GLOSSIP ATTORNEYS CROSS LINE WITH CRITICISM OF DA

 

Joseph Goebbels on the big lie

[PHOTO SOURCE: http://izquotes.com/quote/383851 & http://victimsfamiliesforthedeathpenalty.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/liars-repeat-themselves.html]

INTERNET SOURCE: http://newsok.com/glossip-attorneys-cross-line-with-criticism-of-da/article/5449377

Glossip attorneys cross line with criticism of DA

by The Oklahoman Editorial Board Published: September 28, 2015

EVERYONE deserves a zealous defense, but efforts to prevent the execution of Richard Glossip are taking on the appearance of a smear campaign aimed not only at Oklahoma's law enforcement community, but also all Oklahomans who support them.

Glossip has been convicted, twice, of paying a co-worker in 1997 to murder his employer, Barry Van Treese. Glossip's defenders argue the co-worker, Justin Sneed, lied about Glossip's role in order to avoid the death penalty himself.

Now Glossip's attorneys have come forward with last-minute affidavits from former convicts who claim to have been incarcerated with Sneed and heard him make vague comments about sending Glossip “up the river” for the murder.

Of course, one reason juries believed Glossip played a role in the killing is because Glossip admitted he tried to cover up the murder. This, it must be noted, is not a minor point.

Among other things, Glossip diverted cleaning staff from the motel room where Van Treese had been killed to prevent discovery of the body; he and Sneed split thousands of dollars stolen from Van Treese; and Glossip not only failed to immediately tell police investigators he knew who killed Van Treese, but gave conflicting statements that impeded the
investigation.

In short, for a supposedly innocent man, Glossip did plenty to look guilty.

The filing of the affidavits led the court, hours before Glossip was to be executed, to delay the execution by two weeks. It is now set for Wednesday. Yet this new “evidence” seems shaky, at best. One former inmate involved, Michael G. Scott, previously admitted to Department of Corrections officials in 2005 that he lies “all the time.”

Glossip's attorneys did little to suggest they're confident in the validity of the new affidavits when they objected to prosecutors interviewing the supposed witnesses. Instead, they suggested Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater and law enforcement officials across the state are trying to intimidate defense witnesses and railroad an innocent man.

INTERNET SOURCE: http://newsok.com/glossip-attorneys-cross-line-with-criticism-of-da/article/5449377/?page=2

Those claims were levied after Rogers County authorities arrested Scott for parole violations and Prater and other Oklahoma County officials questioned Scott while he was in custody.

Yet as The Oklahoman's Graham Lee Brewer reported, “It is not uncommon for prosecutors to interview defense witnesses directly to determine if what they are saying in an affidavit is accurate, and sometimes parole arrests play a role in that process.”

Among the details Glossip's attorneys highlighted was that the room where Scott was interviewed “was equipped with a camera, although Mr. Scott did not know if it was turned on or not.”

If Scott is telling the truth, why would a camera be intimidating? On the other hand, if Prater and other law enforcement officials are pressuring Scott to change his story and frame an innocent man for a murder he didn't commit and for which he may soon be executed, why would they film themselves?

Contrary to the implications made by Glossip's legal team, Prater has a long-established record as an above-board, independent prosecutor. So his blunt rebuttal of their claims is noteworthy: “The day will come when it will be clear that everything that the defense lawyers and their witnesses say in this case are lies.”

Glossip's attorneys are obligated to defend him by every legal means. But if they are demonizing law enforcement officials for merely doing their jobs, they've gone too far.