Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

Astros, yes, 100% should be banned. That immunity garbage MLB gave them is a joke.

Rose, he supposedly never tried to throw a game and lose, which is really what the gambling rule was put in place to stop. But it was and still is the rule, and Rose knew it. So agree as well.

Jackson my be a little more complicated. To this day, no one really knows exactly everything that occurred. There is evidence that Jackson didn't necessarily willingly agree to accept and keep the money, and supposedly the money primarily went to benefit a sick relative in need of surgery and care. His stats and play during the 1919 WS certainly seem to belie the argument that he was actively trying to throw the WS. And there was no specific gambling rule in place at that time for MLB as there is today. So Jackson was permanently banned by the retroactive application of a rule that didn't exist at the time of the alleged transgression. I'd love to see how that would have held up in today's courts, and how fast the lawsuits to stop it would have been filed. Not so sure Jackson was fairly treated by MLB back then, which had their own agenda they were keeping to at the time.

I'm not going to argue whether Jackson is guilty or not, I've done it dozens of times and nobody ever gets swayed to the other side. This is just what I believe. Jackson took money, lied multiple times about taking it. Complained that he was being double-crossed when more money failed to come, if he was playing to win, how was he getting double-crossed? After Jackson's Civil Trial against Comiskey, he was charged with perjury by the judge, the charge was never pursued but its easy to see he did lie under oath. I believe Jackson participated in the fix but played to win after he realized there was no more money coming. Look at his BA in wins vs loses. If he didn't run after 1 ball or made one out on purpose, hes as guilty as the rest.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I'm not going to argue whether Jackson is guilty or not, I've done it dozens of times and nobody ever gets swayed to the other side. This is just what I believe. Jackson took money, lied multiple times about taking it. Complained that he was being double-crossed when more money failed to come, if he was playing to win, how was he getting double-crossed? After Jackson's Civil Trial against Comiskey, he was charged with perjury by the judge, the charge was never pursued but its easy to see he did lie under oath. I believe Jackson participated in the fix but played to win after he realized there was no more money coming. Look at his BA in wins vs loses. If he didn't run after 1 ball or made one out on purpose, hes as guilty as the rest.

Hey Jim, No one really knows the complete truth, and after all this time, we never will. My understanding is that Jackson was not the brightest bulb in the package, and supposedly was working with and doing what he was told to say and do by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys during the initial grand jury testimony and Black Sox trial. So when he brought the lawsuit later on in 1924 against Comiskey, gee, guess what attorneys would likely be defending Comiskey in that trial? The same ones that had probably coached and told Jackson what to say and do in the first trial. So Comiskey's attorneys already knew when Jackson was likely telling the truth during the second trial, what didn't exactly agree with what he had been told to say in the original trial. And it is my further understanding Jackson's attorney, Ray Cannon, was told by Comiskey's attorneys that the transcript of Jackson's 1920 grand jury testimony had disappeared, and there were no copies available anywhere. Yet somehow during Jackson's interrogation by Comiskey's attorneys in the midst of the second trial, the transcript miraculously appeared in the the hands of those same attorneys that had said it was gone. Gee, what a lucky coincidence for Comiskey and his attorneys. Coincidence, yeah, right! Lies and a setup is more like it. Yet despite any inconsistencies from his testimony in the earlier trial, the jury in the lawsuit against Comiskey still decided overwhelmingly in Jackson's favor. It was only after Comiskey lost that the judge stepped in and denied Jackson's claim, accusing Jackson of having committed perjury. If Jackson had committed perjury, why was he never charged? The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and the idea of someone like Comiskey having "taken care of the judge" wouldn't have surprised me in the least. Based on many things I've heard or read about Comiskey, it would actually surprise me more if he hadn't had the judge in his back pocket. And as to the inconsistencies in Jackson's testimonies over several years, I don't know about you, but some afternoons, I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast that day. And anyway, I still feel a lot of what Jackson said during the earlier trial was what he was being told to say by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys. Jackson never changed his saying that he didn't try to throw the series, but can maybe understand his not saying anything about the fix to anyone earlier than he finally did, and initially holding on to the money that was given to him, as he likely didn't want to see his teammates get in trouble with MLB, or worse from the gamblers. He seems to have involuntarily been stuck in the middle of something he didn't really want to do, and for which MLB had no specific rule for at that time, as it does today. It appears Jackson had been a pawn and a scapegoat in the whole affair, more than anything else, and for that I'm not so sure his punishment was so deserved and fit the alleged crime. Especially when he literally won two different trials, with two different juries, yet was still punished after both. Sounds an awful lot like what still happens today. I guess the old saying may be true after all - The more things change, the more they stay the same!

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hey Jim, No one really knows the complete truth, and after all this time, we never will. My understanding is that Jackson was not the brightest bulb in the package, and supposedly was working with and doing what he was told to say and do by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys during the initial grand jury testimony and Black Sox trial. So when he brought the lawsuit later on in 1924 against Comiskey, gee, guess what attorneys would likely be defending Comiskey in that trial? The same ones that had probably coached and told Jackson what to say and do in the first trial. So Comiskey's attorneys already knew when Jackson was likely telling the truth during the second trial, what didn't exactly agree with what he had been told to say in the original trial. And it is my further understanding Jackson's attorney, Ray Cannon, was told by Comiskey's attorneys that the transcript of Jackson's 1920 grand jury testimony had disappeared, and there were no copies available anywhere. Yet somehow during Jackson's interrogation by Comiskey's attorneys in the midst of the second trial, the transcript miraculously appeared in the the hands of those same attorneys that had said it was gone. Gee, what a lucky coincidence for Comiskey and his attorneys. Coincidence, yeah, right! Lies and a setup is more like it. Yet despite any inconsistencies from his testimony in the earlier trial, the jury in the lawsuit against Comiskey still decided overwhelmingly in Jackson's favor. It was only after Comiskey lost that the judge stepped in and denied Jackson's claim, accusing Jackson of having committed perjury. If Jackson had committed perjury, why was he never charged? The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and the idea of someone like Comiskey having "taken care of the judge" wouldn't have surprised me in the least. Based on many things I've heard or read about Comiskey, it would actually surprise me more if he hadn't had the judge in his back pocket. And as to the inconsistencies in Jackson's testimonies over several years, I don't know about you, but some afternoons, I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast that day. And anyway, I still feel a lot of what Jackson said during the earlier trial was what he was being told to say by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys. Jackson never changed his saying that he didn't try to throw the series, but can maybe understand his not saying anything about the fix to anyone earlier than he finally did, and initially holding on to the money that was given to him, as he likely didn't want to see his teammates get in trouble with MLB, or worse from the gamblers. He seems to have involuntarily been stuck in the middle of something he didn't really want to do, and for which MLB had no specific rule for at that time, as it does today. It appears Jackson had been a pawn and a scapegoat in the whole affair, more than anything else, and for that I'm not so sure his punishment was so deserved and fit the alleged crime. Especially when he literally won two different trials, with two different juries, yet was still punished after both. Sounds an awful lot like what still happens today. I guess the old saying may be true after all - The more things change, the more they stay the same!

It sounds like your argument is that everyone conspired against poor Joe Jackson. I don't buy that argument. Why would they do it? Wheres the evidence?

Joe Jackson lied over and over in statements to the press and in sworn testimony. He was charged with perjury and failed to show up for his court hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Facts.The charge was never pursued, probably because it wasn't worth going from Wisconsin to SC for a simple perjury charge. If he was truly innocent, why not show up and fight the charge?

Read the articles on the 1919 Black Sox on the SABR website, those are fair and based in facts unlike the 8 Men Out book and movie, both of which are filled with so many myths and lies, they are basically works of fiction.

[ClementeFanOh]

Egri- a heartfelt "thanks" for naming Hank Aaron, baseball's most
consistent HR and RBI producer and an American hero. You're helping
me....

I checked Hank's stats from 1966-70. His 1968 stats were slightly below
average in HR and RBI (29 and 87 rather than mid 30s and 100), with
batting average and games played normal. There was no "miracle jump" in
stats in 68,69, or 70. Alas, your guys Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds can't say
the same...

Bonds was a great player whose HR numbers ballooned in early 2000s
with 73(!) in 01, about FIFTY percent higher than his second best HR
total. Sosa's stats are jaw dropping, he went from a lower 30s HR guy to 4
consecutive seasons averaging 60! McGwire is tougher due to injury, but his
70 HR came- guess when?- during the same time frame. Smell what I'm
cooking?

Now on to Hank's "amphetamines". Did he use them to add pop to his
swing or to increase bat speed? Stats do NOT back that up, they say the
opposite. How about for the remarkable restorative/recuperative power of
1960s stimulants? I don't think so. I haven't read the book, so what was
the amphetamine exactly? A "greenie"? The equivalent of a Red Bull today?
See how they just don't quite feel the same? I would hope so. And again,
I am not arguing that yesterday's players are "saints" or "angels". I am
arguing that they did NOT engage in a long term, concerted clinical effort
that they knew was a serious violation of MLB policy, to beat a cherished HR
season record .

Finally, the phrases "straw man" and "ad hominem" sound impressive- but
it helps when you use them properly. My argument is direct and not straw,
and you are on the wrong end of it- at no time did I say "you're ugly and
your momma dresses you funny", which would have been ad hominem.
The PED guys rolled dice and lost- and STILL might make the Hall. End of
story. Trent King

[tiger8mush]

[Peter_Spaeth]

As I recall he was furious not at one but at two bad calls, and got himself ejected.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

The best part of this is when teams were doing send offs for Ortiz in his last game at whatever stadium, the Orioles presented him with a plaque/piece of wood with the broken phone reassembled. Not sure if the actual phone or another one they just broke apart for the occasion and reassembled, but it was pretty funny. Everybody got a good laugh out of that.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Now on to Hank's "amphetamines". Did he use them to add pop to his
swing or to increase bat speed? Stats do NOT back that up, they say the
opposite. How about for the remarkable restorative/recuperative power of
1960s stimulants? I don't think so. I haven't read the book, so what was
the amphetamine exactly? A "greenie"? The equivalent of a Red Bull today?
See how they just don't quite feel the same? I would hope so. And again,
I am not arguing that yesterday's players are "saints" or "angels". I am
arguing that they did NOT engage in a long term, concerted clinical effort
that they knew was a serious violation of MLB policy, to beat a cherished HR
season record .

I take essentially the same stuff for ADD. It is NOT like a red bull. Until you get used to it it's more like slamming several red bulls at once. (They didn't warn me to not drink my usual 8 cups of coffee before 10AM.... made for a very "interesting" first day!)
The early dose of the current stuff which is amphetamines was literally in green capsules. I had to explain to my doctor my comment about it making me feel like a ballplayer.

For me it helps me concentrate. Which if I had any small smidgen of talent might have made me a marginally better batter.
Ok, 1-1, maybe a curve coming... hey I think the pitcher shoelace is.. nope, just the angle. Hey that's an interesting cloud, and it's moving towards us while the wind is blowing out...
STRIKE TWO!
Darn it! Got to focus better...

From a not so scientific test done in the batting cages up the road a ways.
It does not help me hit a pitch moving more than about 50mph.
It does not help me hit the ball harder.

Some other stuff along with actual training would help hit harder, but probably wouldn't help with the coordintion or reflexes.

[ClementeFanOh]

Thank you, Steve B, that's interesting and aligns with my belief. I'll also
assume it didn't cause you to gain 30 pounds of muscle and for your head
to grow...and it didn't make you cork your bat as another advantage

The entire "the old timers did it too!" argument is pure sophistry. The 21st
century players have access to sophisticated PED technology (if that's the
word) and a network to provide it, that the vintage guys didn't- and
couldn't- access. It's like someone trying to persuade me that an M80 has t
he same destructive potential as a stick of dynamite. I was born during the
day, but it wasn't yesterday...

Sadly, I have a feeling some of the PED boys will slither their way into the
Hall of Fame, doubtless making some folks here really happy. Everyone will
know what they did to get there, though. Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Thank you, Steve B, that's interesting and aligns with my belief. I'll also
assume it didn't cause you to gain 30 pounds of muscle and for your head
to grow...and it didn't make you cork your bat as another advantage

The entire "the old timers did it too!" argument is pure sophistry. The 21st
century players have access to sophisticated PED technology (if that's the
word) and a network to provide it, that the vintage guys didn't- and
couldn't- access. It's like someone trying to persuade me that an M80 has t
he same destructive potential as a stick of dynamite. I was born during the
day, but it wasn't yesterday...

Sadly, I have a feeling some of the PED boys will slither their way into the
Hall of Fame, doubtless making some folks here really happy. Everyone will
know what they did to get there, though. Trent King

So you would punish more modern players because the drugs available to them got better, even though the old timers (well many of them) took whatever they could get hold of and in all likelihood would have taken anabolic steroids, HGH, etc. had they been available? What's the demarcation in your mind then? Is it a matter of you broke the rules or you didn't? Your personal definition of what enhances performance and what doesn't? Genuine question.

I don't believe for a minute the old timers were somehow morally superior/purer in their attitudes.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve B

I take essentially the same stuff for ADD. It is NOT like a red bull. Until you get used to it it's more like slamming several red bulls at once. (They didn't warn me to not drink my usual 8 cups of coffee before 10AM.... made for a very "interesting" first day!)
The early dose of the current stuff which is amphetamines was literally in green capsules. I had to explain to my doctor my comment about it making me feel like a ballplayer.

For me it helps me concentrate. Which if I had any small smidgen of talent might have made me a marginally better batter.
Ok, 1-1, maybe a curve coming... hey I think the pitcher shoelace is.. nope, just the angle. Hey that's an interesting cloud, and it's moving towards us while the wind is blowing out...
STRIKE TWO!
Darn it! Got to focus better...

From a not so scientific test done in the batting cages up the road a ways.
It does not help me hit a pitch moving more than about 50mph.
It does not help me hit the ball harder.

Some other stuff along with actual training would help hit harder, but probably wouldn't help with the coordintion or reflexes.

For the most part amphetamines in the batting cage would be used at higher doses so you can hit way way longer. The smaller doses are for games so you are not tired while playing.

The steroids come in because they let you heal at an insane rate. You need them after the crazy intense workouts you can do from the amphetamines. Without the steroids your body breaks down really fast from the workouts the amphetamines allow you to do.

It is best if you can stack a few different PEDs that all do different things.

Steroids are like aspirin, the work different with different people. The problem is most think steroids and instantly picture roided to the gills Mark McGwire. That is not how they work for everyone. Just look at all the skinny pitchers that have been busted over the years. Another perfect example is the Canseco brothers. Jose was a super star and then you had Ozzie.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

For the most part amphetamines in the batting cage would be used at higher doses so you can hit way way longer. The smaller doses are for games so you are not tired while playing.

The steroids come in because they let you heal at an insane rate. You need them after the crazy intense workouts you can do from the amphetamines. Without the steroids your body breaks down really fast from the workouts the amphetamines allow you to do.

It is best if you can stack a few different PEDs that all do different things.

Steroids are like aspirin, the work different with different people. The problem is most think steroids and instantly picture roided to the gills Mark McGwire. That is not how they work for everyone. Just look at all the skinny pitchers that have been busted over the years. Another perfect example is the Canseco brothers. Jose was a super star and then you had Ozzie.

Don't anabolics directly promote muscle growth, or is it just that they let you work out much more than your body would otherwise tolerate?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

It sounds like your argument is that everyone conspired against poor Joe Jackson. I don't buy that argument. Why would they do it? Wheres the evidence?

Joe Jackson lied over and over in statements to the press and in sworn testimony. He was charged with perjury and failed to show up for his court hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Facts.The charge was never pursued, probably because it wasn't worth going from Wisconsin to SC for a simple perjury charge. If he was truly innocent, why not show up and fight the charge?

Read the articles on the 1919 Black Sox on the SABR website, those are fair and based in facts unlike the 8 Men Out book and movie, both of which are filled with so many myths and lies, they are basically works of fiction.

The 8 Men Out book is horrible and a lot was made up, just like the movie, well saware of that. But a lot of the other things, like on SABR, are not 100% totally proven either. Why he didn't go back, I don't know either. But if had to guess, I would think maybe a lack of funds to fight Comiskey would have a lot to do with it. And everyone seems to just dismiss the idea that Jackson was possibly coached and told what to say and do in the initial trial. Comiskey was obviously looking out for himself first, and I can truly see him taking advantage of someone as naive and trusting as Jackson in all this. Plus, in everything I read, no one ever seems to bring up the fact that Jackson was basically Comiskey's indentured servant under MLB's old reserve clause, and he wouldn't be able to play in the majors if he went against what Comiskey and his attorneys were telling him to do. Still, you can put your your faith and trust in current articles, books, and SABR. I think I'd rather put my faith and trust in a jury of everyday people who sat through that trial and listened to Jackson in person, and could look him in the eyes as he recounted what had really happened. That jury heard about all the conflicting testimony that Jackson supposedly gave, and they also got to hear Comiskey, his high powered attorneys, and everyone else I'm guessing brought in to put down Jackson. And yet despite all that, the jury overwhelming found in favor of Jackson.

Now I wasn't there, you weren't there, and certainly no one from SABR was there. Yet why the total lack of faith in the findings of a jury, that was there, several years after Jackson's career and fame as an MLB player had ended, in a different state/city than he had played in, and that sat through all the evidence and testimony and still found for him, that to me is really and truly the biggest and only question I feel still needs to be answered by everyone so totally against Jackson................PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen Carney's stuff and feel he ignores the sway and influence Comiskey had over Jackson and his simple naive nature. I still feel he got caught in the middle by teammates who thrust him into this, and was quiet to protect them from career, and possible physical, harm. Everyone points to his admission of receiving $5K to seal his fate and determine his guilt, despite going to Comiskey with the money to potentially give it back now that he wasn't in fear of teammates or their wives being harmed since the series had ended, and yet Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it. Interesting how everyone automatically says yup, Jackson is 100% honest about the money he got, but we still think he was pretty much lying about everything else. Now just think how stupid that sounds, he's honest about the one thing that is the most incriminating and damaging to his case, so if there's anything you would expect him to lie about, it was him receiving the money. But no, he honestly tells about money, but all the naysayers still contend he lied about everything else!!!!!!!!!! Go figure.

This whole thing around Jackson stinks. Yet so many people just condemn him outright. Let me ask you a question. Put yourself in his shoes, and you have teammates and friends who come to you about throwing the WS series for money, and they need you in on it so the gamblers will pay them. And they tell you that by the way, you have to take what we give you so the gamblers don't think we're double crossing them. And then later on you hear one of your teammates, and possibly his wife as well, have their lives threatened by the gamblers. Oh, and there's no specific rule on MLB's books on what you are or aren't supposed to do in this situation. So, do you go running to Ban Johnson, the AL President, and tell him everything, only to find out your teammate and his wife are mysteriously found dead the day after the news hits the papers, and the rest of your teammates and friends get thrown off the team, never to play in the majors again and become your hated enemies for the rest of their lives, while the rest off MLB secretly brands you as a rat and shuns you forever after, or what?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

The 8 Men Out book is horrible and a lot was made up, just like the movie, well saware of that. But a lot of the other things, like on SABR, are not 100% totally proven either. Why he didn't go back, I don't know either. But if had to guess, I would think maybe a lack of funds to fight Comiskey would have a lot to do with it. And everyone seems to just dismiss the idea that Jackson was possibly coached and told what to say and do in the initial trial. Comiskey was obviously looking out for himself first, and I can truly see him taking advantage of someone as naive and trusting as Jackson in all this. Plus, in everything I read, no one ever seems to bring up the fact that Jackson was basically Comiskey's indentured servant under MLB's old reserve clause, and he wouldn't be able to play in the majors if he went against what Comiskey and his attorneys were telling him to do. Still, you can put your your faith and trust in current articles, books, and SABR. I think I'd rather put my faith and trust in a jury of everyday people who sat through that trial and listened to Jackson in person, and could look him in the eyes as he recounted what had really happened. That jury heard about all the conflicting testimony that Jackson supposedly gave, and they also got to hear Comiskey, his high powered attorneys, and everyone else I'm guessing brought in to put down Jackson. And yet despite all that, the jury overwhelming found in favor of Jackson.

Now I wasn't there, you weren't there, and certainly no one from SABR was there. Yet why the total lack of faith in the findings of a jury, that was there, several years after Jackson's career and fame as an MLB player had ended, in a different state/city than he had played in, and that sat through all the evidence and testimony and still found for him, that to me is really and truly the biggest and only question I feel still needs to be answered by everyone so totally against Jackson................PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen Carney's stuff and feel he ignores the sway and influence Comiskey had over Jackson and his simple naive nature. I still feel he got caught in the middle by teammates who thrust him into this, and was quiet to protect them from career, and possible physical, harm. Everyone points to his admission of receiving $5K to seal his fate and determine his guilt, despite going to Comiskey with the money to potentially give it back now that he wasn't in fear of teammates or their wives being harmed since the series had ended, and yet Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it. Interesting how everyone automatically says yup, Jackson is 100% honest about the money he got, but we still think he was pretty much lying about everything else. Now just think how stupid that sounds, he's honest about the one thing that is the most incriminating and damaging to his case, so if there's anything you would expect him to lie about, it was him receiving the money. But no, he honestly tells about money, but all the naysayers still contend he lied about everything else!!!!!!!!!! Go figure.

This whole thing around Jackson stinks. Yet so many people just condemn him outright. Let me ask you a question. Put yourself in his shoes, and you have teammates and friends who come to you about throwing the WS series for money, and they need you in on it so the gamblers will pay them. And they tell you that by the way, you have to take what we give you so the gamblers don't think we're double crossing them. And then later on you hear one of your teammates, and possibly his wife as well, have their lives threatened by the gamblers. Oh, and there's no specific rule on MLB's books on what you are or aren't supposed to do in this situation. So, do you go running to Ban Johnson, the AL President, and tell him everything, only to find out your teammate and his wife are mysteriously found dead the day after the news hits the papers, and the rest of your teammates and friends get thrown off the team, never to play in the majors again and become your hated enemies for the rest of their lives, while the rest off MLB secretly brands you as a rat and shuns you forever after, or what?

Trust a jury? Seriously? The same jury also found Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch and the rest not guilty. Do you think Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch, etc were innocent too?

You got facts mixed up. Jackson claims he tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but Comiskey wouldn't talk to him. Where did you get "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it"?

Johnson was not "100% honest about the money"" He lied over and over saying he was never offered money but finally had to admit it. Jackson claims he was never at any of the meetings but Cicotte says he was at at least one.

Jackson wasn't some dumb, trusting country bumpkin, AFAIK, 8 Men Out is the only book that shows him that way.

Please answer this question, Jackson was promised $20000 but was given only $5000, he complained he was double crossed. If he played to win, how was he double crossed?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Trust a jury? Seriously? The same jury also found Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch and the rest not guilty. Do you think Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch, etc were innocent too?

You got facts mixed up. Jackson claims he tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but Comiskey wouldn't talk to him. Where did you get "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it"?

Johnson was not "100% honest about the money"" He lied over and over saying he was never offered money but finally had to admit it. Jackson claims he was never at any of the meetings but Cicotte says he was at at least one.

Jackson wasn't some dumb, trusting country bumpkin, AFAIK, 8 Men Out is the only book that shows him that way.

Please answer this question, Jackson was promised $20000 but was given only $5000, he complained he was double crossed. If he played to win, how was he double crossed?

i could go ahead and debunk every comment/question you directed back at me, or point out how you misunderstood or misinterpreted what I was saying. But I'm not going to waste the time as you clearly feel he's as guilty as everyone else and deserves the exact same punishment.

I've never said he wasn't guilty to some extent, had always been entirely truthful about everything, or that he didn't deserve some punishment, just that maybe he deserved some different treatment given his specific, rather unique circumstances. You also never answered back to my query about possibly putting yourself in Jackson's 'position, but don't even bother responding now. The non-response told me everything I needed to know.

One final comment. I sincerely hope you did not mean the very first thing you said in your last post. Because if so, you've just insulted every person that has ever served on a jury and are now calling into question their honesty and integrity. I know I've served on a jury before, and i found your implied comment/question reprehensible!!!

Good evening.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

i could go ahead and debunk every comment/question you directed back at me, or point out how you misunderstood or misinterpreted what I was saying. But I'm not going to waste the time as you clearly feel he's as guilty as everyone else and deserves the exact same punishment.

I've never said he wasn't guilty to some extent, had always been entirely truthful about everything, or that he didn't deserve some punishment, just that maybe he deserved some different treatment given his specific, rather unique circumstances. You also never answered back to my query about possibly putting yourself in Jackson's 'position, but don't even bother responding now. The non-response told me everything I needed to know.

One final comment. I sincerely hope you did not mean the very first thing you said in your last post. Because if so, you've just insulted every person that has ever served on a jury and are now calling into question their honesty and integrity. I know I've served on a jury before, and i found your implied comment/question reprehensible!!!

Good evening.

Stop trying to play the victim. I've served Jury Duty too. Juries get verdicts wrong all the time, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony, etc. Not too mention the many verdicts that have been overturned using DNA. I mean it 100% that I don't trust juries, especially in celebrity trials, which this absolutely was.

I didn't answer your question because it was irrelevant to anthing. What would I do? Who cares? It just sounds like you're making excuses why Jackson lied.

You say "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up" and when I ask you where the quote came from, you get in a huff.

You say "I never said he wasn't guilty to some extent" a person is either guilty or not, he can't be a little guilty.

This is exactly why I said I didn't want to debate Joe Jackson fans.