[vfrogger]

Thanks for the link. There's some VERY suspect behavior by this guy. Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt? I don't know, but lying that the boss was running an errand to another employee the morning after he was murdered certainly seems to align closer to the "hitman's" side of the story. Now couple that with another employee being told by the boss that he was going to run the hotel if this guy got fired for embezzlement, and you have a motive, the guy lying about his boss's whereabouts after the murder, and the hitman stating that they split $4000 taken from the bosses car, and they both had well over $1000 in cash their possession when they were arrested. Honestly, it sounds like the only evidence that this guy is innocent is that another convict said that the hitman bragged about "setting the guy up". That is one heck of a setup if true.

[MichaelGG]

It's entirely possible that the one that actually did the murder (Justin Sneed) came up with the idea, proposed it, and Glossip just went along with it or sanctioned it ("great idea, here's how we can do it"). Their actions would be basically identical on the outside right?

[vfrogger]

excellent point. I do suppose that being an accomplice to murder probably carries a less severe punishment than hiring a hitman and being the mastermind behind it. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in general, and wish it wouldn't be used in today's society. But claiming that this guy is "innocent" seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. It's amazing how one-sided the articles I've read about this have been.