Potentially innocent man about to be executed

[quadraginta]

<snip>

There are two aspects to this. One is against the death penalty itself, and the other is against applying the death penalty to this particular offender. Someone who is thoroughly convinced of his guilt might still not wish to see the death penalty imposed.

Mebbe so. I think I've made it abundantly clear which aspect I am addressing in this case.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's a terrible mistake to equate the two. It's not a question of what we feel. There is an absolute Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (although sometimes people have been hit with different federal charges after walking at the state level). But we generally recognize that punishing, even executing, someone for something he didn't do is a terrible injustice that could befall anyone, and which we must guard against. We also recognize that not every crime results in an arrest, and not every arrest results in a conviction. We live with the fact that some criminals will get away with it. This case comes down to the word of a brutal murderer who made a (possibly coerced) deal to evade the death penalty. "Let's just finish it" is not a very compelling argument, especially when a life is on the line.

Don't you love the term "Closure"

 

[marplots]

It's a terrible mistake to equate the two. It's not a question of what we feel. There is an absolute Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (although sometimes people have been hit with different federal charges after walking at the state level). But we generally recognize that punishing, even executing, someone for something he didn't do is a terrible injustice that could befall anyone, and which we must guard against. We also recognize that not every crime results in an arrest, and not every arrest results in a conviction. We live with the fact that some criminals will get away with it. This case comes down to the word of a brutal murderer who made a (possibly coerced) deal to evade the death penalty. "Let's just finish it" is not a very compelling argument, especially when a life is on the line.

Finality may not seem compelling, but it's what both sides want. If you impose the death penalty, that's final. If you change the sentence to life without parole, that's final too - in the sense that you can't then go back and turn it into a death penalty again.

To me, this is a red herring. Why? Because the decisions I make in my life, both minor and major, are irrevocably entrenched in an historical flow - a past I cannot change. Where I draw the lines is up to me, but every day is the only and last time that day will arrive. I am prohibited from revisiting the past or revising it, and any lines I draw are final.

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.

 

[Bob001]

....
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.

It's sure obvious to me. One and two preserve the possibility that he can be set free before he dies if new evidence is discovered or a (in this case, the) witness recants. Three is irreversible, and an injustice is irredeemable.

 

[Samson]

Finality may not seem compelling, but it's what both sides want. If you impose the death penalty, that's final. If you change the sentence to life without parole, that's final too - in the sense that you can't then go back and turn it into a death penalty again.

To me, this is a red herring. Why? Because the decisions I make in my life, both minor and major, are irrevocably entrenched in an historical flow - a past I cannot change. Where I draw the lines is up to me, but every day is the only and last time that day will arrive. I am prohibited from revisiting the past or revising it, and any lines I draw are final.

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.

Marplots you have a sense of closure I trust would suit you if your offspring were to die by the hand of the state. This is what puzzles me.
Glossip is probably innocent, and he turned down plea deals to save his life, saying simply he would not lie. He has a crime free history.
Furthermore he had no motive. Your attitude astounds me.

I have personal knowledge of a man in jail after two juries and an appeal court convicted, yet I have absolute proof of his innocence, including a strong idea of a true perpetrator. He would definitely have been executed or expect to be executed in Oklahoma.

ETA
I may be wrong. The evidence against that man is so atrocious the case almost certainly would be busted open in Oklahoma. But the crime for which he has been convicted would be a classic DP case.

 

[Meadmaker]

Furthermore he had no motive.

He most certainly had a motive. Van Treese was going to fire him, and there was reason to believe that Van Treese knew he was dipping into the till. That could be criminal.

As for the rest of your post, I have no dispute.

 

[marplots]

It's sure obvious to me. One and two preserve the possibility that he can be set free before he dies if new evidence is discovered or a (in this case, the) witness recants. Three is irreversible, and an injustice is irredeemable.

But by inversion, they each rank in the opposite direction for those who think execution is a just sentence should he be actually guilty.

 

[marplots]

Marplots you have a sense of closure I trust would suit you if your offspring were to die by the hand of the state. This is what puzzles me.
Glossip is probably innocent, and he turned down plea deals to save his life, saying simply he would not lie. He has a crime free history.
Furthermore he had no motive. Your attitude astounds me.

I have personal knowledge of a man in jail after two juries and an appeal court convicted, yet I have absolute proof of his innocence, including a strong idea of a true perpetrator. He would definitely have been executed or expect to be executed in Oklahoma.

ETA
I may be wrong. The evidence against that man is so atrocious the case almost certainly would be busted open in Oklahoma. But the crime for which he has been convicted would be a classic DP case.

I don't know what you mean by "a sense of closure" in your comment, but I am curious about another thing.

How do you see those who don't find Glossip "obviously" innocent? What do you make of the opposite perspective?

 

[Samson]

I don't know what you mean by "a sense of closure" in your comment, but I am curious about another thing.

How do you see those who don't find Glossip "obviously" innocent? What do you make of the opposite perspective?

My current position is probably innocent after making a query to Charlie Wilkes, who is a credible specialist in analysing criminal cases.

If the opposite perspective is probably guilty, I suggest keeping him alive until Sneed tells the truth. This would involve one figure he was promised, he will not have forgotten this.
Glossip has no history or appearance of coming up with a doomed strategy. He knows Sneed will be caught, and that Sneed will spill the beans. That is how it works when the nearby suspects collapse under interrogation. If he planned it and was too dumb to realise it, maybe he should die to raise the average intelligence of the human race.

 

[Bob001]

I don't know what you mean by "a sense of closure" in your comment, but I am curious about another thing.

How do you see those who don't find Glossip "obviously" innocent? What do you make of the opposite perspective?

I don't know if anybody says he"s "obviously" innocent. It's not like he was in Detroit during the murder. The point is that the evidence available doesn't appear to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and even a juror agrees that he wasn't presented with all the evidence at trial. If it is possible that Glossip's story is true, that by itself creates reasonable doubt. We need more than a hunch before we kill people.

 

[marplots]

My current position is probably innocent after making a query to Charlie Wilkes, who is a credible specialist in analysing criminal cases.

If the opposite perspective is probably guilty, I suggest keeping him alive until Sneed tells the truth. This would involve one figure he was promised, he will not have forgotten this.
Glossip has no history or appearance of coming up with a doomed strategy. He knows Sneed will be caught, and that Sneed will spill the beans. That is how it works when the nearby suspects collapse under interrogation. If he planned it and was too dumb to realise it, maybe he should die to raise the average intelligence of the human race.

At this point, how are you going to decide if any story Sneed tells is the truth?

 

[Samson]

At this point, how are you going to decide if any story Sneed tells is the truth?

Heart of the matter. You seem to think he is telling the truth right now.

 

[marplots]

Heart of the matter. You seem to think he is telling the truth right now.

Not really. I wasn't on the jury at the trial. I'm also thinking the truth (with a capital t) probably won't become available to us. Ever.

What I will agree to is that Sneed's testimony was convincing enough to get a guilty verdict and a death sentence. In combination, of course, with the other evidence presented.

 

[Desert Fox]

At this point, how are you going to decide if any story Sneed tells is the truth?

I believe there is no question that Sneed is guilty.

Let us assume though that you are under the police crosshairs for the death penalty. Let us assume that they offer you life if you roll over on an innocent party. If you would not do it, how many would?

Even with innocent defendants, not many have the fortitude to be willing to not roll over on others if it will save their life.

I think this kind of testimony is simply unreliable. If the witness is actually guilty of the crime, I consider it even worse.

 

[Samson]

I believe there is no question that Sneed is guilty.

Let us assume though that you are under the police crosshairs for the death penalty. Let us assume that they offer you life if you roll over on an innocent party. If you would not do it, how many would?

Even with innocent defendants, not many have the fortitude to be willing to not roll over on others if it will save their life.

I think this kind of testimony is simply unreliable. If the witness is actually guilty of the crime, I consider it even worse.

It is a good match for the Knox Guede situation. Guede gets half the sentence for taking the prompting of the prosecutor to heart and accusing an innocent woman. Remember he would not name Knox or Sollecito until he was persuaded it was in his interests.
The identical scenario is right here. The prosecutor introduced Glossip's name first, long before Sneed would, and was told he should not face the consequences of the crime on his own.

 

[Desert Fox]

It is a good match for the Knox Guede situation. Guede gets half the sentence for taking the prompting of the prosecutor to heart and accusing an innocent woman. Remember he would not name Knox or Sollecito until he was persuaded it was in his interests.
The identical scenario is right here. The prosecutor introduced Glossip's name first, long before Sneed would, and was told he should not face the consequences of the crime on his own.

I have not looked deeply into this case so if I say Glossip is probably innocent, I would be talking out my backside. I can however think of a number of cases far more clear cut with regard to framing an innocent defendant.

I do have a question though. . . .If we remove Glossip, does Sneed have enough motive for his own purposes?

 

[marplots]

I believe there is no question that Sneed is guilty.

Let us assume though that you are under the police crosshairs for the death penalty. Let us assume that they offer you life if you roll over on an innocent party. If you would not do it, how many would?

Even with innocent defendants, not many have the fortitude to be willing to not roll over on others if it will save their life.

I think this kind of testimony is simply unreliable. If the witness is actually guilty of the crime, I consider it even worse.

I don't see how Sneed's calculation changes whether or not he rolls on Glossip. He can plea bargain for life without parole by simply confessing to the crime, he doesn't necessarily gain by implicating Glossip.

But, it's an unfortunate consequence of this type of crime that your best evidence is getting the tainted co-conspirator to implicate others. Without Sneed's testimony, it would be very difficult to attach Glossip directly to the crime. If the police suspected Glossip already (which I think they did), then one avenue of investigation would be to get one to roll over on the other. Pretty standard stuff.

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.

Just because someone has a self-serving reason to do something, it doesn't mean they are lying. Why would it? It could just as likely be that Sneed's conscience was bothering him, or any other reason someone might confess. It's an assumption to say that Sneed must be lying because only lying helps him. In fact, he may be being truthful, and the truth happens to help him.

 

[Samson]

I have not looked deeply into this case so if I say Glossip is probably innocent, I would be talking out my backside. I can however think of a number of cases far more clear cut with regard to framing an innocent defendant.

I do have a question though. . . .If we remove Glossip, does Sneed have enough motive for his own purposes?

Some key points.

1. Sneed was reported by Van Treese to have been standing watching Van Treese sleeping and he woke up. Remember Sneed has a master key set.
2. Van Treese carried wads of cash, and indeed there was plenty in his car.
3. Sneed broke into motel rooms and cars frequently around the motel to raise cash for P, which makes him violent.
4. Glossip has no criminal history.

So what happened?

Sneed figures he can stealthily get Treese's keys while he sleeps, but again Treese wakes up. Sneed realises 2 strikes and out, so kills him, gets the keys, hides the car and recovers the cash. He leaves town immediately.
The cops reel him in, and successfully confuse his testimony and Glossip's to confuse the hotel staff about times, movements and so on.

Glossip has asked his case be continued to show how an innocent man can be executed. He will be at least the second after Cameron Todd Willingham in modern times.

So on this obscure forum we are campaigning against the DP on his behalf

ETA, in answering your question DF I have upgraded from probably innocent to probably probably innocent.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't see how Sneed's calculation changes whether or not he rolls on Glossip. He can plea bargain for life without parole by simply confessing to the crime, he doesn't necessarily gain by implicating Glossip.

But, it's an unfortunate consequence of this type of crime that your best evidence is getting the tainted co-conspirator to implicate others. Without Sneed's testimony, it would be very difficult to attach Glossip directly to the crime. If the police suspected Glossip already (which I think they did), then one avenue of investigation would be to get one to roll over on the other. Pretty standard stuff.

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.

Just because someone has a self-serving reason to do something, it doesn't mean they are lying. Why would it? It could just as likely be that Sneed's conscience was bothering him, or any other reason someone might confess. It's an assumption to say that Sneed must be lying because only lying helps him. In fact, he may be being truthful, and the truth happens to help him.

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?

 

[Meadmaker]

If the police suspected Glossip already (which I think they did), then one avenue of investigation would be to get one to roll over on the other. Pretty standard stuff.

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?