June 24, 2026
9 Execution Dates, 3 Last Meals, And Now… A Third Trial
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed 63-year-old Richard Glossip was back in court yesterday asking a judge to set a new preliminary hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence for prosecutors to proceed with a third trial. The judge refused and instead set a September trial date for the former death row inmate whose murder conviction was thrown out by the Supreme Court last year. Glossip has maintained his innocence for the 1997 killing of his boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese. Kim Kardashian and others have voiced their support for Glossip, Kardashian even helping post his $500,000 bond last month, which allowed Glossip to walk out of prison for the first time in nearly 30 years.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Heys. It is Wednesday, June twenty fourth, and he spent thirty years on death row. Kim Kardashian paid to get him out of prison, and now the state of Oklahoma is trying to put him right back in. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. In what has been a thirty year saga, an ordeal and robes. They keep writing new chapters on this story for this death row former death row in.
00:00:31
Speaker 2: Me, that's right, and yes, saga is a really good way to put it. We're talking about sixty three year old Richard Glossip. And yes, he spent nearly three decades on death row. And it wasn't until last year twenty twenty five February, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned his conviction. This is significant. And then yes, just last month, he is released on bond. He walks out of prison for the first time in nearly thirty years, thanks to the Supreme Court. And yes, thanks to Kim Kardashian who paid.
00:01:08
Speaker 1: She footed the bill for him to get five hundred thousand dollars. She footed that bill. She is not the only celebrity who has been a part of this. I think Richard Branson is the other big name that I've seen. But a lot of groups or this isn't just an anti death penalty case. This is okay. So a lot of people think this is a guy who is innocent, who Robes was on death row for thirty years. But when you think about how close he got to dying several times in that thirty years, that's the kind of stuff that'll give you chills about the death penalty in this country.
00:01:37
Speaker 2: Babe. He had nine execution dates. Think about that. The governor of Oklahoma throughout the years, it wasn't always the same governor actually scheduled his execution nine different times, and three of those times he nearly died. One of them he was moments away. We'll get into that in just a moment. But he has been through. If he is innocent, can you imagine what this man has gone through over the past three decades.
00:02:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, And the so we talk about there Robes how close he's gotten to death. He got close and he wasn't saved because there was an issue necessarily with his case where people talked about his innocence. No, these were technicalities and having to do with drugs and whatnot. But we will get more into that and how close he came, including several last meals that he ate for Robes. He was in court, and the reason we're talking about this now is because he was just in court waiting for his fate to find out robes whether or not they're trying to put his butt right back on death row. The answer there is no, however, correct.
00:02:42
Speaker 2: So he was trying through his attorneys to have this judge go back to the beginning of his case and actually have a preliminary hearing where they even they had to actually go over whether or not there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial. That's what his attorneys wanted. The State of Oklahoma said, nah, the Supreme Court, yes, may have vacated his conviction, but they actually said he needs a new trial. And so the judge agreed with the State of Oklahoma and set a trial date now, and this will be his gloss of third trial. He actually gave him the date of September twenty eighth, So just in a few months he will go back to court to face murder charges once again. But there is a difference. This time. The state of Oklahoma will not be seeking the death penalty. They will be seeking life in prison.
00:03:32
Speaker 1: But again, this is a guy who didn't kill anybody, but he is the one who is who was credited and convicted for putting the whole motion murder for higher in motion, and he got the death penalty. This case is a mess. It's a legal mess in a lot of ways that have to do with prosecutorial misconducts conduct EVI being withheld roles. You don't have to be a lawyer. You can watch just a half a season of Law and Order and you know one of the biggest no nos is withholding evidence from the defense.
00:04:10
Speaker 2: Of course, he should get a new trial, correct and to kind of go through how he's now on his third trial in two thousand and one. His first trial was overturned because the conviction was overturned because they ruled the glossip didn't have adequate counsel. So he was retried in two thousand and four where he was once again sentenced to death. And then yes, now in twenty twenty five, the Supreme Court overturned that two thousand and four conviction, saying that there were trial errors and that this state used testimony that it knew was false and that is the reason why he is now getting his third trial.
00:04:50
Speaker 1: And again Roll there was a was a napew violation that they call it. This is essentially, if a prosecutor is up there and you hear your your witness give a false statement, you are under obligation to correct it. They didn't. They called this a knapw violation. It is a clear and plain as day, you know your witness is lying, you're supposed to correct it. They did not.
00:05:16
Speaker 2: Yes, and it's significant because the witness was truly the only evidence that the state has against Glossops. So this all goes back to a nineteen ninety seven killing in Oklahoma city of Best budget In owner Barry Van Trees. Now Barry Van Trees was Glossop's boss, and so prosecutors say that glossip had a murder for higher scheme where he asked someone else, a worker there his name is Justin Snead, to kill Van Trees so that he could take over the motel. That is the prosecution's theory and that is what two different juries actually convicted him for. That he was the mastermind. So Justin Snead, the man who actually admitted to beating this motel manager with a baseball bat. He is the one. He got a deal with prosecutors to get life in prison, took the death penalty off the table if he pleaded guilty and then testified against.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: Glossip, which he did. He took that deal, and he is the only direct evidence of the direct link. Now they have other type of evidence, circumstantial stuff, but the only direct evidence that they do have happens to be this guy. So it's not a stretch Robes to call this guy the star witness. He gave false testimony. That testimony, though Robes, wasn't directly related to the crime itself and what happened. This is fascinating. The Supreme Court made this ruling that he is due process was violated for glossips because this guy gave up, got up there, and the testimony in question had to do with his medical background. It had to do with whether or not he was bipolar and was on lithium rose. I didn't think much of that, but the Supreme Court ruled if the jury had known about this background, known that he had a violent background, known that he was on lithium, known that he was severely had the severe mental illness, it might have changed how they viewed him as a witness.
00:07:24
Speaker 2: Rose, that makes sense to me absolutely. And look, Judge Sonya Sotomayor, she was She wrote for the Supreme Court in their decision, and I thought it was interesting how she put it. She said, had the prosecutors corrected Sneed's false testimony, his credibility absolutely would have suffered. And this is what she wrote. That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneid was untrustworthy, but also that Snead was willing to lie to them under Oh.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: That makes sense. You know who dissented, Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas dissented in this and his argument was it didn't It wasn't material to the case itself. He said, even if they had known all this stuff, it wouldn't have necessarily changed the outcome of change how they viewed this guy. Okay, fine, but Robes, the guy got up there. It didn't sound like, why is it that he was bipolar have anything to do with him, whether or not he's recounting the story accurately about the murder. Well, Robes, if you're willing to lie to me on oath about the most basically to.
00:08:32
Speaker 2: Make yourself look better.
00:08:33
Speaker 1: And they said they were billing him as a choir boy. Almost the prosecution was saying, oh, he was just a sweet kid, didn't have violent tendencies, and he would never have done this had it not been for mister Glossop.
00:08:45
Speaker 2: Wow. It's also of note. I think just given all of that, that the whole reason why Glossop's case ended up the Supreme Court was because of the Oklahoma Attorney General. He said in twenty twenty three that he was going through boxes if new evidence and it basically persuaded him the Gossip was not given a fair trial. Now, he doesn't necessarily believe Gossip is innocent, He's not saying that, but he did believe that he deserved a new trial. So for the Oklahoma Attorney General to make that statement, that is significant. And so he asked Scotis to stop glossips execution.
00:09:25
Speaker 1: They stopped the execution. And we do a lot of these cases and executions in the country. You gotta have a fair trial, I mean, this is no matter what. You got to have a fair trial. So he's still in he's out of prison, stick.
00:09:41
Speaker 2: Correct, He's living with his wife, He's got a bunch of stipulations, He has an electronic monitor, he has a curfew, we can't go out at night, a lot of monitoring going on. But yes, he is free until trial, which is huge.
00:09:53
Speaker 1: But yesterday was huge in that it was possible this could have been over.
00:09:56
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:09:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, the judge goes in, no, not enough evidence here, have the prelarminary hearing. He said, naw, we're just going to go forward. So that's significant. But Rome September, this is going to be huge. Now this has been thirty years. Will we finally get an answer and he will finally learn his fate ultimately.
00:10:13
Speaker 2: Yes, because Justin's need is going to go back up on that witness stand and testify once again. This is certainly going to be significant, and so yes, he will have a third time in court fighting for his life. But when we come back, we're going to tell you about the three times Gossip was nearly executed, including the time that it led to a seven year moratorium on executions in this state of Oklahoma. Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about a former Oklahoma death row inmate. His name is Richard Glossip. He is now heading to a third trial the death penalty has been taken off the table, but he still will be fighting for his life. He has maintained his innocence from the very beginning in the baseball bat beating death of his motel boss. He wasn't the one. He'd never been accused of actually physically committing the killing, but he is and had been convicted of being the mastermind of inciting another employee to do it at his bidding, but he has maintained that never was the case. And while he may be now out on bond thanks to Kim Kardashian, he spent nearly thirty years on death row, and he had nine different execution dates. He had three separate last meals.
00:11:44
Speaker 1: Just imagine that you're eating that food thing and you're not You're going to die. I mean this, that's intense. And you know we talk about cruel and unusual. That is, yes, you shouldn't put a I don't care what you got to be better than that. That's that is inhumane.
00:12:02
Speaker 2: That is awful, not once, not twice awful, but three times. And this one gives me chills to imagine this. The third time he came so close to dying, he was actually being held in this cell next to the death chamber. So that's how close this was. In twenty fifteen. He's literally moments away from being strapped to the gurney for lethal injection. He's sitting there waiting, But meantime, behind the other wall, prison officials are literally scrambling because they found out that one of the drugs in this lethal cocktail that they put together in the state of Oklahoma didn't match the protocols that were in place for the states, so they were trying to figure out how they could remedy it. There was basically a mix up in the drugs in the cocktail.
00:12:52
Speaker 1: He was saved by incompetence.
00:12:54
Speaker 2: He was actually saved by incompetence. But that drug mix up that caused so much confusion and, as you pointed out, pain and suffering that led to a seven year moratorium on executions in Oklahoma. You hear about this happening in many different states. They had so many different botch lethal injection situations that a lot of states, a lot of governors said Hey, we're going to put a stop to this, and we're going to try to figure out a better way to execute people, a more humane way, a way where we're not going to constantly run into problems. So, yeah, for seven years, they did not execute anyone in Oklahoma because of his nearly botched execution in twenty fifteen, ropes.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: His life is being saved. He got a seven year, right, he got a seven year many years for him extra seven years. This is one of those stories rogues. If this guy ends up off death row, if he goes to this trial and he is found not guilty, man, I might be on board with anybody who wants to say we should get rid of the death penalty in this country. The rope that close to killing out. We've covered other stories of guys whose executions have been stopped and gotten close and they end up being in We can't accidentally kill an innocent guy like that guy, however we need to do that. We can not do that.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, And you know, just to see him yesterday, I saw the pictures. There were no cameras in the courtroom, but of course this is a massively high profile case in the state of Oklahoma, so lots of reporters there on the scene. But just to see him in plain clothes with his wife holding her hand, walking out of court back to their home. It's just a remarkable scene to witness. And I am I wonder. Yes, the Attorney General stepped in, Yes, Kim Kardashian stepped up, Richard Branson stepped up. There are a lot of groups that have stepped up on his behalf because they do believe in his innocence. But if it weren't for all of those people and some just happenstance situations where they weren't able to carry out the execution that was set to happen, it's a miracle. This man is alive and free technically right now today.
00:15:05
Speaker 1: And you know it should be okay, this we've got and this should be noted that, yes, the guy who testified, that's the only direct evidence. Sure, and that's a questionable witness. Sure, there were other circumstantial things that went on. It wasn't just that guy, Don't get me wrong. That's the strongest evidence. But glossip. They have evident he lied to police initially in the conversations about what he knew about the murder. He lied when he didn't tell the until later that Snead had confessed to him. Even he helped Sneak clean up after the murder as well, so stuff pieced together. He wasn't necessary. It just didn't come out of nowhere, and we're just depending on one bipolar guy.
00:15:44
Speaker 2: That's true. He wasn't just some random innocent bystander. He's certainly, and he was initially charged with accessory after the fact, and that that seems that that was absolutely inappropriate charge given what we know about the situation. But it is very likely that he might have just been afraid of getting swept up into it or part of it, or who knows, or he could have actually been the mastermind. We don't know. Two juries thought he was the masterman, mined and convicted him, but it was almost solely based on the testimony of Snead.
00:16:15
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated to see because in the evidence they found these new boxes, there were some notes that said it Sneed might have wanted to recant his testimony at some point. Propes, this is crazy. You got eight nine boxes that you failed to hand over decades ago.
00:16:29
Speaker 2: And I do appreciate that the Attorney General had a moral compass look and they're supposed to, but forgive me if sometimes we get a little jaded in how we view some folks who are supposed to be there to uphold the law. But it is nice to hear and see a moment where an Attorney General who knew that this would not look good, so to speak for the Oklahoma justice system to admit that this took place. But that actually is what makes the Oklahoma justice system look good now that he was willing to be transparent about it and actually get us to this day where now we can maybe perhaps figure out where the truth lies.
00:17:03
Speaker 1: I think they all still look bad. This is crazy. Well, if you're withholding evidence, you got a witness, you know in Lyne, you don't correct. That's now that is criminal.
00:17:12
Speaker 2: That is criminal. That is and we'll see what happens with this, but we will certainly be following this story of Richard Glossip in the meantime, though, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Heys. It is Wednesday, June twenty fourth, and he spent thirty years on death row. Kim Kardashian paid to get him out of prison, and now the state of Oklahoma is trying to put him right back in. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. In what has been a thirty year saga, an ordeal and robes. They keep writing new chapters on this story for this death row former death row in.
00:00:31
Speaker 2: Me, that's right, and yes, saga is a really good way to put it. We're talking about sixty three year old Richard Glossip. And yes, he spent nearly three decades on death row. And it wasn't until last year twenty twenty five February, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned his conviction. This is significant. And then yes, just last month, he is released on bond. He walks out of prison for the first time in nearly thirty years, thanks to the Supreme Court. And yes, thanks to Kim Kardashian who paid.
00:01:08
Speaker 1: She footed the bill for him to get five hundred thousand dollars. She footed that bill. She is not the only celebrity who has been a part of this. I think Richard Branson is the other big name that I've seen. But a lot of groups or this isn't just an anti death penalty case. This is okay. So a lot of people think this is a guy who is innocent, who Robes was on death row for thirty years. But when you think about how close he got to dying several times in that thirty years, that's the kind of stuff that'll give you chills about the death penalty in this country.
00:01:37
Speaker 2: Babe. He had nine execution dates. Think about that. The governor of Oklahoma throughout the years, it wasn't always the same governor actually scheduled his execution nine different times, and three of those times he nearly died. One of them he was moments away. We'll get into that in just a moment. But he has been through. If he is innocent, can you imagine what this man has gone through over the past three decades.
00:02:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, And the so we talk about there Robes how close he's gotten to death. He got close and he wasn't saved because there was an issue necessarily with his case where people talked about his innocence. No, these were technicalities and having to do with drugs and whatnot. But we will get more into that and how close he came, including several last meals that he ate for Robes. He was in court, and the reason we're talking about this now is because he was just in court waiting for his fate to find out robes whether or not they're trying to put his butt right back on death row. The answer there is no, however, correct.
00:02:42
Speaker 2: So he was trying through his attorneys to have this judge go back to the beginning of his case and actually have a preliminary hearing where they even they had to actually go over whether or not there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial. That's what his attorneys wanted. The State of Oklahoma said, nah, the Supreme Court, yes, may have vacated his conviction, but they actually said he needs a new trial. And so the judge agreed with the State of Oklahoma and set a trial date now, and this will be his gloss of third trial. He actually gave him the date of September twenty eighth, So just in a few months he will go back to court to face murder charges once again. But there is a difference. This time. The state of Oklahoma will not be seeking the death penalty. They will be seeking life in prison.
00:03:32
Speaker 1: But again, this is a guy who didn't kill anybody, but he is the one who is who was credited and convicted for putting the whole motion murder for higher in motion, and he got the death penalty. This case is a mess. It's a legal mess in a lot of ways that have to do with prosecutorial misconducts conduct EVI being withheld roles. You don't have to be a lawyer. You can watch just a half a season of Law and Order and you know one of the biggest no nos is withholding evidence from the defense.
00:04:10
Speaker 2: Of course, he should get a new trial, correct and to kind of go through how he's now on his third trial in two thousand and one. His first trial was overturned because the conviction was overturned because they ruled the glossip didn't have adequate counsel. So he was retried in two thousand and four where he was once again sentenced to death. And then yes, now in twenty twenty five, the Supreme Court overturned that two thousand and four conviction, saying that there were trial errors and that this state used testimony that it knew was false and that is the reason why he is now getting his third trial.
00:04:50
Speaker 1: And again Roll there was a was a napew violation that they call it. This is essentially, if a prosecutor is up there and you hear your your witness give a false statement, you are under obligation to correct it. They didn't. They called this a knapw violation. It is a clear and plain as day, you know your witness is lying, you're supposed to correct it. They did not.
00:05:16
Speaker 2: Yes, and it's significant because the witness was truly the only evidence that the state has against Glossops. So this all goes back to a nineteen ninety seven killing in Oklahoma city of Best budget In owner Barry Van Trees. Now Barry Van Trees was Glossop's boss, and so prosecutors say that glossip had a murder for higher scheme where he asked someone else, a worker there his name is Justin Snead, to kill Van Trees so that he could take over the motel. That is the prosecution's theory and that is what two different juries actually convicted him for. That he was the mastermind. So Justin Snead, the man who actually admitted to beating this motel manager with a baseball bat. He is the one. He got a deal with prosecutors to get life in prison, took the death penalty off the table if he pleaded guilty and then testified against.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: Glossip, which he did. He took that deal, and he is the only direct evidence of the direct link. Now they have other type of evidence, circumstantial stuff, but the only direct evidence that they do have happens to be this guy. So it's not a stretch Robes to call this guy the star witness. He gave false testimony. That testimony, though Robes, wasn't directly related to the crime itself and what happened. This is fascinating. The Supreme Court made this ruling that he is due process was violated for glossips because this guy gave up, got up there, and the testimony in question had to do with his medical background. It had to do with whether or not he was bipolar and was on lithium rose. I didn't think much of that, but the Supreme Court ruled if the jury had known about this background, known that he had a violent background, known that he was on lithium, known that he was severely had the severe mental illness, it might have changed how they viewed him as a witness.
00:07:24
Speaker 2: Rose, that makes sense to me absolutely. And look, Judge Sonya Sotomayor, she was She wrote for the Supreme Court in their decision, and I thought it was interesting how she put it. She said, had the prosecutors corrected Sneed's false testimony, his credibility absolutely would have suffered. And this is what she wrote. That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneid was untrustworthy, but also that Snead was willing to lie to them under Oh.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: That makes sense. You know who dissented, Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas dissented in this and his argument was it didn't It wasn't material to the case itself. He said, even if they had known all this stuff, it wouldn't have necessarily changed the outcome of change how they viewed this guy. Okay, fine, but Robes, the guy got up there. It didn't sound like, why is it that he was bipolar have anything to do with him, whether or not he's recounting the story accurately about the murder. Well, Robes, if you're willing to lie to me on oath about the most basically to.
00:08:32
Speaker 2: Make yourself look better.
00:08:33
Speaker 1: And they said they were billing him as a choir boy. Almost the prosecution was saying, oh, he was just a sweet kid, didn't have violent tendencies, and he would never have done this had it not been for mister Glossop.
00:08:45
Speaker 2: Wow. It's also of note. I think just given all of that, that the whole reason why Glossop's case ended up the Supreme Court was because of the Oklahoma Attorney General. He said in twenty twenty three that he was going through boxes if new evidence and it basically persuaded him the Gossip was not given a fair trial. Now, he doesn't necessarily believe Gossip is innocent, He's not saying that, but he did believe that he deserved a new trial. So for the Oklahoma Attorney General to make that statement, that is significant. And so he asked Scotis to stop glossips execution.
00:09:25
Speaker 1: They stopped the execution. And we do a lot of these cases and executions in the country. You gotta have a fair trial, I mean, this is no matter what. You got to have a fair trial. So he's still in he's out of prison, stick.
00:09:41
Speaker 2: Correct, He's living with his wife, He's got a bunch of stipulations, He has an electronic monitor, he has a curfew, we can't go out at night, a lot of monitoring going on. But yes, he is free until trial, which is huge.
00:09:53
Speaker 1: But yesterday was huge in that it was possible this could have been over.
00:09:56
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:09:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, the judge goes in, no, not enough evidence here, have the prelarminary hearing. He said, naw, we're just going to go forward. So that's significant. But Rome September, this is going to be huge. Now this has been thirty years. Will we finally get an answer and he will finally learn his fate ultimately.
00:10:13
Speaker 2: Yes, because Justin's need is going to go back up on that witness stand and testify once again. This is certainly going to be significant, and so yes, he will have a third time in court fighting for his life. But when we come back, we're going to tell you about the three times Gossip was nearly executed, including the time that it led to a seven year moratorium on executions in this state of Oklahoma. Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about a former Oklahoma death row inmate. His name is Richard Glossip. He is now heading to a third trial the death penalty has been taken off the table, but he still will be fighting for his life. He has maintained his innocence from the very beginning in the baseball bat beating death of his motel boss. He wasn't the one. He'd never been accused of actually physically committing the killing, but he is and had been convicted of being the mastermind of inciting another employee to do it at his bidding, but he has maintained that never was the case. And while he may be now out on bond thanks to Kim Kardashian, he spent nearly thirty years on death row, and he had nine different execution dates. He had three separate last meals.
00:11:44
Speaker 1: Just imagine that you're eating that food thing and you're not You're going to die. I mean this, that's intense. And you know we talk about cruel and unusual. That is, yes, you shouldn't put a I don't care what you got to be better than that. That's that is inhumane.
00:12:02
Speaker 2: That is awful, not once, not twice awful, but three times. And this one gives me chills to imagine this. The third time he came so close to dying, he was actually being held in this cell next to the death chamber. So that's how close this was. In twenty fifteen. He's literally moments away from being strapped to the gurney for lethal injection. He's sitting there waiting, But meantime, behind the other wall, prison officials are literally scrambling because they found out that one of the drugs in this lethal cocktail that they put together in the state of Oklahoma didn't match the protocols that were in place for the states, so they were trying to figure out how they could remedy it. There was basically a mix up in the drugs in the cocktail.
00:12:52
Speaker 1: He was saved by incompetence.
00:12:54
Speaker 2: He was actually saved by incompetence. But that drug mix up that caused so much confusion and, as you pointed out, pain and suffering that led to a seven year moratorium on executions in Oklahoma. You hear about this happening in many different states. They had so many different botch lethal injection situations that a lot of states, a lot of governors said Hey, we're going to put a stop to this, and we're going to try to figure out a better way to execute people, a more humane way, a way where we're not going to constantly run into problems. So, yeah, for seven years, they did not execute anyone in Oklahoma because of his nearly botched execution in twenty fifteen, ropes.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: His life is being saved. He got a seven year, right, he got a seven year many years for him extra seven years. This is one of those stories rogues. If this guy ends up off death row, if he goes to this trial and he is found not guilty, man, I might be on board with anybody who wants to say we should get rid of the death penalty in this country. The rope that close to killing out. We've covered other stories of guys whose executions have been stopped and gotten close and they end up being in We can't accidentally kill an innocent guy like that guy, however we need to do that. We can not do that.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, And you know, just to see him yesterday, I saw the pictures. There were no cameras in the courtroom, but of course this is a massively high profile case in the state of Oklahoma, so lots of reporters there on the scene. But just to see him in plain clothes with his wife holding her hand, walking out of court back to their home. It's just a remarkable scene to witness. And I am I wonder. Yes, the Attorney General stepped in, Yes, Kim Kardashian stepped up, Richard Branson stepped up. There are a lot of groups that have stepped up on his behalf because they do believe in his innocence. But if it weren't for all of those people and some just happenstance situations where they weren't able to carry out the execution that was set to happen, it's a miracle. This man is alive and free technically right now today.
00:15:05
Speaker 1: And you know it should be okay, this we've got and this should be noted that, yes, the guy who testified, that's the only direct evidence. Sure, and that's a questionable witness. Sure, there were other circumstantial things that went on. It wasn't just that guy, Don't get me wrong. That's the strongest evidence. But glossip. They have evident he lied to police initially in the conversations about what he knew about the murder. He lied when he didn't tell the until later that Snead had confessed to him. Even he helped Sneak clean up after the murder as well, so stuff pieced together. He wasn't necessary. It just didn't come out of nowhere, and we're just depending on one bipolar guy.
00:15:44
Speaker 2: That's true. He wasn't just some random innocent bystander. He's certainly, and he was initially charged with accessory after the fact, and that that seems that that was absolutely inappropriate charge given what we know about the situation. But it is very likely that he might have just been afraid of getting swept up into it or part of it, or who knows, or he could have actually been the mastermind. We don't know. Two juries thought he was the masterman, mined and convicted him, but it was almost solely based on the testimony of Snead.
00:16:15
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated to see because in the evidence they found these new boxes, there were some notes that said it Sneed might have wanted to recant his testimony at some point. Propes, this is crazy. You got eight nine boxes that you failed to hand over decades ago.
00:16:29
Speaker 2: And I do appreciate that the Attorney General had a moral compass look and they're supposed to, but forgive me if sometimes we get a little jaded in how we view some folks who are supposed to be there to uphold the law. But it is nice to hear and see a moment where an Attorney General who knew that this would not look good, so to speak for the Oklahoma justice system to admit that this took place. But that actually is what makes the Oklahoma justice system look good now that he was willing to be transparent about it and actually get us to this day where now we can maybe perhaps figure out where the truth lies.
00:17:03
Speaker 1: I think they all still look bad. This is crazy. Well, if you're withholding evidence, you got a witness, you know in Lyne, you don't correct. That's now that is criminal.
00:17:12
Speaker 2: That is criminal. That is and we'll see what happens with this, but we will certainly be following this story of Richard Glossip in the meantime, though, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.