Everyone agrees Richard Glossip was not the killer. The actual killer, Justin Sneed, and he alone, is the state’s evidence that Glossip was involved. The actual killer,* in exchange for getting his sentence reduced from the death penalty to life in prison*, testified that Glossip paid him to do it.
There’s no physical evidence tying him to the murder. Sneed claims that he and Glossip split money they got from the victim’s car. Glossip says his money is from his paycheck and selling furniture. Sneed’s money had blood on it. Glossip’s didn’t. Sneed claimed Glossip helped him hang a shower curtain over a broken window. The curtain had Sneed’s fingerprints, not Glossip’s.
The conviction was based on nothing but a snitch’s testimony. And his story doesn’t add up.
And Mary Fallin is OK with killing this guy. Fuck you and your belief that somebody’s death - anybody who isn’t important - in exchange for a murder, equals justice. May you be wrongly convicted someday.
Even if it isn’t a wrongful conviction, this is my main beef with the death penalty. Juries can be notoriously inept, and if not inept, misled by questionable prosecutorial tactics. There is no reason to execute someone under these circumstances. It serves no purpose.
While I have no problem with the death penalty, per se, I do have a big problem with its application, like in this instance. I think it should only be used where there no doubt of guilt. And then, extremely swiftly.
"Watkins says Glossip’s last meal was chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes and a dinner roll from Chili’s; two orders of fish and chips from Long John Silver’s; and a strawberry malt and Baconator cheeseburger from Wendy’s.
See, they don’t have to execute him - with that stuff caking his arteries, he can’t last long.
Aaaaand we can stop the clock at one hour between someone posting a rant about how a state obviously did something really, really wrong, and Smapti stepping up to the plate to defend it. A little worse than your usual times; maybe you were just desperate to find that one semantic snippet you could cling to in lieu of actually making a fucking argument.
The state of Oklahoma claims that he is guilty of murder, that he was convicted of that murder by a unanimous jury of his peers, and that in all subsequent appeals he has failed to provide any evidence sufficient to overturn that finding.
You fucking weasel. I said everyone agrees he was not the killer. Your bullshit answer does not dispute that, but you’re trying to pretend you actually researched this before you answered. You’re not fooling anyone. You knee-jerk typed out a smug answer without bothering to learn a damned thing until you got called on it.
He was the mastermind of the killing. As far as the law is concerned, that’s the same thing as pulling the trigger. That’s why he’s being executed - because he’s guilty of murder.
Would you raise “Everyone agrees he was not the killer” as an objection to Charles Manson’s guilt?
I myself don’t put much trust in anything the anti-DP campaigners say either. But on looking around a bit, I can’t find the “other side” to this story.
It does seem like the evidence against this guy is limited to the self-interested testimony of the actual killer. Hard to see sentencing a guy to death based on just that.
There’s more, and I won’t bog down the thread with the entire thing, but it’s clear that he was arrested and convicted on more than just one man’s say-so.
According to this source, there is considerable circumstantial evidence against Glossip, including motive and the fact that he initially told a series of lies to investigators and co-workers about what he knew of the victim’s disappearance and murder.
That’s the problem with using the term “everyone”. It’s obvious that “everyone” does NOT agree that Richard Glossip was not involved in the murder of Barry Van Treese. If “everyone” agreed, then Glossip would not currently be on death row, and scheduled for execution. Some people disagree with your assessment of the situation.
Very glad he got a stay of execution until Sept. 30. I’ve been following this case the last few weeks. It is just incredible that someone who beats another human being to death is trusted in his testimony.
The cops already had a confession from Justin Sneed. They urged him to name another person because they didn’t believe he did it himself. So he names Richard Glossip. Sneed, the murderer, is spared the DP, and Glossip gets death. Even Sneed’s daughter is on Glossip’s side.
But of course, if he tells someone in prison that he framed Glossip, well, then, by Jove, he must be telling the truth!
That’s why the anti-CP crowd immediately stopped supporting Cameron Willingham after news of his confession came forward - because jailhouse confessions are always truthful and beyond reproach.
And as noted above, they already had plenty of evidence that Glossip lied about knowing where his victim was, lied about the cash he had in his possession when he was arrested, lied about the broken window, deliberately prevented people from looking in the room where the body was hidden, and had ample motive to kill Van Treese in order to protect his livelihood.
Was she there?
Glossip is a guilty man whose cause is being spearheaded by disingenuous anti-CP people who want to prevent the state from executing anyone by attacking the means used to carry out executions, not because of any genuine faith in his innocence.
Somehow I doubt your ability to read minds. Consider that there’s a tiny possibility that the appeals court is right that perhaps there’s a miniscule, non-zero possibility that Glossip was incorrectly convicted of murder and sentenced to death.