Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #114

[girlhasnoname]

we looked under most stones that we knew of.

There is a problem here.

That problem is one of 2 things.

Either BM has more power and influence than any of us ever knew or the entire judiciary is nuts and awol, IMO.

She investigated that judge for DV.

Everybody is utterly outraged.
I would have done the exact same because there was no rational reason for his behaviour. And anything else I could think of as well.
Make it make sense!!!!

It makes zero sense.

Roll on a few months and we have another case, a murder case thrown out, victim, is punished.

I absolutely agree she was due a slap on the wrist for speaking but if it's all open source already she hardly broke state secrets..

Slippery slope.

It makes me sick to my stomach that the charges were dropped against the Defendant for murdering that innocent baby.
I hope there is some way to recharge that violent animal in the future, is that possible especially if it can be shown the Judge over reached with that sanction? The things LS said I agree 100% with, but as the DA, you cannot voice those thoughts in public.

LS did herself the worst damage during BM's case when she went on PE. I liked her, but at that point I knew she had crossed the line, especially when there was a gag order in place. As the DA, you just DON'T go on a SM Podcast and mention a case period. I also think submitting that huge AA was also a mistake. It should have been pared down considerably JMO.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted LS to succeed and was pulling for her, I believe she has a lot of passion and a drive to see justice done. She just obviously cannot keep her mouth shut and her emotions in check and that makes her wrong for this job.

moo

 

[kittythehare]

It makes me sick to my stomach that the charges were dropped against the Defendant for murdering that innocent baby.
I hope there is some way to recharge that violent animal in the future, is that possible especially if it can be shown the Judge over reached with that sanction? The things LS said I agree 100% with, but as the DA, you cannot voice those thoughts in public.

LS did herself the worst damage during BM's case when she went on PE. I liked her, but at that point I knew she had crossed the line, especially when there was a gag order in place. As the DA, you just DON'T go on a SM Podcast and mention a case period. I also think submitting that huge AA was also a mistake. It should have been pared down considerably JMO.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted LS to succeed and was pulling for her, I believe she has a lot of passion and a drive to see justice done. She just obviously cannot keep her mouth shut and her emotions in check and that makes her wrong for this job.

moo

Anything she said on the PE show was already open source and she already addressed that.

The AA is not in question, it is spot on, accurate and thorough.
It's a great AA.

It is not the entire case, it is a lot of it.

She is off the case now so most of what we're saying is moot but for the sake of accuracy and fairness let's call a spade a spade.
Judges were off by miles and should be called to task and I sim[ply cannot believe they are not.

 

[Curiousobserver]

Anything she said on the PE show was already open source and she already addressed that.

The AA is not in question, it is spot on, accurate and thorough.
It's a great AA.

It is not the entire case, it is a lot of it.

She is off the case now so most of what we're saying is moot but for the sake of accuracy and fairness let's call a spade a spade.
Judges were off by miles and should be called to task and I sim[ply cannot believe they are not.

It's almost goofy, DA's and prosecutors speak despairingly about suspects all the time. That is basically their job. For god's sake isn't charging someone with murder pretty much not a character endorsement?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

we looked under most stones that we knew of.

There is a problem here.

That problem is one of 2 things.

Either BM has more power and influence than any of us ever knew or the entire judiciary is nuts and awol, IMO.

She investigated that judge for DV.

Everybody is utterly outraged.
I would have done the exact same because there was no rational reason for his behaviour. And anything else I could think of as well.
Make it make sense!!!!

It makes zero sense.

Roll on a few months and we have another case, a murder case thrown out, victim, is punished.

I absolutely agree she was due a slap on the wrist for speaking but if it's all open source already she hardly broke state secrets..

Slippery slope.

Odd in a sense and I agree. Colorado? And there is that other sad, tragic, unsolved case out of Boulder, CO; the circa Christmas 1996 slaying of a young child in her own home under it seems suspicious circumstances. IIRC the DA office there was also heavily ‘involved’ in that case. (There are WS and other threads for that case.)

Not thread hopping or to confuse. Just odd. Hoping here for the best and for justice for SM and her friends and family. MOO

 

[Love Never Fails]

Odd in a sense and I agree. Colorado? And there is that other sad, tragic, unsolved case out of Boulder, CO; the circa Christmas 1996 slaying of a young child in her own home under it seems suspicious circumstances. IIRC the DA office there was also heavily ‘involved’ in that case. (There are WS and other threads for that case.)

Not thread hopping or to confuse. Just odd. Hoping here for the best and for justice for SM and her friends and family. MOO

I’ve always wondered if BM didn’t use his daughter going to school in CO as his excuse to move his entire family to the small town of Salida, for the sole purpose of murdering Suzanne.

<modsnip - off topic>

 

[crhedBngr]

I’ve always wondered if BM didn’t use his daughter going to school in CO as his excuse to move his entire family to the small town of Salida, for the sole purpose of murdering Suzanne.

<modsnip - off topic>

I'm sure isolating her from her family was part of his "master plan".

JMVHO.

 

[fcavanaugh]

Well, well, well….all quiet on the Western Front since shortly after Suzanne’s partial AR was released.
LE silent (speaks volumes, imo)
BM silent (speaks volumes, imo)
Grand Jury (hopefully) meeting in secret/silence

Waiting patiently and hopeful for a Grand Jury indictment and BM’s re-arrest.

Since I couldn’t recall how long Grand Juries typically meet, did some searching and found some info on Colorado Grand Jury process. Below link has a treasure trove of info on Colorado Grand Jury process/procedures for anyone interested.

*Snipped from link:

7. How long does grand jury duty last in Colorado?

Grand juror service is for a term of 12 months, but it may be shorter if the court discharges the jurors. The term can be longer if a judge finds that it is necessary, but no term may exceed 18 months.

*Also snipped from link, Colorado Grand Jury Flow Chart:

https://cdn-apgml.nitrocdn.com/LebpnhtoivqQZrhySxTgIGIqkErReVqW/assets/images/optimized/rev-c158bae/www.shouselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/grand-jury-colorado-flowchart.png

"Grand Juries" & "Indictments" in Colorado - How It Works

A Grand Jury in Colorado consists of 12 to 23 citizens summoned to investigate suspected criminal activity. If a majority find probable cause, they will indict.

www.shouselaw.com

Tick Tock BM, tick tock…


IMHOO

#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[Charlot123]

It makes me sick to my stomach that the charges were dropped against the Defendant for murdering that innocent baby.
I hope there is some way to recharge that violent animal in the future, is that possible especially if it can be shown the Judge over reached with that sanction? The things LS said I agree 100% with, but as the DA, you cannot voice those thoughts in public.

LS did herself the worst damage during BM's case when she went on PE. I liked her, but at that point I knew she had crossed the line, especially when there was a gag order in place. As the DA, you just DON'T go on a SM Podcast and mention a case period. I also think submitting that huge AA was also a mistake. It should have been pared down considerably JMO.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted LS to succeed and was pulling for her, I believe she has a lot of passion and a drive to see justice done. She just obviously cannot keep her mouth shut and her emotions in check and that makes her wrong for this job.

moo

(Many things, but I really liked the Weld County DA in Chris Watts case, Michael Rourke. Where is he? He did it the best way, professionally, didn't overshare but made the facts known after the case was finished.)

When I read what LS said, I thought that she was slightly blunt, but at the same time, William Jacobs is like CG. Even bites! I don't care how LS phrased it, I care that the society is in danger if he walks free.

Coming back to BM. We know that agents working with him did a good job. I understand why BM is harassing Arizona chipmunks instead of being shut where he truly belongs. It is because the case has to be airtight, all because he has a good lawyer. Why were there loose ends? I wouldn't be surprised if budget issues play a role.

So while LS does come across a tad as a loose cannon, I can't imagine a person being disbarred because she vented her anger about a man accused of killing an infant.

 

[mrjitty]

It's almost goofy, DA's and prosecutors speak despairingly about suspects all the time. That is basically their job. For god's sake isn't charging someone with murder pretty much not a character endorsement?

Right - but they are supposed to speak through the indictment, and not make out of court statements about details of the case.

I agree prosecutors make vanilla statements which is fine, but LS did go beyond that

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Refrained from Blabbermouthing? Prosecutors & Out of Ct. Stmts.

It's almost goofy, DA's and prosecutors speak despairingly about suspects all the time. That is basically their job. For god's sake isn't charging someone with murder pretty much not a character endorsement?

@Curiousobserver Yes, I see what you mean, but that “disparaging” talk is supposed to happen in the courtroom, subject to the applicable rules of evidence in the case.
Expanding on post by @mrjitty TYVM ---re prosecutors speaking “through the indictment, and not make out of court statements about details of the case."

Basically prosecutors are supposed to try cases in courts of law, not thru MSM, soc media, "court of public opinion," trying to influence potential juror members.

Rule 3.8 of American Bar Assocn. "Model Rules of Professional Conduct" quoted below addresses this issue. Each state has its own specific st. court rule (and likely st. statute) w similar restrictions, generally to same effect.

An excerpt from ABA website.*
Rule 3.8 "The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: ....
"(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule...."
^ FWIW ^

And prosecutors are not the only atty's who are supposed to REFRAIN from BLABBERMOUTHING in out of court stmts. More on another post, coming up shortly.

imo ETA: Welcoming comment or correction.
________________________
*https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...r statements that,of the accused and exercise

 

[al66pine]

Refrained from Blabbermouthing? Prosecutors & Crimimal Defense Counsel
@Curiousobserver

Rule 3.6 of American Bar Assocn. "Model Rules of Professional Conduct" quoted below restricts judicial (out of court) stmts atty’s in litigation may make in criminal proceedings (and civil suits as well). Sub¶(7) addresses atty’s in criminal cases and applies to prosecutors & defense atty’s both. Again, each state has its own version.

“Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity”
“(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
“(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
“(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
“(2) information contained in a public record;
“(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
“(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;
“(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and
“(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):
“(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;
“(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;
“(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and
“(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.”
^ FWIW ^

imo ETA: Welcoming comment or correction.
_______________________________
*https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...rofessional_conduct/rule_3_6_trial_publicity/

 

[Curiousobserver]

Refrained from Blabbermouthing? Prosecutors & Out of Ct. Stmts.

@Curiousobserver Yes, I see what you mean, but that “disparaging” talk is supposed to happen in the courtroom, subject to the applicable rules of evidence in the case.
Expanding on post by @mrjitty TYVM ---re prosecutors speaking “through the indictment, and not make out of court statements about details of the case."

Basically prosecutors are supposed to try cases in courts of law, not thru MSM, soc media, "court of public opinion," trying to influence potential juror members.

Rule 3.8 of American Bar Assocn. "Model Rules of Professional Conduct" quoted below addresses this issue. Each state has its own specific st. court rule (and likely st. statute) w similar restrictions, generally to same effect.

An excerpt from ABA website.*
Rule 3.8 "The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: ....
"(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule...."
^ FWIW ^

And prosecutors are not the only atty's who are supposed to REFRAIN from BLABBERMOUTHING in out of court stmts. More on another post, coming up shortly.

imo ETA: Welcoming comment or correction.
________________________
*https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor/#:~:text=(f) except for statements that,of the accused and exercise

Prosecutors are supposed to do that, but they very very often do not. BTW, police often make statements similar to this as well. When they cross a line, the sanction should be on them, not on us. The judge let a murder go for a statement that was plainly obvious to everyone and which no body would have remembered but for her sanctioning of the prosecutor.

 

[kittythehare]

Prosecutors are supposed to do that, but they very very often do not. BTW, police often make statements similar to this as well. When they cross a line, the sanction should be on them, not on us. The judge let a murder go for a statement that was plainly obvious to everyone and which no body would have remembered but for her sanctioning of the prosecutor.

all of which was open source material to begin with.

MSN

Just before her interview, Jacobs’ attorney sought to have his name taken off of the sex offender registry due to a juvenile offense involving his mother. The judge approved his removal from the list without his mother opposing the decision. Stanley also commented on this case and said, “He has a pretty awful past, including fondling his mom … It’s not good … It’s kinda weird … What kid fondles their mom, right?”

 

[Boxer]

Prosecutors are supposed to do that, but they very very often do not. BTW, police often make statements similar to this as well. When they cross a line, the sanction should be on them, not on us. The judge let a murder go for a statement that was plainly obvious to everyone and which no body would have remembered but for her sanctioning of the prosecutor.

Agree. DAs are elected so the people are their boss.

 

[scapa]

all of which was open source material to begin with.

MSN

Just before her interview, Jacobs’ attorney sought to have his name taken off of the sex offender registry due to a juvenile offense involving his mother. The judge approved his removal from the list without his mother opposing the decision. Stanley also commented on this case and said, “He has a pretty awful past, including fondling his mom … It’s not good … It’s kinda weird … What kid fondles their mom, right?”

Hmm.

Providing entertaining shoot-from-the-lip legal analysis on telly / podcastland seems like a natural next step for LS.

In the meantime, here's hoping the chipmunks are keeping close tabs on BM.

 

[kittythehare]

Hmm.

Providing entertaining shoot-from-the-lip legal analysis on telly / podcastland seems like a natural next step for LS.

In the meantime, here's hoping the chipmunks are keeping close tabs on BM.

I imagine her next step will be a heavily contested charge against her and I doubt she will spare her old sparring partner and competitor and their history..
Same link
The charges against Jacobs were dismissed by Fremont County District Court Judge Kaitlin Turner, citing “knowing and intentionally outrageous government conduct by Stanley. She noted that her comments violated Jacobs’ right to due process and tainted the jury pool, making it impossible for a fair trial. Stanley is facing potential disbarment and an ethics complaint, with a hearing scheduled for June 10.

 

[al66pine]

Crim Charges Dismissed for "Blabbermouthing."

Prosecutors are supposed to do that, but they very very often do not. BTW, police often make statements similar to this as well. When they cross a line, the sanction should be on them, not on us. The judge let a murder go for a statement that was plainly obvious to everyone and which no body would have remembered but for her sanctioning of the prosecutor.

@Curiousobserver
The point of my earlier post addressed bar assoc. & ct rules re Rules of Professional Conduct & quoted & linked chapter & verse . Did not address any specific case.

But I agree, sometimes there are horrible-no good-very bad outcomes, like charges being dismissed, when prosecutors make extrajudicial stmts that violate RPC. Seems it's just not THAT hard to comply. No "blurred lines."

These types of examples may serve as a reminder to other prosecutors tempted to make inappropriate out of court stmts that they should not blabbermouth to MSM, soc media, et al, or in public gen'ly but should try cases in court.
imo

As to LE making stmts, well, that's another subject altogether, and I'll pass.

 

[kittythehare]

Crim Charges Dismissed for "Blabbermouthing."

@Curiousobserver
The point of my earlier post addressed bar assoc. & ct rules re Rules of Professional Conduct & quoted & linked chapter & verse . Did not address any specific case.

But I agree, sometimes there are horrible-no good-very bad outcomes, like charges being dismissed, when prosecutors make extrajudicial stmts that violate RPC. Seems it's just not THAT hard to comply. No "blurred lines."

These types of examples may serve as a reminder to other prosecutors tempted to make inappropriate out of court stmts that they should not blabbermouth to MSM, soc media, et al, or in public gen'ly but should try cases in court.
imo

As to LE making stmts, well, that's another subject altogether, and I'll pass.

The problem is that the victim took the rap.
The victim , in this case , a 10 month old baby is still dead and was murdered.
And only one person with a history of violence against the same murdered baby is now free when there exists a glut of evidence to convict him.
Who pays?

 

[Boxer]

I imagine her next step will be a heavily contested charge against her and I doubt she will spare her old sparring partner and competitor and their history..
Same link
The charges against Jacobs were dismissed by Fremont County District Court Judge Kaitlin Turner, citing “knowing and intentionally outrageous government conduct by Stanley. She noted that her comments violated Jacobs’ right to due process and tainted the jury pool, making it impossible for a fair trial. Stanley is facing potential disbarment and an ethics complaint, with a hearing scheduled for June 10.

LS was in the middle of an ethics complaint against her when elected, so its her MO.

 

[kittythehare]

LS was in the middle of an ethics complaint against her when elected, so its her MO.

This is the ethics complaint

https://coloradosupremecourt.com/pdj/Decisions/Stanley,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2018PDJ058,%2005-16-19.pdf