Rep. McDugle is a Total Blank on Richard Glossip's "Actual Innocence" - Why?
7/2/2022
Please forward to the Van Treese family
T0: Governor Kevin Stitt
Oklahoma Legislators and staff
media throughout Oklahoma and CNHI Newspapers
Attorney General John O’Connor and staff
Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Pardon and Parole Board
District Attorneys' Council
Archdiocese of Oklahoma City
Catholic Conference of Oklahoma
Subject: Rep. McDugle is a Total Blank on Richard Glossip's "Actual Innocence" - Why?
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Important Note. Since the law firm Reed Smith released their "Independent Investigation of State v. Richard E. Glossip" (the "Report") (1), June 6, 2022, no media, be it local, national or international, that I have seen, has told you the following:
Summary
As detailed, Rep. McDugle, attorneys with the anti-death penalty law firm Reed Smith and the media have, somehow, left out all of the evidence of "actual innocence" of Richard Glossip, in the murder of Barry Alan Van Treese (RE, 1,2).
If Reed Smith's Report, regarding evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and other issues, in the Richard Glossip's murder case, are confirmed, there may be a chance of overturning the Glossip verdict. The burden of proof is, now, on Glossip to prove it would have changed the outcome.
We will have to wait and see.
When it comes to provable, actual innocence, Rep. McDugle is a "Total Blank on Richard Glossip", as detailed (RE, 1,2) Ask McDugle "Why?".
=========
1) Rep. McDugle's article provided zero proof of Glossip's "actual innocence" (RE). Yet, Rep.McDugle said he would tell us why he believed Glossip innocent. He didn't, because he cannot (RE). Otherwise, he would have.
Neither Rep. McDugle nor the 30 lawyer, 3000 page Report, by Reed Smith, has proof of Glossip's actual innocence (RE, 1, 2)
McDugle should tell Oklahomans "Why?" he failed to mention that.
2) The most compelling statement, of Glossip's "actual innocnce", from the Report's "Executive Summary Of Investigation Findings" is:
"Unlike many cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the evidence of petitioner’s (Glossip) guilt was not overwhelming.” (1)
After 30 lawyers, 3000 hours of review . . . Zero evidence for actual innocence. Ask McDugle "Why?".
3) From the Report's Conclusion, page 259
"Based on the findings of this independent investigation (the Report), including the State’s destruction of evidence, we conclude that the 2004 trial cannot be relied on to support a murder‐for‐hire conviction. " (2)
If that Conclusion is true, Glossip will win appeal and be retried or freed, with charges dropped. Zero proof of Glossip's "actual innocence" is provided.
McDugle should tell Oklahomans "Why?" McDugle failed to inform them of that.
4) Since the January. 8, 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, Glossip had 17 years t0 prepare for his 2014 clemency hearing:
"Board members asked Glossip why he lied to police about (Barry Alan) Van Treese’s whereabouts after he was made aware by Sneed that Sneed had killed their boss. Glossip said at first he did not believe Sneed, but he was unable to give the board a reason as to why he did not report the crime to police." (3)
Very hard to overcome that actual fact, not mentioned in any of the recent articles, showing no proof of actual innocence.
McDugle should tell Oklahomans "Why?" he failed to inform them of that.
5) Reed Smith is a well known anti-death penalty (4), international law firm that fights the US death penalty, from both their European and US offices (4). Nothing wrong with that . . . except McDugle did not inform everybody.
Rep. McDugle should tell Oklahomans "Why?" he failed to inform them of that.
6) Why does it matter? The fraud rate, by anti death penalty activists, in claims of the "innocent" or "exonerated" from death row, are 71-83% (5), as widely known, since 2000. Anti death penalty folks/groups are in error on about everything else, as well (6).
Rep. McDugle could, easily, be one of so many fooled and he has no evidence to the contrary.
McDugle should tell Oklahomans "Why?" he thinks the fraud rate is so high.
To my knowledge, there is no fraud within the Reed Smith Report . . . But, no one should blindly accept anti or pro death penalty advocacy as being neutral, as is both obvious and rational. It is the reason that we have two opposing advocates, at trial, defense and prosecution, with the neutral party, be that judge or jury, deciding the verdict and sentence and why judges decide the outcome of appeals, after the presentation by opposing sides . . . and why we have research, with fact checking and vetting, all, hopefully, with critical thinking.
The Report is but one side of a many sided coin and it appears difficult to call Reed Smith a neutral party.
Rep. McDugle should tell Oklahomans "Why?" he failed to mention this.
7) None of the many recent news articles stating Glossip's "innocence" showed any evidence of Gossip's actual innocence.
McDugle should tell Oklahomans "Why?" that is the case.
8) Glossip’s sister, Nancy Ogden, said "given her brother’s demeanor it was more likely (co defendant, convicted murderer) Sneed influenced (Glossip) and not the other way around. (2)."
To be specific, that would mean that Sneed would have been more likely to have influenced Glossip in the murder plot and murder and not the other way around.
She seems to imply that they are, indeed, both guilty.
McDugle. should tell Oklahomans "Why?" that may be.
Important Note. Since the law firm Reed Smith released their "Independent Investigation of State v. Richard E. Glossip", June 6, 2022, no media, be it local, national or international, that I have seen, has told you any of that.
9) a) After a guilty finding, the burden of proof, switches to the convicted party, Glossip, in this case, who must be able to prove his own actual innocence, if he is to make an actual innocence claim, which, clearly, he cannot do, unless McDugle, Reed Smith and all the media reports, just, decided to leave all that "evidence" out? There is no such evidence . . . yet, if someone has, for 23 years, decided to keep it hidden.
b) The "presumption of innocence" exists, only, at trial and, only, by the fact finders, be that judge or jury. Factually, the defendant is either actually innocent or actually guilty, before, during and after trial.
c) A "not guilty" verdict does not mean actually innocent (5), but that the prosecution has failed to meet their burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A guilty verdict does no mean actually guilty, but means the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We all know that the actually guilty can be found "not guilty" and that the actually innocent can be found "guilty" (5).
FN
1) page 6, II. Executive Summary Of Investigation Findings, Independent Investigation of State v. Richard E. Glossip, Final Report, Reed Smith, LLP, June 7, 2022
2) Ibid, Conclusion, p 259
3) "Clemency denied for Oklahoma man sentenced to death for role in murder" Graham Lee Brewer, The Oklahoman, Oct 25, 2014
4) See Reed Smith's "Justice For Prisoners" group
Reed Smith claims: " Through years of litigation in previous cases in Illinois and Pennsylvania, our lawyers succeeded in saving three clients who had been sentenced to death."
Which three cases? Lest look at the death penalty in Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania, only, allows executions by those who waive appeals and "volunteer" for executions, which is about 0.7% of their death row cases. Illinois, only, executed 4% of their death row inmates, with the last execution in 1999.
The US executes about 15% of their death row cases, with about 50% removed by other means - appeals, commutations and natural death.
5) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, Well Known Since 2000
6) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
Sister Helen Prejean: Does Truth Matter?
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
======
Victim Services
Victims' Voices
======
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)
