Unwanted Facts: Facts that Most Books on the Lincoln Assassination Ignore

[L Verge]

(12-27-2018 08:40 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:45 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  That is not a bit surprising. You have people in this forum who still believe that Spangler was guilty, who still peddle the Confederate conspiracy theory, and who still view the military commission as a credible and honorable tribunal.

If I recall correctly, you seemed surprised (and unable to respond) when we all concurred that Spangler was most likely innocent:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...-3892.html

You might wanna go back and re-read the replies in that thread. Some people who initially wrote carefully worded responses that seemed to say they believed he was innocent later just couldn't help themselves and heavily qualified, if not recanted, their earlier statements. One of them, in a supreme example of weasel wording, said they didn't think Spangler was guilty of large/major involvement, which implied he was involved in a minor way, and, get this, that the military commission's verdict was "acceptable"! Another person responded by repeating the military commission's timeworn and discredited talking points against Spangler.

Regarding the identity of the 9:00 PM visitor on April 14 whom Weichmann belatedly claimed was Booth, the defense in the John Surratt trial blew a truck-sized hole in this lie by calling witnesses who testified that the visitor was a military officer named Scott and that Mrs. Surratt did not look nervous or agitated after the visit. Guy Moore discusses this testimony in his excellent book The Case of Mrs. Surratt:

The defense produced testimony to show ( a ) that it was Anna, not her mother, who answered the door; ( b ) that it was a naval captain named Scott who called, and that he came to leave some papers for Miss Jenkins; ( c ) that no one else in the parlor noticed Mrs. Surratt’s being nervous, and no one heard her ask Weichmann to pray for her intentions, though the ladies were present as long as he was in the room. (p. 84)

In case you have failed to notice, Mr. G., I do not "weasel word." 99% of the time I say what I believe to be the facts. I do believe that the military commission had to deal with several witnesses whose statements (right or wrong) placed Spangler in a tenuous situation -- and therefore placed the members of the court in a tenuous situation of having to decide if he had played any role - especially in Booth's escape out of the theater. You continue to forget that this was the first time that a military court in the U.S. had to deal with a presidential assassination and that they had a lot on their plate.

As for the visit from naval officer Scott to the Surratt boardinghouse, I believe that this topic was discussed quite some time ago and the record was set straight. Scott's visit was also cited by James O. Hall. Mr. Hall and Guy Moore lived close to each other on the outskirts of D.C. and did confer with one another, despite having opposing opinions as to the guilt or innocence - or degree thereof - of Mrs. Surratt.