5 ms·

I have to wonder: before writing this essay, did pg read anything written by anyone on the opposite side of this case? For instance, this? https://www.readfron

I have to wonder: before writing this essay, did pg read anything written by anyone on the opposite side of this case? For instance, this? https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-lie-what-records-interviews-reveal-about-richard-glossips-murder-conviction/ https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-... If not, it seems like a pretty remarkable procedure to arrive at such a strong conclusion, with no other information besides a brief summary by advocates for the defense. Has pg ever served on a jury? If so, would he make his mind up this way?

nkurz 11y ago
Your questions (and link) are good, but I think you might be misinterpreting Paul's logic. He hasn't concluded that Glossip is definitely innocent (although he thinks he probably is), rather he's concluded that in the absence of physical evidence and with the majority of testimony being provided by a witness who has a clear motive to implicate someone else, that there must be "reasonable doubt". He may be wrong, and in particular "reasonable doubt" may not have the legal definition that he thinks it does (legal terms rarely match common sense). But his argument is not "Glossip is innocent", but "there is no way we have sufficient evidence to kill this man without risking that we are killing someone who might be innocent". Have you served on a jury, by the way? I served as the foreman on one relatively minor criminal case, and it did more to shake my faith in the rule-of-law than any other (minimal) encounters I've had with the legal system. In the end, we reached a unanimous "not guilty" in the case. This was a difficult decision for all of us to reach, since the only way this could be the "correct" decision was if both police officers who testified were lying about significant details both in their report and on the stand. And yet this is the conclusion we eventually all agreed upon as being the most likely explanation for the way the pieces failed to fit together. The defendant may well have done other illegal things, and possibly the world would be a better place if he was behind bars, but as a jury we decided that there was sufficient reason to doubt that he was guilty as charged. And yet there was no particular guarantee that this case would turn out as it did. On a different day, with a different jury, a different judge, or different lawyers, (but the same defendant, witnesses, and evidence) a guilty verdict seems likely. As a limited participant in the legal system (but a "logical" computer programmer) my assessment would be that if we have the death penalty, the American jury system is practically guaranteed to occasionally sentence innocent people to death. I'd guess that this is the part that bothers Paul as well, I'd guess that he probably does have experience that leads him to believe this, and I'd guess that his opinion on the matter is not likely to be changed by a counterpoint that makes Glossip's guilt seem somewhat more likely.
- emgoldstein 11y ago
  I've served on two juries. In both cases, a drunk driver was acquitted. In both cases, the defendant's guilt was obvious, and the cause was a single juror who hated cops. (Or, more indirectly, the cause was an arrogant young DA who wasn't aggressive enough in voir dire.) On one of these cases, I was the last juror to hold out. It was like "12 Angry Men" in reverse: "12 Hungry Men And Women." It was 5pm, I wanted dinner and so did everyone else, and I didn't want to bring 11 other people back again tomorrow. So I took the easy way out, as did 10 other people. On our way out, the DA thanked us sarcastically and noted that the defendant had two prior DUIs. If we'd given him a third, she pointed out, there might actually have been consequences. As it was... I live in slight terror of glancing at a newspaper and noting that he's erased someone's six-year-old, just because I was hungry and wanted to go home for dinner. To put it slightly differently: a few months ago, a woman in SF suffered the death penalty. She was innocent. She just wanted to look at the sea lions, or something. Unfortunately, San Francisco had sentenced her to death. The executioner was an illegal-immigrant drifter who'd been pulled out of ICE's deportation pipeline by "sanctuary city" policies originally intended for intellectuals fleeing El Salvador in the early 1980s. A couple of days before, he'd smashed the window on a car and stolen a gun, which he was using (according to him) to shoot at sea lions. A bullet Is her death an accident? How about Glossip's? I know of one billionaire who cares a lot about Kathryn Steinle. I know of another billionaire who cares a lot about Richard Glossip. It seems to me both these deaths involve the action of the State, in choosing to allow a human life to be taken -- in one case intentionally based on the determination of guilt, in another case negligently, based on -- honestly, I couldn't even tell you what this level of carelessness is based on. Supposing Glossip is innocent -- which doesn't seem terribly likely once we read the piece above, which is far more detailed and down-to-earth than the emotional appeals that triggered pg. Then, his death would be an accident, wouldn't it? The State did not set out to kill an innocent man. It didn't set out to kill an innocent women, but it did that as well -- with far less thinking than went into Glossip's case. Suppose our other billionaire, the one we adore here instead of laughing at for his ridiculous hair, had chosen to care about the other human life in question. Or, more to the point, the next 1 or 10 or 100 that might be sacrificed in this absurd and cavalier fashion. What would your response have been?
ternaryoperator 11y ago
The article certainly supports reasonable doubt.
tacon 11y ago
The linked reference mentions that the Oklahoma appeals court wrote that finding the same amount of money in the possession of both men was part of their decision to not reverse. Why would anyone say there was no evidence other than the other guy's testimony? And that is just a cursory reading of the details of the case.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
brlewis 11y ago
The "strong conclusion" pg came to: Many who have looked closely at this case think Glossip is innocent. I think so. I encourage you to learn more about it and form your own conclusions. But one thing is certain: there is a reasonable doubt. I just read the article you linked to from start to finish. From that article alone "on the opposite side of the case" I draw the same conclusion: there's reasonable doubt. Further, I think your paragraph that starts "If not" is an awful lot of followup to your presumed answer to your unanswered question. Couldn't you even have prepended a perfunctory "If so, great" to it?

nkurz 11y ago

Your questions (and link) are good, but I think you might be misinterpreting Paul's logic. He hasn't concluded that Glossip is definitely innocent (although he thinks he probably is), rather he's concluded that in the absence of physical evidence and with the majority of testimony being provided by a witness who has a clear motive to implicate someone else, that there must be "reasonable doubt". He may be wrong, and in particular "reasonable doubt" may not have the legal definition that he thinks it does (legal terms rarely match common sense). But his argument is not "Glossip is innocent", but "there is no way we have sufficient evidence to kill this man without risking that we are killing someone who might be innocent". Have you served on a jury, by the way? I served as the foreman on one relatively minor criminal case, and it did more to shake my faith in the rule-of-law than any other (minimal) encounters I've had with the legal system. In the end, we reached a unanimous "not guilty" in the case. This was a difficult decision for all of us to reach, since the only way this could be the "correct" decision was if both police officers who testified were lying about significant details both in their report and on the stand. And yet this is the conclusion we eventually all agreed upon as being the most likely explanation for the way the pieces failed to fit together. The defendant may well have done other illegal things, and possibly the world would be a better place if he was behind bars, but as a jury we decided that there was sufficient reason to doubt that he was guilty as charged. And yet there was no particular guarantee that this case would turn out as it did. On a different day, with a different jury, a different judge, or different lawyers, (but the same defendant, witnesses, and evidence) a guilty verdict seems likely. As a limited participant in the legal system (but a "logical" computer programmer) my assessment would be that if we have the death penalty, the American jury system is practically guaranteed to occasionally sentence innocent people to death. I'd guess that this is the part that bothers Paul as well, I'd guess that he probably does have experience that leads him to believe this, and I'd guess that his opinion on the matter is not likely to be changed by a counterpoint that makes Glossip's guilt seem somewhat more likely.

emgoldstein 11y ago
I've served on two juries. In both cases, a drunk driver was acquitted. In both cases, the defendant's guilt was obvious, and the cause was a single juror who hated cops. (Or, more indirectly, the cause was an arrogant young DA who wasn't aggressive enough in voir dire.) On one of these cases, I was the last juror to hold out. It was like "12 Angry Men" in reverse: "12 Hungry Men And Women." It was 5pm, I wanted dinner and so did everyone else, and I didn't want to bring 11 other people back again tomorrow. So I took the easy way out, as did 10 other people. On our way out, the DA thanked us sarcastically and noted that the defendant had two prior DUIs. If we'd given him a third, she pointed out, there might actually have been consequences. As it was... I live in slight terror of glancing at a newspaper and noting that he's erased someone's six-year-old, just because I was hungry and wanted to go home for dinner. To put it slightly differently: a few months ago, a woman in SF suffered the death penalty. She was innocent. She just wanted to look at the sea lions, or something. Unfortunately, San Francisco had sentenced her to death. The executioner was an illegal-immigrant drifter who'd been pulled out of ICE's deportation pipeline by "sanctuary city" policies originally intended for intellectuals fleeing El Salvador in the early 1980s. A couple of days before, he'd smashed the window on a car and stolen a gun, which he was using (according to him) to shoot at sea lions. A bullet Is her death an accident? How about Glossip's? I know of one billionaire who cares a lot about Kathryn Steinle. I know of another billionaire who cares a lot about Richard Glossip. It seems to me both these deaths involve the action of the State, in choosing to allow a human life to be taken -- in one case intentionally based on the determination of guilt, in another case negligently, based on -- honestly, I couldn't even tell you what this level of carelessness is based on. Supposing Glossip is innocent -- which doesn't seem terribly likely once we read the piece above, which is far more detailed and down-to-earth than the emotional appeals that triggered pg. Then, his death would be an accident, wouldn't it? The State did not set out to kill an innocent man. It didn't set out to kill an innocent women, but it did that as well -- with far less thinking than went into Glossip's case. Suppose our other billionaire, the one we adore here instead of laughing at for his ridiculous hair, had chosen to care about the other human life in question. Or, more to the point, the next 1 or 10 or 100 that might be sacrificed in this absurd and cavalier fashion. What would your response have been?

ternaryoperator 11y ago

The article certainly supports reasonable doubt.

tacon 11y ago

The linked reference mentions that the Oklahoma appeals court wrote that finding the same amount of money in the possession of both men was part of their decision to not reverse. Why would anyone say there was no evidence other than the other guy's testimony? And that is just a cursory reading of the details of the case.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

brlewis 11y ago

The "strong conclusion" pg came to: Many who have looked closely at this case think Glossip is innocent. I think so. I encourage you to learn more about it and form your own conclusions. But one thing is certain: there is a reasonable doubt. I just read the article you linked to from start to finish. From that article alone "on the opposite side of the case" I draw the same conclusion: there's reasonable doubt. Further, I think your paragraph that starts "If not" is an awful lot of followup to your presumed answer to your unanswered question. Couldn't you even have prepended a perfunctory "If so, great" to it?