Below is my bit on the defense of Pete Rose that John J Perricone posted at the beginning of the week as part of his series on Rose. I just wanted to post it here to ensure that I keep it in my archive. If you've already read it, it's OK-you can skip it for now.
The Rose Defense
[Semi-opaque outline of obese man, left profile. The enshrouded image of a man perfectly fitting that profile enters stage right. The outline is removed and the stage lights are turned up to reveal Alfred Hitchcock. He is dressed in a cricket widget-keeper's uniform and equipment. He speaks.]
Hitchcock: Good Eave-ah-ning. You may be wondering why I am so attired on this evening. No, the source is not a dyspeptic one-hopefully-as it's tonight's narrative that is the impetus. We prepare to present to you the story of Steve Austin, a man barely alive...No wait, that was last week's story. Try the next cue card if you would. No, that's next week's story about a man named Jed.
Obviously, ladies and gentlemen, my attire was to educe to the viewer a tale related to your American game of base. The cricketeer's equipage were the best that we could produce. Anyway, the story was to be the strange case of one Peter Edward Rose, Sr., a man who was exiled, as it were, from the baseball community that he was so integral a part of for so many years.
The network in its inimitable way has proceeded to thwart any such attempt. What is the reason? Well, almost any word that you hear, read, or see on the telly was produced by some entity, who somehow has ownership of or a business agreement with Major League Baseball. I've been prattling on about the foibles of my sponsors for years when I should have been worried about the bed partners of the representatives at my network. Ahhh!
[Arrow is shot from off-camera right. It pierces Hitchcock's chest and he crumples to the ground immediately. John Cleese enters stage right dressed as a Medieval knight. With a slightly surprised and somewhat put out expression. Grabs note attached to arrow.]
Cleese: Ah, good evening. We at Mike's Baseball Rants would like to thank our gracious host, John Perricone, here at Only Baseball Matters who has allowed us to insert, oh well, a few thousand words on the matter of Pete Rose in our own...oh, what's the word? Uh.
Hitchcock [on floor]: Idiom, sir?
Cleese: Yes, idiom. O, poor sweet Hitchcock, your death will not go unavenged.
Hitchcock [now sitting up with arrow still in chest]: I think I'm alright sir.
Cleese [annoyed at the interruption]: Oh well. I shall now sally forth to present hereafter the particulars in the case of said Mister Charles Hustle. Tonight we will present for your approval the Defense of Pete Rose.
[Now running towards camera with camera keeping pace backwards.] We start with the assumption that this is something that would be adjudged in a court of law. Next we proceed to the skipping of the prosecution. That we assume was presented by the contents of the Dowd report sans objection by the defense. The defense's case is presented from opening statement through calling witnesses to closing arguments in one swell foop, er, fell swoop. Finally, we people the defense with an inordinate number of fictional defense lawyers for our own amusement and cheap laughs.
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts:
Into a thousand parts divide one man,
And make imaginary puissance;
Think, when we talk of baseball players, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i' th' receiving earth;
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there, jumping o'er times,
Turning th' accomplishment of many years
Into an hour-glass; for the which supply,
Admit me Mike's Baseball Rants to this history;
Who prologue-like, your humble patience pray
Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play.
[Still running, unrolls note and holds up to camera. Camera stops and note fills screen as sound of a crash is heard. Followed by a trumpet flare.]
[Note reads the following words. Read by voice over]:
Quincy-Starring Jack Klugman, A Quinn Martin Production
[Dissolves. And new words appear.]
Tonight's Episode: Strike Three, You're Dead
[Dissolves. And new words appear.]
Phase One: In which Doris gets her oats.
[Dissolves. And new words appear.]
Peter Edward Rose, Sr.
Jimmy Stewart from "Anatomy of a Murder"
Perry Masonary from the episode of the Flintstones involving the custody battle over Bam-Bam
Mr. Slick from "The Jetsons" episode involving the custody battle over the family dog, Astro/Tralfas.
Tom Cruise and Demi Moore from "A Few Good Men"
Daniel Webster from "The Devil And" fame
Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochrane
Al Pacino in "And Justice for All..."
Joe Morgan (why not?)
Gregory Peck in "To Kill a Mockingbird"
Joe Pesci in "My Cousin Vinny"
Lionel Hutz from "The Simpsons"
Lara Flynn Boyle as A.D.A. Helen Gamble in "The Practice" and Stacy in "Wayne's World"
Prosecuting Attorney-John Dowd (who I have never seen so I will insert John Dowd, a guy with whom I went to high school, whose lisp was often confused for an English accent.)
Judge-Ray Walston, as a combination of Mr. Hand from "Fast Times", Judge Henry Bone from "Picket Fences", and the devil in "Damn Yankees!"
Various witnesses, investigators, juries, bailiffs, and courtroom personnel.
[Note disappears. Slow dissolve to the corridors of a judicial-looking building. Quincy is pacing nervously. Barnaby Jones and his sidekick Betty appear.]
Quincy [hunched over, grabbing them, and gesticulating wildly]: Oh how great it is that you could be here. Sam and I did the forensics for the handwriting piece. What are you doing here?
Barnaby: Well doggies! We did this here polygraph analysis and some of what you might call developing theoretical frameworks for the motives and actions of the various individuals involved based on our investigations. Nothing atypical. Well now, we'd better take a seat. It looks like they're plumb fixing to start.
Ray Walston [Banging gavel]: Order! Order! Mr. Stewart, are you ready to present your defense?
Jimmy Stewart: Hold on there, judge. I might be a small-town lawyer without the wherewithal as our well-informed friend over there on the prosecution. But by cracky, I have an opening statement to present.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury you've heard the case for the prosecution and it seems pretty damning. I am half-convinced myself to have a seat and just allow you fine citizens to adjourn to find my client guilty.
Lionel Hutz [Interrupting]: But Jimmy we won't get paid.
Stewart: Damn it, Hutz. That was for dramatic effect and now you've gone and ruined it. I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider! [Looking up] Clarence! [Hutz disappears in a cloud of smoke and is quickly forgotten.]
Ladies and gentlemen, we, the defense, are prepared to concede that our client, Mr. Rose, is a recidivist gambler, a tax evader, a felon, a trafficker with lowlifes and gamblers, a man who lied to Mr. Dowd's investigative team, and an extremely poor judge of character. We concede all of it. Take it all. It doesn't matter. He's been found guilty of his crimes and has served his time.
What is the accusation that Major League Baseball has against our client? That he gambled? No. That he even gambled on baseball? Even though there is gossip to the reverse, no. In baseball's own rules, Rule 21 section d, it says and I quote:
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.
Mr. Rose has already been ineligible for well over 12 years.
The accusation is that Mr. Rose gambled on his own team to wit, the remainder of Rule 21 section d:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
That is the means that they have to keep Mr. Rose out of baseball. Did my client bet on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds, while he was their manager?
We are prepared to say emphatically, "No." Mr. Rose has continually denied this accusation at every opportunity for the past 13 years, you see. He accepted an agreement based on Rule 21, that goes on to state in section f-and here it is, don't miss it:
OTHER MISCONDUCT. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the particular case may warrant.
My client signed an agreement because he knew that his past would fit this "Other Misconduct". But he and his lawyer Rueven Katz, -that's the man's name-made sure that their agreement stated emphatically:
c. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.
The chain of evidence that the prosecution has provided is so poorly constructed that we will show that they are nothing more than fabrications and that they not only knew this but agreed to it in writing.
They rely on the testimony of men who have grudges against Rose and would do anything to ruin him or men who have provided false evidence to cop a plea. The physical evidence is inconclusive and was supplied by one of the men I just mentioned. This man, Paul Janszen, used Rose's name to place bets, some of which were on baseball, with bookies who would otherwise not have given a small player such as him the time of day. He lived with Rose and did his bidding, and when Rose had a falling out with him over his drug involvement, this man did everything in his power to ruin Mr. Rose.
That is what the defense is prepared to show. You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that. Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!
[Tumult in the courtroom. Walston bangs gavel.]
Walston: Order! Order!
Al Pacino: Order?!? You're out of order! The whole courtroom is out of order!
[Pacino is dragged from the courtroom by two armed guards.]
Walston: Defense, you may now call your witnesses.
Stewart [To Cruise]: Tom, you handle the witnesses. You're great at that.
Tom Cruise [doffs Red Sox cap]: We call Ron Peters. I need my bat. I think better with my bat.
Demi Moore [with bat, whispering and looking at Rose]: Why do you hate him so much?
Cruise: He inserted himself in the lineup to break Ty Cobb's hits record even though he had no business still being on a baseball field, that's all he did. The rest is just smoke filled coffeehouse crap.
Moore: Oh. [Gets up on defense team's table and starts to strip. Is removed.]
Cruise: Mr. Peters, in your previous testimony you stated that you placed bets on baseball games, including Reds' games, for Mr. Rose either directly or through Mr. Gioiosa or Mr. Janszen. Is that correct?
Cruise: You also testified that you recorded the entries in a betting log. Is that correct?
Cruise: How were entries made in this log?
Peters: Well, I got a call and wrote down the bettor, the amount, and the game involved.
Cruise: Just you?
Cruise: Didn't you say in your testimony that your girlfriend, Dave Morgan, wrote in the log as well.
Joe Morgan: That's my long-last cousin Dave. We named her after Dave Concepcion who we are going fast-track into the Hall of Fame this year on my recommendation.
Cruise: Sit down, Joe. [Gestures with bat.]
Peters: Well, yeah, Dave took a few calls.
Cruise: Didn't you state in your deposition that others who worked at your restaurant and who answered the phone had access to the log?
Peters: Sure, I...
Cruise: How many people was that. This is in 1987 of course.
Peters: I don't know ten, twelve but they only wrote down what the person on the phone said.
Cruise: So they all knew Rose by hearing his voice?
Peters: Nah, probably not. They just wrote down what the person said.
Cruise: So Rose would identify himself?
Peters: Nah, he used "Pete" or "PR" or something.
Cruise: But if he said "Pete Rose" they would write it down.
Peters: You bet.
Cruise: So if someone else said they were Pete Rose or that they were calling for him, they would just write down his name, right?
Peters: Nah, I think they'd know. Anyway...
Cruise: Never mind. You had this log and the phone area in general under very tight security, I assume?
Peteres: Whadja mean?
Cruise: Well, could anyone have walked in off the street just written in the book.
Peters: Nah, somebody'd see 'em. Besides nobody'd know what it was.
Cruise: Wouldn't someone who has placed bets with you, say Paul Janszen, have known where the book was?
Dowd: I Objwect. Speculation.
Cruise: I withdraw the question. Mr. Peters, you stated that you typically would destroy your record, but in Rose's case you didn't. Why?
Peters: Well, he still owed me from a way back, so I thought this was good insurance.
Cruise: So you don't have a lot of other entries for other people. Isn't it true that you have only one entry in the record book that could be interpreted as pointing to Mr. Rose, a line reading, "Pete -41800". This the prosecution took to mean that Mr. Rose, owed you 41800 dollars. Couldn't it mean another Pete?
Peters: Nah, I knew it was Rose. I didn't need a last name wid him.
Cruise: So you're basically saying it's your word against Rose's?
Peters: Yeah, wait... No. It's written down!
Cruise: You state that Rose won $27,000 in the first week of May 1987 betting on baseball. Correct?
Cruise: Are you aware that Mr. Janszen, who acted as an intermediary, reported that he collected $25,000, 23 for Rose and 2 for himself?
Peters: So, I don't know where he gets his numbers.
Cruise: You got your numbers from your log, right?
Cruise: So where are they now if you were saving all of the Rose information?
Cruise: Never mind. Mr. Peters, is it true that you attorney offered your story to Sports Illustrated on March 13, 1989, in the middle of this investigation?
Peters: An opportunity presented itself. You make it seem so... dirty.
Cruise: I'll take that as a yes. You indicate that Rose owed you $34,000 in 1986 and you wouldn't take any bets from him until it was paid. When Rose showed you a canceled check in the amount of $34,000 cashed by Tom Gioiosa, you allowed him to re-open his "account" with you, correct?
Peters: Yeah. So?
Cruise: Well, you indicate several times in your deposition that you still considered that debt unpaid.
Peters: I can't spend a canceled check.
Cruise: So you continued to hold a grudge over the amount?
Peters: I wouldn't say a grudge. I just wanted my money.
Cruise: During the investigation, did you ever feel like the prosecution wanted you to say certain things about Rose even though you knew they weren't true?
Peters: What kinda things?
Joe Pesci: Enough a dis. Ask him if he ever bet on any Utes!
Walston: Ute? What's a Ute?
Pesci: It's a Utah college basketball player. [Walston points finger at Pesci and just strikes him dead on the spot. He slumps over and smoke billows from Walston's finger. He blows the smoke away.]
Cruise: Well, did you ever feel that they wanted you to say Rose bet on baseball and on the Reds?
Peters [Nervously looking down and up at the prosecutions table]: No, no, no.
Cruise: Well, you were being investigated by the FBI. I quote:
Late in 1988 Janszen began to cooperate with the government in its continuing drug and tax investigation As part of this cooperation, Janszen agreed to wear a hidden microphone in a meeting with Ron Peters. This transaction lead to Peters' being charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Needless to say, since that time, Peters has not considered Janszen a friend.
Cruise: So, you were helping the investigators so that they would put in a good word at the FBI, right? John Dowd is quoted in your deposition as saying, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but in exchange for you full and truthful cooperation with the commissioner, the commissioner has agreed to bring to the attention of the U.S. District Judge in Cincinnati the fact that you were of assistance to us and that we believe that you have been honest and complete in the your cooperation. Is that the understanding?" You answered, "Yes it is."
Peters: You see it was based on me tellin' the truth.
Cruise: When you relayed a story about Gioiosa and Rose visiting your restaurant to collect their winnings, didn't the following interchange occur at the deposition: Dowd: "Wouldn't that be winnings on baseball?" You: "Well..." Dowd prompting you: "Summertime?" You: "I believe it was, yes. It most likely was." Why did you change your answer?
Peters: Well, you see, I thought about the question a little more.
Cruise: So you weren't being badgered by the prosecution?
Dowd: Your honor!
Cruise: I withdraw. Your witness.
Dowd: No furwther qwestions, you honorw.
Walston: You may step down. [Casually points finger at Peters. A bolt of lightning reduces him to ash and smoke.
David St. Hubbins [standing up in court]: Dozens of people spontaneously combust each year. It's just not really widely reported.
Nigel Tufnel [next to him]: That's true
Walston [banging gavel]: Order! [St. Hubbins and Tufnet are seated.] Call your next witness [to the defense team].
Perry Mason: Our next witness is a surprise. Someone who when he showed up today never suspected that we would be calling on him as a witness. I have handed the subpoena to the bailiff and he will be delivered to the witness stand in seconds.
Perry Masonary: Mason, you're nuts. The next witness is Michael Bertolini. He's on the witness list. He's standing here waited to be called. Everything has to be so dramatic with you. Can't you just have a normal trial? Besides, none of your characters have names that end in "rock" or "stone" or sound the least bit Bedrock-like.
Mason: Masonary, you are nothing but a two bit hack stealing my act.
Masonary: Oh yeah. [Grabs Mason in a choke hold and they wrestle on the floor in front of the defense table with their hands on each other's necks. They both stop moving at the same time and shuffle off the mortal coil. The scene continues with the characters stepping over their bodies throughout.]
Stewart: All right now, we call Michael Bertolini to the stand. [Pause] Mr. Bertolini, you were a friend of Mr. Rose's and an acquaintance of sorts of Paul Janszen's, correct?
Mike Bertolini: Well...
Stewart: You see, Mr, Bertolini, as you know Janszen recorded a conversation between you two April 4, 1988. In that conversation Janszen says, "He still owes me about 12 grand." You respond, "So, he paid you about 38?" Janszen, "Huh?" Why did you ask if he had $38,000 left unpaid? Did you think that Janszen was at one time owed $50,000 by Mr. Rose?
Bertolini: That was what I thought, yeah so?
Stewart: Well, you see, what led you to believe that?
Bertolini: Janszen told me that, maybe six months before.
Stewart: Now, you are certain of that?
Bertolini: Yes, I am.
Stewart: Nothing further. [Bertolini leaves with a confused expression.]
Daniel Webster [To Stewart]: I shall take a hand in the next witness bearer. [To court] We call one, Steve Crevashire.
Walston: Webster, is that you?
Webster: Why yes 'tis, your honor [bowing].
Walston: Your honor? Take that! [Points a finger at Webster like a gun. Fires. Webster is reduced to a pile of ashes. To camera:] That's the last time Webster outsmarts me in a courtroom!
Wayne Campbell [standing with Garth Algar next to him]: Ya-hah? Time out. Only Garth and I can speak directly to the camera. [Garth shakes head happily]
Lara Flynn Boyle: Wayne? Hi, it's me.
Wayne: Ah, we broke up over 2 months ago. You're mental. Move on. [Leaves courtroom]
Boyle [grabs gunrack from under table and chases after him]: Wayne, I have an anniversary present for you.
Garth [all eyes now shift to him, still standing. Shrugs. Says meekly]: Game on. [sits down quietly].
Bailiff: Steve Crevahore to the stand.
Stewart: Mr. Crevashore, you-now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong-you placed bets for Paul Janszen in 1987 with a bookmaker in New York identified only as "Val"-that's quite a mysterious name, now isn't it, Val? Now, Mr. Crevashore, on December 27, 1988, Mr. Janszen taped a conversation between the two of you, I have a few...questions about that conversation.
Steve Crevashore: Go ahead and ask.
Stewart: Well, let's not get too anxious, Mr. Crevashore. Now, in this conversation, Paul Janszen and you discuss an incident in which Janszen's girlfriend, Danita Marcum, accidentally told you to place a bet for $3000 (3 dimes in your colorful vernacular) instead of $300 (3 nickels). Right?
Crevashore: That's what the man said.
Stewart: Well, throughout these proceedings Mr. Rose's acquaintances and Mr. Rose himself have said that Mr. Rose placed bets consistently for $2000 (or 2 dimes in your quaint language).
Stewart: So didn't you think that $3000 or even $300 was out of character for my client? Could someone else have placed the bet?
Crevashore: Look Rose said that he was placing bets for him, so it was none of my business, but to tell you the truth, I assumed the bet was Paulie's, uh, Mr. Janszen's.
Stewart: But he told you it was Rose's?
Crevashore: People do that. They use a bigger player's name to place bets that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get action on.
Walston: Sustained. Strike that last statement.
Stewart: Later in the conversation, didn't you ask Janszen: "He [Mr. Rose] didn't say that you were betting under a false pretense, under ghost bets." Were you asking if that was true or making a statement?
Crevashore: Well, I was feeling him out, where he stood. He never answered.
Stewart: But you doubted?
Stewart: Nothing further.
Marcia Clark: Your honor, we call Dr. Quincy.
Walston: Dr. What Quicy? Does he have a first name?
Johnny Cochrane: Here's the deal, your honor. It's one name-Quincy, that's it.
Walston: OK, I'll allow it, but he better not be so evasive on the stand.
Clark: Dr. Quincy, I'd like to ask you-
Dr. Quincy: It's Eugene. I admit it. I can't lie anymore. The name's Eugene.
Clark: Dr. Quincy, I don't care about your first name-Eugene?!? Anyway, Dr. Quincy, you reviewed the handwriting samples and what did you find?
Quincy: Sam and I took a gander and you know, can I have a drink? Hey, you're kinda cute. What are you doing after the trial? Have you ever seen a morgue?
Clark: Dr. Quincy?!?
Quincy: Anyway, the first thing we noticed was that Mr. Rose was asked to copy the betting slips. That's not usual.
Clark: Oh, No?
Quincy: No, since the results will too closely match the original. That's bad. Besides the slips we reviewed were a copy of the originals. The writing was in block letters, making a match easy. The style changes. There is no way to know what the intention of the note is out of context. Is it a betting slip, a record of actual bets, theoretical bets, results of games from a sports line, etc. Who knows? Besides on April 9, 1987, the date of the first slip, three entries are marked as "B" apparently for baseball. Of the three games: Atl-Philly game was also an NBA game. There was no LA-Hou or Cin-Mon game. They did play April 8, and that game was in Cincy not Montreal as the slip said. We thought that was suspicious since Rose would know the site of the game. In my opinion, there is no evidence that the original was made by the hand of Pete Rose nor that if it was Rose, that it reflected major-league games let alone Reds games.
Cochrane: If the note isn't great, you must exculpate.
Stewart: All right. That's all, Dr. Quincy.
Mr. Slick: We call...hmm...ah... Paul Janszen?
Stewart: That was a terrible read.
Slick: But it's my only line [falls into seat sobbing].
Stewart: Now then, Mr. Janszen, you claim that during the 1987 baseball season, Rose utilized you to place his bets. Is that correct?
Paul Janszen: Yeah.
Stewart: Would you say that prior to the investigation your relationship with Rose was good?
Stewart: But didn't the Roses throw your girlfriend, Danita Marcum, out of their house? And didn't Mr. Rose severe all ties to you after he found out about your cocaine use?
Janszen: Look there's a lot of water under that bridge. I have no hard feelings though.
Stewart: You claim to have taken a loan out to pay off Mr. Rose's debts with Val and yet he failed to pay you back? How did that make you feel?
Janszen: I wasn't happy if that's what you mean, but it was only business.
Stewart: But wasn't your life threatened by someone who made calls to your mother over the phone?
Janszen: I didn't take those seriously.
Stewart: You have a recording of Steve Chevashore saying that you were owed $50,000 from Rose.
Janszen: He was confused. It wasn't that much.
Stewart: Right, you claimed Rose owed you $44,000 in July 1987.
Janszen: That sounds about right.
Stewart: And Rose wanted you to go to Peters to collect his $40,000 in winnings with him. Right?
Janszen: Yeah, I couldn't believe it. I mean, it just wasn't good business.
Stewart: Peters only paid you $6000, the difference between Rose's winnings and the original debt to Peters that was still in question?
Janszen: Yeah, that's it.
Stewart: So you went to Rose's attorney, Reuven Katz to ask for some money without telling the FBI, who you were by then working with. You told Katz about the gambling you had done for Rose, including betting on the Reds and you volunteered that you would "protect" Rose with the federal authorities. At this point Katz, by your account, merely put his head down, made a gesture with his hands and said, "That's it; it's over." You asked for $20,000 but Katz gave you a $10,000 check marked "For loan" and that was all. Is this true?
Janszen: I was just trying to get my money back.
Stewart: But could you see how someone might think this was blackmail-saying I have this information but I'll protect you for a certain amount of cash?
Stewart: Apparently you didn't stick by your word and protect Rose anyway, did you?
Walston: Mr. Stewart, tread lightly here.
Stewart: Yes, your honor. So you claim to be owed $44,000. You get $6,000 from Peters, and $10,000 from Katz. So you are now owed, if my grade school math doesn't fail me, $28,000. Am I correct?
Janszen: Sure, you seem like a smart guy to me. I'll take your word for it.
Stewart: But on March 2, 1989, your lawyer, Mr. Shivedecker, wrote a letter to Robert Pitcain, one of Rose's lawyers, stating you were owed $33,850. Where did the extra $5,850 come from?
Janszen: Uh, I don't know I'd have to look at the numbers.
Stewart: And yet in an April 4, 1988, conversation you had with Mr. Bertolini, you claim that Rose owes you as little as $10,000-"Anywhere from $10-$12,000" you are recorded as saying.
Janszen: Look I said I have to look at the numbers.
Stewart: It seems that your numbers can be changed to fit whatever situation you want them to.
Dowd: Your honor.
Walston: Mr. Stewart, I suggest you move on here.
Stewart: Yes, your honor. When you bet by for yourself, did you let the various bookies and middlemen know it was for you?
Janszen: Yeah, sure.
Stewart: On December 27, 1988, didn't you and Steve Chevashore have this conversation?:
CHEVASHORE: Because you know what they said, if you were the culprit and wrong, he [meaning Rose] is supposed to take care of it because we did everything under his merit.
CHEVASHORE: If you were doing something wrong, which you're telling me you didn't..
CHEVASHORE: ...he's still supposed to take care of this because, you know, we did everything under him. We figure, well we'll never get in trouble anything that's called up by you, he's got to stand by.
CHEVASHORE: Do you understand?
CHEVASHORE: Am I right?
JANSZEN: That's absolutely right.
Chevashore basically tells you that he suspects that you were to blame but Rose still has to take care of the problem because he designated you to be his go-between.
Janszen: Look I was just trying to calm him down. I don't know what he meant.
Stewart: How about when Steve Crevashore told you that Rose said, "Stevie I stopped betting when we were in New York on the last trip. He said I'm not betting any-I haven't bet in over 10 days. I said so who was betting this. So we thought it was you making..." You interrupt, "No, no." Him, "...betting everything under him." You still claim that all the bets were by Rose?
Janszen: Well, the big ones at least and ones on baseball.
Stewart: On May 13, 1987, "Val" told you that Rose could no longer bet with him because of his outstanding debt. Rose still insisted that you call to place a bet. "Val" refused. Here is what happened next according to the prosecution: "Rose became furious, and told Janszen that he would have been "up" had Val taken the action..." When Chevashore soon called asking for payment, Rose said, "Rose told Chevashore that Janszen was betting for himself in Rose's name and to seek payment from Janszen. Rose then turned to Janszen and told him not to worry, Chevashore was afraid of him. Thereafter, Janszen's mother received a threat on Janszen's life." Rose knew that you were betting in his name but said he would protect you. But he didn't, did he, Mr. Janszen? That made you angry.
Janszen: Look, I told you it was all business! I don't get angry-it's bad for business.
Stewart: Let's take a look at the first week of the season. Ron Peters says that Rose won $27,000 but you state that you only received $25,000. $2000 was yours and $23,000 was yours. Why the discrepancy?
Janszen: Look, I can only tell what I know. I know that I got $25,000 from Peters.
Stewart: But wasn't this recorded in your betting log for Rose? Let's discuss that log, Mr. Janszen. Let's see... Did you only record Rose's bets here or did you include your own?
Janszen: Uh, that was just for Pete's stuff since he had so many more than me.
Stewart: So since you were so diligent, where did you record your bets? Or did you only concern yourself with Rose's bets, given that you borrowed money to help him repay the bookies when he lost?
Janszen: I had a place, in the back of the book.
Stewart: So you could tell because it was in the back of the book. Did you ever make a mistake-make an entry in the wrong place? What about having the bets grouped by sport? Did you ever get one under the wrong heading?
Janszen: Nope, it was a great system.
Stewart: How about you girlfriend? She made entries too, the prosecution concedes this. Did she ever make a mistake?
Janszen: Nope, she's great like that.
Stewart: Clearly people of such high standards were meant for each other. Let's talk about the calls to the sports telephone line and to the bookies. My distinguished colleague on the prosecution uses these calls as proof of gambling and especially of gambling during baseball season. And yet there are many examples of days on which calls were made and yet according to your records no sports bets were placed. On April 23, 1987. On May 7, 1987, hmm...you called the infamous sports line 8 times. May 13, 16 times. May 14, four times. On May 26, 10. On May 28, 21 times. June 22, four times. But my favorite is May 30: 9 calls to Ron Peters, one to Mike Bertolini, 25 calls to the sports line, and I'm not sure how many between you and Rose. And yet according to you no bets were placed any of those days. It seems like calls were a separate entity from the betting.
Janszen: Well, most days weren't like that.
Stewart: Uh-huh, Mr. Janszen, you gave the court copies of "betting" slips that you received from Mr. Rose's home, correct?
Stewart: Where are the originals?
Janszen: You gotta ask the FBI about 'em.
Stewart: So no one here has seen the originals, right?
Janszen: They're just the same.
Stewart: Didn't your girlfriend, Danita Marcum, claim that the slips were legal-sized? Our copies are nothing near that size.
Janszen: She said legal size? She don't know about legal size. She don't know her ass from her elbow. Them's the same size as what I gave the FBI.
Stewart: I have one more question and then I'll let you go. Didn't you fail a polygraph for how you acquired the betting slips...
Dowd: Youw, Honow?
Walston [banging gavel]: Mr. Stewart!
Stewart: You failed when you claimed you saw Rose write his bets down in the notebook you claim was the source of the betting sheets. You failed when you claimed Rose placed major-league baseball bets in 1987 through you.
Walston: Mr. Stewart, one more word and I'll hold you in contempt! [to jury] You are to disregard that. Polygraph tests are inaccurate and inadmissible.
Mr. Stewart: That's all I have for this...[eyeing Janszen] "witness".
Gregory Peck: Your honor, we call Peter Edward Rose. [Shocked amazement permeates the room.]
[Pete Rose appears in #14 Reds uniform, runs to stand, slides headfirst to seated position, and begins rocking his batting helmet back and forth on his head.]
Peck: Pete, did you ever bet on baseball?
Rose: I did not, sir.
Peck: Did you ever bet on the Cincinnati Reds baseball team?
Rose: I did not, sir.
Peck: The defense rests your honor.
[Scene inside the courtroom a few hours later. The jury returns to present its verdict]
Walston: Have you reached a verdict?
Juror #1: We have your honor. In the case of Major League Baseball v. Peter Edward Rose, we find the defendant-
Walston: Wait a moment...[Zaps Rose with his finger. All that remains is a pile of dust. Two antennae appear behind Walston's head. A spaceship crashes through the ceiling piloted by Kang and Kodos from "The Simpsons".]
Walston [as he boards aircraft]: Foolish earthlings, while you were worrying about such trivialities we have invaded your planet and are set to take control.
[Kang and Kodos fighting over controls send the spaceship reeling directly for the camera as all scream. As the camera pulls back the earth is a smoldering waste. But high in the sky is an embryonic superbeing being tended by a motherly humming monolith. The super-embryo is chewing a wad of chaw, has a Moe Howard haircut, and is wearing a #14 jersey. Dissolve.]