Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooleyvol
This has been hashed out here multiple times and I'm not wanting to do it again, but there is the belief that Joe, not the sharpest tack in the box, did take the money initially not for sure what it was his task to do. Upon understanding what was expected of him, he attempted to give the money back on multiple instances.
I don't think taking the money is in doubt. Throwing the series, however, is in doubt.
I sort of feel as if Joe was taken advantage of due to the thought that he was dumb enough to go along with it, adding him into the scheme because he was talented enough to foil it with his performance. I feel as if they 'talked over his head' in getting him to take the money, but later, when someone explained it fully to him, he wanted no part of it.
|
Unfortunately, Joe Jackson knew 100% what the money was for from the beginning. His own testimony during the Black Sox trial and later during the 1924 Milwaukee trial, where he attempted to sue the White Sox over back pay, proves this.
Too much has been made of Joe Jackson's intelligence. He was illiterate and under-educated to be sure. But despite what has been historically written about him, the man was not a moron (Side note: if you've never read the transcripts from either trial, make it a priority to do so. Not only is it really interesting stuff, but if you always believed that Joe Jackson was an eyelash away from being a ******, you'll find this not to be the case at all.). He was naive enough to believe that if the other guys on the team were going to throw the series anyway, then he might as well keep the money.
Joe Jackson has always claimed that he had no part in the fixing of the games on the field. And no one has come up with any really good proof to show that he did. There's been some things (the 3 triples hit to LF during the series, his poor performance with RISP), but there are "clean" Sox who performed worse. We'll never know the 100% truth.
Does Joe Jackson belong in the Hall of Fame? I don't know and, frankly, I don't care. At this point, they'd be honoring a man who's been dead for roughly half a century. He has become a polarizing figure to people who are 90 years removed from the events in question. And the further we are removed from the events, the more vociferous the proponents and opponents become.