Potentially innocent man about to be executed

[PhantomWolf]

"No, no, no, don't confess like that, this is what we want you to say and who we want you to blame and if you do we won't put you to death."

Nope can't see how that could possible go wrong in any way at all.

 

[marplots]

"No, no, no, don't confess like that, this is what we want you to say and who we want you to blame and if you do we won't put you to death."

Nope can't see how that could possible go wrong in any way at all.

So, it's a conspiracy then? Cops, prosecutors... let's see, maybe the judges too? And what about the guy who originally confessed to the crime? Could be he's innocent as well.

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

 

[quadraginta]

By offering a reduced sentence they were able to convict two criminals instead of just one. How is that not more just than letting the second criminal get away with it?

It isn't the convictions, it's the sentences.

Of course, you knew that, which is why you had to make up an argument of your own to disagree with.

(Isn't there a name for that?_

 

[Bob001]

So, it's a conspiracy then? Cops, prosecutors... let's see, maybe the judges too? And what about the guy who originally confessed to the crime? Could be he's innocent as well.

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Once tainted evidence enters the system -- in this case, an accusation coerced in exchange for a reduced sentence -- there doesn't need to be a conspiracy by anybody else, just a willingness to trust the evidence as presented. In this case, the only "evidence" against Glossip was the testimony of Sneed in exchange for a deal -- no physical evidence, no witnesses, no nothing -- yet two juries weren't allowed to see the video of the interrogations that led to the accusation. One juror who convicted Glossip has said she would have voted differently if she had seen all the evidence. One "He did it!" might be enough to send somebody to prison, but it shouldn't be enough by itself to send somebody to his death.

 

[marplots]

Once tainted evidence enters the system -- in this case, an accusation coerced in exchange for a reduced sentence -- there doesn't need to be a conspiracy by anybody else, just a willingness to trust the evidence as presented.

How do you know the evidence is tainted? Isn't that begging the question. Secondly, "enters the system" seems to imply it won't be challenged, but there was a defense mounted in this case.

You do not say so directly, but I think your statement implies a willingness to trust the evidence more than it deserves to be trusted, and professionals (both cops and lawyers) are out to get the guy, despite the lack of evidence against him.

In this case, the only "evidence" against Glossip was the testimony of Sneed in exchange for a deal -- no physical evidence, no witnesses, no nothing -- yet two juries weren't allowed to see the video of the interrogations that led to the accusation.

This is misleading. There was other testimony and evidence against him. You may not believe it was strong evidence, but there was a case presented that went beyond the accusation of the other murderer. Also, if not showing the interview to jurors was a material flaw, was it raised on appeal?

Sneed (the accuser) did testify and was cross examined. The jury found him credible. This is part of their job. I assume (but do not know) that the "you are just ratting him out to get a lower sentence" defense was raised and rejected by the jury. Again, part of their job.

The bare bones of the case can be read here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf
It covers some of the other evidence against Glossip.

 

[Bob001]

Glossip gets a two-week stay:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-glossip-stay_55f99f1de4b0e333e54c28fc

 

[Strawberry]

Glossip gets a two-week stay:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-glossip-stay_55f99f1de4b0e333e54c28fc

Good news!

 

[Bob001]

....
This is misleading. There was other testimony and evidence against him. You may not believe it was strong evidence, but there was a case presented that went beyond the accusation of the other murderer. Also, if not showing the interview to jurors was a material flaw, was it raised on appeal?

Sneed (the accuser) did testify and was cross examined. The jury found him credible. This is part of their job. I assume (but do not know) that the "you are just ratting him out to get a lower sentence" defense was raised and rejected by the jury. Again, part of their job.


The bare bones of the case can be read here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf
It covers some of the other evidence against Glossip.

The court document summarizes the prosecution case and accepts it as a statement of the facts. Glossip's defenders say otherwise:
http://www.richardeglossip.com/the-case-1.html
http://www.richardeglossip.com/the-case--cont.-.html

And the jury only hears the case put in front of it.

1) The first conviction was overturned on appeal. The Appeals court ruled that Richard's defense attorney was so incompetent, that Richard was denied a fair trial. Frankly, his first attorney was bizarre, and had his license to practice revoked. You or I could have done a better job, that's how bad he was. Essentially that trial does not 'count'.
2) The second trial was rife with errors and, although his attorney was more competent than the attorney in his first trial (which is not saying much), he failed to use crucial evidence that would have demonstrated Richard's innocence. Again, Richard did not have money to hire a good attorney. If he had, the outcome would have been very different.

http://www.richardeglossip.com/yes--but....html

A detailed summary of the defense:
http://www.sisterhelen.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Richard_Glossip_talking_points.pdf

Apparently Sneed has told his daughter that he has considered recanting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-troubling-case-of-richard-glossip/405646/

 

[marplots]

Two trials, plenty of appeals, and 17 years on death row. How many chances do you get to prove innocence? Wait, I know - until the verdict comes out the right way...

 

[Strawberry]

Two trials, plenty of appeals, and 17 years on death row. How many chances do you get to prove innocence? Wait, I know - until the verdict comes out the right way...

How many chances would you want if you were on death row?

And another thing - even if he's guilty, its a bit odd that he is on death row when the man who actually did the killing got a life sentence.

 

[Bob001]

Two trials, plenty of appeals, and 17 years on death row. How many chances do you get to prove innocence? Wait, I know - until the verdict comes out the right way...

The defense doesn't have to prove innocence. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It looks like there's plenty of doubt here, and there always has been.

 

[Aepervius]

Two trials, plenty of appeals, and 17 years on death row. How many chances do you get to prove innocence? Wait, I know - until the verdict comes out the right way...

Well firstly it should not be up to you to prove innocence, but up to the prosecution to have a rock solid case. After all I always get from a few american which likes death penalty there are check and balance, you don't condemn somebody on flimsy evidence yada yada.

But now let us pretend you are at the step where you somehow maintain he has to prove his innocence, and the only evidence against him is a testimony, and it turns out that the way the testimony was obtained was .... let us say unorthodox, and you don't even raise an eyebrow ?

Let me guess you are of the opinion that it is better to kill an innocent mine than let 1 guilty go free ?

Personally I see let him have an appeal but this time with the whole testimony and the way the sneed perp got his plead deal completely open, and let us see if a jury really think that glossip is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[marplots]

How many chances would you want if you were on death row?

And another thing - even if he's guilty, its a bit odd that he is on death row when the man who actually did the killing got a life sentence.

If I were on death row, I would want to be free.

I do understand that in the best of worlds, both men would be on death row, but plea bargains are thought to serve the interests of justice.

 

[marplots]

Well firstly it should not be up to you to prove innocence, but up to the prosecution to have a rock solid case. After all I always get from a few american which likes death penalty there are check and balance, you don't condemn somebody on flimsy evidence yada yada.

But now let us pretend you are at the step where you somehow maintain he has to prove his innocence, and the only evidence against him is a testimony, and it turns out that the way the testimony was obtained was .... let us say unorthodox, and you don't even raise an eyebrow ?

Rock solid case? Where are you getting that. The phrase is, "innocent until proven guilty." That happened; he's been proven guilty.

Let me guess you are of the opinion that it is better to kill an innocent mine than let 1 guilty go free ?

I don't think innocent people should be killed. The dichotomy you set up there would be more properly phrased as "no one should be killed, because everyone is innocent."

Personally I see let him have an appeal but this time with the whole testimony and the way the sneed perp got his plead deal completely open, and let us see if a jury really think that glossip is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

And what if he is found guilty again? Well, let's spin the wheel again...

These same arguments would have been made five years ago, or ten. The guy with the life sentence might end up dying before the guy with the death sentence.

 

[Aepervius]

Rock solid case? Where are you getting that. The phrase is, "innocent until proven guilty." That happened; he's been proven guilty.

I think you forgot beyond reasonable doubt. The problem with this deal system and cop not being forced to deliver all what they gathered, is that they can make the illusion of a rock solid case which is in reality so flimsy that anybody would have reasonable doubt. That happened time and time again with people getting innocented. And frankly a reason why in all practical purpose you will not find any western nation having death penalty anymore. Not only US has Death penalty, but give the right to their cop to isolate evidence and how they got them. That is plainly bad and throw a doubt on the evidence, they might be not "tainted" in the elgal sense, but to anybody with 2 cent of common sense, they clearly are when it is the word of 1 guy against another and there is no other evidences.

I don't think innocent people should be killed. The dichotomy you set up there would be more properly phrased as "no one should be killed, because everyone is innocent."

No. The dichotomy , a true one, is : we are human and err. Either you accept innocent will get death penalty, or you refuse it. I am on teh refuse it camp. You OTOH seem perfectely content with what looks to us reasonable doubt, because , hey , "he got a chance so now he is guilty whatever".

And what if he is found guilty again? Well, let's spin the wheel again...

If all evidence are presented , including the way the police got the confession and the plea ? Then he is guilty.

These same arguments would have been made five years ago, or ten. The guy with the life sentence might end up dying before the guy with the death sentence.

Except that if you got no money and a crappy lawyer, or if the cop hide what look what could bring reasonable doubt you are SOL.

A process where it is word against word should not come to the condemnation of anybody frankly anyway.

 

[marplots]

I think you forgot beyond reasonable doubt. The problem with this deal system and cop not being forced to deliver all what they gathered, is that they can make the illusion of a rock solid case which is in reality so flimsy that anybody would have reasonable doubt. That happened time and time again with people getting innocented. And frankly a reason why in all practical purpose you will not find any western nation having death penalty anymore. Not only US has Death penalty, but give the right to their cop to isolate evidence and how they got them. That is plainly bad and throw a doubt on the evidence, they might be not "tainted" in the elgal sense, but to anybody with 2 cent of common sense, they clearly are when it is the word of 1 guy against another and there is no other evidences.

There is other evidence. And this is a skeptic's forum, there is no standard of evidence which is 100% certain. Hence the "reasonable" part of the equation. Whether you or I believe it is reasonable doesn't matter - we leave it up to a jury to decide.

Besides, criticisms of the system don't really help your case. If the guy is innocent, he's spent 17 years (so far) on death row. Are you prepared to let him go on the strength of your doubts? If not, then execution was the sentence, on what grounds would you not have it carried out?

No. The dichotomy , a true one, is : we are human and err. Either you accept innocent will get death penalty, or you refuse it. I am on teh refuse it camp. You OTOH seem perfectely content with what looks to us reasonable doubt, because , hey , "he got a chance so now he is guilty whatever".

Yes, we are humans and we err. To mitigate this, we establish a system where a pool of representatives looks at the evidence and decides the issue. If they cannot find guilt - beyond a reasonable doubt - the person goes free. That's the point of application for your complaint. You don't solve anything by revisiting the situation over and over again. Would you, for example, accept a policy of retrying everyone who wasn't found guilty in case we accidentally let someone go who did the crime? Why would it only work in one direction?

Any justification you give for continually retrying a case just passes the decision off to the next step. Unless the goal is to never get an actionable decision, this makes no sense.

If all evidence are presented , including the way the police got the confession and the plea ? Then he is guilty.

Why would that make him guilty? Surely someone else might have lied, or concealed other evidence? You can never be sure.

Except that if you got no money and a crappy lawyer, or if the cop hide what look what could bring reasonable doubt you are SOL.

He got a retrial because of just that. Does that satisfy you? Probably not. Not if you are arguing for a third trial now...

A process where it is word against word should not come to the condemnation of anybody frankly anyway.

It always comes into it. That's part of the jury's job - to decide who they believe.

 

[ddt]

The court document summarizes the prosecution case and accepts it as a statement of the facts. Glossip's defenders say otherwise:
http://www.richardeglossip.com/the-case-1.html
http://www.richardeglossip.com/the-case--cont.-.html

From that write-up:

Mr. Van Treese reviewed the books and discovered $6,101.92 in shortages for the Oklahoma City motel in 1996. Mrs. Van Treese testified her husband intended to ask Glossip about the shortages...

This 'shortage' is supposedly the reason Richard felt he would be fired. It's a bizarre notion: that a reasonable person would think killing the boss would prevent his termination. And by all accounts Richard was a reasonable person, having successfully managed fast food businesses as well as motels.

Even more important: there are no records showing this. Richard's attorney requested the accounts, and was told they'd been lost in a flood. There was no other evidence of this 'motive' for the crime, other than the testimony of Mrs. Van Treese. Up to that point Richard had received monthly bonuses for the work he was doing in keeping the rooms rented.

If I remember correctly, the secretary-general in "Yes Minister" mentions "flood" as second option why certain documents are missing from a FOIA request. IOW: it's a bald-faced lie. When did this flood happen? If this is true, then as soon as Mrs. Treese heard her husband had been murdered, she must have suspected Glossip for this motive and have mailed copies to the police or DA and nothing would have been lost. Besides that, even in 1997, I really can't imagine why you would do your accounting on paper and not electronically. And keep backups.

As to the disbarred lawyer: for a good laugh, read the comments section of this article in the Tulsa World. He has made multiple comments there that get progressively more bizarre. Though I'm now kinda curious what that alleged $24k covered in blue dye in Mr. Treese's trunk is about.

 

[Bob001]

A lengthy and detailed account of the case includes this paragraph:

Magnifying the situation is the fact that Sneed’s story of the plotting and murder of Van Treese had morphed considerably between his first confession to police in 1997 and his testimony at Glossip’s first trial in June 1998. Sneed’s story changed yet again when he testified at Glossip’s second trial in May 2004. Each time Sneed told his tale, it became more elaborate, and included many new details that painted Glossip as a man hell-bent on murder.

It seems like when the key witness keeps changing his story, that should be enough for reasonable doubt.
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09...me-executions-richard-glossip-first-line-die/

 

[marplots]

A lengthy and detailed account of the case includes this paragraph:


It seems like when the key witness keeps changing his story, that should be enough for reasonable doubt.
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09...me-executions-richard-glossip-first-line-die/

One of the reasons Glossip was arrested (before the confession of Sneed) was that Glossip changed his story. I suppose it works both ways, right?

 

[Bob001]

One of the reasons Glossip was arrested (before the confession of Sneed) was that Glossip changed his story. I suppose it works both ways, right?

No it doesn't, actually. Glossip has consistently said that he neither killed anybody nor caused anybody else to kill anybody. His "changed story" is apparently that he didn't at first tell police that Sneed claimed to have killed Van Treese because he thought Sneed was joking. You'd think if he was really trying to get away with murder he might have pointed the finger at somebody else at the very earliest opportunity. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's plenty of doubt here.