Richard Glossip – reading between the lines

Richard Glossip is due to be executed on September 16 for the murder of Barry Van Treese, who owned the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City where Glossip worked.

At a recent news conference, Attorney Don Knight mentions

“tales of $23,100 in the trunk of Van Treese’s car, some of it covered with blue dye and never properly accounted”

and the article states

Quote

“He [Don Knight] pointed to other possible suspects, including Richard Page (with a long criminal past and a murder conviction in Arkansas), Richard’s brother Bobby “who dealt drugs and had a violent past,” and another Richard – Barrett who, as reporterTim Farley summarized “served prison time and showed a history of violence.”

As has been reported often before now, all three of those men were also at or around the Inn the weekend Van Treese was killed.

End Quote

The large amount of cash in the trunk seems likely to be linked to drug dealing. Recently I noticed claims by a Facebook account claiming to be  Richard Glossip’s first trial lawyer that:

  1. Barry Van Treese was killed because he had Cliff Everhart and Tim Brown steal $25,000 cash from a heroin dealer.
  2. The remainder of $24,100 was found in the trunk of Van Treese’s car, along with the briefcase that the heroin dealer used to safely carry the money in.
  3. The money had blue dye all over it because Van Treese did not have the proper keys to open the briefcase (the heroin buyer had them).
  4. The briefcase was a special briefcase used by drug dealers use which it sets off a blue dye cartridge inside the case when the case is opened without following the proper key sequence.

This sounds quite plausible to me, in fact much more plausible than Richard Glossip wanting his boss murdered for no good reason.

In addition, in another message, I see the following claim:

“It was after the public defenders (Oklahoma Indigent Defense System) hired Cliff Everhart, a rapist ex sheriff of Binger OK, as Richard’s only investigator on his defense team. WTF? Cliff Everhart and Sgt Brown (both employees of the victim) are the reason Det(s) Bemo and Cook believed Richard Glossip mastermind the murder of Barry Van Tresse.”

Was Richard Glossip implicated because Cliff Everhart needed the truth about the murder to be concealed, and was Glossip’s defense fatally compromised by his investigator being someone involved in the affair?

I hope the truth comes out in time to avert the execution.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Richard Glossip – reading between the lines”

  1. Thank you for bringing this to light. I will be even happier when Richard Glossip’s current public defenders admit they are the lawyers that hired Cliff Everhart to work as Richard’s investigator for his defense team. Cliff Everhart and Tim Brown worked for the victim and were the first acussers of Richard Glossip. They were also the employees of the victim which stole $25000 from the drug dealer. How do Oklahoma public defenders (OIDS) allow that type of conflict of interest?
    Wayne Fournerat
    aberrant_lawyer@yahoo.com
    214.600.6948 (cell)
    615.897.2006 (landline)
    469.426.8297 (mobile)

  2. Below is EXHIBIT “A” and EXHIBIT “B”, which are copies of emails dated 15 Jul 2015 and 13 Jul 2015 received from Kathleen Lord (one of Richard Glossip’s current public defenders).
    This email is important because it is Richard’s current lawyer’s statement that the money found in the trunk of Barry Van Treese’s car when he was murdered (totaling $24100) was returned to Mr Van Treese’s family as “it was motel receipts”. [email below, Kathleen Lord, July 15 2015, highlighted].
    It is careful to note that this $24100 found in the trunk is not the same $4000 that Justin Sneed discovered when moving Barry Van Treese’s car to the Weokie Credit Union the night Van Treese was murdered. No, this $24100 was found in the trunk of Van Treese’s car as the product of a subsequent inventory search of Van Treese’s car when impounded by the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s office, Deputy Matt W Steadman, Badge No 188. The $4000 that Justin Sneed discovered under the driver’s seat in the front of the car is completely different that the $24100 found in the rear inside the trunk of Van Treese’s car.
    Do you remember reading anything about any $24100 found in the trunk of Van Treese’s car when murdered and returned to Van Treese family with motel receipts?
    My Point: If Richard Glossip is making the Best Budget Inn $24100 in a 6 to 8 weekFN 1 period, why would Richard Glossip be afraid of being terminated? Why kill Barry Van Treese after giving him $24100 in motel receipts for a 6 – 8 week periodFN 2?
    Thank you
    Wayne Fournerat
    615.897.2006
    aberrant_lawyer@yahoo.com

    FN 1 The Court found that “Barry Van Treese, the murder victim…had a series of tragedies during the last six months of 1996, so Mr Van Treese was only able to make overnight visitsto the motel four times in that time span”. [Glossip v State 2007 OK CR 12, 157 P.3d 143, 144 (Okla.Crim.App.2007) majority opinion, J. Lewis, para 4, lines 2-4]
    FN 2 The Court held “Glossip intended to have Van Treese killed because he feared termination”. [Glossip v State 2007 OK CR 12, 157 P.3d 143 (Okla.Crim.App.2007) majority opinion, J. Lewis, para 109, line 2].

    EXHIBIT A
    From:”Kathleen Lord”
    Date:Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:15 PM
    Subject:RE: RE: $24100 OKC PD report w pics

    Wayne, the attached reports re BVT’s trunk and contents were in Richard’s case files. I think the notes are yours. The gist of the evidence at the 2004 trial was that the money in the trunk was given to BVT’s family and that the money was in separate envelopes which contained motel receipts.

    I have shared this information with Andrew Soward who is the investigator I have asked to contact you and obtain whatever documentation you have that might assist Richard in his efforts to establish his innocence.

    Thank you,

    Kathleen

    EXHIBIT B
    Kathleen Lord
    To aberrant_lawyer@yahoo.com Jul 13
    Dear Mr. Fournerat:

    This I think is the report to which you are referring. It was in one of the files as part of a police report about Van Treese’s car:

    INSIDE THE TRUNK $23,100 IN U.S. CURRENCY WAS FOUND IN VARIOUS ENVELOPES
    WHICH WERE CONTAINED WITHIN SOME CARDBOARD BOXES AND PLASTIC BAGS. SOME OF
    THE BILLS WERE STAINED BLUE BY SOME TYPE OF BLUE DYE/SUBSTANCE. LT.HOILE
    BELIEVED THAT THOSE PARTICULAR BILLS’ MAY ‘HAVE BEEN STAINED BLUE DURING THE
    COURSE OF SOME TYPE OF ROBBERY AND THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN BAIT MONEY WITH
    THE SERIAL NUMBERS RECORDED AND REPORTED STOLEN. 16-NEW $100 BILLS WERE
    AFFECTEDBY THE DYE AND THOSE 16 SERIAL NUMBERS WERE RECORDED AND\ GIVEN TO
    LT HOILE TO CHECK THE SERIAL NUMBERS. $90.00 IN TRAVELERS CHEC KS1 A $ 28.64
    COMMERCIAL CHECK AND A RECEIPT FOR A CASHIERS CHECK(AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
    JF LAWTON)’, WERE ALSO FOUND IN THE TRUNK WITH THE ABOVE LISTED CURRENCY. A ROLL
    OF DUCT TAPE, DEPOSIT BOOK, CARDBOARD BOX, MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS AND A
    B00K WERE COLLECTED FROM THE TRUNK. THE CURRENCY WAS PHOTOGRAPHED AT THE GARAGE.
    THE CURRENCY, CHECKS, RECEIPT AND REMAINING LISTED ITEMS WERE BOOKED.

    Kathleen Lord
    LORD LAW FIRM, LLC
    1544 Race St.
    Denver, CO 80206
    (303) 947-5371
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read, disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately if you received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

  3. That request came from Richard Glossip’s public defenders (Kathleen Lord and Kristi Christopher). Ask this: Why did Richard’s public defenders wait seventeen (17) years to raise the issue of the drug money in the trunk of Van Treese’s car? Why did they allow Cliff Everhart to work as Richard’s investigatory? Why did Janet Chesley tell the court that Mr Fournerat received $50,000 as his retainer and not $2000 as the receipt shows? The Answer: Because his public defenders wanted the court and jury to think the money Richard Glossip had on him when arrested (Jan 9 1997) was for the purpose of fleeing the jurisdiction rather than raising his attorney fees. Richard Glossip’s public defender with the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (Ms Janet Chesley) want Richard to die. There is a political reason. The District Attorney of Oklahoma County (Robert “Bob” Macy) knew when heroin came into Oklahoma county from Interstate 35. Bob Macy knew where the heroin was sold to local syndicated buyer for distribution. Bob Macy would wait until the sale and then before leaving Oklahoma county, the Oklahoma City police would perfect an arrest of the person with the money. The heroin would be sold on the streets of Oklahoma county. However, the money seized would never show up in the police property room and never show up on any Exhibit List in any client’s cases. [See, State v (drug dealer client), Case No. CF 1997-7587, Okla.Co.Dist.Ct.] The money Bob Macy seized went to help elect Macy star prosecutor(s) like Susan Caswell to a judgeship. Susan Caswell was one of Macy’s star sex crimes prosecutors from Oklahoma county. She ran for judge on the platform that “any man that came before her on child sexual molestation charges would get 100 years”. That is fine and maybe even understandable…unless your a lawyer and you remember the United States Constitution, 6th Amendment. And that’s what the Oklahoma Supreme Court told her in no uncertain words. She ignored Oklahoma’s highest court (and the court we get our bar card from) which was un-precedented (sp?) and un-heard of at that time. She was elected. Nothing happened to her. We as lawyers get our bar card (license to practice law) from the state’s highest court…the Oklahoma Supreme Court in this case. To ignore them only means she is worshipping a higher god, Robert “Bob” Macy. He used seizures of drug money to get his prosecutors elected into judgeships.

  4. I’ve been researching this case for over a month and it seems to me there is more incriminating evidence pointing to Everheart and Brown as conspirators, than there is to Glossip.

    1. I don’t think Everhart was a conspirator exactly, but I do believe he had a motive to suppress the truth – that he had stolen money from Bobby Glossip, and quite possibly this theft somehow led to the murder of Van Treese.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s