An interesting trip to Surrattsville

[John Fazio]

(08-29-2016 05:20 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I agree, John.

One was of the few things that has even made me wonder about Spangler's possible knowledge of Booth's plan was in Tom Bogar's Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination.

It's from p. 141 of Tom's book. John Selecman, who was an assistant of James Maddox, approached James Ferguson on Monday, April 17th, and quietly told Ferguson that he was in the alley Friday night when JWB rode up. He overheard Booth call for Spangler, and Booth told Spangler, "Now, Ned, you will give me all the assistance you can." Spangler responded, "Yes, I will, you can depend on that."

If Selecman were telling the truth did this mean Spangler was agreeing to either holding Booth's horse himself or making sure someone else would hold it? Or could this be interpreted as Spangler indicating to Booth that he (Booth) could depend on "backstage help" after the shot was fired?

Roger:

This issue is discussed in detail on pages 314-316 of Decapitating. The heart of the matter, in my opinion, is this: When Booth finally asked Spangler to hold his horse for 10 or 15 minutes, Spangler said he didn't have time, but would get Peanuts to do it, after which Booth went into the theater. In view of this fact, two things are probative of Spangler's innocence, namely:

1. Spangler's telling Booth that he could not oblige him with respect to holding his horse would have been an unthinkable rebuff if Spangler were really in league with Booth that night; and
2. If Spangler were part of the conspiracy, why would it be necessary for Booth to ask him for his help with anything; his help and his role in the event would have been matters foregone, all pre-arranged and needing no special request for help.

The request for help is the kind of thing one asks of a friend, not of a co-conspirator. There is an arms-length element to it, a presumption that the requested help will be forthcoming because of the closeness of the two, but co-conspirators do not deal in presumptions between friends; they deal in well-laid plans, assigned roles and knowing nods. We may safely regard Spangler's response, therefore, if such there was, as an impulsive reaction of an inferior to a superior, whom he had become accustomed to serving, without his having even an inkling of Booth's ultimate purpose.

John