Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 11-20-2018 08:24 PM by John Fazio.)

(11-20-2018 03:57 PM)L Verge Wrote: Edman Spangler wrote a letter to some unknown friends shortly after arriving at Fort Jefferson. It is dated September 15, 1865, and later was reprinted in an article in the October 25, 1865, issue of the Aledo, Illinois Weekly Record. We carried it in the April 1982, edition of the Surratt Courier. If I have time, I will scan and post.

Spangler begins with a rather detailed description of Fort Jefferson and its environs and then begins much the same information as in previous statements. Personal pleas include, "Before God and all that is sacred I am perfectly innocent of all charges and specifications brought against me by the prosecution....Grate [sic] injustice has been done me by some false witnesses from whom expresses prior to my trial acted by gain or reward."

This next line is rather intriguing - "I wish you could see (name deleted in newspaper) and see whether he ever received my statement that I sent him with a young man by the name of Welch and if he has to let me know what he is going to do with it please..." He ends with asking his friends to send him "2 or 3 fly hooks in a letter and money to buy some postage stamps and some paper... and to give my love to all my enquiring friends and let me know what they think of me. I am here and suffering here wich [sic] I am innocently."

Laurie:

This is definitely the statement I had reference to. It is actually not so much a statement as a letter written when he was at Ft. Jefferson, dated Sept. 15, 1865. I regret that this letter came to my attention too late for inclusion in Decapitating[i], but there is enough in the book to make the case for his innocence.

As for the burden of proof, it may have seemed to James O. Hall that the Commission had so many advantages, which is acknowledged even by its defenders, that a shift in the burden of proof was one of them. But I seriously doubt that this ever rose to the level of codified law. After all, defendants could not very well carry the burden of proving their innocence if they were not even permitted to testify!!!

John

(11-20-2018 05:46 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Many thanks to Steve for sending the text of the September 15, 1865, Spangler letter. It comes from page 4 of the October 13, 1865, edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Roger:

Many thanks to you and Steve. This is the statement (letter) I was looking for, without doubt. This letter, together with his other statement and the other evidence adduced in Chapter 29 of Decapitating, nails his innocence, as far as I am concerned. Those montages of photos of the "conspirators" (and there are many of them), which always include a photo of Spangler---throw them all away. The many references to Spangler as a "conspirator" in almost every assassination history---ignore them.

John

richard petersen · 11-21-2018, 02:03 AM

Excellent read: May 2018 The Surratt Courier
Revisiting the case of Ned Spangler in light of a general Lew Wallace Letter by Michael Vane

RJNorton · 11-21-2018, 06:23 AM

Did Booth and Spangler have a drink together during the intermission after the first act of "Our American Cousin?"

I have often read that earlier in the day Booth invited several Ford's employees (including Spangler) to have a drink with him at Taltavul's.

But I came across a web page that includes a letter from Jeannie Gourlay's brother, Thomas (not to be confused with her father who was also named Thomas). Among other things, Thomas Gourlay writes:

"Now, to back up my suspicion of the above, will relate what was told to me by Brother Robert. After the first act, Robert and Williamson went out to get a drink. They went into the saloon adjoining the theatre and saw Booth and Spangler drinking brandy at the bar. Robert declared that Booth filled his tumbler to the brim and drank it down. I suppose Spangler did the same."

http://civilwar.gratzpa.org/2012/11/jean...never-was/

If I recall correctly I believe I have read that both Jeannie Gourlay and William Withers had suspicions about Spangler attempting to aid Booth backstage. I have learned not to trust Withers' recollections, but I do not think I have ever read that Booth and Spangler were drinking together between acts 1 and 2.

This comes from a 1906 recollection of Thomas Gourlay. He was not an eyewitness to the alleged Booth/Spangler drinking; rather he is reporting what his brother told him.

Has anyone ever read anything that might support Thomas' recollection? (If true, this does not really change my personal opinion of Spangler's innocence; I am just curious about whether Spangler and Booth were really drinking together between acts 1 and 2.)

Steve · 11-21-2018, 11:21 AM

Spangler said he had a drink with Booth, Burroughs, and Maddox prior to the play's start. Thomas Gourlay's account was written four decades later and is relaying what his brother Robert told him, not something he saw personally. My guess is the 'when' Booth and Spangler were seen drinking together got mixed up in the retelling.

Warren · (This post was last modified: 11-21-2018 01:35 PM by Warren.)

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.

L Verge · 11-21-2018, 02:43 PM

(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...

RJNorton · 11-21-2018, 02:56 PM

(11-21-2018 01:33 PM)Warren Wrote: 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?

Warren, here is some of the testimony against Spangler. It comes from another Ford's employee named Jacob Ritterspaugh: (from Poore)

Q. State to the Court whether you were a carpenter in Ford’s Theatre down to the 14th of April last.
A. Yes, sir; I was.
Q. Were you there on the night of the 14th of April, when the President was shot?
A. I was.
Q. State which box in the theatre the President occupied that night.
A. It was on the left-hand side of the stage: on the right as you come in from the front.
Q. Did the President sit in the upper, or lower box?
A. The upper.
Q. When the shot was fired, did you hear anybody say any thing about stopping a man?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was said?
A. Somebody hallooed, “Stop that man!”
Q. State where you were at the time, and what you did when you heard that cry, “Stop that man!”
A. I was standing on the stage behind the scenes. Some one cried that the President was shot. Then I saw a man running that had no hat on.
Q. Which way was he running?
A. Towards the back door. He had a knife in his hand, and I ran to stop him, and ran through the last entrance; and as I came up to him he tore the door open. I made for him, and he struck at me with the knife; and I jumped back then. He then ran out, and slammed the door shut. I then went to get the door open. In a moment afterwards, I opened the door, and the man had just got on his horse, and was running down the alley; and then I came in. I came back on the stage where I had left Edward Spangler, and he hit me on the face with the back of his hand, and he said, “Don’t say which way he went.” I asked him what he meant by slapping me in the mouth; and he said, “For God’s sake shut up!” and that was the last he said.
Q. Is the Edward Spangler to whom you refer the prisoner at the bar?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you went out of that door, had anybody else except the man that ran with the knife gone out before you?
A. I did not see any one else.
Q. Did any go out after you?
A. Some one came out, but I do not know who it was.
Q. Did you leave the door open when you went out?
A. Yes, sir: I left it open.
Q. What do you do during the time the play is going on in the theatre, if any thing?
A. My business is to shift wings on the stage, and pull them off, and fetch things out of the cellar if they need any thing.
Q. State what sort of a man, if any, came out after you had gone out of the door.
A. I thought it was a tall man, and pretty stout man.
Q. Do you know him?
A. No: I did not take notice who it was.
Q. When you came back into the theatre was the door open, or shut?
A. It was open.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 11-21-2018 07:59 PM by L Verge.)

(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.

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.

RJNorton · 11-23-2018, 08:56 AM

Mike, I said it was my opinion that Spangler was innocent. In my mind, I do leave open the possibility that my opinion is wrong, and that indeed Spangler was an accomplice. IMO, it's not like there are zero suspicions regarding Spangler. Ritterspaugh's testimony is not the only thing.

This is 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 Booth 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."

Thomas Gourlay reported his brother saw Booth and Spangler having a drink together between Acts 1 and 2 of "Our American Cousin."

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?"

According to Withers' statements (many years later I believe) the "backstage help" was for Spangler to turn off the theater's gas lights after the shot to facilitate Booth's escape from the theater. Withers claimed he "had valiantly fought the stagehand (Spangler) off and prevented this from happening." (p. 125 of Tom's book.)

Jerry M. also mentions this possibility in his book. On p. 134 Jerry writes, "Some believe that at this point Spangler was supposed to cover Booth's escape by extinguishing the lights as Booth originally called for in the kidnapping plot."

L Verge · 11-23-2018, 12:40 PM

(11-23-2018 08:03 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:
(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.

Boy, do you know how to twist or misinterpret other people's comments! Please show me where I changed my opinion in what I posted regarding trial testimony that I have covered to date. I have re-read my post several times today and find no spot where I did anything but inform our readers what I was finding.

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.

As for Tom Bogar: Yes, I have read his book, referred to it numerous times, count Tom as a friend, had him speak at our conference when his book came out. And, we have sold Backstage in our gift shop since its publication and have reordered numerous times. Any other attempt to stir up trouble in that realm?

As for what else we sell in the book line, go to our website (surrattmuseum.org) and see for yourself. It is hard to keep up with posting what is in stock and what is not, but there is an extensive offering of books by reputable authors - some of which I agree with and others that I don't, but we judge them on the documented evidence that they provide, and I am not the only one making decisions. In addition to gift shop personnel, we encourage recommendations from our members and also read reviews on new offerings.

Better yet, since I know you live about 45 minutes from Surratt House, why don't you check out the museum shop for yourself? Our James O. Hall Research Center will reopen in mid-January, so make an appointment to visit it at the same time. Hundreds of books and many linear feet of files should keep you busy for awhile. Ask Tom Bogar - he spent hours there in researching his book.

JMadonna · 11-23-2018, 02:08 PM

(11-23-2018 12:40 PM)L Verge Wrote: there is an extensive offering of books by reputable authors - some of which I agree with and others that I don't

I can personally attest to the truth of that statement. Dodgy

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 11-23-2018 04:27 PM by Gene C.)

(11-23-2018 08:03 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: 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.

(11-21-2018 07:44 PM)L Verge Wrote: Boy, do you know how to twist or misinterpret other people's comments! Please show me where I changed my opinion in what I posted regarding trial testimony that I have covered to date. I have re-read my post several times today and find no spot where I did anything but inform our readers what I was finding.

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.

As for Tom Bogar: Yes, I have read his book, referred to it numerous times, count Tom as a friend, had him speak at our conference when his book came out. And, we have sold Backstage in our gift shop since its publication and have reordered numerous times. Any other attempt to stir up trouble in that realm?

As for what else we sell in the book line, go to our website (surrattmuseum.org) and see for yourself.

I've got to agree with Laurie here.
Mike for someone with your credentials, your replies (or lack of) to peoples questions in other threads and your twisting of peoples replies in this one, is quite disappointing.

Warren · 11-26-2018, 12:43 PM

Just wanted to post this, and didn't know where, but this seems to be a good place:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fords-Theatre-A...%7Ciid%3A1

I would have liked to buy, but seems to be out of my range. I have no interest in it; it's just that I've never seen another one.

Henry Clay Ford's signature is on the back, but I can't tell if is printed on or if he signed it. If he signed it, I guess it might have been a complimentary pass.

mikegriffith1 · 12-16-2018, 09:24 AM

(11-23-2018 12:40 PM)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.