Killing Richard Glossip premieres exclusively on ID as a special two-night event on (Monday) April 17 and Tuesday, April 18 at 9 p.m. ET/PT.
GIST: "Richard Eugene Glossip (born February 9, 1963) is an American man currently sitting on death row at Oklahoma State Penitentiary after being convicted of commissioning the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese.[2] Justin Sneed, the man who murdered Van Treese, agreed to plead guilty in exchange for testifying against Glossip, and received a sentence of life without parole.[2] Glossip is the recipient of international attention due to the unusual nature of his conviction, for which there is little or no additional corroborating evidence.[3][4][5][6] Glossip is notable for his role as named plaintiff in the 2015 Supreme Court case Glossip v. Gross, which ruled that executions carried out by a three-drug protocol of midazolam, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] In September[8] and October 2015,[9] Glossip was granted three successive stays of execution due to questions about Oklahoma's lethal injection drugs after Oklahoma Corrections Department officials used potassium acetate to execute Charles Frederick Warner on January 15, 2015, contrary to protocol.[10][11] Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt ordered a multicounty grand jury investigation of the execution drug mix-up.......... Glossip's legal team asserts that Justin Sneed was addicted to methamphetamine at the time that he murdered Van Treese, and that he habitually broke into vehicles in the parking lot of the Best Budget Inn while he was employed as a maintenance man.[13] Glossip's execution is controversial in that he was convicted almost entirely on the testimony of Sneed, who confessed to bludgeoning Van Treese to death with an aluminum baseball bat by himself and who was spared a death sentence himself by implicating Glossip.[6][14] In 2015, Oklahoma City police released a 1999 police report showing that a box of evidence had been marked for destruction. The report was never provided to attorneys who represented Richard Glossip in his second trial or his appeals according to his new defense team.[15] In an interview published the same day Glossip's attorney Donald Knight criticised the previous attorneys, saying "They did a terrible job. Horrible. No preparation. No investigation."[16] On September 22, 2015, Glossip's attorneys filed papers referring to a July 1997 psychiatric evaluation of Sneed, in which he said he understood he was charged with murder in connection with a burglary and made no reference to Glossip's involvement.[17] On September 23, 2015, Glossip's attorneys filed papers complaining that two new witnesses were being intimidated. In affidavits, one witness had claimed that Sneed laughed about lying in court about Glossip’s involvement; another said he was convinced based on his conversations with Sneed that Sneed acted alone.[18] On September 24, 2015 the Oklahoma attorney general's office filed papers stating that the claims of the new witnesses were “inherently suspect”, and that the time it took Van Treese to die and whether blood loss contributed to his death did not affect the trial outcome, in response to a defense claim that the testimony of Dr. Chai Choi, who performed the autopsy was incorrect.[19] On September 28, 2015, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vote 3-2 to proceed with execution.[20][21][22] Presiding Judge Clancy Smith wrote "While finality of judgment is important, the state has no interest in executing an actually innocent man. An evidentiary hearing will give Glossip the chance to prove his allegations that Sneed has recanted, or demonstrate to the court that he cannot provide evidence that would exonerate him." Judge Arlene Johnson wrote that the original trial was "deeply flawed" and an evidentiary hearing should be ordered.[23] On September 30, 2015, Glossip spoke to the UK's Sky News on the telephone from his cell as he was being served his last meal. Glossip said that Sneed testified at trial that Glossip did not wear or own gloves, "And now he's on TV saying that I did. It continues to show the discrepancies in anything that Justin Sneed has to say."[24] On the same day, Virgin CEO Richard Branson bought an advertisement in The Oklahoman newspaper which had advocated against the execution, with Branson stating the evidence against Glossip is flawed and that "every person is deserving of a fair trial", adding, "Your state is about to execute a man whose guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”[25] The United States Supreme Court denied a stay of execution. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that he would grant a stay."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Glossip
See interview with Director Joe Berlinger at the link below: "The docuseries tells the story of Glossip and the re-investigation of the case with interviews from Sneed and Glossip, as well as the lead detectives and attorneys on both sides of the case. By now, Glossip has exhausted all his legal options: he has been rejected for clemency and his execution is around the corner once Oklahoma lifts its ban on execution moratoriums. The only way for Glossip to force a new court action is for his defense team to find new evidence suggesting his innocence. “Here is where I think the power of documentary can be effective. I don’t think the citizens of Oklahoma would willingly want to execute someone who doesn’t deserve to be executed, or at least — in my personal opinion he is innocent — the point of the show is that the case is way too problematic to put this person to death. There are too many questions, too many problems and it needs to be looked at again."
http://realscreen.com/2017/04/13/director-joe-berlinger-talks-killing-richard-glossip/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
