Firstly. I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. But the fact remains that this documentary is complete one sided on the issue of the subjects guilt, and deploys every conceivable red herring, strawman, omission and logical fallacy possible.
The idea Gossip had no motive is absurd. He stole about $50,000 from his employer, the motel owner, stealing thousands in cash and much more in renting our rooms for cash that he pocketed. This was discovered by the owner, and Gossip paid another man to kill the owner it to avoid prosecution for multiple felony theft. The corollary contention that he had had committed no crime before arranging the murder is completely absurd since we know he had committed all those felony thefts.
He paid a 19 year old drifter to commit the planned cold blooded murder. Two juries unanimously found this.
Gossip admits wiping down the room, moving the body and removing evidence. If a 19 year old "stranger" you "didn't really know at all" murdered your employer and benefactor would you help cover up the murder science, engage in multiple lies -- and be proved to PAY the murderer -- if you had no involvement? Just google: "Sorry, Susan Sarandon, Richard Glossip is guilty" for a full breakdown of this case.
This film is made by people, and filled with commenters who live in gated communities with armed guards, who are exposed to profoundly less crime risk than you or I. Susan Sarandon is disgusting apologist for violent criminals and going on with a litany of totally inexpert narratives that are just laughable.
The idea Gossip had no motive is absurd. He stole about $50,000 from his employer, the motel owner, stealing thousands in cash and much more in renting our rooms for cash that he pocketed. This was discovered by the owner, and Gossip paid another man to kill the owner it to avoid prosecution for multiple felony theft. The corollary contention that he had had committed no crime before arranging the murder is completely absurd since we know he had committed all those felony thefts.
He paid a 19 year old drifter to commit the planned cold blooded murder. Two juries unanimously found this.
Gossip admits wiping down the room, moving the body and removing evidence. If a 19 year old "stranger" you "didn't really know at all" murdered your employer and benefactor would you help cover up the murder science, engage in multiple lies -- and be proved to PAY the murderer -- if you had no involvement? Just google: "Sorry, Susan Sarandon, Richard Glossip is guilty" for a full breakdown of this case.
This film is made by people, and filled with commenters who live in gated communities with armed guards, who are exposed to profoundly less crime risk than you or I. Susan Sarandon is disgusting apologist for violent criminals and going on with a litany of totally inexpert narratives that are just laughable.