Now did he tell Comiskey about the fix? We can say that he probably did. How can we assume that? Well, I tried this scenario with a number of people and I got a 100 % response to it. I posed the question:

"Suppose you were Charles Comiskey, your best player comes into your office requesting to be benched during the World Series, what would be the first thing you would say?"

The answer was always the same, "Why?"

So we can safely assume that Comiskey would put the question to Joe, and undoubtedly Jackson would have told him why. We know for a certainty that Comiskey knew about a possible fix, because he went to Ban Johnson as well as the president of the National League John A. Heydler during the World Series about his concerns. How did Comiskey find out? Quite possibly from that meeting with Joe Jackson confirmed the rumours that he heard about a possible fix. So it is very likely that Jackson did report the fix to his club.

We cannot say that he positively did, but it appears that he likely did. Remember, according to the law, a man has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be convicted, so we know that Commissioner Landis' edict that: "...no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it..." would ever play baseball again ... does not apply to Jackson.

No one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson did not report his suspicions to Comiskey, in fact, it would seem that he did report it. Reporter Hugh Fullerton testified that Jackson did go see Charles Comiskey before the series with his concerns.

Further on this point is that Joe Jackson never met with the gamblers or the other seven players to discuss the fix. In fact gambler Bill Burns and William Maharg both testified that Jackson did not attend any of their meetings with the players, this was further re-inforced by Lefty Williams who testified that he claimed to represent Jackson before the gamblers the only people to place Jackson at any of the meetings were Pitcher Ed Ciccote and Jackson himself, but this happened only after they met with Comiskey's lawyer, Alfred Austrian before they made their initial testimony before the grand jury. We will shortly see why their testimony should be looked upon with suspicion.

In 1924 in Jackson's civil suit against Charles Comiskey, Ray Cannon, who was Jackson's attorney, while cross examining [pitcher Lefty] Williams, made Williams admit that he had used his [Jackson's] name to the gamblers without Jackson's permission or knowledge!

Interestingly, the Black Sox as it is already known, were acquitted in their conspiracy trial. However it is interesting to note the jury's answer in the civil trial that Jackson launched against Charles Comiskey. The jury was to answer the questions posed by the court, it reads as follows: "Did the plaintiff Jackson unlawfully conspire with Gandil, Williams, and other members of the White Sox, or any of them, to lose or 'throw' any of the baseball games of the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati baseball club?"

The jury's answer? "No!"

The other question was: "At the time Williams gave Jackson the $5000 did he tell Jackson that there had been an agreement between certain of the ballplayers on the White Sox team to lose or 'throw' the games of the World Series, and that the $5000 was his [Jackson's] share of the money received by the players for their part in the agreement?"

The jury's answer? "No !"

Although the judge threw out this verdict, since he felt that Jackson had perjured himself because of the conflict between his testimony in front of the grand jury in Chicago in 1921 and his testimony in his civil suit in Milwaukee. This is unusual when you consider that the jury had, in effect, came to the conclusion that Jackson had indeed lied to the grand jury in Chicago at the advice of Charles Comiskey's lawyer, Alfred Austrian.

We have to bear in mind the conduct of both Comiskey and his lawyer, Alfred Austrian in this affair. If Austrian tried to pull the stunt that he pulled in the wake of the Black Sox scandal, he would be forever barred from practicing law. To begin with, Ed Ciccote testified first in front of the grand jury, he was the one that initially implicated Jackson. Where did Ed Ciccote get the idea from that Joe was in on the fix? From Chick Gandil, who twice approached Jackson and was twice rebuffed.

Why did Gandil say that Joe was in? It was because the gamblers wanted Jackson's name in it since he was arguably the most dangerous player on either squad. We know that Ciccote got his information second hand because Jackson was not at any of the meetings, he took the word of Gandil and Lefty Williams that Jackson was in on the fix.

With Jackson implicated, Austrian who was trying to protect his client, Charles Comiskey needed Jackson to implicate himself. Why? It was because Jackson had information that would greatly damage Comiskey. He had heard of the rumours of the fix, he heard that his name was being used, so he went to Comiskey and requested to be benched so there would be no question of his non-involvement! So Jackson's testimony would reveal that Comiskey had knowledge of the fix before the World Series and had done nothing! Under Landis' edict, Comiskey would've been banned for life from baseball for this.

Another damaging bit of evidence that Jackson had was that he tried to see Comiskey after the World Series to return the money he had received from Williams and to further enlighten Comiskey as to the fix. Comiskey never denied that Jackson was at his office after the World Series. So why had Comiskey refused to see him? He was going to try to cover up the matter and hoped that the whole thing would blow over. Comiskey gave his intentions away when he tried to re-sign the eight men for the 1920 season. If Jackson told this to the grand jury, Comiskey would have been finished.

It was Austrian that convinced Jackson to lie to the grand jury. He told Joe that Ciccote had already implicated him, and there was no way he could explain the $5000 he had received from Williams. So he advised Jackson that it was in his best interests to say that he had been part of the fix, and was sorry, and to hope for the best, another point was that the gamblers had been assured that Joe was involved, if Jackson said that he was not, and had played honest ball, the gamblers would have felt that Jackson had double-crossed them and had kept the money thus endangering himself and his wife Katie.

We have to look at the context of the times to fully understand why Jackson would think that "it was in his own best interests" to say he was in on the fix. During this period of time gambling was very prevalent in the game and many of the game's greats were involved. The prevailing practice of the clubs during this period was to help cover over these indiscretions ... Why?

For two reasons i) If all gambling cases were fully prosecuted, the general (read: paying) public would realize the extent of gambling in the game. The fans would have no assurances that games were being played "on the up and up" which would obviously hurt at the gate (would you pay to see a game where the result had been predetermined? ... Fans of the WWF kindly ignore that question). ii) If all players involved with gambling were dismissed from the game, the loss of marquee players would dampen fan interest further with a corresponding decline in gate receipts.

So ... here were Joe's choices. He could either go along and say he was involved and hope Comiskey could help him out (as many owners had done in the past), or he could say he was not involved and place himself at the "tender mercies" of Chicago's Gangland who would've felt that Jackson had "double-crossed" them since they were told that Jackson was indeed in on the fix (can you say "cement overshoes?")

What choice would you make?

At no time did Austrian inform Jackson that he was not his lawyer, or advise him to get his own legal counsel. He used his position to protect the interests of his one and only client, Charles Comiskey. An example of Austrian's ethics were to advise Jackson to sign a waiver of immunity before going in to see the grand jury without explaining what he was signing. This was inexcusable, for it was common knowledge that Jackson was illiterate.

As to the $5000 in Jackson's possession, both he and Lefty Williams testified that Joe had refused it, that Comiskey refused to see him so Joe could return it, so what was he to do with it?

What would we do if we had in our possession $5000 that nobody was willing to claim?

Now be honest.

Jackson did the same thing and bear in mind that the jury of Jackson's civil trial in 1924 were of the opinion that the money was not Jackson's share for joining the conspiracy, simply because he was not part of it.

Finally Charles Comiskey testified that he had never seen Jackson give anything but his best while on the playing field, Comiskey said this while on the stand when Jackson was suing him for back pay! Why would he do this when it damaged his chances of winning? Simply because it was the truth. It would've stretched the jury's level of incredulity to say that a player who had batted .375, fielded 1.000, hit a home run and had directly contributed half of the teams total offense (the White Sox scored twenty runs, Jackson drove in six and scored five ... one of which was on his own home run, hence ten runs produced) wasn't giving his best.

Interestingly Charles Comiskey II took out a sworn affidavit that stated the Comiskey family had always felt that Jackson was completely innocent in any part of the Black Sox scandal. To quote the affidavit, David Carlson an Illinois attorney put the question to Comiskey II: "I asked Charles A. Comiskey II whether or not Joe Jackson had either conspired to throw or had attempted to throw any or all of the games of the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds."

"Charles Comiskey II responded to both questions in the negative."

So am I saying that Jackson was an innocent man ?

"Yes!"

It's time for Joseph Jefferson Jackson to take his rightful place in the Hall-of-Fame.