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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Momofthreeboys said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I'm not understanding OP's response??

What does "it" mean, and is there supposed to be a questionable "legal" theory here?

And since prosecutors can use hearsay in both a grand jury and a preliminary hearing, this makes no sense to me.

But I agree about preferring arrest by Information and Complaint over a GJ if for no other reason than "us observers" learning of the State's evidence against the defendant, in advance of the trial date (i.e., evidence presented during the prelim hearing).

However, I disagree that using the GJ for the re-arrest and indictment of BM will leave "us observers" in the dark as I think we pretty much already know the credible evidence in this case-- with the exception of SM's full autopsy report, and cause of death, but we can't blame a GJ for this.

IMO, there's something to be said for 'the devil you know,' and knowing that I don't personally believe Colorado is overcrowded with unethical prosecutors and law enforcement agents, I don't wish similar false allegations and frivolous, civil lawsuits by BM's defense team, levied on the 12th Judicial District prosecution team, and I do believe a GJ might buffer the civil servants here from adversarial hearings and tactics experienced by the 11th Judicial District. MOO
 
LaborDayRN said:
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...........
Click to expand...
IE, reportedly BM's spokesperson, has essentially said they are united in waiting on the arrest of the real killer.
 
Seattle1 said:
Respectfully, I'm not understanding OP's response??

What does "it" mean, and is there supposed to be a questionable "legal" theory here?

And since prosecutors can use hearsay in both a grand jury and a preliminary hearing, this makes no sense to me.

But I agree about preferring arrest by Information and Complaint over a GJ if for no other reason than "us observers" learning of the State's evidence against the defendant, in advance of the trial date (i.e., evidence presented during the prelim hearing).

However, I disagree that using the GJ for the re-arrest and indictment of BM will leave "us observers" in the dark as I think we pretty much already know the credible evidence in this case-- with the exception of SM's full autopsy report, and cause of death, but we can't blame a GJ for this.

IMO, there's something to be said for 'the devil you know,' and knowing that I don't personally believe Colorado is overcrowded with unethical prosecutors and law enforcement agents, I don't wish similar false allegations and frivolous, civil lawsuits by BM's defense team, levied on the 12th Judicial District prosecution team, and I do believe a GJ might buffer the civil servants here from adversarial hearings and tactics experienced by the 11th Judicial District. MOO
Click to expand...
Let's put it simply....what gets admitted in a trial that is hearsay or characterization is largely shaped by motions. The outcome which would be difficult to predict for us observers. I'm not going to try and complicate any further. As a lay person I can't predict how a second trial might turn out. I expect any new prosecution team to be much better prepared and have learned the strategic errors from the first attempt.
 
LaborDayRN said:
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...........
Click to expand...
You'd think there would at the very least, be some red flags raised by that fact, that would make them reconsider what they've been told. I can't even imagine being in their shoes.

jmo
 
Seattle1 said:
IE, reportedly BM's spokesperson, has essentially said they are united in waiting on the arrest of the real killer.
Click to expand...

Which raises an interesting question -- how did Barry know Suzanne was murdered?

Walking out of the courthouse triumphant as he was, saying the real killer was still out there.

Hmmmmm.

I mean, we're all agreed and the autopsy confirms it but....

Maybe he read the autopsy report years before it was written.

JMO
 
Momofthreeboys said:
Let's put it simply....what gets admitted in a trial that is hearsay or characterization is largely shaped by motions. The outcome which would be difficult to predict for us observers. I'm not going to try and complicate any further. As a lay person I can't predict how a second trial might turn out. I expect any new prosecution team to be much better prepared and have learned the strategic errors from the first attempt.
Click to expand...
^^bbm

Forget about predicting the outcome!

But perhaps OP should ask a Colorado Defense Attorney because in general, no matter how simply OP wants to put it, Courts exclude hearsay evidence at Trial, criminal or otherwise.

And Trial is the only venue that counts!

It's also why we refer to this as one of the benefits of a preliminary hearing where although the rules of evidence apply, the Court relaxes the rules of evidence to allow hearsay presented, and where "us observers" get to learn about the (hearsay) evidence that won't be heard and/or inadmissible during the Trial.

MOO

“Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by the civil and criminal procedural rules applicable to the courts of Colorado or by any statutes of the State of Colorado.” Rule 802 - Hearsay Rule, Colo. R. Evid. 802

Colo. R. Evid. Rule 802 - Hearsay
 
Last edited:
Megnut said:
Which raises an interesting question -- how did Barry know Suzanne was murdered?

Walking out of the courthouse triumphant as he was, saying the real killer was still out there.

Hmmmmm.

I mean, we're all agreed and the autopsy confirms it but....

Maybe he read the autopsy report years before it was written.

JMO
Click to expand...
I’ve watched those videos a couple times. The response appears to come from someone in the gaggle of reporters, as it’s too loud based on Barry’s distance from them. It also doesn’t sound like Barry to me.

It sounds to me like a reporter asks “is the killer still out there?”

Just after the 2 minute mark.
 
MassGuy said:
I’ve watched those videos a couple times. The response appears to come from someone in the gaggle of reporters, as it’s too loud based on Barry’s distance from them. It also doesn’t sound like Barry to me.

It sounds to me like a reporter asks “is the killer still out there?”

Just after the 2 minute mark.
Click to expand...
Thank you for setting me straight. All this time, I thought the words came out of his mouth, and then in the parking lot embrace, IE was trying to put them back in.

Makes sense that the sentence came from a reporter, thanks for the link.

Never mind the utterance, Barry never acted like he was expecting her back. Wasted no time ridding himself of her vehicle, her home, and her Status 1.0.

It remains for IE to work out, if some random rancher, armed with common BAM murdered Suzanne, why Barry staged her bike in a ravine, discarded all kinds of things including his tranq materials, and hung out in a hotel room all day on Mother's Day.

Oh, Barry.

Oh, Iris.
 
Momofthreeboys said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you misread my post. I specifically said I don't agree with the "problems with the AA" stuff
 
Seattle1 said:
^^bbm

Forget about predicting the outcome!

But perhaps OP should ask a Colorado Defense Attorney because in general, no matter how simply OP wants to put it, Courts exclude hearsay evidence at Trial, criminal or otherwise.

And Trial is the only venue that counts!

It's also why we refer to this as one of the benefits of a preliminary hearing where although the rules of evidence apply, the Court relaxes the rules of evidence to allow hearsay presented, and where "us observers" get to learn about the (hearsay) evidence that won't be heard and/or inadmissible during the Trial.

MOO

“Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by the civil and criminal procedural rules applicable to the courts of Colorado or by any statutes of the State of Colorado.” Rule 802 - Hearsay Rule, Colo. R. Evid. 802

Colo. R. Evid. Rule 802 - Hearsay
Click to expand...

Right - i think two things are being mixed up here. There is the question of out of court statements in the PCA which may or may not be admissible. Then in the prelim fast track procedure there is practice of a LE witness like agent Grusing having to front for multiple reports like BERLA and CAST despite those witnesses not being present in the prelim format.

But of course the Judge does not need to be protected from hearsay compared to the Jury. He knows how to evaluate those out of court statements, and he realises such expert evidence will be contested at trial.

I have no idea which route the prosecution might prefer here, but i doubt it confers any advantage on that score. We know the Prosecution have probable cause based on the original evidence alone, let alone now.

MOO
 
I’ll admit I don’t know and understand a lot about GJ indictments so I’m not fully understanding the debate on whether it would keep evidence or information from public observers.

I can remember one case that I followed very closely was Dylan Redwine. His murderer was indicted by a Colorado Grand Jury- took them 3 days.

@Seattle1 might remember more than I on one point- I believe his Defense wanted a preliminary hearing and the Motion was denied. ?

He did have a 3 day hearing to decide what evidence would be allowed at his 4 week trial though. Didn’t feel like anything was keep from us JMO. Perhaps I’m missing something lol wouldn’t be the first time.


www.9news.com

Evidence the focus of 3 days of hearings in Mark Redwine case

Mark Redwine is accused of killing his son Dylan in southwest Colorado during a court-ordered visit in 2012.
www.9news.com www.9news.com
 
Cindizzi said:
I’ll admit I don’t know and understand a lot about GJ indictments so I’m not fully understanding the debate on whether it would keep evidence or information from public observers.

I can remember one case that I followed very closely was Dylan Redwine. His murderer was indicted by a Colorado Grand Jury- took them 3 days.

@Seattle1 might remember more than I on one point- I believe his Defense wanted a preliminary hearing and the Motion was denied. ?

He did have a 3 day hearing to decide what evidence would be allowed at his 4 week trial though. Didn’t feel like anything was keep from us JMO. Perhaps I’m missing something lol wouldn’t be the first time.


www.9news.com

Evidence the focus of 3 days of hearings in Mark Redwine case

Mark Redwine is accused of killing his son Dylan in southwest Colorado during a court-ordered visit in 2012.
www.9news.com www.9news.com
Click to expand...
In most cases, indictment to trial is generally quicker so we don't have to wait too long post arrest to see the entire case.

However, in many grand jury indicted cases, including Redwine, the defense isn't ready and waives the speedy trial right. (Redwine was indicted in 2017 and did not go to trial until 2021).

Colorado Rule 7 (Colo. R. Crim. P. 7) is a good reference to see how many (court) steps eliminated if defendant is indicted by a grand jury versus charged by Information & Complaint, the method most used in Colorado.

I had this question earlier about MR's defense Motioning for a preliminary hearing after he was indicted, and did some research.

What I found was the defense was arguing they allegedly did not have the complete transcript from the GJ and details were being withheld from the defense. IMO, I think this was more about the defense wanting a fishing expedition -- hoping to see the evidence and a face to face with witnesses. In other words, it was a futile attempt by the defense to put it on record that they sought to vacate the GJ indictment and switch to a preliminary probable cause hearing.

While it's not unusual to be arrested on I/C and the case then given to a grand jury for indictment-- which also eliminates the public preliminary probable cause hearing, I can't recall ever seeing the reverse as sought by Redwine's defense. JMO

Rule 7 - The Indictment and the Information, Colo. R. Crim. P. 7 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 7 - The Indictment and the Information, Colo. R. Crim. P. 7, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

ETA: Yes, I recall the three day discovery/suppression of evidence hearings in June 2017 and where the trial was scheduled to begin a few weeks later in Sept 2019. Good for us since the trial was delayed until June 21, 2021!
 
Last edited:
Seattle1 said:
In most cases, indictment to trial is generally quicker so we don't have to wait too long post arrest to see the entire case.

However, in many grand jury indicted cases, including Redwine, the defense isn't ready and waives the speedy trial right. (Redwine was indicted in 2017 and did not go to trial until 2021).

Colorado Rule 7 (Colo. R. Crim. P. 7) is a good reference to see how many (court) steps eliminated if defendant is indicted by a grand jury versus charged by Information & Complaint, the method most used in Colorado.

I had this question earlier about MR's defense Motioning for a preliminary hearing after he was indicted, and did some research.

What I found was the defense was arguing they allegedly did not have the complete transcript from the GJ and details were being withheld from the defense. IMO, I think this was more about the defense wanting a fishing expedition -- hoping to see the evidence and a face to face with witnesses. In other words, it was a futile attempt by the defense to put it on record that they sought to vacate the GJ indictment and switch to a preliminary probable cause hearing.

While it's not unusual to be arrested on I/C and the case then given to a grand jury for indictment-- which also eliminates the public preliminary probable cause hearing, I can't recall ever seeing the reverse as sought by Redwine's defense. JMO

Rule 7 - The Indictment and the Information, Colo. R. Crim. P. 7 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 7 - The Indictment and the Information, Colo. R. Crim. P. 7, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

ETA: Yes, I recall the three day discovery/suppression of evidence hearings in June 2017 and where the trial was scheduled to begin a few weeks later in Sept 2019. Good for us since the trial was delayed until June 21, 2021!
Click to expand...
Thanks so much, friend! I learn so much from you :)
 
MassGuy said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1801657675240919084
Click to expand...

"lack of a body"

I mean sure - you can make that argument. It's always a judgement call whether to bring a no body case.

Lack of a theory? That makes no sense to me. The point is in these cases that the defendant stages the crime scene and destroys evidence. There is no way to recover the complete evidence because we know it all went in dumpsters - you can wait forever and never get those missing parts because of staging.

So much of this is luck as to when/if the body is ever found.
 
mrjitty said:
"lack of a body"

I mean sure - you can make that argument. It's always a judgement call whether to bring a no body case.

Lack of a theory? That makes no sense to me. The point is in these cases that the defendant stages the crime scene and destroys evidence. There is no way to recover the complete evidence because we know it all went in dumpsters - you can wait forever and never get those missing parts because of staging.

So much of this is luck as to when/if the body is ever found.
Click to expand...
Plus we all know that Special Agent Grusing did the bulk of a year’s worth of interviewing the suspect. He is known in Colorado as an expert on such.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1425141414069882883
 
mrjitty said:
"lack of a body"

I mean sure - you can make that argument. It's always a judgement call whether to bring a no body case.

Lack of a theory? That makes no sense to me. The point is in these cases that the defendant stages the crime scene and destroys evidence. There is no way to recover the complete evidence because we know it all went in dumpsters - you can wait forever and never get those missing parts because of staging.

So much of this is luck as to when/if the body is ever found.
Click to expand...

I lost confidence in this proceeding from day one -- beginning with OARC's attorney who spoke as if a sound piece for IE, citing her grouped allegations as factual (similar to Judge Kaitlin Turner citing IE's inaccurate Motions in her rulings against the 11th Judicial District DA's Office)!

IE also served as a witness for the OARC investigation. How is this independent?

The first witness (Walker) called professed knowledge of details up to the date the Court granted the DA's request the case be dismissal w/o prejudice when he'd left the DA's Office for another job less than a month after BM was arrested!

Then we had Edwards testify while under an associated immunity agreement for his own investigation by OARC.

And the status of OARC's investigation against witnesses Lindsey, Hurlbert, Pembleton, Weiner, and Grosegebauer is also unclear.

How conflicted can one be as a witness if also trying to save their own bar licenses?

As for the successful prosecution of a no-body homicide, one has to look no further than Colorado's Kelsie Schelling or Kelsey Berreth (recovered a tooth).

IMO, the only similarity with JonBenet Ramsey's case is that politics with the Boulder DA's Office clouded the facts-- just as they have with this case. SMH. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 186 more.
Total: 723 (members: 187, guests: 536)

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
536
Total visitors
723
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,303
Messages
18,237,529
Members
234,337
Latest member
HunterJ
Back
Top