Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

reznick's youtube videos are great though.

 

Legal technicalities DO MATTER. Before a person is sent to jail, they should be convicted by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and be afforded a fair trial by an impartial jury. All too often in this country innocent men have been convicted by jurors who just go according to what they think happened rather than what the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt can emanate from lack of evidence as much as it can arise from the evidence itself. Constitutional rights matter.

Before I as a juror would want to convict Johnson, I would want to see the alleged telegram he sent. You don't just take Johnson's word? Well I don't just take the word of a prostitute regarding some telegram she claims Johnson sent two years in the past, especially when she destroyed the alleged telegram but kept every single bill of every single hotel she had stayed at and Johnson had paid for over the years. She kept all of that, but not the alleged telegram? She might have been telling the truth, but it wasn't proven by producing the telegram, the best evidence of what the telegram actually said.

No evidence was produced at his trial that he ran prostitutes, made money from them, or was involved in brothels in any way, except for the testimony of Belle Schreiber, something she claimed for the first time on the witness stand. Again, even the Court of Appeals ruled that there was insufficient evidence on the counts alleging that Johnson's purpose was to support her travel for the purpose of prostitution, calling the evidence of such charges "slight and dubious." It reversed his conviction on these counts.

I don't think Johnson ran prostitutes or brothels or made money in any way with them. I think he liked to have intercourse with prostitutes and make them his girlfriends.

The reason why it should be difficult to successfully prosecute someone for something they allegedly did two years ago is lack of proof as a result of lost time. The reason they chose to prosecute him not in 1910 or 1911 is that it wasn't until 1912 that Duryea committed suicide and then Johnson dated white Lucille Cameron over her mother's objections. It was only then that the government took an interest in what Johnson might have done back in 1910. The prosecuting attorney openly admitted that the reason Johnson was prosecuted was racial. And by then, the telegram, if one existed, was destroyed.

Then you have all-white all male grand juries indicting Johnson (including on counts for which there was little or no evidence), and an all-white all-male jury convicting him. The reason why no blacks were on juries or even in the jury pools back then has to do with systemic racism that left out blacks from being qualified to vote or be jurors. The reason no women were on juries is because systematic ***ism did not allow women to vote, and hence they could not be jurors. All of those laws have since been found to be unconstitutional.

You have the judge mentioning his race to the jury, and mentioning his race in the sentencing. The judge allows into evidence irrelevant and inflammatory material. You have the prosecution in its opening statement alleging debauchery and crimes against nature, but then producing zero proof of either, all of which even the court of appeals criticized as improper, saying that the inflammatory, extraneous, and irrelevant evidence and questions "show the atmosphere of prejudice that pervades the record." Yet, despite an "atmosphere of prejudice," Johnson wasn't given a retrial by a fair jury that was not tainted by the improper evidence. I personally feel that he was entitled to a retrial.

Much of the evidence against him, which was credible, was that in the year 1909, before the Mann Act was passed or went into effect, Johnson traveled the country with prostitutes he had met in brothels. He had gotten them out of the brothels, and traveled the country with them, paying all of their travel and hotel expenses. They lived very well. He usually called them his wife, and presented them as such. It was this evidence that led the court of appeals to uphold his conviction on the immorality counts. They believed that since Johnson had *** with Schreiber in the past, and had paid her way in the past, that any time he gave her money thereafter, his intent was to get her to travel so he could have *** with her.

However, the facts surrounding October 1910, after the Mann Act was passed, were different. The implication is that at some point in late 1909, Johnson and Schreiber had a falling out, most likely owing to the fact that she got pregnant, and most likely terminated the pregnancy over his objections. He wanted her to have the baby. So he didn't see her for many months. She was no longer his traveling companion. Plus, he got more and more serious with Etta Duryea.

Many months later, Schreiber reaches out to him after she had been kicked out of her Pittsburg brothel, something she admitted and was verified by the owners of the brothel, who testified at trial. It wasn't as if Johnson reached out to her; quite the contrary, even she admitted that she reached out to him, seeking money. This also was verified by the Pittsburg hotel proprietor who said she was looking for him, made calls trying to find him, and then subsequently returned and cashed the money gram. Schreiber testified she was in need, and felt he owed it to her to help her out. So she reached out. "I thought it was due for him to see me through my trouble."

There is also a question in my mind whether she actually cabled with Johnson as opposed to one of his workers. When she attempted to speak with Johnson via phone, she didn't speak with him, but rather his chauffeur, who told her that he would talk to Johnson and wire her the next day. I have a real question in my mind whether Johnson is the one who cabled her, and if so, what that cable said, if anything.

Interestingly enough, that same hotel proprietor testified that after she got the money, she did not say she was going to Chicago, but rather her sister was, and that she was going elsewhere. It seems that she subsequently changed her mind and decided to go to Chicago and reach out further to a man whom she knew/hoped/believed she could seduce into taking care of her, which he then did. To me, without the telegram, that amounts to reasonable doubt. At the very least, I think he was entitled to a new and fair trial.

But I don't force opinions down people's throats. I lay out the facts in my book and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions. If anyone wants to read about the facts in greater detail, purchase In the Ring With Jack Johnson - Part II: the Reign.

 

When someone smarter than you makes a better argument, you have to mention a degree? Wise people can consider the argument from a child, if it makes sense. Fools hide behind credentials to maintain their ego when challenged with logic. I'm sure that's all you have in your life, is a degree and a book. Which obviously aren't of any service to you, considering you believe Johnson should have spent years behind bars.


By the way, I checked out your audio interview about your ****ty book. And you really seem depressed. Instead of getting me interested in the book, I ended up feeling sorry for you. You couldn't even answer the questions with any sort of wisdom, simplicity, or excitement. It was like you were talking about your dead dog. Just droning on with the most horrendous monotone voice I ever heard of all times. The undertone of the entire interview was "Don't buy my book, because I don't believe in it."

I know people like you. Miserable. Sad. Lonely, and pathetic. And instead of remedying your life, you take the easy route and try to bring others to your level.

You're a sad man Klompton.

Oh! And I almost forgot. You started this all by making fun of me for being a Dempsey fan. The first words out of your mouth in that interview were "Well I was a huge Dempsey fan." :nut

It's ok buddy. You can always change your outlook on life, and be a happier person. :good You don't have to keep trying to tarnish the reputations of legendary boxers.

 

Also, did I beg you for footage? It's possible, I can't remember the wording of my message. I'm willing to lay down my ego to get footage that I can compile in a creative way to show to true boxing fans.

When you are more passionate about a subject, then you are your own ego, you have no problem asking others for help

 

I think Adam himself said he will has not tried many cases.

Just in case you misunderstand the law, most criminal defense people defend criminals or law breakers who have done wrong and try to get them off due to a bad process or procedure. They bend laws the best they can for their clients. Most criminal attorneys will tell you they know their clients are guilty too. Adam to an extent is shielding Johnson and does not always provide a balanced scale arguments, often blaming others for Johnson's troubles

He's really not answering Klomtpon's points either.

Jack Johnson is a guilty man of many bad things, McVey. I think I know why he's your hero, and I'll stop there.

 

Just in case you misunderstand the law, prosecutors bend laws to convict innocent people. It happens all the time, but only people with experience in the justice system know this. This is especially true of Federal Prosecutors, with unchecked power, and overzealous motives.

Also, that description says that Adam was a former prosecutor himself, soooo...

Adam is debunking Klomptons accusations with class and wisdom.

If Jack Johnsons behavior insults you in any way, that's too bad. But he was innocent.

 

Was he innocent? BS. No, he was not. He beat his wife to an inch of

The way the law is set up is a person is innocent until proven guilty. Proving it can be hard in court, but much of Johnson's actions are clear cut cases.

We have a trained fighter, beating up on women and the sick. Disgusting. And they say Mayweather was a bad man today. He's nothing next to Johnson.

 

Originally Posted by reznick View Post
No, because I never quoted the Mann Act. I quoted the US senate resolution.

Why is this hard to grasp.

He won't. Some of Johnson's fans are fans love him for political reasons that have nothing to do with boxing. They will never give up seeing their hero tarnished, even if its most certainly deserved.

 

If I were drinking soda right not it might be coming out of my nose.

You're an old man punk, afraid to swap emails to arrange things, afraid to pick a ring though I asked several times, and one who disappeared for three months when things heated up. Those are the facts.

Then you come back a tick before midnight and say the airport, which is the one place I want no trouble in. You never picked a ring I was clear about it because that's where legalized battery is allowed. When pressed you said you have a surgery as to why you were gone but never said on what. A lame attempt to excuse your absence. Another fact.

I don't know who Klompton is, but I do know your old, a coward and a liar, so I'd pick him to win in less time that it took you to read this reply.

 

This is all irrelevant though.

A charge either stands on its own merits, or it doesn’t stand.

The only questions that we should even be asking here are:

1. Did Johnson commit the crime that he was convicted of?
2. Was his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the truth of the matter?
3. Was due process followed fairly and without prejudice?

If the answer to any of the above is no, then we need to take another look at the case.

Even if the answer to all of the above was yes, we could argue that the law itself was cruel and unjust.

 

A thoroughly well-argued post.

Your grasp of both the historical material, and the legal arguments, is very impressive.

 

Political reasons?


I admire Johnson as a boxing genius, and as a black man who maneuvered his way to the heavyweight championship of the world. An impossible feat.

Prison is a severe form of punishment, and no innocent person deserves to go through it, regardless of who you are. That's a far cry from saying he deserves some kind of Nobel Peace Prize.