. Especially since, as you say, he "testified to everything he did." For baseball the question is not whether Johnny Cochran would have done a better job protecting Jackson's interests than lawyers with alleged conflicts of interest. It is not whether Jackson received ineffective counsel because of those conflicts. It's not whether the proceedings nearly a century ago weren't as nuanced as they would be today. The question is, did he conspire (or at least know about a conspiracy) to throw the world series. The evidence would indicate he did.

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc type questions? Uh, yah.

You've made up your mind Jackson is guilty and avoid anything that raises reasonable doubts. I see a lot of conflicting information, unanswered questions, etc. that to me raises many questions about what as done with Jackson. You don't have any such qualms. Not much more to say. People can look at the same situation and see things drastically different. This is apparently such a case.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc type questions? Uh, yah.

You've made up your mind Jackson is guilty and avoid anything that raises reasonable doubts. I see a lot of conflicting information, unanswered questions, etc. that to me raises many questions about what as done with Jackson. You don't have any such qualms. Not much more to say. People can look at the same situation and see things drastically different. This is apparently such a case.

No, actually, I've said repeatedly that I'm not sure. You've been playing whack-a-mole with me for the last several days because I'm not absolutely, utterly convinced of his innocence, as you are. You want to conflate Landis' decision with the outcome of the legal proceedings. The legal system is one thing. The responsibilities of the commissioner, when confronted with the worst scandal (still) in the history of sport in America are something different. Thus, if the legal proceedings were flawed, hesto presto, Jackson's "innocent". As I've said repeatedly (and you have ignored) you could be right. On the other hand, you could be wrong. Which you've apparantly concluded is impossible.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

No, actually, I've said repeatedly that I'm not sure. You've been playing whack-a-mole with me for the last several days because I'm not absolutely, utterly convinced of his innocence, as you are. You want to conflate Landis' decision with the outcome of the legal proceedings. The legal system is one thing. The responsibilities of the commissioner, when confronted with the worst scandal (still) in the history of sport in America are something different. Thus, if the legal proceedings were flawed, hesto presto, Jackson's "innocent". As I've said repeatedly (and you have ignored) you could be right. On the other hand, you could be wrong. Which you've apparantly concluded is impossible.

Saying there are major doubts about his case is saying it's impossible? That's quite a leap.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

Saying there are major doubts about his case is saying it's impossible? That's quite a leap.

So you're saying he could be guilty as charged? I must have misunderstood when you wrote "Reinstate Shoeless Joe!" That sounded like way more than "qualms" to me.

 

[duper]

Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?

So to my point, I don't care whether Jackson was guilty or innocent. Just as I don't care whether Charles Comiskey was guilty or innocent. (I strongly suspect that they both knew that the series was fixed. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Comiskey had something to do with it.) They both earned their way into the hall of fame. As Pete Rose did. As Cap Anson did. As Ty Cobb did. As numerous great ballplayers, coaches, and executives who happened to be terrible people did. Or some notorious cheaters like Gaylord Perry.

In my opinion, Joe Jackson should have been put in the Hall of Fame decades ago. Regardless of guilt or innocence. In the time he played, he earned it. If I were commissioner, I would reinstate him on day 1. It doesn't hurt my feelings that the honor of seeing it was taken away from him, but the hall of fame is less legitimate without him. And without the all time hits leader AND the all-time home runs leader...