Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #115

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Seattle1 said:
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS GRANTED!

In essence, Domenico concluded by telling Iris and Jayne: Sorry, you can't make up your own rules or laws because you don't like the ones that exit...

Also, so telling that Jayne couldn't supplement to the Court that LS had been disbarred fast enough-- yet never uttered a peep after SM's body was was recovered, and per her autopsy, the animal tranquilizer BAM contributed to her death.

Forever SMH how any exculpatory DNA misstatement by IE continues to permeate after Ramsey Lama swallowed her rubbish defense Motion in its entirety. MOO :mad:

Reference Morphew Order, pg 33/33:

View attachment 533297
Click to expand...

We know that they did argue about the new investigation in the hearing though - so my guess is the Judge had it in mind lol
 
mrjitty said:
It feels a very safe decision to me. The Judge has essentially followed the factual findings of Judge Murphy at the prelim, in order to throw the case out at early stage - of course all the time aware of the victim's body surfacing in the meantime.

As context (my emphasis)



... so that is the standard at dismissal stage.

Reading between the lines - I find these discussion points revealing





And then:



In other words, while the prosecution might not have been wise (Judge's word) Iris and Jane did nothing to erase 'substantial probability" (Judge's words) that BM was the killer.

So to my read, the Judge is being awfully nice about it but also is saying to Iris and Jane even if your allegations are true, Barry probably is guilty - so there is no great injustice or conspiracy here.
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining this legalese so well!
 
The $15M arrogance by this team! Who could possible doubt probable cause did not exist, or that prosecuting BM was unlawful? And thank you Judge Domenico for not delaying the ruling on the defendants Motions to Dismiss.
MassGuy said:
"For all its infuriating flaws then, the prosecution of plaintiff was not unlawful," wrote U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico in a 33-page order. "His Section 1983 claims for malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, Franks violations, conspiracy, failure to intervene, and Monell liability must be dismissed on the basis of the existence of probable cause."
Click to expand...
^^rsbm
 
I'm anxiously awaiting BM's rearrest. I think he actually had convinced himself it was all over and he was going to win an expensive civil suit payout and go along with his life as usual.

Karma came for you BM when Suzanne's remains were found, and it will come again when they slap the handcuffs on you for the second time. Hopefully he won't be allowed bail and will sit in his cage like the animals he loves to hunt and hurt until the trial.

JMO
 
I don't think Barry's attorneys actually thought he was going to win any lawsuit.

To me this looks like part of an overall defense strategy (narrative) they are building. I think they have expected this to go back to trial at some point. They intend at that trial to use a standard 3rd party culpability defense. These types of defenses have three key elements and are most effective if you can show that the A) evidence is a combination of lots of circumstantial occurrences B) That LE ignored other leads (for example DNA of other men in the house and car), thus by definition explaining away the absence of any actual evidence pointing at a third party which the defense never needs to provide, and C) evidence of misconduct in the investigation.

To me this lawsuit always looked like a public relations campaign prepping a future Jury Pool for the story they are going to tell.
 
Curiousobserver said:
I don't think Barry's attorneys actually thought he was going to win any lawsuit.

To me this looks like part of an overall defense strategy (narrative) they are building. I think they have expected this to go back to trial at some point. They intend at that trial to use a standard 3rd party culpability defense. These types of defenses have three key elements and are most effective if you can show that the A) evidence is a combination of lots of circumstantial occurrences B) That LE ignored other leads (for example DNA of other men in the house and car), thus by definition explaining away the absence of any actual evidence pointing at a third party which the defense never needs to provide, and C) evidence of misconduct in the investigation.

To me this lawsuit always looked like a public relations campaign prepping a future Jury Pool for the story they are going to tell.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure. I think Barry and his lawyers saw big dollar signs and hoped to negotiate an out of court settlement.
 
Curiousobserver said:
I don't think Barry's attorneys actually thought he was going to win any lawsuit.

To me this looks like part of an overall defense strategy (narrative) they are building. I think they have expected this to go back to trial at some point. They intend at that trial to use a standard 3rd party culpability defense. These types of defenses have three key elements and are most effective if you can show that the A) evidence is a combination of lots of circumstantial occurrences B) That LE ignored other leads (for example DNA of other men in the house and car), thus by definition explaining away the absence of any actual evidence pointing at a third party which the defense never needs to provide, and C) evidence of misconduct in the investigation.

To me this lawsuit always looked like a public relations campaign prepping a future Jury Pool for the story they are going to tell.
Click to expand...
I agree this may have been part of the plan until Suzanne's remains were found containing BAM. That changed the entire ballgame.

JMO
 
The first paragraph of the Judge's ruling must be the case as IE set it forth because none of it's true, starting with "went missing on Mother's Day" but oh did this backfire. Because the statement they can't shake is Barry probably murdered his wide.

Which is of course the basis for a legitimate probable cause arrest, it's just for all IE's effort to spin otherwise, the judge just sank her battleship, and it's right there in black and wife.

Barry probably murdered his wife.

And that was before her body was found. With BAM in her bones.

Presumption great.

JMO
 
DenverToCali said:
This is good too:

After rebuilding the arrest affidavit with misleading evidence omitted, Domenico found the document still could have supported Morphew’s arrest.

So Domenico rebuilt the affidavit and removed the misleading evidence and found there was still enough to support Barry’s arrest. LFG.
Click to expand...
Yes @DenverToCali ….. this is the way I read it. IANAL. One other interesting element IIUC, it was written based on the evidence available at that time. Which then, did not include the discovery of SM remains. Reading the dismissal, there was only one parenthetical footnote referring to the remains having been subsequently found. And the dismissal was written and given without prejudice. Wonder if that means it can be appealed or refiled?

IMO the new investigative and prosecution teams should methodically take time to move forward with the prosecution of the suspect. And to not forget this IMO wise precaution….. as my late father always said - ‘there is never time to do the job right, but there is always time to do it over’. But here, they don’t have that luxury. They only get one shot. MOO
 
In response, #BarryMorphew's civil attorney, Iris Eytan, said that he "should not have been arrested and was wrongly prosecuted, has no recourse to get the costs of the damage to him back from the offending prosecutors because they cannot be sued in the United States.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1838959835917828473
 
Ironic, isn't it, that the same standard applies to both Barry's arrest as his lawsuit. Advantage goes to the charger/suer. Judge has to assume the truth of the facts presented (iiuc). So even with IE's version of the facts, the judge still finds the arrest was... warranted.

Static drift! Ha! Barry's own explanation overrides static drift!

And now we have confirmation -- Barry's 3 30 interviews was multiplication. He met with LE 90 TIMES!!! Chatty Cathy.

WS has another high profile case, trial pending, with a defendant who has confessed 60+ times.

Have we counted Barry's? IMO asking LE for immunity implies culpability. Why else would he need it? He copped to owning the illegal weapon, the animal tranquilizers, questionable antler harvesting.

Things that won't even make it to trial IMO -- or make a difference --

Rogue DNA on the glove box which did not match any known sex offenders, just relatives of, and based on location of the DNA, reasonably corresponds to a mechanic. With a little help from IGG, LE could probably name this person at this point, if it weren't such an expensive proposition.

Rogue DNA on Suzanne's bike. IMO Barry didn't wipe her bike down (ergo his story about removing it from Suzanne's vehicle by request and his deliberate move to touch it first chance her got) so any DNA on her bike could be from the other toucher, from whoever assembled the bike or anyone who serviced it in any way. Yawn.

Dog tracking Suzanne's scent to the river. IMO that is not what happened. Do we even know if a scent-tracking dog was brought in? The dog that was brought in iiuc came from the penitentiary, a tracking dog. Trained to track for an escaped prisoner... for all we know IMO, that hard-working dog tracked Barry's scent. Barry who may have staged items in the creek. Regardless, despite the generous volunteer, it was a nonstarter, so much so the handler didn't generate much of a report.

Static drift. It's just not compelling. What is more compelling -- a CAST report that will show Barry's phone moving rapidly from portal to portal around the perimeter of PP before breaching walls (they're called doorways)...

IMO there won't be bail this time.

JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 121 more.
Total: 329 (members: 122, guests: 207)

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
207
Total visitors
329
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,569
Messages
18,241,425
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top