
Richard Glossip and the End of the Death Penalty - sinak
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/richard-glossip-and-the-end-of-the-death-penalty?
======
MichaelGG
Oh FFS, is all reporting this bad? They paint a picture of a guy that did
nothing, and was convicted on one testimony.

In reality, Glossip admitted he tried to cover up the murder. He knew where
the body was, but pretended to help the search. Apparently, he had planned to
help the murderer cut the body up and dissolve it in acid.

Is he guilty of "masterminding" the crime? That's the part where they only
have one testimony and would seem uncertain. Was he involved in the crime?
Without a doubt, by his own admittance! He's not innocent. He might be
innocent of the aggravating factor of having hired or killed for remuneration
but he's not innocent of the murder.

You'd think sites would spend a few minutes reading the court papers on this.
Or not, because it doesn't present a nice case. "Don't kill this accessory to
murder, just imprison him for life!" "He's innocent of hiring a hitman, he
only wanted to aid the murderer!" \-- I guess that doesn't have a nice snazzy
line to parrot.

~~~
sinak
Would love to see some sources referenced here. The claim that he "planned to
help the murderer cut the body up and dissolve it in acid" is, as far as I
know, based purely on Sneed's testimony and has been denied by Glossip.

Glossip definitely made mistakes the day after the murder. But there's no
physical evidence connecting him to the crime scene. To say that he admitted
to being "involved in the crime" seems like a stretch. He's maintained his
innoncence since the start.

A better story with details on the case is here:
[https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09/oklahoma-prepares-
resume...](https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09/oklahoma-prepares-resume-
executions-richard-glossip-first-line-die/)

~~~
MichaelGG
Summary here: [https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-
and-a-...](https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-lie-
what-records-interviews-reveal-about-richard-glossips-murder-conviction/)

Court of appeals document here:
[http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf](http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf)

The first article I linked mentions finding his wristwatch where the body was.
But I can't find another source on that so perhaps they made it up. (Or maybe
it's in some of the linked documents in their article.) The court of appeals
doc does note that Glossip did not mention Sneed's involvement until after the
body was found. There's "made mistakes" and there's "was really covering up a
murder".

Attempting to cover up a murder - that is, helping a murderer get away with it
- is that not often being an accomplice or accessory (there seems to be some
difference of what determines what)? Seems fair to say that's being
"involved". Meanwhile, many of the articles declare full innocence. Reading
through the court of appeals doc, that really does not sound like the case.

I understand - the death penalty is atrocious and shouldn't be allowed. But
declaring this guy to be _innocent_ , when his actions really state otherwise
- that just damages credibility.

It does really teach one lesson: Never talk to police. Had he used his 5th
amendment right, he'd probably be far better off. Though his actions alone
probably would have gotten him a serious sentence.

