Condemned man asks Ohio board to spare him, claims he was high during robbery
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Lawyers for a condemned man who fatally shot a security guard for an adult bookstore at the end of a multistate crime spree asked Ohio's parole board on Thursday to recommend mercy, saying he accepts responsibility for what happened but that it was an unintentional consequence of a struggle for a gun while he was high.
The request by 48-year-old Frederick Treesh was made a little more than a month before his scheduled March 6 execution.
Prosecutors say Treesh robbed banks and businesses, committed sexual assaults, stole vehicles, committed carjackings and shot someone to death in a robbery in crimes across Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
He was sentenced to die in Ohio for killing 58-year-old Henry Dupree during a robbery in Eastlake on Aug. 27, 1994.
Attorneys for Treesh argued in favor of clemency in Columbus, while prosecutors presented their case against sparing him for a murder they say was intentional. The parole board will make a recommendation, but Gov. John Kasich has the final say on clemency.
Treesh's attorneys described him as a cocaine addict who was high during the robbery and is deeply sorry for what happened.
“Hindsight, regret and remorse cannot turn back the clock and cannot return Mr. Dupree's life,” they said in a petition for clemency. “What Fred can do and has tried to do is to help prevent others from making the same mistakes he did” by teaching them to avoid drugs.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.