Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

If he was so guilty of perjury, why was he never prosecuted then? Even today people make lots of accusations that go nowhere. Also, if in trying to get through this he listens to different people, like the White Sox attorneys who were advising him at some point, and then others at different times, he's going to get thrown into a lot of different directions trying to do what everyone is telling him at that time. Not saying it is right, but his situation is a lot more gray than most of the others. Plus, hate to bring it up again, but there was no specific rule in place at the time of the 1919 scandal about what was done. Also, the actual trial wasn't about a specific law being broken, but about how the Black Sox players by throwing the World Series had cheated their their non-complicit teammates out of their share of the WS winning money. In fact, I believe teammate Shano Collins was named as the wronged party in the indictments, not baseball, the fans, or anyone else. Also heard that Comiskey supposedly went ahead and paid the difference in player's money earned between the winners and losers of the World Series to White Sox players not part of the scandal. So Collins and the others it seems were made whole and didn't suffer any financial loss after all. It is all very strange and confusing, and based on Comiskey's and the team's actions during all this has to make one wonder if they maybe had a bigger role in all this that they were trying to keep covered up.

Jackson was charged with perjury, it was investigated and a warrant was issued for his arrest and he failed to show up for a pre-trial hearing.

In his civil trial, Jackson testified he never made the statements that were in grand jury transcripts, he claimed no one ever approached him about a fix, then admitted he took $5,000, there were just way too many inconsistencies to believe anything he said. No matter who was coaching him on what to say, the truth is the truth.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Jackson was charged with perjury, it was investigated and a warrant was issued for his arrest and he failed to show up for a pre-trial hearing.

In his civil trial, Jackson testified he never made the statements that were in grand jury transcripts, he claimed no one ever approached him about a fix, then admitted he took $5,000, there were just way too many inconsistencies to believe anything he said. No matter who was coaching him on what to say, the truth is the truth.

Don't disagree and hadn't heard that part of it. But if he did have a warrant issued, why was it never followed up? Something doesn't make sense. Here's an interesting story from a writer at the time with additional information maybe not well known.

https://chicagology.com/baseball/191...ejacksontrial/

And during the original trial, the same attorneys for Comiskey that were supposedly helping to defend him were then working against him in the later civil trial he brought against Comiskey for back pay. The hints, rumors and coincidental occurrences that point to all the collusion, bribery and underhanded tactics going on back then is appalling. During the 1919 trial, Jackson was told what to do and say by Comiskey's attorneys, and he was obviously very naive and foolish in thinking that Comiskey was ever looking out for him. By Comiskey's own testimony and actions he proves himself to be an even bigger liar than pretty much anyone else involved in the scandal. It is very obvious he is concerned solely with protecting himself and his interests, and that he would do virtually anything to do so, and at the detriment of anyone else. Here's a really good question for you. Since Jackson had told him about the scandal and everything, and he still worked to keep it secret and hide it from then AL President, Ban Johnson, along with re-signing all the guilty players for the next season, isn't he technically guilty of pretty much the same thing as all the accused in the case, even though his involvement was more after the fact? So when the truth started coming out about his knowledge, involvement and obvious cover-up, why wasn't he also immediately banned from baseball by either Johnson, or Landis later on? Hmmm, could it be because he was one of the owners that paid their salaries?????

It is very interesting how when you look at MLB's Rule 21 regarding gambling and the fixing of games, it specifically stops short of including exactly what Comiskey is clearly guilty of in regards to this whole cover-up. Does anyone not think he was given special treatment because of his place and ownership back then? He clearly wouldn't get away with that today and would likely be forced to sell the team immediately. I believe it was Landis who put Rule 21 in place, around 1927 or so. Do you really think it was a coincidence that the Federal League case against MLB that Landis oversaw, and purposely delayed to the benefit of the MLB owners, wasn't at least partially responsible for his being offered a lucrative job as their Commissioner? That sounds a lot like a payoff to me! Any reason then that he may not have given Comiskey a break when writing that Rule 21 then so it wouldn't specifically incriminate him for what he had done? In fact, wasn't he hired for 7 year terms as Commissioner? And oh yes, wasn't 1927 the 7th year of his initial term so WOW, another coincidence. He got voted to another 7 year term right after putting the new rule in place that didn't incriminate one of the MLB owners, how convenient.

So would it really be a shocking surprise for someone rich and powerful like Comiskey to have gotten his attorneys to draw up records and documents to improve his case, or to make Jackson look bad for his benefit. Or even reach out to the judge in the later civil case for help. Heck, look how the MLB owners sidled up to Landis for his help. Truth is, if Landis did knowingly handle things in the case brought by the Federal League in favor of MLB and its owners, he should have retired from the case due to his his inability to be impartial. And then accepting a job and money from MLB owners soon after only makes his potential collusion with them all the more plausible. And for all we know, Landis himself being a former federal judge could have intervened on behalf of Comiskey with the civil judge in the later case, and the claim and warrant for perjury were possibly done to deter Jackson and his attorney from even thinking about coming back after Comiskey ever again. So again, if they really intended to go after Jackson for perjury, why did it never go to trial if they went to the trouble of charging him and even issuing a warrant?

Despite the conflicting testimony of Jackson and him keeping the money, it appears that pretty much all of that damning evidence is due, at least in part, to Comiskey and his attorneys' involvement in the case and in all likelihood from telling Jackson what to do and say in the original trial. Just think about it, how coincidental is it that transcripts and grand jury testimony disappear from the original trial, which helps to get the Black Sox players acquitted, but then suddenly reappear and are produced by Comiskey's lawyers just in time in defense of his civil trial against Jackson?

So if Comiskey did tell Jackson to keep the money, and then tried to cover things up like it sounds, it seems Jackson was trying to do the right thing and do what his boss and employer said. And don't forget, back then with the reserve clause in baseball, Jackson was basically an indentured servant to Comiskey and he knew it. If he went against what Comiskey said he could be locked out of baseball forever anyway. In fact, in today's world what Comiskey did to Jackson could almost be considered criminal in some cases. So if Jackson doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, then Comiskey even more so, should be banned from baseball retroactively, and his name removed from the HOF immediately.

[Mark17]

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

Arnold Rothstein was shot to death 9 years later.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Arnold Rothstein was shot to death 9 years later.

Yes, but that was unrelated (he didn’t pay his debts in a poker game he thought was rigged) and a number of mobsters he mentored held high positions in organized crime into the middle of the century.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by egri

Yes, but that was unrelated (he didn’t pay his debts in a poker game he thought was rigged) and a number of mobsters he mentored held high positions in organized crime into the middle of the century.

And if that is true, isn't that an ironic coincidence. He creates a gambling scandal to cheat others betting on the world series, and then he gets shot for refusing to pay off a gambling debt to someone he thinks cheated him. Got what he deserved it sounds like!!!

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

Jackson said this both in 1920 and 1924. In 1920 the attorney did not follow up and ask what he meant by "...brought it in my room and threw it down" and 1924 Jackson and Williams both basically claimed that Williams paid Jackson part of his (Williams) payoff bc Williams used Jackson's name in the meeting with the Gamblers...meeting Jackson never attended. Basically putting up the idea that Williams used Jackson's name to help sell the fix to gamblers then felt bad about it later. Who knows if this is true, maybe, but Jackson still knew about it per Gandil running it by him.

Several of the problems with Jackson's 1920 testimony could be laid to the fact that the attorney didnt follow up with proper questions after Jackson's responses...which might have helped Jackson's case but again the players interest was not at all in consideration...and this is probably one of the chief differences in the 2 testimonies as in 1924 Jackson was representing himself and had proper council and chances to clarify.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Jackson said this both in 1920 and 1924. In 1920 the attorney did not follow up and ask what he meant by "...brought it in my room and threw it down" and 1924 Jackson and Williams both basically claimed that Williams paid Jackson part of his (Williams) payoff bc Williams used Jackson's name in the meeting with the Gamblers...meeting Jackson never attended. Basically putting up the idea that Williams used Jackson's name to help sell the fix to gamblers then felt bad about it later. Who knows if this is true, maybe, but Jackson still knew about it per Gandil running it by him.

Several of the problems with Jackson's 1920 testimony could be laid to the fact that the attorney didnt follow up with proper questions after Jackson's responses...which might have helped Jackson's case but again the players interest was not at all in consideration...and this is probably one of the chief differences in the 2 testimonies as in 1924 Jackson was representing himself and had proper council and chances to clarify.

So true. Think about what would have happened had Jackson gone to the AL President, Ban Johnson, with the money and the story about the scandal instead of going to Comiskey. Chances are Jackson would be in the HOF today, but probably nowhere near as well known and as popular (and expensive) as his cards are today.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

So true. Think about what would have happened had Jackson gone to the AL President, Ban Johnson, with the money and the story about the scandal instead of going to Comiskey. Chances are Jackson would be in the HOF today, but probably nowhere near as well known and as popular (and expensive) as his cards are today.

Very true.

And to the point about his baseball cards (and really all the Black Sox cards bc lets be honest if the scandal never happened that 1915 Zeenut McMullin aint no $5k card)...

My first baseball collecting book was Robert Obojski's "Baseball Memorabilia" printed in 1991 and he has a mini section titled "Joe Jackson Reinstatement Unlikely Despite Petitions, So Cards Suffer"...this did not age well

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

[ThomasL]

I would say the pro-Jackson narrative is he knew about the fix and turned down the offer to participate and was given money by his friend Lefty Williams for using his name with gamblers without Jackson's permission...

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by G1911

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

There is also this...if you read the AP that "quotes" Jackson from the day he gave testimony in 1920 there are a lot of damning quotes attributed to Jackson telling how he threw games, which he does not say at all in his testimony where he says he played to win...there are two possible reasons for this:

1. The AP simply made it up/guessed at what Jackson was telling the grand jury...other words...totally fake news

2. Jackson did issue comments to the press/AP and he did say this in order for the underworld to read and not try to hurt/kill him for crossing them.

I firmly believe #1 but I know big JJ supporters that think it is #2

[Oscar_Stanage]

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

Again how he placed the bets does not matter as the rule is you cant bet on baseball period...a rule he fully knew...rules are rules

Landis original rule in 1927 was betting on a game "you were involved in", I believe was the wording, was a life time ban...the Reds/Rose was directly involved in the games he bet on...the "he never bet against the Reds" argument is irrelevant and a moot point

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

Anything related to homers is a much more important record.

At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

And he never bet against the Reds

Exactly how and why does that make a difference when the rule makes no such distinction?

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

so his performance was never compromised.

What is your basis for determining this? Did you examine whether his decisions and performance in games he bet on impacted performance in other games? If not, how can you make such a definitive proclamation?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

Wid,

Rose's record is included in the HOF, so his name is ackowledged. It is just that he is not eligible to be a formal HOF inductee and have his own plaque, etc.

And the major league Rule 21 about gambling is, I believe, required to be prominently displayed in all major league team locker rooms, or somewhere the players will easily see it. So Rose knew the rule and knew he was breaking it. And if he was such a gambling addict, why didn't he just bet on other sports, or at least teams he wasn't playing/managing on, or playing/managing against? And whether you think the rule fair or not, it is the rule, and makes obvious, logical sense.

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

And you know he never bet against his team, How? Who would believe anything that Rose say's now.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

There is also this...if you read the AP that "quotes" Jackson from the day he gave testimony in 1920 there are a lot of damning quotes attributed to Jackson telling how he threw games, which he does not say at all in his testimony where he says he played to win...there are two possible reasons for this:

1. The AP simply made it up/guessed at what Jackson was telling the grand jury...other words...totally fake news

2. Jackson did issue comments to the press/AP and he did say this in order for the underworld to read and not try to hurt/kill him for crossing them.

I firmly believe #1 but I know big JJ supporters that think it is #2

I would also think 1 is likeliest, the media has a very long history of completely making crap up, while Jackson was an unintelligent man who had no history of being media savvy in the least.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

Think about it, he didn't really double cross the fix. In his testimony from the later 1924 civil trial he said he took the money and went to tell Comiskey right AFTER the 1919 World Series had ended. So he waited till things played out and the gamblers got the result they wanted. Had he gone to Comiskey at the very beginning, he had no idea what he would say or do. For all he knew, Comiskey would have blown the whistle and stopped the series and put Williams and his family at risk from retribution by the gamblers. It seems that by waiting he may have actually been doing it to protect others, which is something that his naysayers never seem to take into consideration. Even though it seems clear that he was never directly involved with any of the gamblers himself, never meeting any of them in person apparently, he was likely made aware of the physical threats to others and had to consider that in his reaction to what was happening around him and what he would say and do as a result. In fact, given the uncertainty of knowing how the gamblers would react if their scheme was thwarted and their fix exposed, it isn't a huge stretch for Jackson to have possibly been worried that coming forth with what he knew could have potentially put his own family at risk also. So think about that, here's a guy who didn't go out and ask for any of this, and he gets stuck right in the middle of everything surrounded by a lot of complete a--holes on all sides of the situation, and he still is the only one to come forward to try and tell someone he thinks will know what the right thing to do is, all why possibly worrying that by doing so he could potentially be putting others, and his own family, at risk of physical harm. His biggest mistake from where I'm sitting was telling this all to Comiskey. Being the team's owner and literally a partner of all the other MLB owners, you would think Comiskey's having such a huge vested interest in baseball would have made him the perfect person for Jackson to go to and tell about all this. Unbeknownst to Jackson though, it turns out that Comiskey is probably the biggest a--hole of them all in this whole affair. And before anyone says that Jackson should have gone to someone else then, don't forget how player contracts were in those days. Comiskey basically owned Jackson's baseball rights for life. He couldn't have gone and have played for anyone else in the majors without Comiskey's permission.

So then to top it all off, Jackson gets screwed by Landis and the rest of MLB, who just want to make an example of him and the other Black Sox players so they can increase their control over all the players in MLB, and make themselves look good to the fans in supposedly trying to protect the integrity of the game. The MLB owners didn't care about the game's integrity though, they only cared about their pocketbooks and making sure the fans didn't stop coming to the games because they thought they were fixed. If they had really cared about the game's integrity, they would have immediately thrown Comiskey out of baseball. Jackson has to be sacrificed then because if they had made an exception for him because of his story, the focus would have likely jumped over to Comiskey and his part in all this. And that is about the only logical sense you can make out of all this. The owner's, and Landis, stuck together and protected themselves. This also goes to show how collusive and equally corrupt Landis may have been all along, going back to his involvement with the Federal League case years earlier and his seeming failure to act impartially, as was his duty, on behalf of the American public as a whole, and then the follow-up appointment a couple years later as MLB's first Commissioner, at a very lucrative salary. Of course no one would ever think of that as being some type of payoff by the MLB owners!?!?!?

The one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense though is that this info about Comiskey and what was going on eventually did come out, especially one would think when the susequent civil trial between Jackson and Comiskey took place in 1924. Yet there didn't seem to be any big uproar or questioning about it in among the fans or the public at large. Certainly nothing like the exposure and coverage the original Black Sox scandal and trial received. I guess a lot of that has to do with the lack of technology and the virtually instantaneous media coverage we have today, and the fact that back then a civil suite isn't going to have anywhere near the interest a case about the World Series would. Plus, I wouldn't have put it past MLB and the owners to use their wealth and connections to suppress, or at least control, what actually got out in the media and try to limit what and how many people heard anything, so it would all blow over as quickly as possible. Which it apparently did. So this again makes me question who really is guilty and who really is innocent in all this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

Think about it, he didn't really double cross the fix. In his testimony from the later 1924 civil trial he said he took the money and went to tell Comiskey right AFTER the 1919 World Series had ended. So he waited till things played out and the gamblers got the result they wanted. Had he gone to Comiskey at the very beginning, he had no idea what he would say or do. For all he knew, Comiskey would have blown the whistle and stopped the series and put Williams and his family at risk from retribution by the gamblers. It seems that by waiting he may have actually been doing it to protect others, which is something that his naysayers never seem to take into consideration. Even though it seems clear that he was never directly involved with any of the gamblers himself, never meeting any of them in person apparently, he was likely made aware of the physical threats to others and had to consider that in his reaction to what was happening around him and what he would say and do as a result. In fact, given the uncertainty of knowing how the gamblers would react if their scheme was thwarted and their fix exposed, it isn't a huge stretch for Jackson to have possibly been worried that coming forth with what he knew could have potentially put his own family at risk also. So think about that, here's a guy who didn't go out and ask for any of this, and he gets stuck right in the middle of everything surrounded by a lot of complete a--holes on all sides of the situation, and he still is the only one to come forward to try and tell someone he thinks will know what the right thing to do is, all why possibly worrying that by doing so he could potentially be putting others, and his own family, at risk of physical harm. His biggest mistake from where I'm sitting was telling this all to Comiskey. Being the team's owner and literally a partner of all the other MLB owners, you would think Comiskey's having such a huge vested interest in baseball would have made him the perfect person for Jackson to go to and tell about all this. Unbeknownst to Jackson though, it turns out that Comiskey is probably the biggest a--hole of them all in this whole affair. And before anyone says that Jackson should have gone to someone else then, don't forget how player contracts were in those days. Comiskey basically owned Jackson's baseball rights for life. He couldn't have gone and have played for anyone else in the majors without Comiskey's permission.

So then to top it all off, Jackson gets screwed by Landis and the rest of MLB, who just want to make an example of him and the other Black Sox players so they can increase their control over all the players in MLB, and make themselves look good to the fans in supposedly trying to protect the integrity of the game. The MLB owners didn't care about the game's integrity though, they only cared about their pocketbooks and making sure the fans didn't stop coming to the games because they thought they were fixed. If they had really cared about the game's integrity, they would have immediately thrown Comiskey out of baseball. Jackson has to be sacrificed then because if they had made an exception for him because of his story, the focus would have likely jumped over to Comiskey and his part in all this. And that is about the only logical sense you can make out of all this. The owner's, and Landis, stuck together and protected themselves. This also goes to show how collusive and equally corrupt Landis may have been all along, going back to his involvement with the Federal League case years earlier and his seeming failure to act impartially, as was his duty, on behalf of the American public as a whole, and then the follow-up appointment a couple years later as MLB's first Commissioner, at a very lucrative salary. Of course no one would ever think of that as being some type of payoff by the MLB owners!?!?!?

The one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense though is that this info about Comiskey and what was going on eventually did come out, especially one would think when the susequent civil trial between Jackson and Comiskey took place in 1924. Yet there didn't seem to be any big uproar or questioning about it in among the fans or the public at large. Certainly nothing like the exposure and coverage the original Black Sox scandal and trial received. I guess a lot of that has to do with the lack of technology and the virtually instantaneous media coverage we have today, and the fact that back then a civil suite isn't going to have anywhere near the interest a case about the World Series would. Plus, I wouldn't have put it past MLB and the owners to use their wealth and connections to suppress, or at least control, what actually got out in the media and try to limit what and how many people heard anything, so it would all blow over as quickly as possible. Which it apparently did. So this again makes me question who really is guilty and who really is innocent in all this.

If 1) Jackson took money to throw games, which I understand he admitted to in court and 2) then played to win as his average suggests he may have and he and his supporters say he did, I would think that is double crossing the gamblers. Taking money from people to do a thing he did not then do. If he was scared of them, as was being alleged, this is quite a bold move.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

If 1) Jackson took money to throw games, which I understand he admitted to in court and 2) then played to win as his average suggests he may have and he and his supporters say he did, I would think that is double crossing the gamblers. Taking money from people to do a thing he did not then do. If he was scared of them, as was being alleged, this is quite a bold move.

Well, the problem is no one knows for certain what exactly happened or was actually said. From what I remember hearing about the testimony given in the 1924 civil trial, Lefty Williams supposedly gave Jackson the money and told him that he (or maybe one of the other Black Sox players) had used Jackson's name in talking to the gamblers and selling them on the deal, and that he supposedly felt bad for doing that and so he gave Jackson $5,000 out of the money that he was given by the gamblers. So if that is the true version of what happened, Jackson never actually took or was directly given money by the gamblers. In which case he wouldn't have been double crossing them as he never really agreed to the fix with them to begin with. Plus, he waited till after the the World Series had ended and the actions of the other Black Sox players involved had been enough to throw the series so the gamblers were able to cash in on their bets. To my thinking, he would have only been able to double-cross them had he somehow stopped the White Sox from losing the series, which he didn't because he waited till after it was over to go to Comiskey and tell him what had happened. And as was supposedly told in testimony during the 1924 civil case, and apparently confirmed by Comiskey himself, Jackson brought the $5,000 that Williams had given him to Comiskey's office two days after the World Series had ended and asked Comiskey what he should do with it after telling him about the fix. To me that doesn't sound like Jackson had actually intended to keep the money, especially when it was supposedly testified to that Jackson had originally tried to give the money back to Williams, who apparently refused to accept it. And then after telling Comiskey about the fix and asking him what to do with the money, Comiskey apparently told Jackson to keep it and say nothing about it to anybody. And if all these previously described events actually occurred, that is most likely the main thing that got Jackson in trouble, listening to Comiskey and following his advice to keep the money. Supposedly Jackson spent the money on a sister's medical bills, so it doesn't sound like he and his wife personally enriched themselves. But because he ended up keeping it, that seems to be what most people end up hanging their hat on as the main reason he's so guilty and deserving of his permanent banishment from baseball.

The story is that Lefty Williams and his wife were supposedly threatened by the gamblers. I hadn't heard that Jackson was directly threatened, but given what was said about Williams and his family, I guess it could be construed to have applied to Jackson and his family as well. I'd also never heard about any of the other Black Sox players being physically threatened by the gamblers either, but don't know all the info out there. For all we know, Williams could have been making up the threats against him and his wife as a way to possibly coerce Jackson to go along with the fix and take the money. And Jackson not wanting his teammate or his teammate's family to be harmed, may have held onto the money, but waited till the series was over before telling Comiskey about the fix then. That way the gamblers got what they wanted and weren't double crossed. If I remember correctly, it was a best of nine World Series, and Chicago ended up losing it in eight games, apparently without Jackson having to do anything intentional to throw a game. Would be interesting had it gone to nine games and there was a chance that Chicago could have ended up winning. One wonders if in that case Jackson might have then purposely done something to help throw that last game to lose the series, and thereby help to protect Williams and his family from any harm at the hands of the gamblers. We'll never know though.