Edman (Ned) Spangler: Anyone Still Think He Was Guilty?

[L Verge]

(11-19-2018 08:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 08:42 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 01:05 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Given all that we now know, does anyone still think that Ned Spangler was guilty as charged by the military commission?

I'm not sure we know anymore than what was presented at the trial.

Yes, we now know a whole lot more than was presented at the "trial." For example, it was later revealed that the chief witness against him was threatened by Lafayette Baker with prison if he didn't say what Baker wanted him to say. Bogar talks about this in his book.

(11-19-2018 08:42 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  We've heard a lot of opinions by historians about perjury (regarding Spangler's case) but unless there is testimony contradicting the testimony given at trial they remain just opinions.

I agree with Laurie, the military commission weighed the evidence and gave him the most lenient sentence. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time but given the outrage at the time, 'guilty' was the appropriate verdict.

By any traditional American standard of justice, Spangler's sentence was neither appropriate nor lenient. It was a gross injustice and an outrage. At a bare minimum, there was ample reasonable doubt that Spangler did anything wrong, much less that he knowingly aided an assassin.

Do military commissions adhere to the "reasonable doubt" principle the same as civilian juries?