3 ms·

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, b

by sinak 11y ago

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-executions-richard-glossip-first-line-die/ https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09/oklahoma-prepares-resume...

MichaelGG 11y ago
Summary here: 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-... 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.

by sinak 11y ago

MichaelGG 11y ago

Summary here: 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-... 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.