Potentially innocent man about to be executed

marplots said:
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...
Click to expand...
You must not have looked at the facts in the case. :(

No wonder we have so many people convicted and later exonerated when people believe having 2 trials is a sure sign of an evidence based conviction.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You must not have looked at the facts in the case. :(

No wonder we have so many people convicted and later exonerated when people believe having 2 trials is a sure sign of an evidence based conviction.
Click to expand...

I think the dispute revolves around the quality of the evidence - whether or not you find it believable and reaches the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." But that's exactly what we ask the jury to decide.

Is it your contention that he will be exonerated? That's a rather higher standard than merely swapping a death sentence for life in prison.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You must not have looked at the facts in the case. :(

No wonder we have so many people convicted and later exonerated when people believe having 2 trials is a sure sign of an evidence based conviction.
Click to expand...
Nice post Skeptic Ginger.
From New Zealand, we watched the second trial of Mark Lundy, 2002, then 20015. In real time, we discussed the case, Rolfe, Charlie Wilkes, Chris Halkides and a few New Zealanders. He was clearly innocent using similar parameters but in a totally different case, to the the Knox Sollecito fiasco. Cutting to the chase, when the jury brought down a guilty verdict for the second time, Charlie Wilkes offered this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10564626&postcount=523

Chris Halkides offered this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10565062&postcount=544

These guys hardly came down in the last shower.
That second jury did.
 
Last edited:
marplots,

Do Juries never get it wrong?

Arthur Allen Thomas was found guilty twice...
Amanda Knox was found guilty twice...
Lindy Chamberlain was found guilty once...


Here you go, a list of those that all got convicted and later were found not to have done it.

The evidence in this case is incredibly weak. Take out Sneed's testimony, and what do you have left? Claims that he'd embezzled $6 and might be fired. Even is true, how does that prove he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Do you really believe that the evidence is strong enough to risk killing someone that might be innocent over it?
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
marplots,

Do Juries never get it wrong?

Arthur Allen Thomas was found guilty twice...
Amanda Knox was found guilty twice...
Lindy Chamberlain was found guilty once...


Here you go, a list of those that all got convicted and later were found not to have done it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't help. Either you are going to take the stance that juries always get it wrong and can't be trusted, or they sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong. But if it's the latter, then your objection has no merit.

Here's why. Suppose I want to measure the length of my property and only have a wooden yardstick. I measure it and the complaint arises that my measurement cannot be very accurate, since the instrument used isn't very precise, and my use of it adds even more imprecision. So far, so good. But how might I show that my measurement was in error? Well, I'd need to find another, more accurate way to measure my property, a way I thought would produce a better answer. And this is what is lacking.

It is fine to say that statistically, juries get a certain number of verdicts wrong. But two problems arise. The first is that we have no way to tell at first blush whether this particular verdict is one of those times, and secondly - related to my property measuring problem - we have no better measuring instrument to use than the one that has already been applied.

What would you suggest, other than trial by jury, we should use to determine there has been an error in this case?

PhantomWolf said:
The evidence in this case is incredibly weak. Take out Sneed's testimony, and what do you have left? Claims that he'd embezzled $6 and might be fired. Even is true, how does that prove he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Do you really believe that the evidence is strong enough to risk killing someone that might be innocent over it?
Click to expand...

Sneed's testimony is important. It will always be so when someone hires out a murder. This is a property of that type of crime. The instigator separates themselves from the killing. It's killing by proxy.

Whether or not a jury believes Sneed's testimony is crucial to getting a conviction. They would also consider if Glossip had a motive and any actions he took to further the crime - to conceal it. Glossip's statements to the police and others would also figure into the mix.

We might try asking this question: What evidence would we expect to find if Glossip were truly guilty? The fact is that in these cases there may be very little in the way of direct physical evidence.
 
marplots said:
On the first page, yes. But there is a link to a good summary on that page: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf
Click to expand...

I repeat, the court document sets out the prosecution case as if it was a statement of the facts. It makes no independent determination as to their accuracy. The prosecution's claims are disputed by Glossip's supporters, most comprehensively here:
http://www.sisterhelen.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Richard_Glossip_talking_points.pdf
 
marplots said:
I think the dispute revolves around the quality of the evidence - whether or not you find it believable and reaches the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." But that's exactly what we ask the jury to decide.
....
Click to expand...

The jury can only consider the evidence presented to it. In this particular case, the jury did not see video of Sneed's interrogation that would show that his accusations were coerced, nor did his lawyer present the witnesses who would have attested that the cash he was found with came from selling personal belongings. Many miscarriages of justice seem to result from the prosecution concealing exculpatory evidence, or presenting false evidence to the jury, or both. One of the jurors who convicted Glossip has said she wouldn't have done so if she had known then what she knows now.
 
Bob001 said:
I repeat, the court document sets out the prosecution case as if it was a statement of the facts. It makes no independent determination as to their accuracy. The prosecution's claims are disputed by Glossip's supporters, most comprehensively here:
http://www.sisterhelen.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Richard_Glossip_talking_points.pdf
Click to expand...

That's the point of having a jury, to rule on what constitutes "the facts."

I am not arguing that you or I may disagree, only that we don't have any independent standing as determiners of fact. Naturally, this is frustrating when there is a disagreement, but which of us would be the God-King Arbitrator here?
 
marplots said:
.....
We might try asking this question: What evidence would we expect to find if Glossip were truly guilty? The fact is that in these cases there may be very little in the way of direct physical evidence.
Click to expand...

You consider the totality of all the evidence. You have someone who indisputably committed murder, who has a prior criminal record and a drug problem, and who avoided the death penalty by implicating his boss. You also have a relatively long-time employee with no criminal record, who apparently received bonuses most months for exceeding his rental quota, and who handled all the cash himself, which means he could have grabbed it all and left town any day of the week. Sneed's story is that Glossip ordered the murder of his boss to conceal alleged cash shortages that Van Treese's brother called insignificant and for which documentation was "lost in a flood," and in hopes that Van Treese's widow would hire him to manage both crappy motels.

Sneed's story is implausible on its face, but it's possible. The videos of Sneed's lengthy interrogations showing how he built his story as police prompted him are essential evidence. And the jury never saw them.
 
Bob001 said:
(some good stuff snipped)

Sneed's story is implausible on its face, but it's possible. The videos of Sneed's lengthy interrogations showing how he built his story as police prompted him are essential evidence. And the jury never saw them.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Have you seen these videos? If you have, you are in possession of evidence that neither I nor the jury has seen. I do not know if the matter was raised on appeal or not, nor who else has seen this evidence.

However, that's a good challenge, should those tapes show what you assert. I would be curious to know if the defense determined not to show the tapes, the judge disallowed them, or something else happened. But that is, at least, a nice wedge issue.

Here's the claim you are making as I understand it: Exculpatory evidence of a material nature was concealed from the jury. I think that would constitute a defect of process. The question for me, not having seen these tapes or any rulings on the matter, is whether the claim is true or not. I simply don't know.
 
marplots said:
....
Here's why. Suppose I want to measure the length of my property and only have a wooden yardstick. I measure it and the complaint arises that my measurement cannot be very accurate, since the instrument used isn't very precise, and my use of it adds even more imprecision. So far, so good. But how might I show that my measurement was in error? Well, I'd need to find another, more accurate way to measure my property, a way I thought would produce a better answer. And this is what is lacking.
....
Click to expand...

One factor to consider would be the consequences of any error. Did you measure your property to order garden fencing from Lowe's, or to determine whether you or your neighbor owns the cache of diamonds one of you dug up? Are you using your yardstick to challenge measurements made by your neighbor's licensed surveyor? Are you going to go to jail if you can't prove the diamonds are yours (or maybe they're stolen, and you need to prove that they're not yours). Etc. The motive to lie would be an important consideration. And in this case, avoiding execution would be about the most compelling motive of all. Sneed has good reason to lie, and Glossip has no apparent reason to commit murder. Those are factors for the jury to consider, with all the evidence in front of them.
 
marplots said:
This is a good point. Have you seen these videos? If you have, you are in possession of evidence that neither I nor the jury has seen. I do not know if the matter was raised on appeal or not, nor who else has seen this evidence.
....
Click to expand...

Apparently transcripts are available. From the Prejean link:

Justin Sneed had a good reason to implicate Richard in the murder: The transcript of Justin Sneed’s
confession makes it clear that the police intimated to him that if he told them that Richard was behind
the crime that information would be taken into account by the district attorney; and that otherwise
Sneed would be handed over straight away and that he would “be facing this thing” on his own. Sneed
specifically asked the detectives how his confession would help him:
SNEED: So is this going to help me out any at all by telling you all this?
OFFICER: Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. This is definitely going to be better for you this way
than it would be if you didn’t say anything.
Click to expand...
http://www.sisterhelen.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Richard_Glossip_talking_points.pdf

There is no explanation given for why the lawyers didn't present the interrogation other than incompetence.
 
marplots said:
That's the point of having a jury, to rule on what constitutes "the facts."....
Click to expand...
So it's your opinion then, that it's OK for prosecutors to feed a story to a witness and threaten that witness with the death penalty then use that witness to convict someone of capital murder?

And you think juries always have good evidence to decide a case on?

Ineffective counsel, not an issue for you?


This is not about questioning the jury system (though I think that has issues as well). It's about what the jury was presented to base their decision on.
 
Bob001 said:
Apparently transcripts are available. From the Prejean link:


http://www.sisterhelen.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Richard_Glossip_talking_points.pdf

There is no explanation given for why the lawyers didn't present the interrogation other than incompetence.
Click to expand...

The part you quoted doesn't demonstrate Sneed being led (or "fed" - see below). However, there still may be evidence of that in the tapes - I haven't seen them.

The critical point for your assertion is to show Sneed being fed information to make the case against Glossip. A plea deal to get one party in a crime to testify against another is common enough, and part of what the jury has to evaluate when deciding if Sneed's story is believable.

Skeptic Ginger said:
So it's your opinion then, that it's OK for prosecutors to feed a story to a witness and threaten that witness with the death penalty then use that witness to convict someone of capital murder?

And you think juries always have good evidence to decide a case on?

Ineffective counsel, not an issue for you?


This is not about questioning the jury system (though I think that has issues as well). It's about what the jury was presented to base their decision on.
Click to expand...

Those are all significant matters, especially the one I highlighted. Were any of them raised on appeal? The reason I asked is the latest comment by the Governor about reviewing the case and not finding it materially flawed.

It seems we are getting two quite different stories here. One of malfeasance and conspiracy, the other of correct procedure.
 
Matthew Best said:
Because my brain is the best tool I have to do thinking with.

Just allowing someone else to do the thinking for me can often work, but it's not guaranteed to do so.
Click to expand...

You might also want to put into that brain whatever data resulted in those other brains coming to the conclusion they did. I know I haven't. I didn't sit through the trial, see the evidence, hear the testimony, or deliberate with others who were there. That gives those people a certain advantage over me, regardless of how well my brain works in comparison.

Simultaneously, I can't really claim I know (or even believe) Glossip did it. I'm just not in a position to have an informed opinion. I'm willing to admit it's possible he did exactly what he's accused of. But maybe not.

Curious. Does everyone believe Sneed did it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom