Death Penalty

Oklahoma Moving Forward With Execution of Man For Murder He Didn't Commit

Man who committed murder fingered Richard Glossip as the person who told him to do it, saving himself from the death penalty.

|

OK DOC

The state of Oklahoma plans to put Richard Glossip to death today after he exhausted the last of his appeals.

Glossip was convicted in 1997 for the beating death of Barry Van Treese, but Glossip didn't kill Van Treese. Instead, the man who did kill Van Treese, Justin Sneed, fingered Glossip as the person who told him to murder Van Treese in exchange for money and the possibility of managing his own motel. Sneed's testimony implicating Glossip saved Sneed from the death penalty and condemned Glossip to it.

There's evidence to suggest Sneed was nudged toward implicating someone else as a way to avoid a stiffer penalty for himself in video of Sneed's interrogation by a police detective. Glossip's lawyer never introduced that video as evidence, so the jury that condemned Glossip to death didn't see Sneed being offered the opportunity to shift the blame for killing someone onto someone who didn't do the actual killing.

Glossip exhausted all his appeals, so now has to prove his innocence, as Lauren Galik explains:

So why is this man, whose guilt has now been brought into question, still facing execution Wednesday? Because Glossip has exhausted all of his appeals. Since he was convicted and his sentence upheld multiple times, the burden of proof shifts from guilt to innocence. Before his conviction, the burden of proof was on the state—it had to prove that Glossip was guilty of hiring Sneed to murder Van Treese. Now, the burden of proof has shifted to Glossip; he must now show "actual innocence," which is a much higher bar to reach than "reasonable doubt" of guilt.

The Oklahoma Criminal Court of appeals stayed Glossip's execution just a few hours before it was scheduled two weeks ago to consider his application for post-conviction relief. In a 3-2 decision, the court rejected Glossip's argument that his conviction was based solely on the questionable testimony of Sneed.

Gov. Mary Fallon (R-Okla.) could still commute Glossip's sentence but appears unlikely to do so despite appeals from figures ranging from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to Susan Sarandon and Pope Francis.

While Glossip's execution is particularly disturbing, the practice of permitting a criminal to turn state's evidence in order to lower his sentence while increasing the sentence of an alleged accomplice is not unique, and can lead to situations where the person committing the actual crime gets a lighter sentence than the person that criminal accused as an accomplice or boss.

Related: Reason TV on 3 Reasons to Get Rid of the Death Penalty

NEXT: Another Man Dies of Neglect in Jail Cell. His Crime? Stealing a Snickers Bar.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There’s evidence to suggest Sneed was nudged toward implicating someone else as a way to avoid a stiffer penalty for himself in video of Sneed’s interrogation by a police detective.

    Is the video of that evidence public?

    1. Yes.

      Doesn’t mean it will be considered by the court though.

  2. Procedures were followed.

    1. You mean you don’t trust the state to chose winners and losers?

      1. That perspective is equally applicable to prison sentences.

        Well, to all criminal punishment, really. And civil decisions…and administrative processes…

        In other words, it’s rather glib.

        1. Yes, It’s glib. You tell me what govt has the highest per capita prison population in the world. Institutionalized theft in the form of the Federal Reserve and is occupying half the globe with military bases. I hope you’ll forgive me for not being RAH RAH American justice system.

          1. Don’t confuse a legal system for a justice system.

            1. I’m learning. But fuck this guy.

          2. Those really are not responsive to the point.

            You implied we should not trust the State to pick winners and losers. That’s applicable in every State action ever. Are you willing to extend that logic to every State action ever?

            1. Were you born a sophist, or died it take you long years of practice to become a sophomoric twit?

            2. You implied we should not trust the State to pick winners and losers. That’s applicable in every State action ever. Are you willing to extend that logic to every State action ever?

              You can get the answer by simply shortening that paragraph:

              … we should not trust the State … in every State action ever … ever!

        2. That perspective is equally applicable to prison sentences.

          Well, to all criminal punishment, really. And civil decisions…and administrative processes…

          In other words, it’s rather glib.

          You misspelled, “it’s a rather good reason to be an anarchist.”

          1. same same 🙂

            seriously, the State is going to exist. The question is, in what form. Arguing against the existence of the State is like railing at the weather. Can it be controlled? Can it be mitigated against? Because it’s not going away.

            1. But can it be railed against like an old man shouting at the clouds?

            2. Can it be controlled? Can it be mitigated against?

              Only by people who always remember it’s their enemy.

              1. Only by people who always remember it’s their enemy.

                No objections here. In that sense, you should be a moral anarchist and a practical member of one of the two major parties :). After all, they control the entirety of your enemy.

            3. Can it be controlled? Can it be mitigated against?

              No.

              All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

              -Frank Herbert

      2. You mean you don’t trust 12 fellow citizens to judge someone’s fate. Should it be left up Nick Gillespie? Penn & Teller- or maybe just Penn? Maybe we should let Rush decide- Tom Sawyer is such a rad song it just speaks to me.

        1. You mean you don’t trust 12 fellow citizens to judge someone’s fate.

          When they don’t see evidence that could show reasonable doubt, like the video of the dishonest cop (redundant, I know) pushing the murderer to implicate someone else, no. No I do not.

          1. So Penn & Teller get to decide then? Or maybe John Grisham’s friend that likes kiddie porn. I’m trying to think of some libertarian heroes. Jarred the Subway Guy?

            1. Maybe a fully informed jury.

              1. Tossed in jail for handing out flyers even talking about nullification.

          2. I understand the criticisms, but I am not hearing anything in terms of a solution being offered.

            Should everyone have two trials instead of one? Would that make it better somehow?

            1. Ah, yes. The familiar bleat of “You’re not allowed to criticize unless you’ve got a solution that I like!”

              1. The familiar bleat of “You’re not allowed to criticize unless you’ve got a solution that I like!”

                I would settle for any alternative at all, so we at least have a starting point.

                1. I would settle for any alternative at all, so we at least have a starting point.

                  Only so you can criticize it. I’m not playing your dishonest game, Randian.

            2. The Tone Police|9.30.15 @ 12:54PM|#
              “I understand the criticisms, but I am not hearing anything in terms of a solution being offered.”

              Uh, get rid of the death penalty? How about that?

              1. Uh, get rid of the death penalty? How about that?

                If you’re doing it on the logic that the justice system makes mistakes, then every criminal punishment is suspect. You can’t stop short with just the death penalty.

                1. If you’re doing it on the logic that the justice system makes mistakes, then every criminal punishment is suspect. You can’t stop short with just the death penalty.

                  …Yes you can. Dead people can’t be retried, released or compensated.

                  1. …Yes you can. Dead people can’t be retried, released or compensated.

                    Is that not applicable then to people who die in prison?

                    So what about life without parole? That’s a de facto death sentence: you’re going to go somewhere until you die. The end.

                    If it’s finality that concerns you, again, even someone who unjustly received a sentence of 5 years is not getting those five years back. That’s final. You cannot turn back time.

                    1. The Tone Police|9.30.15 @ 1:30PM|#
                      “…Is that not applicable then to people who die in prison?..”

                      Do you expect actual engagement when you drop to this level of sophistry?
                      Get lost.

                    2. And? The point is that killing the person closes the final avenue for correction. Of course you can’t turn back time or truly compensate for a mistake of justice. Killing the person makes any attempt impossible.

                      This is tiresome BS even for you, Randian.

                    3. And? The point is that killing the person closes the final avenue for correction.

                      But my overall point is that there must be some level of finality in all decisions made by a government, even under the ideal libertarian one. If you give someone 19 appeals, they’ll say it’s unjust they don’t have 20. Finality by a force bearing entity is terrifying, I get that, but there’s no better option.

                    4. The Tone Police|9.30.15 @ 1:47PM|#
                      “But my overall point is that there must be some level of finality in all decisions made by a government, even under the ideal libertarian one”

                      Alex, I’ll go for ‘What is false equivalence?’

                    5. Sevo did it wrong. It should be:

                      *click* What is false equivalence?

            3. I think trials should be broadcast and guilt/innocence determined by applause-o-meter.

              1. “What say you, good people of Rome?”

                1. “Are you not entertained?!?”

                  1. “If only all of Rome had just one neck.”

            4. I think barring the haggling for testimonial (and other) evidence in capital cases would do a great deal.

              I could also stand to see police more directly/equitably reprimanded/charged for influencing a testimonial/confession just as if they had tampered with evidence.

              1. I think barring the haggling for testimonial (and other) evidence in capital cases would do a great deal.

                I think that’s not a bad suggestion, but I would think that it would be quickly applicable down the line to non-capital cases as well. Maybe that’s a good thing, I am not sure, but I don’t think that’s a special exception that’s going to stand very long.

                I could also stand to see police more directly/equitably reprimanded/charged for influencing a testimonial/confession just as if they had tampered with evidence.

                This I don’t think I can agree with. It would be very difficult to tell where interrogation ended and influence started. It’s incumbent on the witness to invoke at that point.

                1. Actually, it is technically illegal to offer something of value in exchange for testimony. Unfortunately, the courts have decided this means things like cash compensation, so the possibility of a reduced sentence doesn’t count. Because FYTW.

                2. Yeah, couldn’t have the plebes pleading the 5th and insisting that they not bear false witness against their neighbors. Next thing you know, they might get the notion that the police get special protections against constitutional violations and are really just out to bust heads and send people to prison.

        2. As long as you never make it on to a jury, Tulpa, then everyone can breath a sigh of relief. But I guess they spot your mongoloidism right away and decide you aren’t their kind of retard.

          1. What does it say about you that a supposed mongoloid lives completely rent free in your head to the point that you’ve convinced yourself that I’m a sock puppet for one of your long lost nemesis.

            The whole your so dumb that you reduce me to impotent rage and frustration act doesn’t make sense.

            1. It’s impressive, Tulpy-Poo, but somehow you become even more stupid when you do your socks. I guess it just means you’re a really dedicated character actor? Or maybe just that you instinctively grow into any opportunities for retardation?

              I’m gonna go with the latter.

            2. You’re going with this response? I mean… Sam Haysom is one of your longer-running handles. You can’t play it off like it’s not you.

  3. As the pro-Death Penalty people say, “Better to kill a hundred innocent men than to allow one guilty man to go free.”

    1. As cosmotarians say “I didn’t have many friends in high school and generally struggle to attract women so if social signaling left-wing social policy is what I takes to get a pity hand-job then so be it.”

      That’s when they aren’t shouting fuck the pigs of course.

      1. What the fuck are you going on about?

        1. You don’t know what a hand-job is? Life-long libertarian I take it.

          1. Oh. You’re a troll. Nevermind.

            1. Actually, it’s a Tulpa sockpuppet. But “nevermind” is the correct response regardless.

              1. I wouldn’t even waste the energy to type “nevermind”…

        2. Sam is assuming that everyone is like him and that our beliefs stem from a juvenile need to fit in with a certain groups.

        3. What the fuck are you going on about?

          He’s a commie. He believes in the labor theory of value and is pissed that the rest of the world is too selfish to buy into it.

      2. Oh look everyone, our favorite commie is back!

        How’s it going Sammie?

  4. Clearly just following Georgia’s lead.

  5. We executed Osama bin Laden for a terrorist attack he didn’t commit. Must have missed Reason’s whiny post on that.

    1. You were there? I thought you weren’t supposed to talk about it.

    2. Wait, Osama is Hannibal from the A-Team? Tulpy-Poo, how did you not share this with us before?!?

    3. You’re the worst, Tulpa. For the good of humanity, please go away. Please.

    4. OBL died in 2001 from kidney disease.

        1. I had a lefty troll on another site (in 2005) tell me OBL was in a freezer at Bagram AF, to be pulled out if BOOOSH! had needed it as an electoral stunt.

          I was the XO of that base operations group for the first half of 2004 and mentioned that as I had been over damn near every square inch of the base, and knew where all the electricity was going (we had an Air Force Prime Power unit there) etc, I highly doubted that.

          Troll just remarked – “oh, the CIA can hide anything”.

          Maybe it was an early Tulpafestation?

  6. Even if you’re for the state killing people, and even if you believe he’s guilty, this doesn’t seem like a case that deserves death, unless you’re a prosecutor who jerks off at the thought of state sponsored violence and oh god that’s it isn’t it.

    1. Indeed, I’m not opposed to death penalty, but no, even if he’s guilty of what he’s accused of here, it’s too harsh a sentence. I just wish we had more context, specificially:

      There’s evidence to suggest Sneed was nudged toward implicating someone else as a way to avoid a stiffer penalty for himself in video of Sneed’s interrogation by a police detective. Glossip’s lawyer never introduced that video as evidence…
      Glossip exhausted all his appeals, so now has to prove his innocence

      Ah, following link chain works. Video was not introduced in first trial, court of appeals criticized the lawyers, there was a retrial, and video was again not introduced. I don’t think it’s strong exulpatory evidence, and second appeal court agreed that first time it may have been oversight, second time it’s defense strategy and if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t.
      With other evidence presented, I’d come on side, probably guilty, does not deserve penalty.

  7. “I don’t know, can you just kill the guy? Tell you what, here’s thirty bucks and the keys to a Scottish Inn.”

  8. I forgot to mention earlier – my new “step brother” is a former prosecutor. I asked him “how many wrongful convictions do you have under your belt?”. Heh.

    1. I bet you’re a blast at family reunions.

      1. Yep! As fun as a waiting in line for an insurance seminar in the rain! And pretty, too.

        1. It’s like raaaaaaaaaiiinnnnn at your insurance seminaaaaar.

      2. I’m in charge of fund raising at my family reunion. I use to try fun ways to raise money, now I just do a 50/50 raffle. Nothing brings people together quite like gambling.

        1. “Bingo!”

          “Shut up, Grandma, I said ‘raffle’. Raaaaffle.”

          1. *whips empty beer can at old bitch*

            1. “empty beer can”

              You old softy.

              1. Throw a full one…and waste beer?!

                /shocked Floridian

                1. That’s why you save up all the crap that people bring to the BBQ at your house while they drink your beer!

    2. I have a relative who is sure that the chicanery is entirely on the defense side.

      1. “What with the constitutional protections and Miranda’s and Jew lawyers it’s impossible to put drugs pushing pimps behind bars!”

        /Doc’s Uncle

  9. Mary Fallon doesn’t have to give a single goddamn turd hiccuped from her capillary shattered ass. The cunt can murder conveniently when shipping a motherfucker to the grave is shrouded in the effulgent bleach of justice and steel.

  10. Haysom is very upset a white person is being put to death. You’re a piece of shit, Haysom.

    1. Has Tulpa ever been otherwise?

    2. It’s fucking Tulpa. That bootlicking shitheel never met a gross abuse of state power it didn’t like.

      1. Hey, just because it has all the same obsessions as Tulpa and makes all the same arguments as Tulpa doesn’t mean that it is Tulpa. There are plenty of dumb motherfuckers in the world that could troll this place.

        1. You’ve said it before, and you’re still right.

        2. Agreed, but I’m pretty sure he’s used this handle before. It’s Tulpa.

          1. Tone Police stinks heavily of Tulpa also, but pace Sugarfree, who knows.

            1. Asked and answered. I have been here a long time, and I am not Tulpa.

              1. At this point, what difference does it make? Either you’re him or you’re a bad troll mimicking him. Or you’re stupid.

                1. Or I disagree with some points here and I am respectfully and politely pointing out those places?

                  Not sure why a disagreement has to lead to name-calling.

                  1. Not sure why a disagreement has to lead to name-calling.

                    This place has been going downhill for a long time, but the gay marriage pants-shitting seems to have really accelerated things.

                    1. Can we move onto another issue, one that ideally, *I* can use as an excuse to shit my pants?

                      I’m feeling left out here.

                    2. Whaddaya like? Mexicans? Muslims? Mexican Muslims?

                    3. Mexican Muslims stealing our jerbs, for 100, Warty.

                2. Randian’s been here forever. He’s good people. Lighten up.

                  1. Warty, see here:

                    “You implied we should not trust the State to pick winners and losers. That’s applicable in every State action ever. Are you willing to extend that logic to every State action ever?”

                    So denying the state the power to purposely take a life is equivalent to every state action?
                    I’m calling sophistry.

                    1. I’m not. Every single thing a state does is an act of violence. Sometimes it has to carry out its threats to retain credibility. You can see them as qualitatively different, but it seems to me to be strictly a difference of degree.

                    2. You can see them as qualitatively different, but it seems to me to be strictly a difference of degree.

                      yes, exactly!

                      If you think there should be State actions *at all*, then ultimately they must be backed by violence and ultimately death.

                    3. Yes. If the state is morally legitimate, then it some point its killing of people is legitimate too.

                    4. (Which I don’t think it is.)

                    5. “Every single thing a state does is an act of violence. Sometimes it has to carry out its threats to retain credibility. You can see them as qualitatively different, but it seems to me to be strictly a difference of degree.”

                      I didn’t know you were an anarchist; good luck with that.

                  2. Thanks, Warty.

                    I bet Mexican Muslims make delicious pastries. I am not sure why I think that. It’s just a feeling I get.

                    1. As bakers? Or filling?

  11. I’m against the death penalty but the coverage of this stinks.

    Glossip got a second trial after being convicted due to ineffective counsel (they didn’t introduce the tape). He got convicted a second time. The second trial counsel also did not play the video tape. But they were allowed to cross-examine both Sneed and Bemo, brought up issues seen in the video, and made all the points that are now being made. He appealed again and lost. He did not appeal based on the 21 other witness’ testimonies, so I’m not sure what else was revealed beyond his post-murder complicity.

    From one of the appeals:
    Defense counsel’s decision not to introduce the video was
    reasonable trial strategy. Playing the tape would have shown that
    Bemo told Sneed several times that he knew he did not commit the
    murder by himself and that others, particularly Glossip, were saying
    he acted alone. However, it also would have allowed the jury to hear
    Sneed explain, once again, how Glossip masterminded the murder.
    Contrary to petitioner’s characterization of the interview, the
    officers’ questioning was not sufficiently manipulative to make it
    evident from viewing the videotape that, but for their suggestions,
    Sneed would not have implicated Glossip in the murder of Barry Van
    Treese. Through his cross examinations of Bemo and Sneed, defense
    counsel was, though, able to elicit testimony that supported Glossip’s
    theory that Bemo influenced Sneed to identify Glossip as his
    accomplice.

    1. I think this a more fair discussion than what I have seen so far, I agree.

  12. ” …the court rejected Glossip’s argument that his conviction was based solely on the questionable testimony of Sneed.”

    Is this true or not? Even if a witness lied, that does not mean this guy is innocent. Every trial has false evidence introduced. The trial is to evaluate it all, and sort out a conclusion. If he did pay the witness to kill, then they both should fry. Let’s not forget that if they did it, then these two guys executed a truly innocent man.

    1. No one should be executed anywhere near a goddamn ‘if’.

      1. This. Not sure why this is hard for some people to get, honestly.

        1. The “if” only means I personally don’t know all the evidence. Is that so hard to get?

    2. “Even if a witness lied, that does not mean this guy is innocent.”

      He doesn’t have to be “innocent”, just not guilt of the crime for which he was charged.

    3. Let’s not forget that if they did it, then these two guys executed a truly innocent man.

      Sorry, as an objective capitalist, one man executed an innocent man, the other attempted/performed a transaction.

      Otherwise, you have to invoke some weird notions about agency and fuck up the morality and logic of the whole situation.

      1. This I actually have to agree with as well. Unless presented with immediate threat of physical force or death, the killer could have chosen not to kill someone. Ultimately, that’s on HIM, not on the guy attempting to induce him to do so.

        I extend this logic to soldiers on the field vice their leaders: just because some guy with the name General or Furher or Sir tells you to go kill someone, it’s still you who are choosing to kill someone.

        1. That distribution of guilt leaves a lot of vicious and destructive people including mass murderers off the hook, but if they didn’t pull the trigger or turn the gas valves themselves then it’s just a transaction, a business relationship? What should the punishment be for a mass murderer who only did it through the use of surrogates? Are they even guilty of a crime at all?

          1. If you know that paying a man will cause another man’s death, and you do it anyway, how is that different than locking him in a lion’s cage or pulling a trigger? You do something specifically to cause his death, and you know or expect it will.

  13. As of mid-April, which is the last date for which I can find totals, 1,407 people in the US have been executed in the “modern era” (since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977).

    Before this week, a total of 3 of them were situations in which the person who did the actual killing got less of a punishment than the person who allegedly contracted the killing.

    Failing a last minute stay of execution for Mr. Glossip, there are going to have been 2 this week alone (Georgia’s execution last night, and Glossip)

    1. Yeah, I saw that yesterday too (GA). Whatever your feelings about the death penalty, it’s beyond me that anyone can be happy with a system where someone who (uncoerced) pulls the trigger gets a lesser punishment that someone else.

  14. This LITERALLY seems too stupid to be true. The dude who ACTUALLY killed the victim is NOT killed, while someone who “told” him to is. What in the actual fuck,dude?!?!?

    1. It’s the inevitable outcome of a judicial system that relies so heavily on plea bargaining.

    2. And we have people searching for all sorts of “reasons” to justify it.

    3. So if you really want someone dead, first find someone else who wants him dead too to pay you to do the deed. Got it.

      1. “Throw American Socialist from the Train”

      2. You avoid a potential death penalty — and you get a few extra bucks! Win-win! Well, not for the guy that gets fried. And not for the guy you off. So just — win!

        1. Well, you still go to jail for a long time, so it’s probably not that much win.

          OT: You manage to weather the, um, “synergizing” at the Dispatch?

    4. But there’s a long history of doing just that, right?

      For example, just about every main Nazi leader captured was sentenced to death, even if they never lifted a gun themselves, whereas random Johannes Schmidt who may have lined up a few people at the Babi Yar ravine is never caught or gets a few years in jail.

      1. I see your point, but I don’t think “I was just following orders!” applies in this case.

        1. The overarching point of the Nuremburg trials was to say that “just following orders” was not a defense, but ALSO that giving illegal or immoral orders makes the order-giver just as culpable as the person who carries out the orders.

          All I am saying is there is a rich history of punishing bosses harder than minions.

          1. It seems to me that there’s probably a bit of moral difference between Sonderf?hrer Dipschei?e deciding carry out his orders to shoot a bunch of people in the head and some idiot in Oklahoma carrying out a two-bit hit. The first has an entire apparatus of the State that will fuck him if he refuses, the second can just…not do it.

            1. Which is exactly the point you made above, I see.

  15. In murder-for-hire the person paying for the hit always seems more culpable than the person doing the deed.

    1. Maybe police commissioners should be on the hook when some poor bastard gets offed by an on-duty officer.

      1. Maybe they should but that is more of a non sequitur than a bad analogy,

  16. Here’s what I’m seeing–

    The first trial got called into question because the defense didn’t introduce this tape.

    The second trial happened and the lawyers watched this tape and were convinced that had it been shown, their client would fry–which he was scheduled to do anyway–so they tried to allude to it in their defense.

    And it didn’t work.

    But I’m stuck at the fact that two sets of defense lawyers saw this tape and thought that it was so incriminating that it should not be shown.

    Doesn’t that say something to anyone else? Supposedly there’s something there that might exonerate their client–might–but there’s also something so incredibly incriminating that it wipes that out.

    Serious questions.

    And hey–where were all the articles for the woman they just offed in Georgia for killing her husband?

  17. To play the devil’s advocate :

    No, OK would not be executing an innocent man. Glossip admitting knowing about the murder, he did not notify authorities , and was actually apprehended trying to flee the area. Plus, there is issue of him possibly embezzling $6000 from the victim (his employer).

    Is he guilty of first -degree murder? Hard to say. I believe the only evidence they have is the testimony of the admitted killer. Does he deserve the death penalty over life without parole? Probably not, and not in my opinion.

    1. I’ve agreed before with the main points that jacob lists here, at least as I understand them: Glossip isn’t innocent of soliciting murder and he doesn’t deserve the death penalty vs LWOP.

      There’s actually more evidence than what jacob mentioned if you believe the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma’s opinion‘s recitation. (Glossip v State, 157 P. 3d 143, Okla. Crim. App. 2007) I personally find really damning, the testimony that Glossip lied to the rest of the motel staff, later that morning after the murder, about speaking with the victim and that the victim had left to go get supplies for renovating the motel.

      Seriously, go read the linked opinion and see if your mind changes about how much evidence beyond the word of a methbilly Oklahoma had when they decided to fry this guy.

      1. Thank you for posting that GG. I had not read that before.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.