Potentially innocent man about to be executed

Meadmaker said:
One of the things that I have seen in many cases is a pattern in which the police suspect one person. Then, they find incontrovertible evidence that another is guilty, and they figure that they couldn't possibly have been wrong the first time. Obviously, both people worked together on it.

In the case of Glossip and Sneed, that is at least not a ridiculous idea. However, I have seen other cases where that makes no sense at all. The most famous ISF case like that would of course be Knox, Solecito, and Guede. At first, they see Knox behaving oddly, and suspicion falls on her. Based on alibis, she couldn't have done it without Solecito, so they obviously worked together. That's a bit far fetched, but....what the heck. Maybe.

Then, they find evidence that puts the guilt squarely on Guede, so they conclude it was a strange sex game between the three of them?

Glossip may be in that situation right now. The police believed he was guilty. When they determined that Sneed was guilty, they cooked up the "you two worked together" story.

I don't like the death penalty because of that uncertainty, and because it is applied so unequally, and because, quite frankly, there are a significant number of people who seem to enjoy it.

Still, every time I've looked into one of these "innocent man about to die" scenarios, I see plenty of evidence that it is a "probably guilty guy about to die" scenario. In this case, the evidence doesn't seem quite so powerful, but it's enough to make me think that the simplest, though not necessarily correct, answer is that he's guilty.

In my perusing of news stories, one thing that came up was the cash. The prosecution theory has Sneed and Glossip dividing the cash. Is there any reason to believe that, other than Sneed's testimony? Was Glossip linked in any way to the money?
Click to expand...
Glossip is linked to money, in that he sold a bunch of stuff. But his story is that he was advised to get a lawyer, good idea. So he could retain a lawyer with the proceeds, and indeed he was arrested as he left the lawyer after the first visit.
Wayne Founerate, says he is factually innocent, and he should know. Defence attorneys never publicly proclaim innocence after a conviction if they think they have been defending a guilty man. (I made that up, some one may correct me, but I know it is true in NZ)
 
Meadmaker said:
Still, every time I've looked into one of these "innocent man about to die" scenarios, I see plenty of evidence that it is a "probably guilty guy about to die" scenario. In this case, the evidence doesn't seem quite so powerful, but it's enough to make me think that the simplest, though not necessarily correct, answer is that he's guilty.
Click to expand...

How about Cameron Todd Willingham?
 
Desert Fox said:
How about Cameron Todd Willingham?
Click to expand...

I didn't look into that one until he was already dead.

His case is the only one I've seen where I am fairly confident that an innocent man in modern America was executed.


There's something I find truly bizarre about the Glossip case. He was granted a new trial on the grounds that the defense was incompetent. Their incompetence consisted of failing to show the tape of the confession. At the retrial, the defense chose not to show the tape of the confession. :confused:
 
Desert Fox said:
Would you like for me to name some cases?
How about Charles Boney? You need to listen to his amazingly elaborate story.

How about Charles Erickson? How about Joseph Dick? How about Michael Carson?

Tell me why you think Sneed would be any different?
Click to expand...

Because, unless you have a way to distinguish those cases you picked against other cases which do not fit your model, all we will demonstrate is the lack of a dispositive rule. Putting it back in the hands of the jury, once again, to decide if Sneed is lying or telling the truth.

So, I'll ask straight out. Are you asserting that all confessions that implicate other parties are false when the confessor has a motivation to confess? Because I'm thinking that a true confession will implicate someone else when someone else was involved.
 
Meadmaker said:
I didn't look into that one until he was already dead.

His case is the only one I've seen where I am fairly confident that an innocent man in modern America was executed.


There's something I find truly bizarre about the Glossip case. He was granted a new trial on the grounds that the defense was incompetent. Their incompetence consisted of failing to show the tape of the confession. At the retrial, the defense chose not to show the tape of the confession. :confused:
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States
Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[23][24]

Jesse Tafero was convicted of murder and executed via electric chair in May 1990 in the state of Florida for the murders of two Florida Highway Patrol officers. The conviction of a co-defendant was overturned in 1992 after a recreation of the crime scene indicated a third person had committed the murders.[25]

Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed in February 1992 for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In March 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four months earlier.[26] Immediately following the nun's murder, prosecutors and police were certain the two cases were committed by the same assailant.[27] The flawed case is explored in a 2008 documentary entitled The Last Word.

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in February 2004 for murdering his three young children by arson at the family home in Corsicana, Texas. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene, and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."[28] In 2010, the Innocence Project filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, seeking a judgment of "official oppression".[29]

In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000.[30][31] 26 out of 28 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 268 trials reviewed, and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution. Those cases involve 32 cases in which defendants were sentenced to death.
 
marplots said:
<snip>

The fact that Sneed has some motivation to talk only explains why he might want to talk, not how well his testimony fits the facts. Glossip's defense will be to show, not Sneed's motivation, but that the story told doesn't fit the facts of the case. This is no different than how any testimony would be treated, and for the same reason.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Once they have him safely on board their team, the prosecution can easily see to it that Sneed's story fits their version of "the facts".

Even in the initial interrogation the cops can feed him enough cues to ensure they get the version they want.

It isn't that hard, which is probably why it seems to happen as often as it does.
 
quadraginta said:
Once they have him safely on board their team, the prosecution can easily see to it that Sneed's story fits their version of "the facts".

Even in the initial interrogation the cops can feed him enough cues to ensure they get the version they want.

It isn't that hard, which is probably why it seems to happen as often as it does.
Click to expand...

I think it would be powerful to show the cops feeding Sneed things he didn't (or shouldn't) know about to enhance the case. Is this what the videos show? If it is, I'm surprised I haven't read any specifics about it this late in the game.

For example, here's a made up exchange that would be very troubling:

Sneed: "Then, at 8 or so, we drove together to park the car."
Cops: "Are you sure? Glossip has an alibi from 7 until 11."
Sneed: "Oh yeah, now I remember. It was 11:30."
Cops: "But the gasoline station camera shows the car passing by at 8:30. Are you sure you didn't go alone to park the car?"
Sneed: "Yeah, that's right. I remember now, I went by myself. At 8:30."

Does footage like that exist from the interrogation?
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
It is not obvious that one path will lead to a better outcome than the others:

We left this man in prison until he was 74 years-old and then he died.
We left this man in prison for 18 years and then we executed him.
We executed this man 15 years ago.

None of these avoids the man being held in the custody and care of the state and then dying.
Click to expand...

No but at least if he's still alive you can let him go and give him a big sum of money.
 
Desert Fox said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States
Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[23][24]

Jesse Tafero was convicted of murder and executed via electric chair in May 1990 in the state of Florida for the murders of two Florida Highway Patrol officers. The conviction of a co-defendant was overturned in 1992 after a recreation of the crime scene indicated a third person had committed the murders.[25]

Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed in February 1992 for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In March 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four months earlier.[26] Immediately following the nun's murder, prosecutors and police were certain the two cases were committed by the same assailant.[27] The flawed case is explored in a 2008 documentary entitled The Last Word.

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in February 2004 for murdering his three young children by arson at the family home in Corsicana, Texas. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene, and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."[28] In 2010, the Innocence Project filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, seeking a judgment of "official oppression".[29]

In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000.[30][31] 26 out of 28 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 268 trials reviewed, and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution. Those cases involve 32 cases in which defendants were sentenced to death.
Click to expand...

Chilling.
 
Belz... said:
No but at least if he's still alive you can let him go and give him a big sum of money.
Click to expand...

If he has life without parole, you aren't going to let him go. You could still give him a bunch of money if you liked though.
 
marplots said:
I think it would be powerful to show the cops feeding Sneed things he didn't (or shouldn't) know about to enhance the case. Is this what the videos show? If it is, I'm surprised I haven't read any specifics about it this late in the game.

For example, here's a made up exchange that would be very troubling:

Sneed: "Then, at 8 or so, we drove together to park the car."
Cops: "Are you sure? Glossip has an alibi from 7 until 11."
Sneed: "Oh yeah, now I remember. It was 11:30."
Cops: "But the gasoline station camera shows the car passing by at 8:30. Are you sure you didn't go alone to park the car?"
Sneed: "Yeah, that's right. I remember now, I went by myself. At 8:30."

Does footage like that exist from the interrogation?
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the videos, but apparently the cops began the interrogation by telling him essentially "The whole weight is on you unless you give us somebody else..." Transcript excerpts here:
http://www.sisterhelen.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/when_eight_is_enough.pdf
 
Desert Fox said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States
Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[23][24]

Jesse Tafero was convicted of murder and executed via electric chair in May 1990 in the state of Florida for the murders of two Florida Highway Patrol officers. The conviction of a co-defendant was overturned in 1992 after a recreation of the crime scene indicated a third person had committed the murders.[25]

Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed in February 1992 for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In March 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four months earlier.[26] Immediately following the nun's murder, prosecutors and police were certain the two cases were committed by the same assailant.[27] The flawed case is explored in a 2008 documentary entitled The Last Word.

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in February 2004 for murdering his three young children by arson at the family home in Corsicana, Texas. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene, and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."[28] In 2010, the Innocence Project filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, seeking a judgment of "official oppression".[29]

In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000.[30][31] 26 out of 28 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 268 trials reviewed, and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution. Those cases involve 32 cases in which defendants were sentenced to death.
Click to expand...

This is like the old critique about science as a discipline being flawed, since they often got things wrong. Remember aether? Remember the Philosopher's Stone? Ha! Science is stupid.

And the reply is the same. How do we know science got it wrong? Better science. How do we know the criminal justice system got it wrong? Better investigations.

Is anyone arguing that we shouldn't do what we can to establish guilt? I doubt it. To assert that is to assert there are some pretty evil people involved, people who enjoy legally executing innocents.
 
marplots said:
This is like the old critique about science as a discipline being flawed, since they often got things wrong. Remember aether? Remember the Philosopher's Stone? Ha! Science is stupid.

And the reply is the same. How do we know science got it wrong? Better science. How do we know the criminal justice system got it wrong? Better investigations.

Is anyone arguing that we shouldn't do what we can to establish guilt? I doubt it. To assert that is to assert there are some pretty evil people involved, people who enjoy legally executing innocents.
Click to expand...

At least if we simply lock them up, we are not killing innocent people. It is kind of still sad we have innocent people incarcerated (most numbers are about 5% but some go in the 10% to 20%) but at least they are alive and many do have meaningful lives in prison.
 
Desert Fox said:
At least if we simply lock them up, we are not killing innocent people. It is kind of still sad we have innocent people incarcerated (most numbers are about 5% but some go in the 10% to 20%) but at least they are alive and many do have meaningful lives in prison.
Click to expand...

This may be why execution is seen as a more fit punishment for some crimes. The victim has been robbed of any chance at it.
 
Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin has issued a stay of execution for Richard Glossip amid concerns over one of the drugs to be used to put him to death.

The order came an hour after the US supreme court denied a last-minute appeal alleging that new evidence showed Glossip was framed by the actual killer.

Outside the prison in McAlester, Glossip’s family were visibly upset at hearing of the supreme court’s refusal to issue a reprieve, local media reported. Attorney Don Knight told the crowd: “There’s nothing more we can do ... Everyone knows. The world knows that Richard Glossip is innocent.”



http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/30/richard-glossip-oklahoma-execution
 
This is extraordinary, and must signal an indefinite reprieve. Mary Fallin shows a human face as she realises that Glossip might be innocent? I wonder.
 
Belz... said:
No but at least if he's still alive you can let him go and give him a big sum of money.
Click to expand...

marplots said:
If he has life without parole, you aren't going to let him go. You could still give him a bunch of money if you liked though.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
If you find him innocent and overturn the original verdict? Sure you will.
Click to expand...


It isn't worth the trouble responding to that kind of garbage.

Marsplots knew exactly what you meant. He's not an idiot. He's just jerking your chain.

He's made it obvious now that he has no interest in a serious discussion of the issue.

Just a troll. Time to stop feeding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom