I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[Kawika]

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Brett: Just because you don't like Mark's conclusion doesn't mean you need to play the smarty-pants elitist card. That's just being obnoxious. He hasn't said you're wrong, he hasn't said you're right, he has said, in essence, close but no cigar, yet anyway. Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours. Believe me, if a smoking gun turns up and Mark confirms what you are opining you will be glad to have his endorsement. He has earned my respect; he deserves yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

[Kawika]

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards third to be tagged out by Lord?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kawika

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards third to be tagged out by Lord?

Is it Jackson moving his slow thighs?

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Brett: Just because you don't like Mark's conclusion doesn't mean you need to play the smarty-pants elitist card. That's just being obnoxious. He hasn't said you're wrong, he hasn't said you're right, he has said, in essence, close but no cigar, yet anyway. Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours. Believe me, if a smoking gun turns up and Mark confirms what you are opining you will be glad to have his endorsement. He has earned my respect; he deserves yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they don't know, when they should be proving that's it's not.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

David - don't even try to figure out what he is saying.

[bmarlowe1]

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

SOMEONE slid. You can't prove it ISN'T Jax. So I say convict him.

[Kawika]

At least ban him from baseball.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.

[tbob]

Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by tbob

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.......Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

I wasn't using Paul's point at all as the basis for what I said - and I don't think his stated percentage is the criterion for reasonable doubt. I did think his comment was pointed in the right direction. The point I made stands on it's own. If you're on the jury in a criminal case, how do you vote?

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Based on all the insurmountable evidence that's come out in the past couple days, HELL YES!

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1
Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Originally Posted by brett

Based on all the insurmountable evidence that's come out in the past couple days, HELL YES!

The question was put in terms of the card only for a reason. Based on the card plus the Tim/Paul photo newpaper photo analysis, JJ may be in trouble at least in civil court.

As to the newpaper photo, let me try to provide a possible explanation for the socks and shadows (if this has already been done, sorry but I didn't see it). This needs to be justified and it isn't artist overpaint:

From the card and the very small shadow on the back of Lord's right foot we can see that the sun is high above and somewhat to our right. The sock on his back leg is partly shadowed by his own body. In the newpaper photo, he has moved that left foot forward - more under his body - hence it is more shadowed.

As to the slider's high leg - the one we see with the wrap on the card - we do see the wrap a little bit in the newpaper photo - just to our left of Lord's right leg - a thin strip of white - then it goes black perhaps due to the shadow of Lord's body as he slides under him. The extreme black and white is what we get because this is a half-tone image.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

EXACTLY!!! In many cases the untrained eye is more acurate than a so-called expert's because they over-analyze things instead of just seeing what's right beneath their nose!

[Kawika]

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

So you agree that it's the same base? Does anyone know how many base-runners were thrown out stealing on that base during that game?

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

Riiiiiight... and there's no doubt in my mind that the sun might come up this morning.

[Kawika]

Brett: Give it a rest. Save the end zone dance for when you have a positive ID and not a laundry list of conjecture. Either way the Sun will surely rise in Honolulu in the morning; it might be beautiful and it might not be. And Lord might be tagging Jackson and he might not be.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

Brett: Give it a rest. Save the end zone dance for when you have a positive ID and not a laundry list of conjecture.

The dance started 2 days ago. It's him.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by brett

EXACTLY!!! In many cases the untrained eye is more acurate than a so-called expert's because they over-analyze things instead of just seeing what's right beneath their nose!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Kawika

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

My army of sarcastic follower(s) is taking shape. Jeepers!

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by calvindog

My army of sarcastic follower(s) is taking shape. Jeepers!

Don't forget clueless, O Almighty One.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Kawika:
We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think what Bob is asking is whether the jury is watching a civil or criminal trial. If it were me, I'd vote on a civil case that it is Jackson; on a criminal case I'd vote no, that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met.

Never fear David, I see nothing wrong with Lichtman's comment (if you include Tim's analysis of the fielder in the newspaper photo).