Potentially innocent man about to be executed

marplots said:
<snip>

Is anyone arguing that we shouldn't do what we can to establish guilt?
Click to expand...


No. Obviously. As you know perfectly well.

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...

Ni it isn't. Not even remotely.

Of course, you know that too.


More of the same. Pure troll. You've really pulled the curtain back.

At least you're not pretending anymore. That's an improvement of sorts.
 
Desert Fox said:
So it is acceptable to kill perfectly innocent people as penance?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean. If you mean knowingly killing a particular person who is innocent, then of course not. If you mean adopting a system that has a risk of error, and that error may result in the death of an innocent, then it's a question of balancing the value of the outcome you want (guilty are slain) verses what you don't want (innocent die) and see how it shakes out.

The other thing is what we are going to accept as decisive. There's some dispute about whether Glossip falls into the innocent category, or guilty, or somewhere in between.
 
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

quadraginta said:
More of the same. Pure troll. You've really pulled the curtain back.

At least you're not pretending anymore. That's an improvement of sorts.
Click to expand...

That's become the acceptable way to cast the ad hom stone. If I don't care for someone's arguments, all I have to do is accuse them of being disingenuous, or merely soliciting an emotional response.

I think it arises as a defense mechanism. It allows for dismissal of anything remotely uncomfortable because of the perceived tone or objective. I think it's related to the idea that, to argue or defend a position, one must believe that position. We end up with something like this:

"My position is so clear to me, and so well justified in my head, I cannot conceive there is another position worth discussing. Anyone who does so must have another agenda - it can't be a true exploration of the issue, because I already know what the right answer has to be."

It reminds me of what a Christian might say to me. "You're just being stubborn. Of course, down deep, you really do believe in God and Jesus. Stop causing trouble."

But as far as responding to what posters actually say, instead of what the mean - Oh, I'm guilty as charged. Which, I suppose, makes me subject to forum execution.
 
marplots said:
That's become the acceptable way to cast the ad hom stone. If I don't care for someone's arguments, all I have to do is accuse them of being disingenuous, or merely soliciting an emotional response.

<snip>
Click to expand...


And then there are the times when the "arguments" are patently disingenuous, and it is blindingly obvious to any dispassionate reader that there is no honest intent to engage in anything even faintly resembling sincere dialogue.

You've reached that point.

Pretending otherwise at this stage is a pitiful joke.

But go ahead and have your fun. I can at least amuse myself by seeing how long you string this out.
 
And here is a lengthy article from the same news source. I have read several accounts, and while this one leaves out incriminating testimony from a female staff member ( I forget the name) who has since died, I am more convinced than ever he is innocent.
A key point is he had no criminal record. Also the motel was very profitable under his control.
It would appear that he had brain fade in not initially connecting the circumstances with a real crime. But he soon realized he needed a lawyer, so sold possessions to raise cash. Multiple witnesses have emerged to say Sneed dissociated him from the crime, but legal form trumps justice now. The supreme court refused to consider his last appeal, without comment. He can probably thank killer Scalia for that.

https://upvoted.com/2015/11/11/richard-glossip-awaits-execution-or-life-from-death-row/
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
And here is a lengthy article from the same news source. I have read several accounts, and while this one leaves out incriminating testimony from a female staff member ( I forget the name) who has since died, I am more convinced than ever he is innocent.
A key point is he had no criminal record. Also the motel was very profitable under his control.
It would appear that he had brain fade in not initially connecting the circumstances with a real crime. But he soon realized he needed a lawyer, so sold possessions to raise cash. Multiple witnesses have emerged to say Sneed dissociated him from the crime, but legal form trumps justice now. The supreme court refused to consider his last appeal, without comment. He can probably thank killer Scalia for that.

https://upvoted.com/2015/11/11/richard-glossip-awaits-execution-or-life-from-death-row/
Click to expand...

Scalia, whose record when commenting on death penalty cases aren't exactly stellar. Then again, he once pointed out that it's not actually against the law to execute an innocent person, provided their case has gone through the required appeals.
 
If Richard Glossip decide to contract out to murder his boss, what is the end game?

I also love the way that his defense was stripped out from under him. seen that in other cases there is often a situation with defense that basically have no knowledge of the case.
 
Desert Fox said:
If Richard Glossip decide to contract out to murder his boss, what is the end game?

I also love the way that his defense was stripped out from under him. seen that in other cases there is often a situation with defense that basically have no knowledge of the case.
Click to expand...
My favourite was the Louisiana man released a few months ago. When he was originally sentenced, his public defense team consisted of (off the top of my head) a contract lawyer and an ambulance chaser fresh out of law school :rolleyes:
 
Desert Fox said:
If Richard Glossip decide to contract out to murder his boss, what is the end game?

I also love the way that his defense was stripped out from under him. seen that in other cases there is often a situation with defense that basically have no knowledge of the case.
Click to expand...

Despite being disbarred for incompetence, Wayne Fournerat, his original defence attorney blogs to this day he is innocent, whereas he might be expected to claim he had a hopeless case to defend.
 
KDLarsen said:
Scalia, whose record when commenting on death penalty cases aren't exactly stellar. Then again, he once pointed out that it's not actually against the law to execute an innocent person, provided their case has gone through the required appeals.
Click to expand...
I just listened to the deputy prime minister of New Zealand, Bill English, say the matter of Scott Watson is settled because due process is complete, so legal form has won. He is innocent, and in an informal poll of Bill's subjects this morning on TV3 66% say he is innocent. This is a remarkably easy exercise because there are multiple pathways to elegant proof. The Glossip case is difficult because the wily prosecution have created a pathway to guilt which is impossible to disprove totally.
 
One item you learn from Undisclosed, even if you believe that Adnan is guilty, is that the vast majority of cases are now plea deals. I have since read it in other cases.

Our legal system is broken so badly that most people prefer to dicker with the prosecution so that at least they are not executed or might have a chance to get out of prison someday.

At the same time, the United States has more people in prison than any other nation in the world. There really is something that stinks in the United States.
 
Samson said:
And here is a lengthy article from the same news source. I have read several accounts, and while this one leaves out incriminating testimony from a female staff member ( I forget the name) who has since died, I am more convinced than ever he is innocent.
A key point is he had no criminal record. Also the motel was very profitable under his control.
....

https://upvoted.com/2015/11/11/richard-glossip-awaits-execution-or-life-from-death-row/
Click to expand...


The most compelling sentence in the article is this:
The order to destroy the evidence is dated Oct. 25, 1999—just five days following the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals call for a fact-finding hearing to investigate claims of “prosecutorial misconduct” in Glossip’s case.
Click to expand...

So prosecutors destroyed the evidence in Glossip's case five days after the appeals court called for an investigation of misconduct by them. A reasonable inference would be that the prosecution did something that they needed to hide. That fact alone should be enough to take the death penalty off the table, and allow the appeal of the conviction itself to proceed without a looming deadline.
 
Bob001 said:
The most compelling sentence in the article is this:


So prosecutors destroyed the evidence in Glossip's case five days after the appeals court called for an investigation of misconduct by them. A reasonable inference would be that the prosecution did something that they needed to hide. That fact alone should be enough to take the death penalty off the table, and allow the appeal of the conviction itself to proceed without a looming deadline.
Click to expand...
Bob001, I hope your thread here becomes more active. On a checklist of items that feature in a plethora of wrongful convictions, most feature here. But how can people be persuaded to engage? I believe an able analyst can tabulate, and discover an algorithm that delivers a probability. I am very interested in people with no criminal convictions that end in these dire situations. How many are there who are obviously guilty?
 
It appears that they have discovered with the help of a forensic account that no embezzlement took place.
The embezzlement hypothesis was a case of a difference between two large numbers, about 6,000 of 280,000.
This difference was between projected revenues by Donna Treese, the victim's wife, and actual revenues.

Therefore no crime was committed, and Glossip's record as a man never engaging in crime is intact.
For me this resolves the mystery, and Glossip had no motive, no plan that he could conceivably control to eliminate van Treese.

Therefore the conflicting accounts of Sneed, his blood on the bank notes, the fact that Glossip has been misreported for changing his story about wheen he last saw van Treese all arrive at a simple destination, he is innocent.
An excellent 4 part doc which is more or less on youtube at the moment

Part 4 with the forensic accountant towards the end. A good start is minute 31

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lniuXGK-avM

This is new, and I do not believe he will ever be executed. Will he get out of jail?

Here is a clip where Justin Sneed explains how Glossip encouraged him to kill Van Treese because of the missing money, WHICH WE SEE ABOVE WAS NOT MISSING.
Sneed must maintain his position to save his own skin, despite being the confessed killer. He has been weaving the theme for 20 years, but it is now obvious that Glossip had no motive, so Snivelling Sneed is exposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hATRLml_PY
 
lionking said:
Plea bargaining in murder cases when one party admits to murder is utter crap.

Oh, please. I love America and Americans. I really do. But the American police and legal systems suck arse.
Click to expand...

Sometimes even by the wholes!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom