Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

mikegriffith1 · (This post was last modified: 11-23-2018 08:18 AM by mikegriffith1.)

(11-18-2018 02:58 PM)RJNorton 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?

No, I don't. In his book, John Fazio writes of Spangler:

"The testimony of the witnesses against him was, in every case, in some degree defective (mendacious, meaningless or misinterpreted)."

IMO, Edman Spangler was innocent.

Roger, that's interesting, because your website's page on Spangler gives the impression that he was guilty. Your page quotes Ritterspaugh's testimony but says nothing about the doubts and questions about that testimony:

https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln24.html

If Spangler's case had been handled in a legal, constitutional manner, it is doubtful he would have even been indicted.

Yet, quite a few "scholarly" books, and also many websites, that accept and defend the military commission's version of events present Spangler as guilty.

(11-21-2018 07:44 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(11-21-2018 02:03 AM)richard petersen Wrote: Excellent read: May 2018 The Surratt Courier
Revisiting the case of Ned Spangler in light of a general Lew Wallace Letter by Michael Vane

Thanks for remembering this article, Richard. Michael Vane was hoping to open up more discussion and findings on Spangler via that article.

(11-21-2018 02:43 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(11-21-2018 01:33 PM)Warren Wrote: Thanks to all, especially Roger, Laurie, JMadonna for providing this info. I had never seen it before.

If I may ask, what evidence was produced in the commission hearing that Spangler was a conspirator, other than briefly holding Booth's horse, that he had met him many times before and had a drink with him the night of the assassination?

I know Peanut John is somewhat of an enigma, but he did testify didn't he; what did he say about Spangler?

It seems the same evidence applies to Peanut as it did to Spangler, yet Peanut is not tried.

I hope to get back with some excerpts from Peanut as well as a few others, but work is kinda hectic right now. I also found several comments from witnesses regarding not ever seeing Spangler with a moustache. I have to track down where that's coming from...

Didn't get very far in reading Peanut's testimony and others in the Pitman version today. What I was able to see was a pattern of folks declaring to have seen Booth and Spangler and several others in Ferguson's tavern anywhere from 2 pm to 6 pm.

The rest of their statements are basically agreeing that, except for the brief period where Ned responded to Booth's request to hold the horse and passed it on to Peanuts, everyone saw him at his duty station inside, ready to move scenery during the part of the play where there are quite a few sudden changes of scenery.

There are several references to witnesses claiming that Ned told them to hush when they said that it was Booth, and one props assistant who said that he saw Spangler rubbing his eyes with a white handkerchief about ten minutes after Booth had left. Stewart, the man who ran after Booth in the alley, testified that he thought it was Spangler who was at the backstage door when he tried to get out to chase the mounted Booth.

The ladies who lived in Baptist Alley swore that they heard Booth hollering for Ned before he came out to handle the horse. One said that she told Spangler later that she had heard the shouts, and he claimed he knew nothing about it.

More will be revealed... if I have the energy after turkey day. Monday is the day we decorate the historic house and our research center for Christmas tours that begin next Wednesday. We are also having Black Friday Sales in our gift shop. All this activity may do me in. I think I'll take full advantage of my title of "Director" and just sit back and direct.

May you all have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving -- and enjoy those cold turkey sandwiches tomorrow evening and Friday. Those are always my favorite - and I don't have to wash dishes afterwards.

Oh, so you do believe Spangler was guilty. Your first reply seemed to suggest that you did not. I guess that even in this case, you can't bring yourself to admit that the military commission was wrong.

Anyway, as for the supposed evidence of Spangler's guilt that you presented in your reply, Bogar answers every one of those points. Have you read his book? What about all the evidence he presents that the witnesses you quote were lying? What about the evidence that Ritterspaugh was threatened with prison if he did not say what Lafayette Baker wanted him to say? What about the witnesses who contradicted the prosecution witnesses?

And, just curious: Is Bogar's book another one of the books that you have decided is not "good history" and thus is not sold at your gift shop? I'm asking seriously, not to be sarcastic. I am really curious to know if you sell Bogar's book at your gift shop, given that it has been so highly acclaimed but that it strongly questions the military commission's conduct and findings on several issues.