Potentially innocent man about to be executed

marplots said:
Clever enough not to be on death row though.
Click to expand...
So was no criminal history Glossip until drug addict Sneed was persuaded in a videotaped confession no one is allowed to see or hear to dob him in. Glossip is innocent, I studied the case and all the standard templates are followed with precision.
 
Samson said:
So was no criminal history Glossip until drug addict Sneed was persuaded in a videotaped confession no one is allowed to see or hear to dob him in. Glossip is innocent, I studied the case and all the standard templates are followed with precision.
Click to expand...

I have not studied the case, so you have me at an advantage. It must be tough though, knowing that innocent people can be grabbed up this way. I still have the luxury of believing the system generally gets it right.
 
marplots said:
I have not studied the case, so you have me at an advantage. It must be tough though, knowing that innocent people can be grabbed up this way. I still have the luxury of believing the system generally gets it right.
Click to expand...
In this case we have an alleged hired killing, the fall back option that can fool most people. The reality looks very different, the murder plot utterly ridiculous as usual. What rational man would ask a violent drug addict to kill a man with the attendant risks? Who expects to get away with that? I listened to Bruce Fischer's podcast on Cameron Todd Willingham, and that convinced me Governor Perry had done what Fallin and Prater are about to do, execute a perfectly innocent human being.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
So was no criminal history Glossip until drug addict Sneed was persuaded in a videotaped confession no one is allowed to see or hear to dob him in. Glossip is innocent, I studied the case and all the standard templates are followed with precision.
Click to expand...

I must confess that I have only take a cursory look at the evidence in the case, but your are making a strong claim here. You are saying, "Glossip is innocent", as opposed to "there is insufficient evidence" against Glossip.

Can you share some reason why you think there is evidence of actual innocence, as opposed to lack of evidence for guilt?

For my part, when I did look at the evidence, it seemed to me that there was a fair amount of evidence that Glossip knew about the murder before the police found the body, and that he was concealing it. I base this mostly on the testimony of hotel staff, plus his tentative "identification" of one of the drunks who broke the window. (For those not familiar, there were no drunks who broke the window, so Glossip identifying one of them means that he was lying. The most logical explanation for that lie is that he knew the window was broken during the murder, and was trying to conceal it.)

I don't know what I would do if I had to pass actual judgment on the case. I don't know if I would judge that his guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it seems to me that he is more likely than not to be guilty.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, and I am confident that innocent people have been executed, even in my lifetime, but there aren't many of them, and I'm at least somewhat confident that they got this one right. However, that is based on a very superficial examination of the evidence, and I would be open to arguments against his guilt.
 
Samson said:
In this case we have an alleged hired killing, the fall back option that can fool most people. The reality looks very different, the murder plot utterly ridiculous as usual. What rational man would ask a violent drug addict to kill a man with the attendant risks? Who expects to get away with that?
Click to expand...

But aren't you arguing that he should get away with it?
 
This case just shows how arbitrary and unfair the death penalty is, at least in the way its administered currently in the US. Even if we assume this man is guilty as charged - he is being sentenced to death while Denis Rader and Gary Ridgeway, (both of whom are convicted serial killers), are sentenced to life.

How is it just to execute someone who is convicted of one murder that even the prosecution says he didn't actually carry out, while men who have committed dozens of murders with their bare hands get a lighter sentence?
 
Meadmaker said:
I must confess that I have only take a cursory look at the evidence in the case, but your are making a strong claim here. You are saying, "Glossip is innocent", as opposed to "there is insufficient evidence" against Glossip.

Can you share some reason why you think there is evidence of actual innocence, as opposed to lack of evidence for guilt?

For my part, when I did look at the evidence, it seemed to me that there was a fair amount of evidence that Glossip knew about the murder before the police found the body, and that he was concealing it. I base this mostly on the testimony of hotel staff, plus his tentative "identification" of one of the drunks who broke the window. (For those not familiar, there were no drunks who broke the window, so Glossip identifying one of them means that he was lying. The most logical explanation for that lie is that he knew the window was broken during the murder, and was trying to conceal it.)

I don't know what I would do if I had to pass actual judgment on the case. I don't know if I would judge that his guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it seems to me that he is more likely than not to be guilty.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, and I am confident that innocent people have been executed, even in my lifetime, but there aren't many of them, and I'm at least somewhat confident that they got this one right. However, that is based on a very superficial examination of the evidence, and I would be open to arguments against his guilt.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I am making a rather bald statement, but there seems to be a better crime theory here, from the link of Jim Kelly I just posted.

Spoliation of evidence, willful or negligent destruction of evidence
Another major issue of trial court error in both trials involves the absence of an instruction to the jury about “spoliation” or destruction of evidence going toward Glossip’s innocence. The box of physical evidence in the Sneed-Glossip case was initially maintained at the residence of later discredited police chemist, Joyce Gilchrist, and supervisor of the DNA lab, who was found to misidentify evidence at numerous other murder trials. Gilchrist was infamous for tailoring her testimony to fit the state’s case like a glove, which resulted in overturning scores of murder cases. In 2004 the police inexplicably disposed of the contents of the box only days prior to Glossip’s second trial.

According to a recently disclosed 1999 police report, the inventory of the destroyed evidence included a bag of duct tape, which would have supported the defense theory that the homicide resulted from a burglary gone awry.

The inventory implies that Sneed had only intended to subdue, restrain and muzzle his victim with the duct tape to steal money — at least until Van Treese put up a real fight and went down swinging in the ensuing struggle.



When there is a logical crime theory stacked against an illogical one, I will buy into the former.
If someone explains why the duct tape was destroyed they will move this forward.
I also deduce from the usual collection of power brokers to state the bald claim of innocence that they have been persuaded. Think of Donald Trump on Knox. In the little time left, it would be good to find a complete deconstruction of Glossip's interrogations and testimony.
His first lawyer has been disbarred for incompetence, but is posting in comments sections that he knows Glossip to be factually innocent. This seems odd, you would expect him to say it was a hard case to defend rather than bat for him surely?
 
Last edited:
These cases are always troubling when a lighter sentence is earned for dobbing someone in and the death is known to be caused by someone else.

Knox vs Guede
Shrien Dewani vs the taxi driver whose name escapes me
Teina Pora vs Malcolm Rewa

Mark Lundy's snitch got favours.
Scott Watson had his snitch too.

Ye, Glossip looks innocent to me, and if so, there is more than his blood at stake. The internet age is solving these crimes, these governors and DA's are dinosaurs and history will nab them.
 
Samson said:
So was no criminal history Glossip until drug addict Sneed was persuaded in a videotaped confession no one is allowed to see or hear to dob him in. Glossip is innocent, I studied the case and all the standard templates are followed with precision.
Click to expand...

The video is available on line. It is remarkable to me that before they even ask Sneed anything they have told him that they believe he didn't do it alone, that they know others were involved, that they have Rich (Glossip) under arrest, and that if he cooperates they'll try and make sure he doesn't get death.

So before even asking about what happened, they have given him a massive out of saying that they are right he wasn't alone, the name of the person they think was involved with him, and a stunningly good reason to tell them whatever they want to hear.

I'm shocked that the Defence didn't use in in the first trial, I'm stunned that they failed to do so in the second. Sneed's testimony should have been dead in the water right there and then as the police feed him exactly what to say.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The video is available on line. It is remarkable to me that before they even ask Sneed anything they have told him that they believe he didn't do it alone, that they know others were involved, that they have Rich (Glossip) under arrest, and that if he cooperates they'll try and make sure he doesn't get death.

So before even asking about what happened, they have given him a massive out of saying that they are right he wasn't alone, the name of the person they think was involved with him, and a stunningly good reason to tell them whatever they want to hear. I'm shocked that the Defence didn't use in in the first trial, I'm stunned that they failed to do so in the second. Sneed's testimony should have been dead in the water right there and then as the police feed him exactly what to say.
Click to expand...

Are those things evident on the tape or are you referencing just the early part about having Glossip under arrest and "not doing it alone?"

In other words, do the cops feed details of the crime to Sneed that will end up implicating Glossip? Is that on the tape?
 
quadraginta said:
If his death sentence were to be commuted to LWOP would he be getting away with it?
Click to expand...

Yes. If he's guilty, he doesn't face the death penalty. If he's innocent, he's falsely imprisoned and the situation hasn't been remedied. If the idea is that he occupies some intermediate state between guilty and innocent, then he's already had 18 years of hanging around in limbo.

If the argument is one about some essential injustice linked to the death penalty, then it doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent - the death penalty itself is "guilty."
 
marplots said:
Yes. If he's guilty, he doesn't face the death penalty. If he's innocent, he's falsely imprisoned and the situation hasn't been remedied. If the idea is that he occupies some intermediate state between guilty and innocent, then he's already had 18 years of hanging around in limbo.

If the argument is one about some essential injustice linked to the death penalty, then it doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent - the death penalty itself is "guilty."
Click to expand...


I'm not making an argument. I was asking a question. And the only essential injustice linked to the death penalty that I am concerned about in this instance is the irrevocability of it.

Judging from the info provided by the various sources presented in this thread it seems to me that sufficient doubt of his actual guilt exists to warrant an LWOP sentence as opposed to capital punishment.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
I'm not making an argument. I was asking a question. And the only essential injustice linked to the death penalty that I am concerned about in this instance is the irrevocability of it.
Click to expand...

I think the jury was aware of this when imposing the penalty.

It's true that different states come down on different sides of this issue. Sometimes the same state flip-flops. The BTK guy got life in prison, even though Kansas has the death penalty, because during the period when the crimes were committed the death penalty had been rescinded.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must confess that I have only take a cursory look at the evidence in the case, but your are making a strong claim here. You are saying, "Glossip is innocent", as opposed to "there is insufficient evidence" against Glossip.

Can you share some reason why you think there is evidence of actual innocence, as opposed to lack of evidence for guilt?
Click to expand...
Western jurisprudence is founded on the presumption of innocence. If there's insufficient evidence against Glossip, he is, by definition, not guilty.
 
Samson said:
When there is a logical crime theory stacked against an illogical one, I will buy into the former.
If someone explains why the duct tape was destroyed they will move this forward.
Click to expand...

While missing duct tape might be a point for suspicion, I'll bet the jury would have reached the same verdict even if they had known about the duct tape. I can think of several possible reasons why someone might have duct tape with them after murdering someone.

As I said before, if I were part of the jury, I don't know if I would have declared Glossip guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I certainly don't have enough evidence in my possession to make that determination myself at this time.

However, I will say again that I think there is very strong evidence that he was aware of the murder before the body was found, and that he participated in a coverup of the murder.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Western jurisprudence is founded on the presumption of innocence. If there's insufficient evidence against Glossip, he is, by definition, not guilty.
Click to expand...
This is not, however, the same as Glossip being factually innocent. It is entirely possible for Glossip, or any other accused, to have actually committed the crime of which they have been accused and yet not be found guilty in a court of law. That they might not be found guilty in law does not mean that they did not, in fact, commit the crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom