PDA

View Full Version : Was Shoeless Joe Guilty?


Thome25
03-15-2007, 09:35 AM
Looks like Shoeless Joe is out to an early lead in the poll. I voted for him too.

I think he is by far, the one who deserves the next statue. But, as much as I'd hate to say it; the Sox will probably try to stay politically correct and shy away from Shoeless Joe.

Then again, if the Reds can put Pete Rose in their HOF then why can't the Sox say to hell with it and put up a statue of Shoeless Joe?

After all, he WAS innocent. Unlike Charlie Hustle.

mzol11
03-15-2007, 01:30 PM
Well, if it goes up before Frank is retired, then Shoeless Joe. If it goes up after Frank is retired, then Frank. We shouldn't erect statues before players retire.

edit: and since I hope Frank plays for a few more years and we put up another statue before then, I voted Joe
When you have KW removing any pictures or plaques in and around the clubhouse that had anything to do with Frank, I doubt they will ever be putting up a statue of him. Not unless Jerry sells and KW is gone. Thankfully so, he is not the type of player that I would want representing the history of the White Sox. It is more than just stats.

ShoelessJoeS
03-16-2007, 02:22 PM
i see 4 hall of famers and a cheat...your point?

we could always make statues of our hall of famers.....then joe would surely be on that list:rolleyes:

I really hope you're not basing your judgment of the word "cheat" based on Eight Men Out, or what you've heard in the media. I spent hours researching the real culprits behind the 1919 Sox, and my findings are posted in the form of a research paper somewhere within the archives of this site.

Shoeless Joe is a legend, and one of the greatest left-handed hitters of all-time. I, nor anyone else need to waste our time trying to explain to you how great Joe Jackson truly was. So please....enlighten us some more of your genius.

chitownhawkfan
03-17-2007, 12:26 AM
:rolleyes:

I really hope you're not basing your judgment of the word "cheat" based on Eight Men Out, or what you've heard in the media. I spent hours researching the real culprits behind the 1919 Sox, and my findings are posted in the form of a research paper somewhere within the archives of this site.

Shoeless Joe is a legend, and one of the greatest left-handed hitters of all-time. I, nor anyone else need to waste our time trying to explain to you how great Joe Jackson truly was. So please....enlighten us some more of your genius.

What does your research have to say about the fact that he admitted under oath to accepting $5.000. I've heard all the excuses about trying to bench himself and telling Comiskey. Nobody can be that stupid, he took the money, he is a cheating crook. I am just glad Landis had the stones to throw these clowns into the historical gutter where they belong.

ShoelessJoeS
03-17-2007, 08:08 PM
What does your research have to say about the fact that he admitted under oath to accepting $5.000. I've heard all the excuses about trying to bench himself and telling Comiskey. Nobody can be that stupid, he took the money, he is a cheating crook. I am just glad Landis had the stones to throw these clowns into the historical gutter where they belong.Multiple sources say that he was coerced into signing a confession that he neither wrote, read, nor was read to him. The man was illiterate and could barely sign his name.

Cheating crook? To this day, Jackson still holds the record for most hits in a World Series for his participation in the 1919 affair, including the Series' only home run. He also did not committ a sigle error. You're right though, sounds like a real cheater to me.

:rolleyes:

chitownhawkfan
03-18-2007, 03:22 AM
Multiple sources say that he was coerced into signing a confession that he neither wrote, read, nor was read to him. The man was illiterate and could barely sign his name.

Cheating crook? To this day, Jackson still holds the record for most hits in a World Series for his participation in the 1919 affair, including the Series' only home run. He also did not committ a sigle error. You're right though, sounds like a real cheater to me.

:rolleyes:

I've read statistical analysis of the games in which the Sox lost and he hit very poorly (One RBI on a solo home run after trailing 5-0 in the eigth). His twelve hits came in games that were for the most part already decided. I have also heard about the confessions, and I know he wasn't the brightest fellow, but even if you are illiterate you can still count money.

I mean maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say for sure that he didn't cheat.:smile:

IlliniSox4Life
03-18-2007, 10:03 AM
I've read statistical analysis of the games in which the Sox lost and he hit very poorly (One RBI on a solo home run after trailing 5-0 in the eigth). His twelve hits came in games that were for the most part already decided. I have also heard about the confessions, and I know he wasn't the brightest fellow, but even if you are illiterate you can still count money.

I mean maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say for sure that he didn't cheat.:smile:


First of all, I don't know what statistical analysis you read, but it seems to be flat out wrong.

For one, Joe hit .375 in the series. 12 hits over 32 at bats. If he was only trying to get hits in half of his at bats (I would say that at least half his at bats were when games weren't for the most part already decided), then he would have gotten 12 hits in ~16 at bats where he was trying. As good as Joe was, that would have been pretty tough to do.

Only 2 of his hits came when there was more than a 3 run differential between the teams, and those were in game 8.

Speaking of which, your claim about Joe's HR is misleading. It reads like you are saying he hit his home run in the eigth inning when the score was 5-0 and the game was already over. However, he hit it in the THIRD inning of the eighth GAME when the score was 5-0. That's hardly a game that has already been lost.

IndianWhiteSox
03-19-2007, 11:23 AM
Multiple sources say that he was coerced into signing a confession that he neither wrote, read, nor was read to him. The man was illiterate and could barely sign his name.

Cheating crook? To this day, Jackson still holds the record for most hits in a World Series for his participation in the 1919 affair, including the Series' only home run. He also did not committ a sigle error. You're right though, sounds like a real cheater to me.

:rolleyes:

That's what i don't understand he hit .341 WITH THE ONLY HOMER IN THE ENTIRE SERIES. I mean what, they wanted him to hit .500? Oh well, if only an influential person as able to take up his cause.

ShoelessJoeS
03-19-2007, 12:06 PM
That's what i don't understand he hit .341 WITH THE ONLY HOMER IN THE ENTIRE SERIES. I mean what, they wanted him to hit .500? Oh well, if only an influential person as able to take up his cause.It was actually .375 :smile:

ewokpelts
03-19-2007, 12:30 PM
It was actually .375 :smile:still a cheater

maurice
03-19-2007, 03:50 PM
Multiple sources say that he was coerced into signing a confession that he neither wrote, read, nor was read to him. The man was illiterate and could barely sign his name.

Which is wonderful, except for the fact that Jackson got up on the stand, swore an oath, testified before a Grand Jury, and told them that he took the money. Specifically, Jackson testified that he was promised $20,000 to be paid in increments after each game, and he agreed to take the money to throw the WS. When he didn't receive any money after the first 3 games, Jackson believed he was being double-crossed by Chick Gandil, so he and the other position players played to win during the series. Nonetheless, they lost the series, because of intentional wildness by pitchers who were in on the conspiracy. After the 4th game, Jackson received $5,000. Ed Cicotte got paid twice as much as Jackson and insisted that Gandil pay him in advance.

Some excerpts form Jackson's testimony (not a written statement):
Q: Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?
A: They did.
Q: How much did they pay?
A: They promised me $20,000 and paid me five.
Q: Who promised you the twenty thousand?
A: "Chick" Gandil.
. . .
Q: Who paid you the $5,000?
A; Lefty Williams brought it into my room and threw it down.
. . .
Q: What did [Mrs. Jackson] say about this?
A: She said she thought it was an awful thing to do.
. . .
Q: [Y]ou talked to Chick Gandil and Claude Williams both about this?
A: Talked to Claude Williams about it, yes, and Gandil more so, because he is the man that promised me this stuff.
Q: How much did he promise you?
A: $20,000 if I would take part.
Q: And you said you would?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When did he promise you the $20,000?
A: It was to be paid after each game. . . . Gandil said that we got double-crossed through Abe Attel, he got the money and refused to turn it over to him. I don't think Gandil was crossed as much as he crossed us.
Q: You think Gandil may have gotten the money and held it from you, is that right?
A: That's what I think, I think he kept the majority of it.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/blacksox/shoelessjoe.pdf

ShoelessJoeS
03-19-2007, 04:20 PM
Touche Maurice, but....

I am fully aware that he did accept money, that is not a question. However, what is really in question, IMO, was Jackson's desire to win throughout the entire Series. And I don't know if anyone will ever know his will to win, so I can only judge that by his statistics.

This of course will always be an ongoing debate, and it seems that stats, testimony, etc., won't skew anyone's opinion on the matter. I'll always support Shoeless Joe in any effort to honor his greatness on the field.

drftnaway
03-19-2007, 06:00 PM
Touche Maurice, but....

I am fully aware that he did accept money, that is not a question. However, what is really in question, IMO, was Jackson's desire to win throughout the entire Series. And I don't know if anyone will ever know his will to win, so I can only judge that by his statistics.

This of course will always be an ongoing debate, and it seems that stats, testimony, etc., won't skew anyone's opinion on the matter. I'll always support Shoeless Joe in any effort to honor his greatness on the field.

:?:

You fully understand he took money. You are now aware that he fully intended to throw the series and would have done whatever it took to do that had he not felt he'd been cheated. Yet, you feel he deserves a statue?

Someone please explain this to me ...... cause I don't get it.

ShoelessJoeS
03-19-2007, 06:32 PM
:?:

You fully understand he took money. You are now aware that he fully intended to throw the series and would have done whatever it took to do that had he not felt he'd been cheated. Yet, you feel he deserves a statue?

Someone please explain this to me ...... cause I don't get it.Sure, this is easy.

Taking money and throwing the Series are two different things, IMO. It's highly possible to accept money because everyone else was doing it. And this shows because not once did he do "whatever it took" to throw the Series, as you have suggested.

DumpJerry
03-19-2007, 06:46 PM
These posts were split off from the concourse statue thread since the discussion was drifting away from the thread's topic.


Continue.

ShoelessJoeS
03-19-2007, 06:50 PM
I just don't see how Jackson accepting money proves he's guilty, given his performance on the field during the Series, especially compared to his teammates.

drftnaway
03-19-2007, 07:09 PM
So the intent means nothing to you. Ok. End of discussion.

Fortunately, I think most people see what happened for what it was and I don't think he'll be getting a statue anytime soon.

BiggestFan14
03-19-2007, 07:15 PM
Why are we all so worried about Joe and forget the players that actually started it?

I think Joe was innocent, but that is just another person's opinion. No way can we know for certain now.

ShoelessJoeS
03-19-2007, 07:20 PM
So the intent means nothing to you. Ok. End of discussion.

Fortunately, I think most people see what happened for what it was and I don't think he'll be getting a statue anytime soon.Just because he accepted money does not in anyway mean that he intended to throw the Series. If everyone else is accepting money, why not him? There is absolutely no way you or anyone else will know if he intended to throw the Series. So look at the numbers, it's easier to discover his intentions that way.

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 07:58 PM
Lets look at the numbers,

In the thrown games Jackson hit .250 with one run scored, in the other four he batted.500 with four runs and six RBI. In the first two games he allowed two out, two run triples to fall in front of him.

Guilty.

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 08:01 PM
Just because he accepted money does not in anyway mean that he intended to throw the Series. If everyone else is accepting money, why not him? There is absolutely no way you or anyone else will know if he intended to throw the Series. So look at the numbers, it's easier to discover his intentions that way.


How can you seriously make this argument. If a politician takes bribe money and doesnt go through with what he said he would do, he is still guilty of being a crook. As baseball fans we should be angry at these fools for tarnishing the reputation of the game; as Sox fans we should be angry that they cost us a shot at the 1920 pennant, (at the time we were 1/2 a game behind Cleveland). Almost none of the hall of famers made a stink about it in his day because they knew he was guilty.

esbrechtel
03-19-2007, 08:30 PM
Lets look at the numbers,

In the thrown games Jackson hit .250 with one run scored, in the other four he batted.500 with four runs and six RBI. In the first two games he allowed two out, two run triples to fall in front of him.

Guilty.
In his defense one of the triples he allowed he attempted to throw home but the throw was cutoff by Cicotte.....AND you claim he batted well in four games....however, they threw 5 games and he hit well in 4 games....they played 8 games in the series.....SO, either they played an extra game none of us know about OR he decided to play well in one of the fixed games....
Other statistics to think about, Jackson went 3 for 4 in Game 2 (a thrown game), in game 4 the Sox only had 3 hits total...Jackson had 1, Weaver who most have agreed is innocent and did not play to lose had none....so the argument that he played poorly in ALL of Chicago's losses is wrong

cbotnyse
03-19-2007, 08:48 PM
Just because he accepted money does not in anyway mean that he intended to throw the Series. If everyone else is accepting money, why not him? There is absolutely no way you or anyone else will know if he intended to throw the Series. So look at the numbers, it's easier to discover his intentions that way.I see what your saying here and I'd like to agree with you. However he could have turned the money down, and he didnt. But the stats do show that he had no intentions to try to lose the series, which is ultimately the most important fact.

So in that regard, I'd like to honor him, but I understand if he never gets it.

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 09:03 PM
I think the discrepancy is because they tried to win game two but didnt. Correct me if I'm wrong but after they thought they weren't getting paid they played in game two but lost.

TornLabrum
03-19-2007, 09:17 PM
Two things:

1) Jackson's acceptance of the money consisted of Cicotte throwing it on his bed.

2) Jackson tried to give the money to Harry Grabiner and to talk to Comiskey. Grabiner's reply to Jackson was pretty much, "We know all about it, Joe. Mr. Comiskey doesn't want to see you.

As for his grand jury testimony, he was told by Albert Austrian, Comiskey's lawyer to confess. Autrian misrepresented himself as trying to help Jackson when he was in fact representing Comiskey.

But let's not let little details like that destroy the impression that you've gotten from works of historical fiction like "Eight Men Out."

drftnaway
03-19-2007, 09:40 PM
I think it's interesting that long long after the fact you have arbitrarily made the decision to accept that J.J. was innocent. Based on what?

TornLabrum
03-19-2007, 10:08 PM
I think it's interesting that long long after the fact you have arbitrarily made the decision to accept that J.J. was innocent. Based on what?

Research. To see some of the best of it, read Daniel Gropman's biography of Jackson. You might also want to check out http://www.blackbetsy.com (http://www.blackbetsy.com/). They do a pretty good job of dispelling some of the myths that have been used to condemn Jackson.

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 10:09 PM
People can spin it anyway they want, but under oath he put the nails in his own coffin.

Q Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?
A They did.
Q How much did they pay?
A They promised me $20,000 and paid me five.
How much did he promise you?
A $20,000 if I would take part.
Q And you said you would?
A Yes, sir.

Even if he tried his best to win the Series, which I don't believe he did. The fact that he took the money and knew about it is enough for me to believe he shouldnt be in the HOF. I've heard the stories about going to Comiskey's office, if he really wanted people to know he should have called the papers.

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 10:12 PM
Research. To see some of the best of it, read Daniel Gropman's biography of Jackson. You might also want to check out http://www.blackbetsy.com (http://www.blackbetsy.com/). They do a pretty good job of dispelling some of the myths that have been used to condemn Jackson.


I dont think going to Joe Jackson's virtual hall of fame will help anybody gain an unbiased understanding of the facts. If he was truly innocent where was the outcry in the 1920's.

drftnaway
03-19-2007, 10:21 PM
I dont think going to Joe Jackson's virtual hall of fame will help anybody gain an unbiased understanding of the facts. If he was truly innocent where was the outcry in the 1920's.

And that is my point too. It's easy enough for apologists to interpret things long afterward and spin them to their desires. As far as I'm concerned, just as players should be compared to playres of their own eras, so too should justice be left to it's own era. And everyone who mattered thought he was guilty and deserved his lot.

esbrechtel
03-19-2007, 10:29 PM
not to be a stickler BUT "Lefty" Williams was the player who left the money for Jackson....ALSO fact of the matter is there was no outcry in 1920 because it was a different time so it is wrong to even compare the "outcry" today to anything that would have happened in 1920....also in a book written by David Fleitz (which is considered a source claiming Jackson was guilty) he explains the hall of fame really was not a goal of Joe's. He didn't play ball to make it in the hall of fame. He didn't care about the hall.

And finally Who do you think is guilty in all of this mess....Personally, I blame the times. Comiskey ran his team like a business, the players didn't get paid like they should have been, the gamblers offered them the money they "deserved" if Jackson said "no" and was still at the meetings he would still suffer the same fate as Weaver anyway so technically taking the money is a moot point anyways

esbrechtel
03-19-2007, 10:33 PM
another major point we are forgetting is that he was banned from baseball not by US Law but by the newly appointed commissioner of baseball Mountain Landis who was appointed to "fix" baseball....perhaps this punishment was too harsh and was given just to create the illusion that baseball had a no tolerance policy on gambling? Perhaps Landis was just flexing his muscles to see what power he truly wielded?

drftnaway
03-19-2007, 10:45 PM
another major point we are forgetting is that he was banned from baseball not by US Law but by the newly appointed commissioner of baseball Mountain Landis who was appointed to "fix" baseball....perhaps this punishment was too harsh and was given just to create the illusion that baseball had a no tolerance policy on gambling? Perhaps Landis was just flexing his muscles to see what power he truly wielded?

Perhaps .... and perhaps not.
I've read that theory before. It's likely a theory that started long after the fact. At the time there was no outcry and pretty much all of baseball was in agreement as I understand it. I've never read of any evidence come to light that changes anything.

Oblong
03-19-2007, 10:50 PM
another major point we are forgetting is that he was banned from baseball not by US Law but by the newly appointed commissioner of baseball Mountain Landis who was appointed to "fix" baseball....perhaps this punishment was too harsh and was given just to create the illusion that baseball had a no tolerance policy on gambling? Perhaps Landis was just flexing his muscles to see what power he truly wielded?

Landis was no saint. He let Cobb and Speaker off the hook for things he banned some of the Sox for.

I have no problem with this tough standard but from what I've read on Landis I'm not confident it was based on the right things.

drftnaway
03-19-2007, 10:53 PM
Landis was no saint. He let Cobb and Speaker off the hook for things he banned some of the Sox for.

I have no problem with this tough standard but from what I've read on Landis I'm not confident it was based on the right things.

Maybe they weren't the same things in Landis's mind. The argument that Cobb and Speaker were stars doesn't hold water (I'm not suggesting you made this claim but one might) because Jackson was every bit the star they were.

voodoochile
03-19-2007, 11:10 PM
I just don't see how Jackson accepting money proves he's guilty, given his performance on the field during the Series, especially compared to his teammates.

You are trying to speak to motivations. Since the ONLY person who can truly know Joe's motivation is Joe, the rest of us are left with a little thing called evidence - generally meaning that which we can actually see, feel, taste, hear, etc. The evidence presented by Maurice is damning to say the least.

You want to ignore the evidence and ask us to look at the stats he put up in the series - none of which made one bit of difference. I read somewhere - probably on this site that Joe also surrendered an inordinate amount of triples to the Reds - doubly damning because Joe played Left Field - not the typical spot to hit a triple.

Still, in the end, he admits he took the money to throw the series and the Sox did lose, so the rest is for ****s and giggles. That simple fact speaks for itself. Defend him all you want. I'll take Joe's word at face value and stand by the decision to keep his sorry ass where it belongs - on the outside looking in and dreaming about what might have been if only he had had the guts to stand up and say, "No!"

esbrechtel
03-19-2007, 11:28 PM
Saying "no" got Buck Weaver no where but $5,000 poorer....

ondafarm
03-19-2007, 11:49 PM
You are trying to speak to motivations. Since the ONLY person who can truly know Joe's motivation is Joe, the rest of us are left with a little thing called evidence - generally meaning that which we can actually see, feel, taste, hear, etc. The evidence presented by Maurice is damning to say the least.

You want to ignore the evidence and ask us to look at the stats he put up in the series - none of which made one bit of difference. I read somewhere - probably on this site that Joe also surrendered an inordinate amount of triples to the Reds - doubly damning because Joe played Left Field - not the typical spot to hit a triple.

Still, in the end, he admits he took the money to throw the series and the Sox did lose, so the rest is for ****s and giggles. That simple fact speaks for itself. Defend him all you want. I'll take Joe's word at face value and stand by the decision to keep his sorry ass where it belongs - on the outside looking in and dreaming about what might have been if only he had had the guts to stand up and say, "No!"

Considering that we are talking about 7 triples compared to 10 doubles and no homers with 35 runs scored in eight games. The Sox hit 10 doubles, 3 triples and 1 homer while scoring 20 runs. What's it mean? I think Joe probably didn't butcher many plays, at least not on purpose.

What is clear is that Joe knew about the conspiracy and did nothing.

For that I maintain he was guilty and got a just sentence.

His distaste for Roman Comiskey, although justified, does not excuse his inaction.

jabrch
03-20-2007, 12:25 AM
Cheating crook? To this day, Jackson still holds the record for most hits in a World Series for his participation in the 1919 affair, including the Series' only home run. He also did not committ a sigle error. You're right though, sounds like a real cheater to me.

:rolleyes:

Taking money to throw a game is cheating. What he did from there becomes less relevant.

Touche Maurice, but....

I am fully aware that he did accept money, that is not a question. However, what is really in question, IMO, was Jackson's desire to win throughout the entire Series. And I don't know if anyone will ever know his will to win, so I can only judge that by his statistics.

Actually, his statistics are irrelevant if he took money to throw a game.

Sure, this is easy.

Taking money and throwing the Series are two different things, IMO. It's highly possible to accept money because everyone else was doing it. And this shows because not once did he do "whatever it took" to throw the Series, as you have suggested.

That's not the way the law looks at things. Being a part of a conspiracy makes one guilty of that crime and all the damages that come from it.

ewokpelts
03-20-2007, 12:50 AM
These posts were split off from the concourse statue thread since the discussion was drifting away from the thread's topic.


Continue.that thread drifted away from reality a long time ago

ewokpelts
03-20-2007, 12:51 AM
I just don't see how Jackson accepting money proves he's guilty, given his performance on the field during the Series, especially compared to his teammates.he played to win AFTER he was double crossed....

ewokpelts
03-20-2007, 12:54 AM
People can spin it anyway they want, but under oath he put the nails in his own coffin.

Q Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?
A They did.
Q How much did they pay?
A They promised me $20,000 and paid me five.
How much did he promise you?
A $20,000 if I would take part.
Q And you said you would?
A Yes, sir.


Even if he tried his best to win the Series, which I don't believe he did. The fact that he took the money and knew about it is enough for me to believe he shouldnt be in the HOF. I've heard the stories about going to Comiskey's office, if he really wanted people to know he should have called the papers.


IF's the operative word.

ewokpelts
03-20-2007, 12:56 AM
I dont think going to Joe Jackson's virtual hall of fame will help anybody gain an unbiased understanding of the facts. If he was truly innocent where was the outcry in the 1920's.
to be fair, babe ruth became BABE MUTHER****ING RUTH in 1920. He helped the public get over the Black Sox scandal pretty quickly(and made a few scandals of his own).

WhiteSox5187
03-20-2007, 01:39 AM
I just got my ass handed to me in another thread about Pete Rose so I'm hesistant to say anything here, but there is one interesting fact that I noticed. In game one, he went 0-4 but in game two, a game the Sox lost, he got three hits. I can't help but wonder if the night before game two Joe was saying "I wonder where that money is...if I don't get it, I'm going to try to win..." But ultimately that's my ignorance (he might have been paid the night before game two for all I know) and idle speculation.

I feel bad for those guys on the 1919 White Sox, because they were screwed on both ends. Comiskey was such a tight wad it cost them in the first place (such as holding Cicotte back so he wouldn't win thirty games, giving them lousy champange as their "bonus", and forcing the players to pay dry cleaning bills out of their own pocket (that stuff I'm getting from the book, not the movie)) then they got screwed by the gamblers and finally Landis laid down a very harsh punishment (but I could certainly see why that might be justified), they were screwed all around. Having said though, they recieved a LIFE time ban, and their lives are now over. Hence, shouldn't the ban be as well? I think Joe Jackson has a good arguement to get into the Hall or get a statue or whatever simply because he is now dead and hence his ban is over.

One final thing, had the Sox kept those eight guys, I often wonder if they wouldn't have strung together a slew of pennants and we could have become the dynasty of the twenties and thirties instead of the Yankees. But that's another discussion for another time.

drftnaway
03-20-2007, 06:28 AM
[quote=WhiteSox5187;1512471]................ Having said though, they recieved a LIFE time ban, and their lives are now over. Hence, shouldn't the ban be as well? I think Joe Jackson has a good arguement to get into the Hall or get a statue or whatever simply because he is now dead and hence his ban is over. .............

I think it's clear the intent was to be removed from baseball forever. The HOF didn't even exist yet!
Would you give honors to a man given a life sentence for a double homicide after he died because .."he served his sentence"?

Oblong
03-20-2007, 07:10 AM
The term isn't "lifetime ban" it's "Permanently ineligible".

WhiteSox5187
03-20-2007, 10:37 AM
[quote=WhiteSox5187;1512471]................

I think it's clear the intent was to be removed from baseball forever. The HOF didn't even exist yet!
Would you give honors to a man given a life sentence for a double homicide after he died because .."he served his sentence"?
I don't think that is an apt comparison.

maurice
03-20-2007, 12:47 PM
Look, I'm not judging the guy (though his wife seemed to be pretty mad at him). I'd be perfectly content if he got a statue and a HOF induction and whatever (though I understand why MLB would want to keep him out). I'm just saying that he (1) agreed to take a bribe, (2) agreed to throw the WS, (3) felt that he was double-crossed after he didn't get paid following Game 1 or 2 or 3, (4) played to win, (5) received $5K, and (6) still remained upset that he didn't get the whole $20K. How do I know this? He took the stand, swore an oath, and told us so. It's not that complicated.

I encourage anybody who really is interested in "research" to read the entire primary source document I posted. It contains many more interesting nuggets about Jackson, Gandil, and a plan gone awry. For example, Jackson was convinced that Gandil kept the money for himself, and Gandil apparently believed that Jackson's role in the conspiracy (including the $5K he accepted) would keep him quiet. He was right.

35th&Shields
03-20-2007, 01:46 PM
:?:

You fully understand he took money. You are now aware that he fully intended to throw the series and would have done whatever it took to do that had he not felt he'd been cheated. Yet, you feel he deserves a statue?

Someone please explain this to me ...... cause I don't get it.

If Shoeless Joe took money in exchange for a promise (heartfelt or not) to throw even one at bat, then he's a cheater and should be banned from baseball. It doesn't matter what he did or didn't do after he made that promise, even if he hit 1.000 with no errors, he's a cheat.

Look at it this way, let's say a college basketball player takes $10,000 to fix a game. During the game he means to miss every shot, but somehow every shot goes in. Despite his efforts to tank the game, his team still wins. That kid's still a cheater right? Same with Shoeless Joe. And it pains me to say that.

voodoochile
03-20-2007, 01:54 PM
If Shoeless Joe took money in exchange for a promise (heartfelt or not) to throw even one at bat, then he's a cheater and should be banned from baseball. It doesn't matter what he did or didn't do after he made that promise, even if he hit 1.000 with no errors, he's a cheat.

Look at it this way, let's say a college basketball player takes $10,000 to fix a game. During the game he means to miss every shot, but somehow every shot goes in. Despite his efforts to tank the game, his team still wins. That kid's still a cheater right? Same with Shoeless Joe. And it pains me to say that.

This is an excellent point. How many of Joe's 12 hits were ducksnorts or seeing-eye grounders or just "hit where they ain't"? Some statheads like to argue that strikeout artist pitchers are more valuable because pitchers have no control over where a ball goes when is hit, so every single time a player makes contact there is the risk of a hit happening. That can be turned around to say that a batter has no control over where a ball goes when it is hit either and only in rare circumstances can a batter take credit for the hits he generates.

I am sure Joe knew he had to at least make it look good. I mean the Sox pitchers couldn't just walk every guy they faced or throw underhand lollipops, there had to at least be the semblance of fair play or everyone would have known what was what. Joe may have hit the luckiest .375 in WS history for all we know and unless someone can produce film of the actual hits in question, no one will really ever know...

TDog
03-20-2007, 02:00 PM
I was sympathetic to Joe Jackson before I read his grand jury testimony. I retain some sympathies for him because I believe he was taken advantage of and certainly was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I no longer think he should be in the Hall of Fame.

johnr1note
03-20-2007, 02:42 PM
Two issues seem to escape the arguments about whether Joe Jackson is "guilty" or not . . .

1) His defense. Besides the poor pitching performances of Cicotte and Williams, it was the other players poor defensive play that gave rise to suspision that the fix was on. And it wasn't blatant errors, but players who were known for thier excellent defense, like Jackson, were observed "dogging it," or breaking the wrong way after a fly ball etc. A group of sportswriters, along with former player and Cincinnati manager Christy Mathewson began to mark thier scorecards with question marks when they observed a poor play by a player they knew shouldn't be making that kind of play. When they compared notes, they were putting marks next to the same plays. They realized the White Sox weren't trying hard, despite what the statistics show.

2) The behavior of the team during the 1920 season. The White Sox were locked in a very tight pennant race with the Indians and Yankees all summer in 1920. But late in the season, the White Sox began losing games in the same fashion they had lost the 1919 World Series. Why? Apparently, the same gambling group had decided they wanted another team other than the White Sox to win the pennant, and used the threat of exposing the Black Sox for the World Series scandal as the impetus to get them to throw games again in 1920. I don't have the references in front of me (I think it was in Harold Seymour's detailed history of baseball), but there are detailed newspaper accounts of Joe Jackson and his co-consipirators putting on quite the "let's make it look like we don't care" show in blowing a key series in mid September, just before the 1919 scandal broke. So it wasn't just the Black Sox throwing games in the 1919 world series -- they apparantly were throwing games left and right through the 1920 season as well. If they had simply "taken the money" and then decided to play thier best -- you might be able to argue that for just the eight games of the 1919 world series, but the evidence shows that thier was a lot of "funny business" during regular season games in 1920 as well.

Joe Jackson is a tragic figure. Whatever his motivations for doing what he did in the 1919 world series, and then in the 1920 season, he paid a heavy price. While he may not be the monster that Judge Landis wanted the baseball public to see him as, he obviously wasn't on the up and up, and violated the ethical standards of the game. His particpation in the scandal nearly destroyed baseball as we know it. I believe his tarnished reputation is deserved.

Kilroy
03-20-2007, 02:48 PM
... As far as I'm concerned, just as players should be compared to playres of their own eras, so too should justice be left to it's own era...

I'm sure there's a lot of people freed from death row, exonerated by DNA evidence after wrongful convictions that would disagree with you.

Bottom line - Joe took the money. No one can prove he tanked in any games, no one can prove he didn't. I tend to think he didn't, because he was already in front of a grand jury incriminating himself. He had no reason to lie about anything else.

PennStater98r
03-20-2007, 03:21 PM
Regardless of intent, guilt or length of time - the punishment was swift and harsh - and needed to be.

If Buddy had acted more like Landis when steroids had broken into baseball, we'd not be having conversations of another "cheat" about to break the HR record.

Agreeing to is the same as cheating/tanking. They're one and the same - not because of the effort you put forth or the intent of what you're going to do once you accept the money - it's because of the thumb you're under as an athlete from there on out. Simply having the knowledge is enough to make you guilty in my opinion.

Think of it from a different light. Let's talk On the Waterfront - "I could have been a contender. I could have been somebody." If you're set up to win and have knowledge that your opponent is tanking for you - isn't that the same as taking money to tank. After all, you'd be essentially owned by the gamblers and bookies from there on out. You'd have to jump when they say jump or be put into a situation in which you lose your livelihood.

That's the problem with Joe taking the money - or Bucky not going to Comiskey or Kid Gleason. All eight of them put themselves in positions to be controlled by anyone that knew what they had done.

Oh, and "forgiving" the 1919 White Sox or Pete Rose would be setting a poor example for anyone that wants to cheat in the future. It'd basically be saying - that someday we'll accept you back in - even though the punishment says - never never never never NEVER!

voodoochile
03-20-2007, 03:42 PM
I'm sure there's a lot of people freed from death row, exonerated by DNA evidence after wrongful convictions that would disagree with you.

Bottom line - Joe took the money. No one can prove he tanked in any games, no one can prove he didn't. I tend to think he didn't, because he was already in front of a grand jury incriminating himself. He had no reason to lie about anything else.

Sure he did. He wanted to preserve his one chance to do the one thing he could do well and make good money at - play pro baseball. If he admitted he tanked it, that option was dead, but if he says, "I took the money, but didn't follow through," then maybe he stands a chance to get back in.

In addition there was still the court of public opinion. He could be known as Joe the cheat or Joe the sympathetic bumpkin who got taken advantage of and tried his hardest to get out of the hole he was in. No one wants anything to do with the first guy, but obviously the second guy has merits, here we are 87 years later discussing it and people are still trying to clear his name...

I_Liked_Manuel
03-20-2007, 08:43 PM
Saying "no" got Buck Weaver no where but $5,000 poorer....

how does that vindicate jackson? and just to correct you, buck weaver did not get $5,000 poorer by saying 'no'.


what i dont understand is why does the pro-jackson crowd always rush to his batting stats? what the heck does it matter if he gets on base if he knows most of the guys behind him aren't going to hit him in?

he took money, he knew about the players throwing it, and he did nothing. guilty.

jdm2662
03-20-2007, 09:16 PM
I saw Field of Dreams when I was 13. The way they protrayed Joe Jackson made me believe he got a raw deal. I can read all the testimony I want to sway my opinion if he tanked the games or not. However, the bottom line is that he took the money. You can't defend that. In the end, that's all that matters. He deserved what he got.

esbrechtel
03-20-2007, 09:48 PM
I'll take Joe's word at face value and stand by the decision to keep his sorry ass where it belongs - on the outside looking in and dreaming about what might have been if only he had had the guts to stand up and say, "No!"

how does that vindicate jackson? and just to correct you, buck weaver did not get $5,000 poorer by saying 'no'.

By no means was I trying to vindicate Jackson....what I was trying to say is that Jackson was put in a lose-lose, rock and hardplace, catch 22 position. If he said 'NO I don't want the money, I wont fix games' the Sox were going to lose anyway, if word got out and he could still be connected with the fix and be punished accordingly....IE George Weaver....instead Jackson said 'yes' got the 5 grand and the "deserved" punishment....Weaver said 'no' got no money AND the "deserved" punishment....looks like weaver got cheated at least $5,000 in my eyes....

ondafarm
03-20-2007, 09:54 PM
I just got my ass handed to me in another thread about Pete Rose so I'm hesistant to say anything here, but there is one interesting fact that I noticed. In game one, he went 0-4 but in game two, a game the Sox lost, he got three hits. I can't help but wonder if the night before game two Joe was saying "I wonder where that money is...if I don't get it, I'm going to try to win..." But ultimately that's my ignorance (he might have been paid the night before game two for all I know) and idle speculation.

I feel bad for those guys on the 1919 White Sox, because they were screwed on both ends. Comiskey was such a tight wad it cost them in the first place (such as holding Cicotte back so he wouldn't win thirty games, giving them lousy champange as their "bonus", and forcing the players to pay dry cleaning bills out of their own pocket (that stuff I'm getting from the book, not the movie)) then they got screwed by the gamblers and finally Landis laid down a very harsh punishment (but I could certainly see why that might be justified), they were screwed all around. Having said though, they recieved a LIFE time ban, and their lives are now over. Hence, shouldn't the ban be as well? I think Joe Jackson has a good arguement to get into the Hall or get a statue or whatever simply because he is now dead and hence his ban is over.

One final thing, had the Sox kept those eight guys, I often wonder if they wouldn't have strung together a slew of pennants and we could have become the dynasty of the twenties and thirties instead of the Yankees. But that's another discussion for another time.

My grandfather was quite an astute baseball observer himself and he also was K.M. Landis' travel agent. He once told me that he'd talked to Landis about the Black Sox and expressed the opinion that if the Sox hadn't colluded with gamblers and thrown the Series, that you never would have heard of Murderers Row and the 1927 Yankees would have been distant also rans. He said Landis didn't disagree but wouldn't quite commit to it.

esbrechtel
03-20-2007, 10:00 PM
My grandfather was quite an astute baseball observer himself and he also was K.M. Landis' travel agent. He once told me that he'd talked to Landis about the Black Sox and expressed the opinion that if the Sox hadn't colluded with gamblers and thrown the Series, that you never would have heard of Murderers Row and the 1927 Yankees would have been distant also rans. He said Landis didn't disagree but wouldn't quite commit to it.
That really is a shame too....but like I said who do you blame? crappy owners, greedy players (who were deservedly greedy getting paid much less), greedy gamblers? The list goes on and on.....

TornLabrum
03-20-2007, 11:00 PM
You are trying to speak to motivations. Since the ONLY person who can truly know Joe's motivation is Joe, the rest of us are left with a little thing called evidence - generally meaning that which we can actually see, feel, taste, hear, etc. The evidence presented by Maurice is damning to say the least.

You want to ignore the evidence and ask us to look at the stats he put up in the series - none of which made one bit of difference. I read somewhere - probably on this site that Joe also surrendered an inordinate amount of triples to the Reds - doubly damning because Joe played Left Field - not the typical spot to hit a triple.

Still, in the end, he admits he took the money to throw the series and the Sox did lose, so the rest is for ****s and giggles. That simple fact speaks for itself. Defend him all you want. I'll take Joe's word at face value and stand by the decision to keep his sorry ass where it belongs - on the outside looking in and dreaming about what might have been if only he had had the guts to stand up and say, "No!"

That triple myth is just that. Read the reports of where the triples were hit from the contemporary game reports. They're at blackbetsy.com, too.

As far as Joe's own words, he said for the remainder of his life (after he was away from the influence of Comiskey's lawyer telling him to confess...I notice no one has addressed that yet besides me) that he played to win.

As far as taking the money, as I mentioned before, it was thrown on his bed when he said he didn't want it by (not Cicotte) Lefty Williams. Then he tried to give the money to Comiskey, but Grabiner wouldn't take it.

drftnaway
03-21-2007, 06:12 AM
That triple myth is just that. Read the reports of where the triples were hit from the contemporary game reports. They're at blackbetsy.com, too.

As far as Joe's own words, he said for the remainder of his life (after he was away from the influence of Comiskey's lawyer telling him to confess...I notice no one has addressed that yet besides me) that he played to win.

As far as taking the money, as I mentioned before, it was thrown on his bed when he said he didn't want it by (not Cicotte) Lefty Williams. Then he tried to give the money to Comiskey, but Grabiner wouldn't take it.

Source for these 2 points? Is it anywhere besides the Shoeless Joe Jackson Society?

soxfan80
03-21-2007, 10:22 AM
That triple myth is just that. Read the reports of where the triples were hit from the contemporary game reports. They're at blackbetsy.com, too.

As far as Joe's own words, he said for the remainder of his life (after he was away from the influence of Comiskey's lawyer telling him to confess...I notice no one has addressed that yet besides me) that he played to win.

As far as taking the money, as I mentioned before, it was thrown on his bed when he said he didn't want it by (not Cicotte) Lefty Williams. Then he tried to give the money to Comiskey, but Grabiner wouldn't take it.It's been said before, but I'll say it again:

"Why didnt he go to the PRESS about this if he wasnt really involved?"
The press was even more sensationalistic than today. They would eaten it up, and by doing so, put pressure on the "real" cheats.

Mind you, this is all relative to Joe NOT being a "cheat", as some have claimed him to be.

maurice
03-21-2007, 12:11 PM
Comiskey's lawyer telling him to confess...I notice no one has addressed that yet besides me

I'll address it. "I committed perjury and obstruction of justice" is not a persuasive defense. "My boss's lawyer told me to lie under oath to the Grand Jury" is not a persuasive defense. You're talking about things Jackson said after the fact when he was not under oath. These are much less persuasive than the things he said when he was under oath.

Admitting that you lied about the most serious charges ever leveled against you is not good for your credibility. Ask Pete Rose. There is no reason to believe Jackson's later statements, when he admitted that he's a liar who already lied about this very topic under oath. If Jackson lied under oath because he believed it was in his best interests to do so, he would be perfectly willing to lie later when he thinks that blaming some lawyer is in his best interests.

Finally, Jackson volunteers substantial detail in corroboration of his testimony that he did want the money and was mad that he didn't get more. I already discussed some of them, but there is even more in the transcript. A BS story does not have this much detail. It would take an evil genius to remember all of these allegedly invented details.

PaulDrake
03-21-2007, 12:24 PM
Just read Joe's Grand Jury testimony slowly and carefully. He was not an innocent man. This tragic scandal pretty much set the White Sox back for three decades. Joe was part of it, and like his wife told him, it was an awful thing to do.

Soxfest
03-21-2007, 03:08 PM
Shoeless Joe deseves the honor and to be reinstated by MLB IMO.

esbrechtel
03-21-2007, 09:02 PM
It's been said before, but I'll say it again:

"Why didnt he go to the PRESS about this if he wasnt really involved?"
The press was even more sensationalistic than today. They would eaten it up, and by doing so, put pressure on the "real" cheats.

Mind you, this is all relative to Joe NOT being a "cheat", as some have claimed him to be.
IMO I dont think the press could have helped Jackson's cause at all.....maybe it postpones the world series, maybe it gets the cheats off the team, maybe it pisses off the gamblers, maybe they go out for revenge on Jackson....who knows but that is something I would personally talk with my manager and/or my owner....

TornLabrum
03-21-2007, 09:05 PM
Source for these 2 points? Is it anywhere besides the Shoeless Joe Jackson Society?

At least part of it is in Lefty Williams' grand jury testimony. Some is in Gropman's bio.

And as for why he didn't go to the press. These were not nice people Jackson would be ratting on. Arnold Rothstein, the man behind the fix, was shot to death several years later.

And finally as for reading the grand jury testimony. Read it in two parts. The confession (as told at the prompting of Austrian) and the last part where he speaks in theoretical terms as opposed to what he did.

EDIT: From Joe Jackson's grand jury testimony:

Q. Who paid you the $5000?
A. Lefty Williams brought it to my room and threw it down.

Also if you read the testimony, states unequivocally that he didn't throw games and that he always played to win.

I_Liked_Manuel
03-21-2007, 11:59 PM
By no means was I trying to vindicate Jackson....what I was trying to say is that Jackson was put in a lose-lose, rock and hardplace, catch 22 position. If he said 'NO I don't want the money, I wont fix games' the Sox were going to lose anyway, if word got out and he could still be connected with the fix and be punished accordingly....IE George Weaver....instead Jackson said 'yes' got the 5 grand and the "deserved" punishment....Weaver said 'no' got no money AND the "deserved" punishment....looks like weaver got cheated at least $5,000 in my eyes....

the problem with your argument is that there was no guarantee prior to taking the money that he would have been punished had he not taken the money.

he knew about it, and he took the money. guilty. he and the 7 others are a black eye on the white sox, baseball, and chicago.

chitownhawkfan
03-22-2007, 03:00 AM
The thing I don't understand is, why are people so sympathetic to these eight losers. As Sox fans they destroyed our organization and cost us the shot at many championships.

PaulDrake
03-22-2007, 09:38 AM
At least part of it is in Lefty Williams' grand jury testimony. Some is in Gropman's bio.

And as for why he didn't go to the press. These were not nice people Jackson would be ratting on. Arnold Rothstein, the man behind the fix, was shot to death several years later.

And finally as for reading the grand jury testimony. Read it in two parts. The confession (as told at the prompting of Austrian) and the last part where he speaks in theoretical terms as opposed to what he did.

EDIT: From Joe Jackson's grand jury testimony:

Q. Who paid you the $5000?
A. Lefty Williams brought it to my room and threw it down.

Also if you read the testimony, states unequivocally that he didn't throw games and that he always played to win. I read it all, including the last sentence you mention. So he claims he didn't throw games. I'm supposed to ignore the rest of his testimony? He was obviously a conflicted man in a really bad situation. I'm not unmindful of that. Still, when you examine this painfully complicated and multifaceted affair, which of course includes all of Jackson's testimony you can only conclude he was in on the fix. You could give him the benefit, that he was in, had grave misgivings and then wanted out. That does not absolve him, not even close in my books. I haven't been able to find it on the web, but I remember reading an interview of Ray Schalk by veteran Chicago sports journalist Bill Gleason. In it, he claims that if not for the Black Sox scandal there would have been no Yankees. Except he said it in much more colorful terms. This affair prevented the Sox from becoming a real baseball dynasty. Whatever Comiskey's sins, he did not deserve this. The White Sox and their fans did not deserve this. Baseball history would be totally different. If I'm going to shed any tears for any of the 8 players involved then I'll save them for Buck Weaver. Maybe.

johnr1note
03-22-2007, 11:33 AM
I remember reading an interview of Ray Schalk by veteran Chicago sports journalist Bill Gleason. In it, he claims that if not for the Black Sox scandal there would have been no Yankees. Except he said it in much more colorful terms. This affair prevented the Sox from becoming a real baseball dynasty. Whatever Comiskey's sins, he did not deserve this. The White Sox and their fans did not deserve this. Baseball history would be totally different. If I'm going to shed any tears for any of the 8 players involved then I'll save them for Buck Weaver. Maybe.

One aspect of this that folks tend to forget is that without the Black Sox, there would have been no Judge Landis as Commissioner, and the concept of a "Baseball Comissioner" might have never come into being. Plus, Comiskey had been in a position prior to the scandal to be one of the most, if not the most powerful owner in baseball. Comiskey and then AL founder and president Ban Johnson had a falling out, and Comiskey was seekiing Johnson's ouster, or at least to have his power base cut back. The owner of the White Sox was in the catbird seat as far as political power in baseball. Johnson has also been discredited through the process of coming to grips with the Federal League's challenge, and while the AL and NL had worked out a deal with the FL, Comiskey was organizing a coup.

According to Harold Seymour's book on the history of baseball, Comiskey led a group of "rebel" AL owners, who were willing to cut a deal with the NL. This would have allowed the FL high rollers like Weegham and Ball to purchase existing clubs, and 2 to 4 of the existing AL clubs would merge with the NL. Fortunately, organized ball was able to work out the settlement without this radical change, but Comiskey obvioulsy held the upper hand, and Johnson's iron grip on the AL was gone.

Without a Black Sox scandal, the whole structure of MLB would be different today -- and Comiskey might be revered as the "Czar" of that era, not Landis.

maurice
03-22-2007, 12:11 PM
And finally as for reading the grand jury testimony. Read it in two parts. The confession [] and the last part where he speaks in theoretical terms as opposed to what he did.

I don't understand what you mean. In the latter part of his testiony, he speaks in "theoretical terms" about his theory that Gandil kept Jackson's extra $15K for himself and his theory that Gandil spent the money on himself. Of course it's a "theory" because he can't prove it. OTOH, the only reason he's theorizing is because he's mad that get didn't get paid the full amount, so he's wondering whether Gandil's story of a double-cross by Attel is true or whether Gandil himself is the double-crosser. How do you double-cross somebody by withholding money that they don't even want?

Q. Who paid you the $5000?
A. Lefty Williams brought it to my room and threw it down.

Followed shortly thereafter by:
Q: What did [Mrs. Jackson] say about this?
A: She said she thought it was an awful thing to do.
. . . and various other references that his wife was mad at him. Why is she immediately mad at him when the cash arrives if he didn't do anything wrong?

He did play to win, IMO. After the first couple of games, there's no question that he played to win, IMO. But that makes no difference if he took the money. I have a client who is sitting in prison right now because somebody gave him an unsolicited sum of money in a McDonald's bag. He didn't ask for it. He told the guy that he didn't want it. He did nothing in return for the money. Nonetheless, he was found guilty, because the money was intended as a bribe, and he didn't go to the police.

soxinem1
03-22-2007, 12:25 PM
In the latter part of his testiony, he speaks in "theoretical terms" about his theory that Gandil kept Jackson's extra $15K for himself and his theory that Gandil spent the money on himself. Of course it's a "theory" because he can't prove it. OTOH, the only reason he's theorizing is because he's mad that get didn't get paid the full amount, so he's wondering whether Gandil's story of a double-cross by Attel is true or whether Gandil himself is the double-crosser. How do you double-cross somebody by withholding money that they don't even want?

This and your earlier points about Jackson's sworn testimony implicating his deeds is pretty cut and dry. All the pleas of not understanding and ignorance hold no water IMO, and quite frankly, offers no valid reason as to why he belongs in the HOF. He knew what he was doing, plain and simple.

Just like with Pete Rose, I am tired of the 'Let by-gones be by-gones' stance Shoeless Joe's fans take. Forget the exceptions to the rules and be consistent. Pete and Joe belong on the outside looking in.

johnr1note
03-22-2007, 02:50 PM
Joe Jackson was certainly guilty of conspiracy in his participation in the 1919 World Series fix.

At common law, conspiracy is defined as a combination or agreement between two or more persons to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. The three necessary elements to prove someone is guilty of conspiracy are:

1) An agreement between two or more persons;
2) The intent to enter into such an agreement; and
3) The intent to achieve the objective of the agreement

The only intent necessary is an intent to enter into the agreement and achieve the agreement's objective AT THE TIME OF THE AGREEMENT -- there is no need for an overt act to carry out the agreement. (Although many states now statutorily require an act "in furtherance of" the agreement before there is liability for consipiracy).

In addition, one conspirator may be guilty of "aiding and abetting" the conspiracy simply by being part of the conspiracy; that is, criminal acts committed by other participants will be attributed to all conspirators, especially if the crimes were obviously committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, and the crimes were "the natural and probable consequence" of the conspiracy, or "foreseeable."

Only if the conspirator has made a "legally effective withdrawal" from the conspiracy can he not be liable for "aiding and abetting." In order to withdraw, common law required that the act be such that all other members of the conspiracy would be on notice of the withdrawal, and done in time for the conspirators to abandon the scheme. In addition, the withdrawing conspirator is generally held to manifest a general intent to renounce his criminal purposes by taking affirmative steps to do so, e.g. call the police.

Using the elements of conspiracy as the backdrop, even if we take Joe Jackson at his word, he is guilty. Indeed, depending on the nature of the meetings Buck Weaver attended, I can't see how you can argue that he isn't guilty under these circumstances.

So even if Shoeless Joe tried his best, even if he tried to inform Comiskey and give Grabner the money back, he didn't do enough. He admitted to agreeing to throw the series, accepting money to throw the series, and never said he made any attempt to tell the other 7 conspirators that he had withdrawn from thier plan. He has admitted to the crime of conspiracy to intentionally lose the World Series for the benefit of gamblers.

No matter how you slice it, and whether you believe its enough to merit the punishment he received, Shoeless Joe is NOT innocent with regards to the 1919 World Series scandal.