+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Edman (Ned) Spangler: Anyone Still Think He Was Guilty? (/thread-3892.html)
RE: Edman (Ned) Spangler: Anyone Still Think He Was Guilty? - John Fazio - 12-16-2018 12:32 PM
(12-16-2018 08:24 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:(11-23-2018 11:40 AM)L Verge Wrote: I do not think that Spangler was guilty of a larger role like the other conspirators, but I do think there was hearsay, innuendo (which you are good at), and guilt by association enough for the commission to have to take some stand as to his guilt or innocence -- and I think what they ruled was acceptable under the circumstances.
Holy cow. This gives new meaning to the term "weasel wording." So let me see if I have this straight, lest I again be accused of "twisting" your statements: You do not think that Spangler was guilty "of a larger role" in the conspiracy, and you think that the military commission's verdict was "acceptable under the circumstances"!
When you say that he was not guilty "of a large role," you are logically implying that you think he was guilty of a smaller role.
It is hard to fathom how anyone raised in America, how anyone with even a basic understanding of the American rules of evidence and justice, could view the commission's verdict as "acceptable" under any circumstances. The verdict was baseless and disgraceful.
In another thread, I was taken to task for saying that there are people in this forum who still believe that Spangler was guilty. Yet, at least two people in this thread have replied by quoting big chunks of the traditional--discredited--talking points against Spangler. One person said that he doesn't believe Spangler was guilty . . . but that he might be wrong and that Spangler might have been guilty. And then we have your statement that you don't believe he was guilty of "a larger role" and that the commission's guilty verdict was "acceptable."
In my opinion, this isn't even a close call. I think it's obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that the commission's case against Spangler was not only pitiful but shameful.
Dear Mike:
"Pitiful" and "Shameful" are too strong. I agree that Spangler was innocent---almost CERTAINLY innocent---, but it has to be said that "the trial was an enormous undertaking at an enormously difficult time under enormously difficult circumstances. It was carried out by conscientious and well-meaning men, competent, but nevertheless frail, like all of us. In the end, and despite their frailty, they acquitted themselves quite well, because, except in Spangler's case, justice was served"... because, "with the exception of Spangler, all who were convicted were guilty." No one regrets more than I do that the innocent Spangler spent almost four years in hell and had his life shortened. But, it has to be said, in defense of the Commissioners, that "getting something right seven out of eight times isn't bad". Their decision re Spangler, therefore, wasn't "pitiful" and "shameful"; it was simply a good faith error.
John