If you believe this film is "one-sided on the issue of the subject's guilt and deploys conceivable red herring, straw-man, omission, and logical fallacy possible ever; because Glossip stole $50,000 from his employer" like the aforementioned comment; fine. That doesn't change that fact that you're a sheeple. It's obvious you haven't read the 1000's of pages of the Courts documents, transcripts, etc., or quite possibly you were part of the inside job; nothing surprised me anymore. Even though $50k has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, it was in factually half of that, which was found in the victim's trunk, documents to prove such facts, I'll give you $50k to swap place with him right now. GO! Please, I WILL WAIT.
4 Reviews
Limited information
holchie5 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This program follows the attempts of numerous and various entities trying to either commute the death sentence of a convicted murderer - Richard Glossip - or prove him innocent.
The vast majority of the people interviewed and speaking in this documentary have dedicated their careers to commuting death sentences, or attempting to prove innocence of someone already convicted and sentenced to death. I can recall only one person who was on the law enforcement side having any say in it.
It is very much the testimony of one man against another, and from other readings on this case, some details were left out about Richard Glossip's behavior around the time of the murder. To me, Richard Glossip came across as a very skilled con man, or "fast talker," who was very good at manipulating people. The other individual involved in the crime, who is now also incarcerated, seemed much more honest to me. That is simply my own opinion, after having worked in a court system for over 20 years.
The actual victim of the crime is given very little attention, other than some background of how the people involved in the crime had reason to be associated with him.
I gave a "5" rating, because it did hold my interest, but much of the material is repeated unnecessarily, and I though it a one-sided view of the situation.
The vast majority of the people interviewed and speaking in this documentary have dedicated their careers to commuting death sentences, or attempting to prove innocence of someone already convicted and sentenced to death. I can recall only one person who was on the law enforcement side having any say in it.
It is very much the testimony of one man against another, and from other readings on this case, some details were left out about Richard Glossip's behavior around the time of the murder. To me, Richard Glossip came across as a very skilled con man, or "fast talker," who was very good at manipulating people. The other individual involved in the crime, who is now also incarcerated, seemed much more honest to me. That is simply my own opinion, after having worked in a court system for over 20 years.
The actual victim of the crime is given very little attention, other than some background of how the people involved in the crime had reason to be associated with him.
I gave a "5" rating, because it did hold my interest, but much of the material is repeated unnecessarily, and I though it a one-sided view of the situation.
Opposed to Death Penalty? Fine. That does not change Gossip's guilt of a heinous murder
VoyagerMN198611 October 2017
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.
Spin Spin Spin
missy-0826516 February 2020
If you want a real story, review all of the court documents. This "documentary" is nothing more than an attempt by Glossip's legal counsel and Joe Berlinger to spin the facts of this case to benefit Glossip. I really thought that Berlinger was so much better than this. Glossip even contradicts himself in the series - but the filmmaker didn't seem to catch that. As he's being interviewed by Berlinger, he tells one version of events in regard to Justin Sneed's demeanor after the murder and then when they show the interrogation tapes, he tells an entirely different version of events. It is one-sided and biased beyond comprehension. Maybe he doesn't deserve the death penalty but he is guilty beyond the shadow of any doubt.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
