Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #111

[tmar]

I long for the day when BM is sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Suzanne Morphew and that all his ill-gotten gains have been spent by his attorneys. ((Sigh…))

Besides the above, I am hoping, all the stress while 'not being locked up, waiting to be rearrested' will cause him major health problems.

 

[Boxer]

Barry never thanked LE for finding Suzanne, perhaps he should donate the reward money from his video plea, no questions asked, or in Barry's case, answered.
Instead Iris had a sly comment about how the daughters weren't informed by LE iirc - classy.

moo

Yes this all started going downhill when the arrest warrant was issued despite the CBI advice that it was too soon and despite what in hindsight was a disorganized DAs office. A rookie mistake on LS’s part in my opinion with a difficult case to prosecute.

A rookie that was not humble enough to know they needed help.

 

[Seattle1]

More on the Federal Lawsuit by BM:

From the Federal Court Docket posted earlier (quoted below)-- Documents #129-135 on 3/29/24 represent BM's response to the defendants answers to his federal complaint filed against them.

As an FYI, be advised there was an apparent error by BM's legal team and/or Pacer because the only document that was uploaded correctly is #129 or BM's response to LS Motion to Dismiss dated 10/4/23 (i.e., Document #87).

For document #130, instead of uploading their response to Cahill's answer/Motion to Dismiss (i.e., Document #98), they uploaded Cahill's Motion (doc #98) previously filed 10/13/23.

This error is continued for Documents #130 to 135 where they uploaded the defendants Motion instead of their response!

You may recall these documents have a word count limit per Court Order but each response averages about 23 pages.

I expect the Government (Pacer) has been notified and the corrections are pending but I think this probably explains why MSM was silent all weekend about BM's expected answers filed on Friday, 3/29/24. MOO

Friday, March 29, 2024 was the deadline imposed on BM by the Court to answer the Motions filed by opposing parties including Motions to Dismiss by FBI Agents Grusing and Harris (Docket #119) and CCSO Sargent Claudette Hysjulien (Docket #109).

At this time, the Plaintiff, BM, has voluntarily dismissed the three defendants named above from the suit (Grusing, Harris, and Hysjulien). (See Docket #125, 126, and 128).

U.S. District Court - District of Colorado
District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:23-cv-01108-DDD-JPO

View attachment 493886
View attachment 493889

Find a Case | PACER: Federal Court Records

pacer.uscourts.gov

Federal Civil Rules of Procedure, Rule 41, provides that if the opposing party either first serves a response or files Motion for Summary Judgement, the Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal has to be a stipulated dismissal signed by all parties. Also, a stipulated dismissal (i.e., beyond the first) is with prejudice (final) unless the dismissal Order states otherwise.

To be clear, this was no downgraded (stipulated) dismissal for defendants Grusing and Harris (and/or Hysjulien). By Morphew voluntarily dismissing the federal agents from the case, he simply prevented the Court from doing it for him-- and risk the Court awarding the defendants' costs. (I've not been able to read Hysjulien MTD yet and therefore can't comment yet).

This $$$$ shakedown against Grusing and Harris is done and over. They essentially schooled team Morphew on the law, and how invoking the Bivens case did not provide him any legal basis to seek dollars from the Agents. MOO

FRCP- Rule 41

Morphew fails to plead nonconclusory facts

5/3/23 Refresher on Defendants named by BM

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday, May 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by Fisher & Byrialsen, PLLC, Samler & Whitson, PC, and Eytan Law LLC. The list of defendants named in the civil case is practically a who’s who of anyone in courts or law enforcement that ever touched the case: Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Lindsey and Deputy District Attorney Mark Hurlbert (prosecutors in the DA’s office).

It includes the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff John Spezze, Detective Robin Burgess, Deputy Randy Carricato, Deputy Scott Himschoot, Sergeant Claudette Hysjulien, Sergeant William Plackner (sheriff’s office investigators), Colorado Bureau of Investigation agents John Camper, Joseph Cahill, Megan Duge, Caitlin Rogers, Derek Graham, Kevin Koback, Kirby Lewis, FBI agents Jonathan Grusing and Kenneth Harris, and one to ten John/Jane Does.

 

[mrjitty]

More on the Federal Lawsuit by BM:

From the Federal Court Docket posted earlier (quoted below)-- Documents #129-135 on 3/29/24 represent BM's response to the defendants answers to his federal complaint filed against them.

As an FYI, be advised there was an apparent error by BM's legal team and/or Pacer because the only document that was uploaded correctly is #129 or BM's response to LS Motion to Dismiss dated 10/4/23 (i.e., Document #87).

For document #130, instead of uploading their response to Cahill's answer/Motion to Dismiss (i.e., Document #98), they uploaded Cahill's Motion (doc #98) previously filed 10/13/23.

This error is continued for Documents #130 to 135 where they uploaded the defendants Motion instead of their response!

You may recall these documents have a word count limit per Court Order but each response averages about 23 pages.

I expect the Government (Pacer) has been notified and the corrections are pending but I think this probably explains why MSM was silent all weekend about BM's expected answers filed on Friday, 3/29/24. MOO

could it be an error on the portal?

 

[kittythehare]

More on the Federal Lawsuit by BM:

From the Federal Court Docket posted earlier (quoted below)-- Documents #129-135 on 3/29/24 represent BM's response to the defendants answers to his federal complaint filed against them.

As an FYI, be advised there was an apparent error by BM's legal team and/or Pacer because the only document that was uploaded correctly is #129 or BM's response to LS Motion to Dismiss dated 10/4/23 (i.e., Document #87).

For document #130, instead of uploading their response to Cahill's answer/Motion to Dismiss (i.e., Document #98), they uploaded Cahill's Motion (doc #98) previously filed 10/13/23.

This error is continued for Documents #130 to 135 where they uploaded the defendants Motion instead of their response!

You may recall these documents have a word count limit per Court Order but each response averages about 23 pages.

I expect the Government (Pacer) has been notified and the corrections are pending but I think this probably explains why MSM was silent all weekend about BM's expected answers filed on Friday, 3/29/24. MOO

at some point there was a request to exceed the page limit or am I reading it right?

 

[Seattle1]

at some point there was a request to exceed the page limit or am I reading it right?

Yes -- this was by select defendants to file their answers but I'm not aware of BM requesting to exceed words/pages in his responses due 3/29/24.

 

[Seattle1]

could it be an error on the portal?

I'm inclined to think not because the defendants Motions to Dismiss were previously date/timestamped by the court when uploaded/filed, and the documents uploaded to represent the Plaintiff's answers per the Docket entry appear to be the same defense Motion to Dismiss where the headers were each overwritten as if to add the current or 3/29/24 date/timestamp except the result is not legible!

For example, see uploaded Document header for Docket #94 on 10/13/23:



Compared to the uploaded document result for Docket #131 on 3/29/24 which is duplicate of #94 and not the response by Plaintiff:

Find a Case | PACER: Federal Court Records

pacer.uscourts.gov

 

[mrjitty]

so maybe BM didn’t file any response and simply agreed to dismiss?

 

[Seattle1]

could it be an error on the portal?

IMO, it doesn't follow that the portal would be accurate for Docket #129 - Plaintiff response to LS Motion to Dismiss, and fail for the remaining responses #130-135. I think this is human error.

Find a Case | PACER: Federal Court Records

pacer.uscourts.gov

 

[Seattle1]

so maybe BM didn’t file any response and simply agreed to dismiss?

BM did voluntary dismiss three defendants as noted for docket entries #125 and #128 but not 129 -135 where the entry indicates Response to Motion to Dismiss filed by BM's attorney:

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

https://krdo.com/news/local-news/top-stories/2023/04/18/attorney-discusses-complaints-against-11th-judicial-district-attorney-related-to-morphew-murder-case/ 4/18/23 In a press conference today, Eytan pointed to the 11th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, specifically in regards to the...

www.websleuths.com

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not surprised this one was dismissed as it was based around the misrepresentation that Grusing lied about the CAST data. Except Iris own pleading makes clear that Grusing didn't lie. The data does show his phone moving around the house, and heading towards the helmet in the middle of the night.

There are two interpretations

1) data is accurate
2) data is not accurate and there is some other explanation

Grusing asked Barry for an explanation and he said the data was in fact accurate - he did move around the house. Also he said he did turn left.

There was no lie by Grusing, and not surprised the FBI were tough on this. Of course they need to be able to ask suspects about incriminating data.

 

[mrjitty]

The response documents that @Seattle1 has kindly provided include this at page 24

In other words, far from falsifying the pushpin map - BM confirmed it's accuracy, and it was for this reason it formed part of the evidence establishing probable cause for his arrest.

Claim 2 asserts that the “Defendants authoring the Arrest Affidavit”—allegedly in combination with every other defendant named in this lawsuit (known and unknown)—fabricated “what became known as the ‘pushpin map’” of Morphew’s movements around hishome on the afternoon of May 9, 2020. Compl. ¶ 908. At the outset, Morphew’s “collectiv eallegation” that a nameless group of state and federal prosecutors and law enforcement officers fabricated evidence against him fails the Tenth Circuit’s strict pleading requirements for multi defendant Bivens and § 1983 actions. Shrum, 60 F.4th at 1311-12; Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d1210, 1225–26 (10th Cir. 2013). Second, per the complaint’s own allegations, the FBI advised investigators about “one of the challenges” in using GPS data to determine a suspect’s movement—not that GPS data is supposedly “unreliable.” Compl. ¶¶ 223-24. It was Morphew who, when questioned about GPS data showing movement around the house, told investigators that he was chasing and shooting a chipmunk around the house. Aff. at 71. Morphew thus fails to plausibly allege that Special Agents Grusing or Harris “possess[ed] knowledge of the evidence’s falsity.” Truman v. Orem City, 1 F.4th 1227, 1236 (10th Cir. 2021). Third, for the reasons discussed above regarding arguable probable cause to arrest, Morphew cannot carry his “heavy burden” of showing that the pushpin map was necessary to the finding of probable cause: “that without the falsified inculpatory evidence . . . there would have been no probable cause for hisCase No. 1:23-cv-01108-DDD-JPO Document 119 filed 01/16/24 USDC Colorado pg 24 of2720continued confinement or prosecution.” Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1295 (10th Cir.

 

[Megnut]

The response documents that @Seattle1 has kindly provided include this at page 24

In other words, far from falsifying the pushpin map - BM confirmed it's accuracy, and it was for this reason it formed part of the evidence establishing probable cause for his arrest.

Rather I think the offense was to a nameless scurry of chipmunks...

How does IE sleep at night? Seriously. Representing that the data was fabricated? The only static drift was between BM's ears, and the ensuing ego -- bursting at his stretched seams -- that kept him talking, much to any and every defense attorney's dismay. He kept confirming their data! With new and varied Bexplanations but confirmed even as he did so. BM was so convinced that talking made him look innocent that he didn't realize how smoothly Grusing was playing him. Thing of beauty when BM looked back at his new BFF Jonny and said, "I trusted you..."

Funny thing, that was a one way ride. Jonny didn't believe a word BM was saying but kept him talking. Result: BM dug himself in deeper than Moffat.

My question -- probably rhetorical -- is this: why do there seem to be no sanctions against defense attorneys who file spurious motions and lawsuits? The 11th hour ones, worst of all.

Grusing on the stand will crush it.

JMO

 

[Niner]

snipped by me...

From the Federal Court Docket posted earlier (quoted below)-- Documents #129-135 on 3/29/24 represent BM's response to the defendants answers to his federal complaint filed against them.

As an FYI, be advised there was an apparent error by BM's legal team and/or Pacer because the only document that was uploaded correctly is #129 or BM's response to LS Motion to Dismiss dated 10/4/23 (i.e., Document #87).

For document #130, instead of uploading their response to Cahill's answer/Motion to Dismiss (i.e., Document #98), they uploaded Cahill's Motion (doc #98) previously filed 10/13/23.

This error is continued for Documents #130 to 135 where they uploaded the defendants Motion instead of their response!

So - if I am reading this correctly -

#130 thru #135 - should read like this one:
(129) Response to 87 MOTION to Dismiss Def. Stanley's Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Morphew.
i.e.
(131) Response to 94 Motion to Dismiss Defendants Walker & Lindsey's Motion to Dismiss filed by Palintiff Morphew.

not:
(131) Response to 94 MOTION to Dismiss by Walker & Lindsey’s Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Morphew.



Also - you mention #130 as Cahill's Motion - but that is not what the docket says -

(130) Response to 98 MOTION to Dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Plaintiff Morphew.

Just want to get the wording correct for my notes! TIA

 

[FromGermany1]

varied Bexplanations

Wonderful!

 

[mrjitty]

one wonders how on earth Barry intends to sit for a depo about the fabricated pushpin map which he told grusing was accurate.

such a depo would be admissible in any subsequent trial?

i wonder if the remaining defendants call his bluff on this now.

 

[Seattle1]

So - if I am reading this correctly -

#130 thru #135 - should read like this one:
(129) Response to 87 MOTION to Dismiss Def. Stanley's Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Morphew.
i.e.
(131) Response to 94 Motion to Dismiss Defendants Walker & Lindsey's Motion to Dismiss filed by Palintiff Morphew.

not:
(131) Response to 94 MOTION to Dismiss by Walker & Lindsey’s Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Morphew.



Also - you mention #130 as Cahill's Motion - but that is not what the docket says -

(130) Response to 98 MOTION to Dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Plaintiff Morphew.

Just want to get the wording correct for my notes! TIA

@Niner - I don't think this should be in your notes because the Federal Docket is not for us to correct.

In my post, I was simply explaining the results happening on the other end when the subscriber (i.e., myself) purchased the document noted on the Federal Docket as "3/29/24 #131 RESPONSE to #94 MOTION to Dismiss by Walker and Lindsey filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen, Jane)(Entered: 03/29/2024)," and what I received was NOT the response by BM but another copy of Walker and Lindsey's 22 page Motion to Dismiss (i.e., Document #94) previously filed by the defendants on 10/13/24, and where the date/timestamp header of my document was overwritten.

( If you look closely at the clips of my documents #94 and #131 which I posted upthread to illustrate what I received as BM's response #131, you might be able to faintly make out "Document #131" in the over-written header).

Again, I clearly purchased the correct Document/Image #131 expecting BM's response but instead received Document/Image #94 that I had already purchased last October!



Unfortunately, I did the same for each "3/29/24 #129-135 Response to... filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen, Jane)(Entered: 03/29/2024)," where the only document that was correct was "3/29/24 #129 RESPONSE to 87 MOTION to Dismiss Def. Stanely's Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen,Jane) (Entered: 03/29/2024)."

ETA: Relative to #130 Response by BM that I identified as the response to Cahill's Motion to Dismiss, I provided Cahill's name in my post for clarification purposes only as I know by referencing the earlier dockets posted here that #98 was Cahill's Motion:

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

KOAA News5 @KOAA Former Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock calls it a "marathon," not a "sprint". koaa.com Cold case expert says investigation into Suzanne Morphew's death will take time The investigation into the death of Suzanne Morphew is now a “marathon” rather than a “sprint,”...

www.websleuths.com

 

[kittythehare]

@Niner - I don't think this should be in your notes because the Federal Docket is not for us to correct.

In my post, I was simply explaining the results happening on the other end when the subscriber (i.e., myself) purchased the document noted on the Federal Docket as "3/29/24 #131 RESPONSE to #94 MOTION to Dismiss by Walker and Lindsey filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen, Jane)(Entered: 03/29/2024)," and what I received was NOT the response by BM but another copy of Walker and Lindsey's 22 page Motion to Dismiss (i.e., Document #94) previously filed by the defendants on 10/13/24, and where the date/timestamp header of my document was overwritten.

( If you look closely at the clips of my documents #94 and #131 which I posted upthread to illustrate what I received as BM's response #131, you might be able to faintly make out "Document #131" in the over-written header).

Again, I clearly purchased the correct Document/Image #131 expecting BM's response but instead received Document/Image #94 that I had already purchased last October!

View attachment 494211

Unfortunately, I did the same for each "3/29/24 #129-135 Response to... filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen, Jane)(Entered: 03/29/2024)," where the only document that was correct was "3/29/24 #129 RESPONSE to 87 MOTION to Dismiss Def. Stanely's Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen,Jane) (Entered: 03/29/2024)."

ETA: Relative to #130 Response by BM that I identified as the response to Cahill's Motion to Dismiss, I provided Cahill's name in my post for clarification purposes only as I know by referencing the earlier dockets posted here that #98 was Cahill's Motion:

View attachment 494217

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

KOAA News5 @KOAA Former Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock calls it a "marathon," not a "sprint". koaa.com Cold case expert says investigation into Suzanne Morphew's death will take time The investigation into the death of Suzanne Morphew is now a “marathon” rather than a “sprint,”...

www.websleuths.com

Wow!

I truthfully think that anybody that can manage Pacer is at super genius intelligence level

Thanks for doing it.

 

[mrjitty]

@Niner - I don't think this should be in your notes because the Federal Docket is not for us to correct.

In my post, I was simply explaining the results happening on the other end when the subscriber (i.e., myself) purchased the document noted on the Federal Docket as "3/29/24 #131 RESPONSE to #94 MOTION to Dismiss by Walker and Lindsey filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen, Jane)(Entered: 03/29/2024)," and what I received was NOT the response by BM but another copy of Walker and Lindsey's 22 page Motion to Dismiss (i.e., Document #94) previously filed by the defendants on 10/13/24, and where the date/timestamp header of my document was overwritten.

( If you look closely at the clips of my documents #94 and #131 which I posted upthread to illustrate what I received as BM's response #131, you might be able to faintly make out "Document #131" in the over-written header).

Again, I clearly purchased the correct Document/Image #131 expecting BM's response but instead received Document/Image #94 that I had already purchased last October!

View attachment 494211

Unfortunately, I did the same for each "3/29/24 #129-135 Response to... filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen, Jane)(Entered: 03/29/2024)," where the only document that was correct was "3/29/24 #129 RESPONSE to 87 MOTION to Dismiss Def. Stanely's Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Barry Morphew. (Fisher-Byrialsen,Jane) (Entered: 03/29/2024)."

ETA: Relative to #130 Response by BM that I identified as the response to Cahill's Motion to Dismiss, I provided Cahill's name in my post for clarification purposes only as I know by referencing the earlier dockets posted here that #98 was Cahill's Motion:

View attachment 494217

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

KOAA News5 @KOAA Former Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock calls it a "marathon," not a "sprint". koaa.com Cold case expert says investigation into Suzanne Morphew's death will take time The investigation into the death of Suzanne Morphew is now a “marathon” rather than a “sprint,”...

www.websleuths.com

hope you get a refund!

 

[Seattle1]

The response documents that @Seattle1 has kindly provided include this at page 24

In other words, far from falsifying the pushpin map - BM confirmed it's accuracy, and it was for this reason it formed part of the evidence establishing probable cause for his arrest.

By CBI's Motion to Dismiss (pg 18) filed on 10/13/2023, they also cited that the push-pin map was not part of the AA.

If I recall correctly, it was BM who introduced the "pushpin map" during the Preliminary Hearing where Defense Attorney Dru Nielsen gave the speech about BM having to run through walls running and rocket speed.

Please reference Federal Docket entry #97:

2. The Complaint does not state a valid due process claim
(Claims Two and Three) against Defendant Graham.

To state a due process claim based on the alleged fabrication of evidence, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) the defendant knowingly fabricated evidence, (2) the fabricated evidence was used against the plaintiff, (3) the use of the fabricated evidence deprived the plaintiff of liberty, and (4) if the alleged unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, the defendant’s conviction or sentence has been invalidated or called into doubt.” Truman v. Orem City, 1 F.4th 1227, 1236 (10th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that Defendant Graham fabricated any evidence used against Plaintiff.

The only specifically “fabricated” evidence identified by Plaintiff is a pushpin map. See [Doc. 1, ¶ 908]. But the Arrest Affidavit did not include this pushpin map and, as Plaintiff concedes, the map was prepared by others and used only for the non-custodial questioning of Plaintiff. [Doc. 1, ¶¶237, 240]. Plaintiff’s explanation of the map and underlying data allege that the GPS data used may have been unreliable or imprecise, not that the map was in fact fabricated. [Id. ¶¶ 242–45].

... To state a Franks claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the affiant included false statements in support or omitted information from an affidavit; (2) the affiant acted knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (3) if the false information were omitted, or if the omitted information were included, the warrant would not have issued. Id.

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

KOAA News5 @KOAA Former Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock calls it a "marathon," not a "sprint". koaa.com Cold case expert says investigation into Suzanne Morphew's death will take time The investigation into the death of Suzanne Morphew is now a “marathon” rather than a “sprint,”...

www.websleuths.com