Here's another background article: https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-lie-what-records-interviews-reveal-about-richard-glossips-murder-

Here's another background article: 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-... Note that despite all this "innocence" talk, Richard admits to lying to police, instructing cleaning crews to avoid the room, robbing his employer's car (after the murder?), and, it seems, pretending to help with the search even though he knew the body would not be found there. From what I've made out of the timeline, he only reversed his statements after it was clear how things were going down. So it would appear that he was trying to cover up the murder. While one person's testimony shouldn't be enough to add the "for hire" enhancement, why are people saying he's innocent? Certainly his actions that he admits to would be enough to pin an accessory or accomplice charge of murder.