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

[mrjitty]

Umm, Barry actually confessed to "clipping" Suzanne's nose = physical abuse in my book. Admitted that he was trying to hurt her with words/get back at her = emotional/psychological abuse. Admitted he was the cash machine, therefore had control of the finances = financial abuse. I could go on. There was more than enough first hand evidence that Barry abused Suzanne. Co-ercively, emotionally and psychologically, financially, he neglected her and physically harmed her. On top of that he hunted her at the end
Hope he rots in a cell.
And Lama was an absolute pillock

Moo

A lot of us felt at the time this was a ridiculous decision. Unfortunately not the first time I've seen a Judge casually dismiss the out of court statements of the silenced victim.

MOO

 

[MassGuy]

Here's hoping...again.
but honestly I see no signs of an arrest happening.. and whereas that means preservation from the Crazy fanatical IE for a time, there simply may not be sufficient evidence to arrest him.

I think we're still waiting for that elusive witness who never came forward..

They have her body and a smoking gun, few cases have the latter. If you can’t prosecute this case you can’t prosecute pretty much any case.

Any delay is not from lack of evidence; absolutely no chance.

 

[mrjitty]

They have her body and a smoking gun, few cases have the latter. If you can’t prosecute this case you can’t prosecute pretty much any case.

Any delay is not from lack of evidence; absolutely no chance.

I assume one thing that has happened is they have new probable cause which could lead to new search warrants? e.g. digital footprint?

 

[MassGuy]

I assume one thing that has happened is they have new probable cause which could lead to new search warrants? e.g. digital footprint?

That's something I really haven't thought much about, and it's a really good point. I'd be really interested to see if Barry visited Moffat at any point after the fact (after the murder and prior to initial arrest, or after the charges were dropped). He knew he had done a really crappy job burying Suzanne, and he would have known that her body being found could very lead to him being recharged.

They'd need new search warrants to obtain that data, and I'm sure there's plenty more to explore in addition to just the burial location thing.

 

[Seattle1]

That's something I really haven't thought much about, and it's a really good point. I'd be really interested to see if Barry visited Moffat at any point after the fact (after the murder and prior to initial arrest, or after the charges were dropped). He knew he had done a really crappy job burying Suzanne, and he would have known that her body being found could very lead to him being recharged.

They'd need new search warrants to obtain that data, and I'm sure there's plenty more to explore in addition to just the burial location thing.

I think much is this is being done (new warrants and subpoenas) unknown to the public by the use of a secret grand jury.

I recall the Sellersville, PA missing woman Elizabeth Capaldi who was suffocated and dismembered by her husband in 2022 and we heard/learned nothing from police or the DA's office until the husband was detained and indicted for his wife's murder while being questioned at the police station.

It was very strange but it worked. He took a deal and was sentenced to 44 years.

Bucks County man sentenced to 44 years in prison for wife's murder

According to the grand jury report, Stephen Capaldi had several incriminating online searches on his phone including "how to get away with murder" and "how to disappear and never be found."

He also initially told law enforcement that his wife recently admitted to having a three-year affair behind his back. A grand jury determined that was a lie, but rather concluded it was Stephen who was having an affair, which at first he allegedly said wasn't sexual.

 

[Seattle1]

Besides the obvious objective of justice for Suzanne, I think what I appreciate most about a grand jury for this case is that IE will have no participation and will be unable to pontificate before the media and narrate her version of the truth.

IE will be unable to allege the prosecutors unethical and sitting in a dark room manufacturing evidence and making witnesses lie.

I believe it will be a refreshing change to see BM prosecuted on the facts, and not technicalities forced by the well heeled defense team of BM. MOO

These similarities and differences are summarized in the chart below:

	Grand jury	Trial jury (“Petit juries”)
Purpose	Decides whether suspect will be charged	Decides whether suspect will be convicted
Size	12 to 23	6 to 12
Standards of proof	Probable cause	Beyond a reasonable doubt
Jurors required to make decision	A quorum (majority) to indict	Unanimous to convict
Evidence presented	Hears all evidence including hearsay whether it turns out to be relevant or not	Only hears evidence judge has deemed relevant, and hearsay is very limited
Who chooses jurors	Judge	Prosecutors and defense counsel
Defendant present	Usually not (defendant has no right to put on a defense)	Usually yes (though defendant has no obligation to put on a defense)
Subpoena power	Yes	No
Judge present	No (the prosecutor controls the proceeding)	Yes
Public allowed	No	Yes (usually)

"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

How Grand Juries Operate | Denver Crime Lawyer H. Michael Steinberg

Free Consultation - Call 303-627-7777 - H. Michael Steinberg aggressively represents the accused against charges in Crime & Criminal cases. How Grand Juries Operate - Denver Crime Lawyer

www.hmichaelsteinberg.com

 

[Curiousobserver]

Perhaps the prosecution needs some time is to make sure the "unknown third party" and "police hand blinders and ignored.." defenses are tied off. Looking at everyone in the area who had access to the drugs and verifying that they are still there.

For Barry they have an admission by him to having access to a highly unusual and restricted drug cocktail that just happened to have killed his wife... who just so happens to have stopped communicating with her boyfriend at the exact time Barry came home... and who then, subsequent to her going dark, stayed up all night doing "stuff", which he also admitted might have involved discarding the kit that the lethal drugs came in.

Perhaps he can claim the chipmunks framed him.

 

[Seattle1]

The Gazzette

6/10/24

Stanley’s hearing is expected to last two weeks. Among the witnesses scheduled to testify are Stanley herself, former judge Ramsey Lama, former Boulder district attorney Stan Garnett, her secretary, and a few members of the prosecution team who worked on the Morphew case.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Besides the obvious objective of justice for Suzanne, I think what I appreciate most about a grand jury for this case is that IE will have no participation and will be unable to pontificate before the media and narrate her version of the truth.

IE will be unable to allege the prosecutors unethical and sitting in a dark room manufacturing evidence and making witnesses lie.

I believe it will be a refreshing change to see BM prosecuted on the facts, and not technicalities forced by the well heeled defense team of BM. MOO

These similarities and differences are summarized in the chart below:

	Grand jury	Trial jury (“Petit juries”)
Purpose	Decides whether suspect will be charged	Decides whether suspect will be convicted
Size	12 to 23	6 to 12
Standards of proof	Probable cause	Beyond a reasonable doubt
Jurors required to make decision	A quorum (majority) to indict	Unanimous to convict
Evidence presented	Hears all evidence including hearsay whether it turns out to be relevant or not	Only hears evidence judge has deemed relevant, and hearsay is very limited
Who chooses jurors	Judge	Prosecutors and defense counsel
Defendant present	Usually not (defendant has no right to put on a defense)	Usually yes (though defendant has no obligation to put on a defense)
Subpoena power	Yes	No
Judge present	No (the prosecutor controls the proceeding)	Yes
Public allowed	No	Yes (usually)

"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

How Grand Juries Operate | Denver Crime Lawyer H. Michael Steinberg

Free Consultation - Call 303-627-7777 - H. Michael Steinberg aggressively represents the accused against charges in Crime & Criminal cases. How Grand Juries Operate - Denver Crime Lawyer

www.hmichaelsteinberg.com

You understand a grand jury replaces a preliminary hearing right and after that comes a trial. After a grand jury a DA has to agree to bring to trial whereas a DA is usually involved in the preliminary. As an observer I prefer a preliminary as the information is generally released during a preliminary. In my opinion it might be easier to get to trial from a grand jury in this case just because a grand jury is a one side affair of sorts so no cross examination, very little judge involvement etc. just my perspective on grand juries.

 

[waldojabba]

“During an almost full day of testimony, 11th Judicial District Deputy District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told a different story. He said that in 30 years of practicing law, he had never been treated as poorly as he was by then-Judge Lama. “It was so far beyond the pale that I’ve never seen before,” said Hurlbert. “

Former No. 2 Morphew prosecutor grilled in DA's disciplinary hearing

The second day of Linda Stanley's disciplinary hearing saw her number two prosecutor grilled over why the team investigated the presiding judge in the case in the month leading up to trial.

denvergazette.com

 

[kittythehare]

MSN

 

[MassGuy]

MSN

He talks about empaneling a grand jury and slow playing this in order to ensure they get it right this time. And ugh, the old "vanished after going out on a bike ride" garbage. She should know better.

 

[Lyanna]

“During an almost full day of testimony, 11th Judicial District Deputy District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told a different story. He said that in 30 years of practicing law, he had never been treated as poorly as he was by then-Judge Lama. “It was so far beyond the pale that I’ve never seen before,” said Hurlbert. “

Former No. 2 Morphew prosecutor grilled in DA's disciplinary hearing

The second day of Linda Stanley's disciplinary hearing saw her number two prosecutor grilled over why the team investigated the presiding judge in the case in the month leading up to trial.

denvergazette.com

Am interested in hearing Lama's testimony when it comes about
He appeared to be very much in favour of IE. Didn't show impartiality at all.


jmo

 

[mrjitty]

I guess I cannot restate it enough times. The email below illustrates how the collapse of the case has nothing to do with theories about defective evidence, charging too soon, problems with the PCA etc

Attorney Dan Edwards, whose job it was to file responses and replies for the Morphew case leading up to trial took the stand in Stanley's hearing Monday. He said that he had a hard time getting the team to respond to his requests for information and warnings about deadlines.

In one email, he wrote in all caps, "EXPERT ENDORSEMENTS ARE DUE MONDAY" which he said was five days away. "No one responded," he testified.

These are simply basic documents. Five days is enough time to prepare them, But why was it not done weeks or months early when all the experts were known and reports prepared for the preliminary hearing (if not even prior to arrest) nearly A YEAR PREVIOUSLY.

This is simply a failure of litigation management. Especially since they did manage to file these (probably in a bad way) 24 hours late. It's like turning your report in a day late even though you did all the work a year ago so you get an F.

SMH.

Morphew prosecution team describes confusion over leadership in doomed case

An investigator and an attorney who left the 11th Judicial District's prosecution team that tried to prosecute the Barry Morphew case said they grew frustrated with a case that was floating along without leadership, even up to the final days before a scheduled murder trial that never happened.

denvergazette.com

MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I guess I cannot restate it enough times. The email below illustrates how the collapse of the case has nothing to do with theories about defective evidence, charging too soon, problems with the PCA etc



These are simply basic documents. Five days is enough time to prepare them, But why was it not done weeks or months early when all the experts were known and reports prepared for the preliminary hearing (if not even prior to arrest) nearly A YEAR PREVIOUSLY.

This is simply a failure of litigation management. Especially since they did manage to file these (probably in a bad way) 24 hours late. It's like turning your report in a day late even though you did all the work a year ago so you get an F.

SMH.

Morphew prosecution team describes confusion over leadership in doomed case

An investigator and an attorney who left the 11th Judicial District's prosecution team that tried to prosecute the Barry Morphew case said they grew frustrated with a case that was floating along without leadership, even up to the final days before a scheduled murder trial that never happened.

denvergazette.com

MOO

Agree. From the get go The AA was poorly written. What evidence especially hearsay or characterization will be admitted or not admitted up to the any judge involved through motions and not always easily predictable, but the failure to bring to trial lays squarely on the prosecution.

 

[Seattle1]

Agree. From the get go The AA was poorly written. What evidence especially hearsay or characterization will be admitted or not admitted up to the any judge involved through motions and not always easily predictable, but the failure to bring to trial lays squarely on the prosecution.

The AA was poorly written, for whom? For OP?

Again, by definition, the purpose of the Arrest Affidavit (AA) as attached to the Warrant for Arrest of Defendant Upon Affidavit, is to outline probable cause for the Judge's consideration, to authorize and sign the Warrant for execution on the defendant.

Here, given the AW was in fact executed, without delay, is evidence enough that the AA, as intended, was not deficient.

To be clear, Jurors, responsible for convicting or acquitting any defendant (including BM), never see the AA, as it's not evidence!

And since a grand jury is vested with the same authority as a Judge to issue an arrest warrant, IMO, the use of a GJ for the re-arrest and indictment of BM, will be very welcome, if for no other reason than to eliminate this over tired excuse of blaming the AA/PCA.

As first put by @mrjitty, I too cannot restate it enough times....

I guess I cannot restate it enough times. The email below illustrates how the collapse of the case has nothing to do with theories about defective evidence, charging too soon, problems with the PCA etc

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The AA was poorly written, for whom? For OP?

Again, by definition, the purpose of the Arrest Affidavit (AA) as attached to the Warrant for Arrest of Defendant Upon Affidavit, is to outline probable cause for the Judge's consideration, to authorize and sign the Warrant for execution on the defendant.

Here, given the AW was in fact executed, without delay, is evidence enough that the AA, as intended, was not deficient.

To be clear, Jurors, responsible for convicting or acquitting any defendant (including BM), never see the AA, as it's not evidence!

And since a grand jury is vested with the same authority as a Judge to issue an arrest warrant, IMO, the use of a GJ for the re-arrest and indictment of BM, will be very welcome, if for no other reason than to eliminate this over tired excuse of blaming the AA/PCA.

As first put by @mrjitty, I too cannot restate it enough times....



View attachment 510024
View attachment 510027

They may very well use it with a grand jury. Prosecutors can use hearsay and such in a grand jury setting. I really don't care if they use a grand jury or even what a grand jury hears except that it keeps info form "us" observers until trial. What happens at trial is a completely different situation. Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me

 

[LaborDayRN]

I'm curious to know if SM daughters are still standing by their father now that she has been found dead by one of BM's favorite toys, a dart.
Oh to be a fly on the wall...........

 

[MassGuy]

They may very well use it with a grand jury. Prosecutors can use hearsay and such in a grand jury setting. I really don't care if they use a grand jury or even what a grand jury hears except that it keeps info form "us" observers until trial. What happens at trial is a completely different situation. Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me

Everyone knows the rules of evidence are different at trial. The authors of the AA knew that as well, but that was not the purpose.

Did the AA do its job and provide the probable cause necessary for an arrest warrant? Yes.

All of that evidence was also presented at the preliminary hearing, and once again, a judge determined there was probable cause.

Motions hearings ironed out what evidence was admissible, and what evidence did not fit the rules.

All of this is standard.

I’m not understanding your point.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Everyone knows the rules of evidence are different at trial. The authors of the AA knew that as well, but that was not the purpose.

Did the AA do its job and provide the probable cause necessary for an arrest warrant? Yes.

All of that evidence was also presented at the preliminary hearing, and once again, a judge determined there was probable cause.

Motions hearings ironed out what evidence was admissible, and what evidence did not fit the rules.

All of this is standard.

I’m not understanding your point.

Because it's twice an old post about trials and what might be admitted has been brought up and a grand jury is used as a counterpoint. I've never ever said a word about DV and a grand jury.