Ivan Teleguz

  • DOC Number: 1190381. ((“Offender Locator.” Virginia Department of Corrections 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.vadoc.state.va.us/offenders/locator/index.cfm>.))
  • Inmate Number: 360579. ((“Offender Locator.” Virginia Department of Corrections 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.vadoc.state.va.us/offenders/locator/index.cfm>.))
  • Venue: Rockingham County. ((Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 643 S.E.2d 708 (2007), cert. denied, Teleguz v. Virginia, 552 U.S. 1191, 128 S. Ct. 1228, 170 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2008), reh’g denied, 552 U.S. 1332, 128 S. Ct. 1927, 170 L. Ed. 2d 785 (2008).))
  • Victim: Stephanie Yvonne Sipe. ((Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 466, 643 S.E.2d 708, 714 (2007), cert. denied, Teleguz v. Virginia, 552 U.S. 1191, 128 S. Ct. 1228, 170 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2008), reh’g denied, 552 U.S. 1332, 128 S. Ct. 1927, 170 L. Ed. 2d 785 (2008).))
  • Crime: Capital murder (murder for hire). ((Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 466, 643 S.E.2d 708, 714 (2007), cert. denied, Teleguz v. Virginia, 552 U.S. 1191, 128 S. Ct. 1228, 170 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2008), reh’g denied, 552 U.S. 1332, 128 S. Ct. 1927, 170 L. Ed. 2d 785 (2008).))
  • Current Location: Sussex I State Prison. ((“Offender Locator.” Virginia Department of Corrections 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.vadoc.state.va.us/offenders/locator/index.cfm>.))
  • Status: Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed by the Supreme Court of Virginia. ((Teleguz v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 279 Va. 1, 688 S.E.2d 865 (2010).))
  • As of: January 15, 2010. ((Teleguz v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 279 Va. 1, 688 S.E.2d 865 (2010).))

Summary of crime:

From Teleguz v. Commonwealth [emphasis mine throughout]:

During the summer of 2001, [Ivan] Teleguz hired Edwin Lee Gilkes, Jr., and Michael Anthony Hetrick to kill Sipe, who was Teleguz’s ex-girlfriend and the mother of his young child. On July 21, 2001, Teleguz, driving his car, took Gilkes and Hetrick from their apartment in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to Harrisonburg, Virginia, where Sipe lived. Teleguz told Hetrick he wanted Sipe’s “throat cut” and “to make sure she was dead.” Once in Virginia, Teleguz waited in the car while Gilkes and Hetrick went into a Wal-Mart. Hetrick purchased a fillet knife, which Teleguz approved as a suitable murder weapon. Teleguz took the men to Sipe’s apartment complex and pointed out her apartment. They then drove the car to a parking lot near Sipe’s residence, where Gilkes and Hetrick got out of the car. Teleguz told the men to “wait until he had time to get back to Pennsylvania.”

After waiting several hours, Gilkes and Hetrick walked back to Sipe’s apartment complex. Hetrick approached Sipe’s apartment alone and gained entry by asking to use the telephone. Once in the apartment, Hetrick killed Sipe by cutting her throat. In the course of the attack, Hetrick injured his hand. Hetrick went to the bathroom to clean his hand and was surprised to find Sipe’s infant son “in the bathtub with the water running.” Hetrick turned off the water and left the apartment. Gilkes and Hetrick returned to Pennsylvania by bus.

On the evening of July 23, 2001, Sipe’s mother, Pamela Y. Woods, went to her daughter’s apartment because she had not heard from Sipe during the previous two days and was unable to reach her by telephone. When Woods entered the apartment, she found Sipe’s body in the front room and began screaming for help. Woods then found Sipe’s twenty-three month-old son in the bathroom of the apartment, with the bathtub full of water. The child was unharmed. In response to Woods’ screams, Mark Edwin Moore, a neighbor, went to Sipe’s apartment and, after placing a blanket over Sipe’s body, took Woods and her grandson out of the apartment.

The medical examiner testified that Sipe suffered a number of cuts described as defensive wounds, as well as three other wounds. The first, according to the medical examiner, was a superficial wound. The second wound was a “stabbing wound,” which affected the area “all the way from the left side of the neck . . . to the right side of the neck” and consisted of a cut to Sipe’s windpipe and esophagus. The medical examiner also testified that the third wound, the fatal wound, was a “cutting wound” which consisted of a cut approximately two and one-half inches deep into Sipe’s trachea, larynx, and a major artery on the right side of Sipe’s neck, which was completely severed.

At the crime scene, the Harrisonburg police discovered blood that did not belong to Sipe. Investigator Kevin A. Whitfield learned from Sipe’s family members that Teleguz was the father of Sipe’s son and that he was currently living in Pennsylvania. Investigator Whitfield also learned that relations between Sipe and Teleguz had been strained, and that Teleguz was upset about a court order requiring him to pay child support. On July 24, 2001, Investigator Whitfield interviewed Teleguz at Teleguz’s residence in Pennsylvania. Teleguz denied any involvement in the murder, and stated he had been in Pennsylvania since July 20, 2001.

On December 14, 2001, Investigator Whitfield, assisted by Pennsylvania State Police, executed a search warrant on Teleguz. Police collected samples of Teleguz’s blood, hair, and saliva. Testing revealed that Teleguz was not the source of the blood found at Sipe’s apartment.

Also in 2001, Investigator Whitfield interviewed Mark Moore who told Whitfield that he had seen an unknown person around Sipe’s apartment prior to her murder. When shown a photograph array that included a photograph of Teleguz, Moore told Investigator Whitfield he was about 70 percent certain Teleguz was the person he had seen at Sipe’s apartment. Investigator Whitfield also interviewed Ryan Ferguson, who was with Moore the night he saw the individual leave Sipe’s apartment. Ferguson was also shown a photograph array. Although Ferguson initially failed to identify Teleguz, he subsequently identified the photograph of Teleguz as the one which “most” resembled the person he had seen leaving Sipe’s apartment. No arrests were made on the basis of these interviews.

The investigation stalled until February 2003, when Michael Nelson, a deputy marshal with the United States Marshal Service, contacted Investigator Whitfield with information about the Sipe murder. Aleksey Safanov, who was facing federal criminal charges, told Deputy Marshal Nelson that Teleguz had hired a black male from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to kill Sipe because Teleguz was angry about having to pay child support. According to Safanov, Teleguz said that Sipe had been murdered, and that Teleguz was upset because “[w]hoever killed her left blood evidence.” Safanov also told investigators that after Sipe’s murder, Teleguz wanted to rob Sipe’s parents, and that he and Teleguz had driven to Harrisonburg but ultimately did not commit the robbery.

Safanov’s information led the police to Edwin Gilkes who told the police that he refused Teleguz’s offer to murder Sipe for pay but that Michael Hetrick accepted the offer. The police then contacted Hetrick who ultimately confessed to murdering Sipe. Hetrick said Teleguz had hired him to kill Sipe for $ 2,000, with half to be paid before the murder. When Teleguz received confirmation of Sipe’s death, he paid Gilkes and Hetrick the remaining $ 1,000 plus an additional $ 500 for expenses. Subsequent testing revealed that Hetrick was the source of the unidentified blood found at Sipe’s apartment.

As a result of Hetrick’s confession, Teleguz was arrested in Pennsylvania on July 1, 2004 and subsequently extradited to Virginia. He was indicted by a Rockingham County grand jury for the willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a person by another for hire as an accessory before the fact in violation of Code § 18.2-31(2).

Following a four day trial, the jury found Teleguz guilty as charged. The jury proceeded to hear further evidence regarding sentencing. The Commonwealth presented evidence at sentencing in support of the statutory aggravators of vileness and future dangerousness. In addition to the evidence presented during the guilt portion of the trial, the Commonwealth’s evidence included Teleguz’s prior criminal convictions, testimony from Sipe’s relatives, the nature of the injuries Sipe sustained, and the pain she would have experienced prior to her death. ((Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 467-469, 643 S.E.2d 708, 714-716 (2007), cert. denied, Teleguz v. Virginia, 552 U.S. 1191, 128 S. Ct. 1228, 170 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2008), reh’g denied, 552 U.S. 1332, 128 S. Ct. 1927, 170 L. Ed. 2d 785 (2008).))

36 thoughts on “Ivan Teleguz”

  1. First off,

    how many people were convicted wrongly because the evidence can point to who’s ever person name was spoken?

    If that criminal said somebody else’s name would he have also gone to jail?

    Is the evidence sufficient enough that Teleguz was responsible or if in his place somebody equally talented as a criminal to be placed in that position, would he be charged for the same crime?

    It’s interesting enough i will say, that it looks like if in the papers if i replaced Teleguz with Johnson or whoever would Johnson be guilty as well? if yes then the evidence is not sufficient, and looking at this case makes me wonder if this man was set up?

    Please judge in all fairness, please no criticism. Look at it from this perspective.


  2. Ivan is a great person, I knew him personally, I know something is not right with this case! only God can save him,


      1. I wonder what a family member you are. you should fear God to accuse innocent men. I am his former neighbor, I know him from his day of birth, I know his family, and I know very well his parents, they all are the sweetest people I know ever. even if I wouldn’t study his case I would hardly believe he could do this, but after 2 of his witnesses had confessed they set him up, then what’s the doubt about?
        I would really caution people who are accusing innocent people, don’t forget God is watching all these.

        Thank you

        1. Accusing innocent people? He was convicted and sentenced to death because the murder only makes sense if he did it. Co-conspirator testimony and money paid by Teleguz to them is an undeniable link between him and the murder. This is a case of a selfish man who didn’t want to have anyone tell him to pay child support (you know, be a man and take responsibility for the life you created). Whether he has repented and turned his life around is immaterial. He must pay for the despicable crime he committed

    2. He got you all fooled hasn’t he? I know, its the way he acts, always with a sad face kinda looks like he is feeling sorry for himself right? See he acted like that outside too and when no one was looking always doing the unthinkable, oh and as stupid as he is, he also bragged about everything he did. ( with a sad face of course)

      Im all about the innocent to be set free but if he goes free, more people will die.

  3. Stephanie Was Murdered…Brutally Murdered in her own home….
    He drove the car..He paid the money..
    They took a beautiful,loving mother from her”innocent” son…


    1. Oh yeah. He married another gal in Portland right before he got arrested didn’t he? …The poor gal had no idea that he had a kid. Messed up. He is a psychopath.

  5. אירועים חוגגים באירועים במרכז מומלץ! וגם ב מסיבת בת מצווה וגם ב אולמות אירועים ברחובות

  6. He bragged about killing his girlfriend when we were all outside of Suha… house and since we did not know it acually happent we thought he could be full of it, only 2 years later after he got arrested I personally found out that there really was a murder and of course I knew who did it….

    Ivan asked another friend of mine to build him a bomb that works through a cell phone and thats after the murder, could it have been for Mr Rymor… the guy that got his rims stolen by Ivan weeks before and confronted him? Oh and Mr Safronov (so called witness) bought the rim and was trying to sell them back to the original owner, does it sound crazy? not to them,, this is just normal life.
    Thats not mentioning him selling guns which with one of those guns my other friend got murdered by another Ukranian Psicho!!

    Sure lets just let him go,, after all, we have like 7 billion people, whats another couple of murders right??

    1. if he’s bragged about it, along with other information I’ve compiled, he’s guilty and will die a much easier death that this poor gal, young mom that deserved to enjoy her child for a good long time, god will judge…

  7. I am an ex girlfriend of Ivan.I honestly cannot say he did it or he did not do it.I really liked Ivan a lot. We had great times together.Currently I do not know how ivans case is going.I just pray for him and hope he is innocent.

  8. Thanks for the information. I was asked to sign a Change.org petition on behalf of the Teleguz, but couldn’t find information about the case before signing. I found it here.

  9. I’ve been checking into this case and I can’t help but have doubts..anyone who could answer this please do. Was there any evidence besides testimony from people who had a great reason to lie.

    1. Even if someone supports the death penalty, they should want a whole lot more evidence that exists in this case. With his accusers recanting at their own peril and risking perjury charges, and no other solid evidence, Ivan should not be put to death. One can remain steadfast in support for the death penalty while still maintaining that it should only be applied where there is zero we’re nearly zero doubt as to the condemned’s guilt.

  10. I’ve been checking into this case and I can’t help but have doubts..anyone who could answer this please do. Was there any evidence besides testimony from people who had a great reason to lie. There’s something not right with this

    1. After the Change.org petition showed up in my mailbox, I too tried checking this out. As Lisa ILM says, something isn’t right. To me, the problem is motive. Stabbing is a very personal kind of killing, even if by proxy. In that regard, Teleguz’s role in this makes sense because he did have a motive. Motive to kill someone in a highly personal way only applies to Teleguz from what I’ve read. The man who actually did the murder does not appear to have a motive, which indicates he was probably hired by someone. Therefore, the only way, to my thinking, that Teleguz is innocent is if someone framed him for this. It’s pretty elaborate if that’s the case. Does anyone know how this might have happened?

      1. Well there is Teleguz paying more than a thousand dollars to the killer right after the deedeath was done. Witnesses identifying him as driving close to murder scene earlier that dayou, inciminating statements to law enforcement and family members. Off the top of my head a few. Keep in mind that these guys have nothing but time to create an innocent story while incarcerated.

      2. To the idiot that says that stabbings are very personal murders…how many muggers that stab their victims really know them? Stabbings aren’t a personal murder they are a murder of convenience. When at a bar they break a bottle and stab their victim, why because it is convenient. When out at Walmart they pick up a pocket knife or hunting knife, why because you don’t need a special license to carry a pocket knife or to buy one. Stabbing someone is a murder of convenience. A personal murder is more like poison, you have to be around the person to be able to poison them.

    2. Well there’s that fleeing off to Canada thingy showing guilty knowledge and the perps prior convictions. Plus a jury that all the evidence over four days had no problems convicting the guy and ordering him put to death, That’s enough for me.

  11. OpEdNews


    Original Content at

    March 7, 2017

    Save Your Tears and Prayers for Ivan Teleguz–He is Guilty as Charged

    By Michael Green

    Contrary to some very effective propaganda on his behalf, Ivan Teleguz is guilty as charged of the murder of Stephanie Sipe.

    There is a great deal of sympathy for Ivan Teleguz with campaigns and petitions to spare him from execution April 25, 2017, based on his alleged innocence. Death Penalty News has a blogspot on his behalf that links to another site with a petition asking for clemency (https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2016/04/ivan-teleguz-innocent-man-on-virginia.html). Paul Craig Roberts believed this material unquestioningly and wrote an impassioned plea on his behalf that OPEDNEWS published, “The Case of Ivan Teleguz” (https://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Case-of-Ivan-Teleguz-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-Conviction_Execution_Innocent_Justice-160331-573.html).

    This is all very touching but completely misguided. I watched the four videos making up one movie at https://ivansprayerforjustice.org/and read the accompanying materials at https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-ivan?source_location=petition_nav and signed the petition. Then I watched them again carefully, and read the accompanying material carefully, and researched the case from online court documents, and now I realize that I and many others have been duped. Teleguz may or may not deserve the death penalty but the evidence shows overwhelmingly that he did hire Edwin Gilkes and Michael Hetrick to murder his ex-girlfriend and mother of his child, Stephanie Sipe. Moreover, the claim of his attorney that Gilkes falsely testified that he saw Teleguz commit a murder that never happened is both false and a gross distortion. Gilkes may have made such a statement to an investigator, and it was excluded by the court as too inflammatory. But Teleguz’s attorney had Gilkes explicitly deny making such a statement and he did deny it in the only testimony that the judge and jury heard, so that claim that such false testimony is responsible for his death sentence is simply false propaganda. See the opinion of appeals court Judge Jones below for details.

    The videos are designed to make it seem as though Teleguz had nothing to do with any of the men who testified against him at trial, Edwin Gilkes, Michael Hetrick, and Aleksey Safanov. The movie leaves unexplained how Safanov led the police to the killer Hetrick whose blood was found at the murder scene and makes it seem that the police simply gave him and the other men Ivan’s name in order to put him into the picture. They make it seem as though the police had found Hetrick on their own and then could not give up their unfounded zealous conviction that Ivan was behind it all and simply coerced the men who did the crime into implicating Teleguz. In fact Ivan Teleguz knew and met with both Gilkes and Hetrick and contracted with them to kill his ex-girlfriend. It is a thoroughly dishonest and deceitful documentary that takes advantage of the trust and goodwill that people knowledgeable about police and judicial corruption are willing to offer to someone pretending to defend the innocent yet unjustly accused and convicted. Gilkes’ recanting affidavit in particular struck me as inculpatory rather than exculpatory, especially #3, which reads:

    “During questioning, police told me that the Russian guy from Massachusetts [Safanov] was the one who told them about me. Since I only met that guy once [and did not talk about the murder with him], I figured Teleguz was the one who told that guy about me. That made me really angry at Teleguz. It was easier to make stuff up about Teleguz, because I believed that Teleguz threw me under the bus by telling police.”

    In the movie this goes by quickly and seems to explain why Gilkes–a black man–vengefully make up testimony against Teleguz, but if you stop and read it slowly it also clearly implicates Teleguz as knowing about Gilkes’ role in the murder. In giving Gilkes’ motive for revenge–because he inferred that Teleguz had also given him up to the police–it also reveals the involvement of Teleguz. Judge Jones, in assessing the credibility of Gilkes’ recantation by affidavit drew the same conclusion and noted:

    “The recantations contained in Gilkes’ affidavits are incomplete at best and at worst are contradictory. While Gilkes retracted his trial testimony implicating Teleguz, he failed to provide any explanation why he and Hetrick traveled to Harrisonburg to murder Sipe, who drove them there, or how they ultimately located Sipe.”

    Furthermore, during his initial interview with Whitfield, Gilkes denied any involvement in the murder but still implicated Teleguz with purported second-hand information from Rymarenko. Tellingly, in his second affidavit, Gilkes stated,

    (Pet’r’s Ex. 34 3.)”Thus, after all of his supposed recantations, I infer from this statement that, at a minimum, Teleguz had sufficient prior knowledge of the murder for Gilkes to suspect that he had led police to his door.

    “For these reasons, I find Gilkes’ affidavits unreliable.”

    And by the way, the murder was pretty clearly a contract hit. The video shows that Hetrick was violent against women and makes it seem like a crime of passion, but another unconnected part reveals that Hetrick knocked on Sipe’s door pretending to be a stranded motorist so he could gain access to her apartment, and then attacked her. The “stranded motorist” ploy indicates that she was the target of a contracted murder.

    I go further. The neat handwritten affidavit of Gilkes that appears in part in the video was probably not written nor composed by Gilkes. The script is almost calligraphic proletarian. The likely conclusion is that the text was composed artfully by defense counsel with Gilkes’ cooperation and handwritten by a secretary in block print to make it seem genuine. Too many details of legalistic phrasing that I will not pursue here about just what Gilkes affirms ooze concern about avoiding the charge of suborning perjury, and in exposing Gilkes’ motivation to get even with Teleguz, the affidavit revealed that Teleguz knew that Gilkes had participated in the murder of Sipe, inculpating Teleguz, not exculpating him.

    The judge’s account of the “recantation” by Safarov is equally compelling. In contrast to the video propaganda that leaves a complete mystery how Safarov identified Gilkes except by the police feeding him information, Safarov initially provided information about the identity of Gilkes–whom he had met just once, and this is what convinced Gilkes that Teleguz must have opened his big mouth and told Safarov about the murder–that was not known to any of the state investigators:

    Even assuming the authenticity of his affidavit, the reliability of Safanov’s recantation is suspect, given that it fails to explain how Safanov possessed information necessary to rejuvenate the stale investigation. Before speaking with anyone related to the investigation of Sipe’s murder, Safanov provided information to [Deputy Marshal] Nelson, an uninterested party, which information was neither publicly available nor provided to him by any law-enforcement officer. In particular, Safanov gave Nelson information that was unknown even to investigators assigned to the Sipe homicide — that “a Russian male hired a black male from Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania to kill his wife.”11 (Hr’g Tr. 143:9-10, Nov. 13, 2013.) A few days later, Safanov reported to Nelson that “the black male from Lancaster, PA, lives on the same one-way street as the Lancaster County Jail.” (Resp’t’s Ex. 3, at 1.) A cross-reference of the Lancaster County Jail address with Teleguz’s phone records led law enforcement to Gilkes, who in turn implicated Hetrick as the murderer.

    As for the supposedly prejudicial “testimony” by Gilkes that he saw Teleguz murder another Russian in front of the Ephrata Recreational Center; this testimony is a fiction and an investigation of the murder indicates that Teleguz was involved in it. I excerpt from the option of Judge Jones, below:

    “The omission of a guilt-phase claim based upon the Ephrata murder allegations — by both state and federal habeas counsel — is understandable given the fact that, at most, the evidence before the jury demonstrated that Teleguz was present when another individual threatened to murder someone at the Ephrata Recreation Center, and a murder did occur in the following week. At no point was it alleged that Teleguz was responsible for another murder. It was otherwise clear to the jury that Teleguz kept disreputable company, and that he accompanied an individual who would make such a threat would likely come as no surprise. Given Gilkes’ and Hetrick’s testimony tying Teleguz to the Russian Mafia, the introduction of Teleguz’s federal gun-trafficking convictions, and his obvious associations with convicted criminals, the actual content of Gilkes’ testimony concerning the Ephrata Recreation Center was minimally prejudicial.

    “While the introduction of the alleged murder certainly did not aid the petitioner, it is not so prejudicial that the outcome of the trial or the sentence would have been different. The allegations do not bear on the murder-for-hire scheme itself and their single mention in the penalty phase was in conjunction with other evidence in support of a finding of future dangerousness. In addition, the jury found that the Commonwealth had demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt an alternative aggravating factor, vileness, in their recommendation of a sentence of death. (J.A. at 3532.)

    “Furthermore, trial counsel’s failure to investigate the allegations was not unreasonable, given that Gilkes never accused Teleguz of actually committing an uncharged murder, and even more, any investigation would likely have been unhelpful to the petitioner’s defense. Although it has been established that a murder as described by Gilkes did not occur, there are multiple statements that reveal contemporaneous rumors that Teleguz had supplied a gun used in the Belyy murder. Indeed, in his second affidavit, Gilkes did not admit that he had fabricated the allegations but that “Gene Popov told [him] that Teleguz was involved in the rec center shooting.” (Pet’r’s Ex. 34 – 8.)

    Readers who believe that the facts prove the innocence of Ivan Teleguz would be better served by reading the opinion of Judge Jones, which provides many more facts and thoughtful analysis:



    Case No. 7:10CV00254.


    United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

    July 17, 2014.

    Submitters Bio:

    I am a retired forensic psychologist living in Los Angeles with enough time on my hands to have spent the past few years studying the deeds whose perpetrators pejoratively deride the correct analysis of which as “conspiracy theories,” i.e., USG intelligence community domestic covert operations — fascist politics by unconventional means. A professor of analytic philosophy in a former career, I no longer embrace the Lotus Land argument that if you can work on your abs, then you are not living under a totalitarian state.


  12. Except that he isn’t guilty. All those that testified against him have since recanted their statements on their own recognizance. And the funny thing is that they say he was upset about having to pay child support yet he paid before she was murdered and even after she was murdered. Doesn’t really sound like a man that was holding a grudge. Also where is the proof of the money trail where he paid the man to shoot her? There wasn’t one presented so all the evidence was testimony of a known criminal (cause we all know that they are always telling the truth because you know criminals are always honest and trustworthy)and the. To have everyone believe that because they were estranged he killed her…think if one of your exes were to die suspiciously it would be like the DA prosecuting you for their death because you were their ex and people said you don’t get along. Not one ounce of tangible evidence linked him to the murder. I am sorry for her families loss, but it is a scary world when a person can get a death sentence or life in prison just because they don’t get along with the person who died under suspicious circumstances.

  13. After the article about Teleguz caught my attantion on California News fed, I was touched by the story. But after readind and watching every piece of information on change.org I felt that something was missing and confusing. I decided to research f or more public information and records. After carefully reading it all, I can say that change.org info has missing pieces and its info is brainwashing if you do not research and dig deeply. I found enough evidence that is available online that convince me to believe that IVAN TELEGUZ IS GIILTY OF MURDER. Death penalty is too much I think, just because he did not kill the poor lady himself, but hired the guy, and that guy could of said “NO”just like some others told him. But he made so many poor choices and he planned and hired those guys to kill her, HE MADE THAT CHOICE, and he need to take full responsibility for it. I just hope that he will think about that every day of his life in prison,and ask God for forgiveness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *