To answer my own questions: * Yes, Sneed has a motive for lying (reduced sentence). * Yes, Sneed has a motive (loss of job). So does Glossip. * Sneed co

To answer my own questions: * Yes, Sneed has a motive for lying (reduced sentence). * Yes, Sneed has a motive (loss of job). So does Glossip. * Sneed could have known this info without Glossip. * Yes, Sneed got lots of money. The judgement was not clear about how much we know about where it came from or Glossip's connection to it. * Robbery doesn't make a lot of sense as a motive: Sneed had access to the other rooms to steal and better targets. But Sneed had other possible motives than robbery, too. * Someone else mentioned Sneed was a meth addict, but this wans't mentioned in this ruling that I saw. * There are several big lies in Glossip's story that he has no good explanation for. Him avoiding letting others into room 102 is highly suspect. * There's also evidence that someone lied to protect him, given the story from the woman who was sleeping with him. I'm not clear on what her relationship to Glossip is, only that the testimony puts both of them into the same bed that night. So, we do have good reason to believe that he's covering something up here. This could be further substantiated with physical evidence tying him to the envelope of money, etc. In particular, to the curtain covering the body. But there are also problems with Sneed's story. I'd say they should, if they haven't already done so, gather physical evidence that corroborates Sneed's story. If he's being honest, I don't think Glossip was so perfect as to have left nothing behind. I suppose they'd explain that away by saying that he managed the motel and might have touched any random thing, but having his fingerprints/hair/etc. on something connected to the body would make this a lot harder to explain away. It looks to me like he's lying and the juries appear to have agreed. I wouldn't care to execute someone on a case like that, however.