Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

Not sure if folks realize this, but Johnson's convictions on the prostitution counts were reversed by the appellate court. The only counts for which his conviction were upheld were the charges that when he gave Schreiber $75, that his intent was for her to use the funds to travel to Chicago, and that his intent at the time of doing so was so that he could have *** with her. Johnson denied that his purpose was for her to travel, or to to travel to to Chicago so that he could have *** with her. He had not seen her for many months, and she contacted him, told him that she was in financial straits, and needed some money. He said he wired her the money to help her out. The telegram she claimed he sent, asking her to come to Chicago, was never produced by the prosecution.

Keep in mind that he was prosecuted in late 1912 for acts they alleged took place in late 1910, two years prior. After the government improperly charged Johnson with abducting Lucille Cameron, a charge everyone knew was false, a false and baseless charge for which Johnson had to spend time in jail, charges which ultimately were dismissed, the government began an investigation to see whether it could nab him on a Mann Act violation.

The real reason was that after Etta Duryea committed suicide, everyone was upset at Johnson for taking another white lover - Lucille Cameron. So first they arrested him for abduction even though the government was well aware of the fact that she was in love with him and was a consenting adult, and when the misuse of the legal system did not break them up, the government investigated him for Mann Act violations, and the best they could come up with was that two years prior, he had telegrammed $75 to a prostitute who used to be his girlfriend. The prosecuting attorney admitted the motive was racial and had to do with miscegenation.

Even the appellate court agreed that the government had improperly charged Johnson with counts for which it knew it had no evidence, and improperly attempted to inflame the jury's passions with irrelevant information, questions, and innuendo. Usually, when that happens, a Defendant is entitled to a retrial, but the court did not order a retrial.

When sentencing Johnson, the judge specifically took his race into account, also improper.

 

Nonsense. Again, to believe half of what you wrote you also have to believe everything johnson testified to. I dont and neither did those sitting in judgement. It is absolutely ridiculous to sit here and pretend that johnson sent schreiber, a prostitute who was called "trash" by even johnsons friends money to travel to him out of the pure kindness of his heart. Maybe fanboys can leave logic and reason at the door but i dont. Furthermore cases get overturned all the time on technical ground for which the subject is still guilty hurricane carter im looking at you). Finally, the prosecutors personal opinion about miscegination are frankly neither here nor there. We have a system of checks and balances in place whereby even if you believe the prosecutor took that case ONLY because Johnson was black (which is far different from what he said) that still leaves the judge (who expressly instructed the jury to leave race out of the equation and judge johnson as they would anyone else under the circumstances) as well as the appellate court which only overturned PART of the conviction. We can turn the argument around and ask adam:

Do you believe johnson ran prostitutes?
Do you believe johnson profitted professionally from prostitution?
Do you believe johnson had *** with prostitutes or just women in general?
Do you believe johnson transported any women either for *** or financial gain?
Do you believe he paid for their transportation?
Do you believe he had *** with any woman across state lines that either travelled with him or for whose travel he paid.

For most of those questions, unlesd you are just totally ignoring reality and want us to believe johnson was a misunderstood angel the answer was yes. Period. Its very simple and under most of those circumstances johnson was guilty by the letter of the law in that day. As great a fighter as johnson was i will never understand the need by some to attempt to whitewash his obvious character flaws. The man wasnt a hero, he wasnt a "good guy," he wasnt a symbol of oppression or civil rights, he wasnt persecuted. What he was was an arrogant, egotistical, often antisocial, woman beating, prostitute running, ******* who thought about himself first and foremost and who brought 95% of his problems on himself. If he wasnt a famous boxer nobody would by crying one tear over his trials and tribulations.

 

One can say yes to all these questions and still find someone not guilty. What you believe to be the case, is not the same as being able to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. (OJ Simpson anyone?) And being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. He wasn't on trial for his character flaws, he was on trial for supposedly violating criminal statutes. It appears from what I can tell that rather than attempting to render impartial justice, there was a vendetta against him and the courts were used to carry out that vendetta, this should always be a concern to all citizen's, not just the one's entrapped by this.

And just to clarify what a pardon means I googled and found this.

"A president or governor may grant a full (unconditional) pardon or a conditional pardon. The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual's civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person's innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime. This means that a recipient of a pardon may regain the right to vote and to hold various positions of public trust."

So it does seem to me that a pardon would remedy the situation, but to some extent I do agree that there were certainly more affected by the Mann Act than just Johnson, and it's extremely unlikely that he was on the only one in which the courts were essentially used to carry out a vendetta against certain individuals.

 

You are correct that Johnson's testimony wavered on the issue of whether he sent her a telegram and if so, what it said. He said that one of his workers sent her the money, and if there was a telegram, it wasn't written by him. He said he sent her $75, but didn't tell her to go anywhere. BUT, he also said he could not say with absolute certainty that he did not send her a telegram or what it did or did not say.

HOWEVER, this being a criminal trial, Johnson was under no legal obligation to prove his innocence. It was the government's duty at all stages to prove his guilt. The best way to do that was to produce the telegram, which it never did. One of the problems with prosecuting a man for allegations of acts that took place two years prior. However, lack of evidence should inure to the Defendant's benefit, not detriment. Interestingly enough, Schreiber kept all of the hotel bills Johnson had paid for her over the years, YET, claimed she had destroyed Johnson's telegrams. She did not have the alleged telegram.

On the stand, Johnson testified:

“She asked me if I would send her $75, that she was sick and needed it, and I told her I would.” He said that a couple days later, he sent her money via telegram, but not a written message.
Only a money order. Q. Only an order for money? A. That is all. Q. Did you in the month of October or September…send a telegram to Belle Schreiber in Pittsburgh instructing her to go to Chicago at Graham’s and wait for you there? A. I don’t think I did. The Court: What is the answer? A. I don’t think I did. Q. Well, do you know? A. I am not positive. Q. Have you any doubt about it? A. Well, I might have sent her one. Q. You might have what? A. I might have sent her one telling her that, but I don’t remember doing so, and my reasons for that are that other fellows attended to all my business. … Q. What do you mean by that, you personally did not send one but somebody else might have? A. Yes, sir, that is it. Q. I am asking you, did you send one yourself? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you give any one authority to send it? A. I did not. Q. Did you instruct any person to send a telegram of that kind? A. I did not. The Court: Do you know of any one at that time sending a telegram to that effect? A. I do not, sir. … Q. When was the first time you ever heard of such a telegram being sent, if there was one sent? A. When I was sitting in the chair. Q. And when Belle Schreiber said it on the witness stand? A. Yes, sir.

"At the time I sent that $75 I did not intend that Belle Schreiber should go from Pittsburgh to Chicago in order that I might have ***ual intercourse with her. At the time I sent that $75 I had no intention at all as to where Belle Schreiber should go from Pittsburgh, or if she should leave Pittsburgh at all. She didn’t say where she was going; she said she was sick. I had no intention on the subject. I did not directly or indirectly, -- by word of mouth or otherwise, give her any direction at the time I sent that money, or shortly before that time, to the effect that she should go to Chicago."

On cross examination, he did not recall exactly when or where he was when he sent the money or spoke with Belle. He again said he did not recall whether or not he sent her a telegram telling her to go to Graham’s. He could not say he did not, nor could he say that he did. “I don’t remember.”

On re-direct, Bachrach again asked him whether he had sent a telegram to Schreiber telling her to come to Chicago and stay at Graham’s. “I never sent such a telegram in my life. Not in my life. Never in my life. I never sent it. I never have known it was sent.”

There also was testimony from Frank Sutton, a Pittsburgh hotel proprietor. In September or October 1910, Belle Schreiber came to his hotel seeking information regarding where Johnson was. “I says I don’t know where he is at, he is somewhere with his show, and I says if you telephone to Barrett Wilkins on 35th Street, New York City, probably he can let you know just where the show is at.” Schreiber got the telephone number. She called but they did not know where he was. She came back the next day and telephoned again. “I heard her say something about money and she said she was in trouble and she needed a favor of him.”
A few days later, she came back and had a check in the name of Jack Allen. She couldn’t get it cashed under that name, so Sutton cashed it for her. It was $70 or $75. A colored lady by the name of Allen was with her, as well as Belle’s sister and her sister’s husband.
They had dinner, and after Belle finished eating, “she bid me good-bye, and she said her sister and her husband were going to Chicago and she was going to Washington City.”


In answer to your questions:

Q: Do you believe johnson ran prostitutes?

There is no evidence of that. The appellate court so ruled.

Do you believe johnson profitted professionally from prostitution?

There is no evidence of that. The appellate court so ruled.

Do you believe johnson had *** with prostitutes or just women in general?

Johnson definitely had *** with prostitutes and nonprostitutes. Both Schreiber and Hattie McClay (aka Hattie Watson) were prostitutes. There are some hints that Cameron might have been a sporting woman as well, though that was not proven. Etta Duryea was not a prostitute.

Do you believe johnson transported any women either for *** or financial gain?

Yes, I think he transported women for the purpose of having intercourse with them, for he traveled the country with them, and they essentially were his girlfriends, but he did not do so for financial gain.

The issue of his criminal trial is whether, in October 1910, the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the exclusion of all reasonable other possibilities that he gave Schreiber money for the purpose to travel from Pittsburgh to Chicago, and at the time he gave her the money, his specific purpose was to induce her travel for the specific purpose of having ***ual relations with her, as charged. Folks can read the facts and testimony in greater detail in my book and draw their own conclusions about what he did and why he did it.

Do you believe he paid for their transportation?

Yes, Johnson often paid for the transportation of the women he was dating. But for purposes of the Mann Act, such is only relevant after July 1910, when the act went into effect. The only charges for which he faced trial were the allegations regarding October 1910. And as of October 1910, he was not dating Schreiber. He had not seen her for many months. But she was in dire financial straits, having been kicked out of the brothel in which she was staying, and wired to Johnson asking for financial help. Clearly he gave her that help.

Do you believe he had *** with any woman across state lines that either travelled with him or for whose travel he paid.

Yes. But again, as stated before, it is about when he did so, with whom, and what the proof was. He only faced trial regarding one instance - October 1910.

 

I'm not misquoting the Mann Act. I'm quoting the resolution passed by the US senate.

 

Klompton is a miserable idiot who knows nothing about the justice system. Klompton will have you think that a man is guilty until proven innocent.

He's clearly unaware of the severe misconduct that federal prosecutors commit on a daily basis in 2016. And how they twist facts and evidence to support their overzealous ambitions. Yet, he'll have you think that Johnson deserved incarceration, despite an dangerously outdated 1910 federal justice system. He'll also ignore the fact that the US ATTORNEY ADMITTED THAT JOHNSON WAS UNFAIRLY PROFILED. That's a massive red flag, and should be automatic grounds for a mistrial in itself.

Klompton is either a sinister piece of ****, who likes to see innocent people jailed.

Or he's a dumb piece of ****, that can't interpret any of the research he's wasted his life on.

Either way, he's 100% a piece of **** for steadfastly holding onto vicious, and torturous values in the face of facts that prove otherwise.

 

Well, obviously a pardon doesn't bring him back from the grave so that we can have a parade for him.

It's a symbolic gesture.

 

Thank you for this post Adam.

This was a witch hunt disguised as a legitimate trial.

 

And I quote and BOLD...

"SEC. 3. That any person who shall knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce, or cause to be persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced, or aid or assist in persuading, inducing, enticing or coercing any woman or girl to go from one place to another in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia, for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose on the part of such person that such woman or girl shall engage in the practice of prostitution or debauchery, or any other immoral practice, whether with or without her consent."

 

It is misguided.
A presidential pardon implies guilt.

Bur**** v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:
A pardoned man must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
To do this, the pardoned man must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

A pardon carries an "imputation of guilt", and accepting a pardon is "an admission of guilt".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bur****_v._United_States

 

Translation: "You may not persuade a girl to do something immoral, even if she consents."

It's an oxymoron. A terribly written law. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written this loosely with Johnson in mind.

The US senate resolution is basically saying "They were consenting adults, and therefor, the charges were BS"

All law is man made. It's imperfect, open-ended, and evolves all the time. People like Klompton who will argue that Johnson deserved to suffer in prison since a barbaric law could be swayed to indict an innocent man are pathetic.

 

Uh... OK. So we both agree you were misquoting The Man Act of 1910.

 

Not according to what I read, which is as follows:


"A president or governor may grant a full (unconditional) pardon or a conditional pardon. The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual's civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person's innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime. This means that a recipient of a pardon may regain the right to vote and to hold various positions of public trust."

(My bold)