Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #88

[sk716]

Re SYNC, GPS and POWER REMOVED event

I will be fascinated to see if we get detailed evidence on this. Thinking about it a bit, if the system could log "power removed' event that means there must still be power to log it? (unless using some stored power in the circuitry). So does this even mean some systems were depowered (i.e fuse(s) removed) rather than an entire battery disconnection?

That might lean towards BM having the (stupid) idea to disable the SYNC thinking that the events would not be logged. But of course they were still logged locally on the truck, including GPS.

Looking at that list - did he ever reconnect whatever he de-powered?

We don't have those full reports. We've just got what was immediately relevant to the states case.

 

[sk716]

As someone pointed out in a previous thread, the logs are really just thousands of events that the computer logs. So removing one fuse could cause a "power removal" log I guess

The problem is Grusing said there was a complete reboot of the truck, so that doesn't sound like taking out the SYNC fuse. I guess they know this from whatever specific codes are included in that log. Could removing the SYNC fuse crash the truck computer briefly and the system rebooted?

I am wondering if BM was attempting to do something like a master reset which would wipe all stored data, and disable sync? A reboot implies more the truck computer systems restarting than resetting.

Hmmm

If the GPS worked why is there a mileage discrepancy?
They must know where truck went.

This is a great point actually.

So either they do know, and just didn't get into that in the Prelim

OR

He did selectively remove the SYNC / GPS fuse?

That could explain quite a bit. The truck would still be logging all kinds of other things, but it would have allowed him to drive west, without the Truck logging the GPS of it. So he takes that fuse out when he leaves before 4am, then he puts that Fuse back in when he gets to his destination later than morning?

The GPS we have after the "Power Removal Event" is all related to vehicle operations, doors opening and closing, cab lights coming on, etc.

The FBI does not have digital proof that Barry went to Garfield, he didn't park and open a door. They had a mileage discrepancy from the drive Barry said he made and Grusing pushed Barry into admitting he turned left.

 

[waldojabba]

You may be right although I don't agree with the "unusual" circumstances once they knew the facts...they wanted to dig more into her info I will believe until my last breath -- if she was any other local running over to get it for Barry there would have been no arrest in my opinion..alittle mellow dramatic on my choice of words perhaps LOL

BBM

IMO, SD is not just “any other local”
She is the paramour of a man newly released from jail, on bail, pending trial for the suspected murder of his wife at that very property she is trespassing on ! (aka – “unusual circumstances)

Further, neither SD nor BM have a relationship with the home owner. What about a no trespassing sign indicates that All are welcome?

BM has been shown to be a man who has little respect for other’s boundaries – personal or physical ,so to him what’s a little property boundary ? The deed being in someone else’s name ? No problem - He thinks, Hell, I used to own that property – I know where all the bodies are buried
But even he knows , maybe it’s not a good idea to violate his parole, so he sends SD over lol

Sad that the new owner has to reinforce to BM /SD that BM no longer owns that property and that they are not entitled to access his land etc by pressing charges. But in my mind totally the right thing to do.

All of course JMO

 

[mrjitty]

You raise interesting questions in this and other posts! IMO, Judge M having acknowledged that his personal relationship with SD's firm was so significant that he had to disqualify himself in her case, will have a tough time explaining a contrary result in BM's case. Whatever ulterior motives may be working in the minds of BM and his defenders, his decision will depend on that issue. Under Rule 21, he cannot preemptively decide that SD has no standing to question the seizure of her stuff BEFORE he decides the disqualification issue.

If the judge is inclined to sail as close to the ethical wind as defense counsel, he might say, "BM's motion is not timely and is dismissed for that reason. Also, my good friend's firm has not entered an appearance in BM's case so there is no disqualification issue in current circumstances. Unless and until that changes, I will continue to preside in the BM case."

Put it back on SM's defense counsel. The risk is that the circumstances will arise just before trial, forcing the appointment of a new judge with insufficient time to prepare. I don't see Judge M playing chicken with defense counsel that way. He wants a fair trial with no reversible error, and the safe course seems to ask the SC to appoint a replacement now. MOO, of course.

BIB

That is my feeling based on my current (very basic) scan of US procedure. I don't see that the witness lawyer has any standing to make arguments, objections etc before the judge in the BM case, compared to the SD case where they act for the defendant?

I had kind of expected that the motion would cite a precedent that the recusal ground could apply to a witness lawyer as well as to a defendant's lawyer. But there was nothing in there about that.

 

[FromGermany1]

All super interesting. I was wondering if he asks prosecution to dismiss the trespass charge if that would alleviate the conflict. That seems like the simplest solution. That charge in my opinion was handled very out of the norm anyway and the judge knows it I'm sure. Most people who trespass on a particular property for the first time get a warning I would hazard a guess in any state in the US. No one will ever convince me that LE didn't use the tresspass opportunity for another fishing expedition into SD's involvement with BM.

Maybe. Her own fault. IMO

 

[CGray123]

I don't think the lawyer has to bow out here.

Chinese Wall is common on this stuff. It's not like her husband is acting for the witness. He just should not discuss the case with the lawyer(s) at his firm who are acting on it. Here we are only talking about the lawyers so I don't see what the actual conflict or bias would be?

Even where her husband's former law firm colleague was the trial judge - i still don't really see an issue?

Where I know this does come up is a trial lawyer from a big firm becomes a judge, then his former law partners get a case in front of him. There you can see you need to recuse.

Let's agree that my use of the dubious term "Chinese wall" was inappropriate, and switch to another term like "ethical wall" or "confidentiality wall." Law firms use these devices to avoid the harsh consequences of imputed conflicts of interest.

I haven't found a lot of case law in Colorado dealing with this, but here's a link to People ex rel Peters v. District Court, a case in which a firm was disqualified from serving as defense counsel for a murder suspect. The facts are different from BM's case, and the ruling doesn't control the outcome, but you can see the principles the court is trying to protect.

From what I see in this case and the few others I have seen, the Supreme Court seems more concerned about the principle of loyalty to the client (and related duties of confidentiality and independent judgment) than whether client information actually passes to a screened lawyer. I offer this case link for those who want to go deeper into this issue.

That's what I am concerned about in this case - the attorneys' duty of loyalty. BM's interests may well conflict with SD's before the end of this case.

He wants to keep her on side, and prevent her from telling investigators what she knows. But her best interests might well be served by making a deal to testify against him. How can a firm with a partner who is married to BM's attorney exercise independent judgment, and loyally advise SM concerning her options if the DA makes an offer? And how can the court be satisfied that SM's confidential information is not being shared with BM (and vice versa) in casual conversation within firms and then between Ward and his wife, Nielsen. Human nature being what it is, a confidentiality wall is not sufficient given the pressures involved in BM's case.

IMHO as a non-attorney, the senior attorneys at the McDermott firm should think very seriously of handing SM off to another firm before January 11.

 

[waldojabba]

Let's agree that my use of the dubious term "Chinese wall" was inappropriate, and switch to another term like "ethical wall" or "confidentiality wall." Law firms use these devices to avoid the harsh consequences of imputed conflicts of interest.

I haven't found a lot of case law in Colorado dealing with this, but here's a link to People ex rel Peters v. District Court, a case in which a firm was disqualified from serving as defense counsel for a murder suspect. The facts are different from BM's case, and the ruling doesn't control the outcome, but you can see the principles the court is trying to protect.

From what I see in this case and the few others I have seen, the Supreme Court seems more concerned about the principle of loyalty to the client (and related duties of confidentiality and independent judgment) than whether client information actually passes to a screened lawyer. I offer this case link for those who want to go deeper into this issue.

That's what I am concerned about in this case - the attorneys' duty of loyalty. BM's interests may well conflict with SD's before the end of this case.

He wants to keep her on side, and prevent her from telling investigators what she knows. But her best interests might well be served by making a deal to testify against him. How can a firm with a partner who is married to BM's attorney exercise independent judgment, and loyally advise SM concerning her options if the DA makes an offer? And how can the court be satisfied that SM's confidential information is not being shared with BM (and vice versa) in casual conversation within firms and then between Ward and his wife, Nielsen. Human nature being what it is, a confidentiality wall is not sufficient given the pressures involved in BM's case.

IMHO as a non-attorney, the senior attorneys at the McDermott firm should think very seriously of handing SM off to another firm before January 11.

@CGray123 Thanks for this post - great points about BM/SD potential conflicting interests

 

[Megnut]

It's not unheard of IMO for a lawyer to recognize conflicts of interest and advise his or her client. "Therefore, I can't in good faith continue to represent you, but I can recommend another lawyer or firm to you."

Barry's attorneys are whipsmart and IMO will use every means possible to cloud issues, spin doubt, misdirect focus, delay proceedings, woo the court of public opinion while simultaneously towncrying about the impropriety of others doing that very thing.

They will pull a strategy out of whatever is availed them.

I don't like it, but it is their job.

It'll be a sad day for them when Barry marries his conviction. LWOP + 156 years. Behind bars till death does him part.

I can live with that.

The greatest sadness here is that Suzanne didn't get to.

JMO

 

[IceIce9]

You may be right although I don't agree with the "unusual" circumstances once they knew the facts...they wanted to dig more into her info I will believe until my last breath -- if she was any other local running over to get it for Barry there would have been no arrest in my opinion..alittle mellow dramatic on my choice of words perhaps LOL

If she was “any other local”

Well maybe “any other local” who was involved with a man awaiting trial for the murder of his wife, who was out on bail.

Agree with a little melodramatic IMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

It's not unheard of IMO for a lawyer to recognize conflicts of interest and advise his or her client. "Therefore, I can't in good faith continue to represent you, but I can recommend another lawyer or firm to you."

Barry's attorneys are whipsmart and IMO will use every means possible to cloud issues, spin doubt, misdirect focus, delay proceedings, woo the court of public opinion while simultaneously towncrying about the impropriety of others doing that very thing.

They will pull a strategy out of whatever is availed them.

I don't like it, but it is their job.

It'll be a sad day for them when Barry marries his conviction. LWOP + 156 years. Behind bars till death does him part.

I can live with that.

The greatest sadness here is that Suzanne didn't get to.

JMO

The truth is, Barry’s lawyers are doing what any really competent attorneys would do so they are earning their pay. The DA has to step up and be their equal and I am sure she will.
We need good defense attorneys in our country. But it makes me sick the “best” end up defending the scum of the earth for the almighty dollar. I couldn’t sell my soul like that. JMO.

 

[Cindizzi]

BBM

IMO, SD is not just “any other local”
She is the paramour of a man newly released from jail, on bail, pending trial for the suspected murder of his wife at that very property she is trespassing on ! (aka – “unusual circumstances)

Further, neither SD nor BM have a relationship with the home owner. What about a no trespassing sign indicates that All are welcome?

BM has been shown to be a man who has little respect for other’s boundaries – personal or physical ,so to him what’s a little property boundary ? The deed being in someone else’s name ? No problem - He thinks, Hell, I used to own that property – I know where all the bodies are buried
But even he knows , maybe it’s not a good idea to violate his parole, so he sends SD over lol

Sad that the new owner has to reinforce to BM /SD that BM no longer owns that property and that they are not entitled to access his land etc by pressing charges. But in my mind totally the right thing to do.

All of course JMO

I absolutely agree with all your thoughts on this.
Here is the AA for SD trespassing charge as a refresher.

https://www.fox21news.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2021/09/21M351-Darke-Redacted-Affidavit.pdf

A million dollar property that had just been purchased 6 months earlier by an out of town owner as a vacation rental, not occupied full-time.
A property with clearly posted No Trespassing signage.
A property that was previously occupied by a woman who disappeared from there and is assumed murdered.
A property that is very well known to locals and a place of curiousity.
It was the current owner’s decision to press charges and I would have done the same tbh - no matter who the perp was.
I would want a permanent restraining order also after seeing an unknown person on my surveillance cameras skulking around on foot and not ringing the doorbell or attempting to leave a note ( as if they KNEW they shouldn’t be on my property).
IMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Let's agree that my use of the dubious term "Chinese wall" was inappropriate, and switch to another term like "ethical wall" or "confidentiality wall." Law firms use these devices to avoid the harsh consequences of imputed conflicts of interest.

I haven't found a lot of case law in Colorado dealing with this, but here's a link to People ex rel Peters v. District Court, a case in which a firm was disqualified from serving as defense counsel for a murder suspect. The facts are different from BM's case, and the ruling doesn't control the outcome, but you can see the principles the court is trying to protect.

From what I see in this case and the few others I have seen, the Supreme Court seems more concerned about the principle of loyalty to the client (and related duties of confidentiality and independent judgment) than whether client information actually passes to a screened lawyer. I offer this case link for those who want to go deeper into this issue.

That's what I am concerned about in this case - the attorneys' duty of loyalty. BM's interests may well conflict with SD's before the end of this case.

He wants to keep her on side, and prevent her from telling investigators what she knows. But her best interests might well be served by making a deal to testify against him. How can a firm with a partner who is married to BM's attorney exercise independent judgment, and loyally advise SM concerning her options if the DA makes an offer? And how can the court be satisfied that SM's confidential information is not being shared with BM (and vice versa) in casual conversation within firms and then between Ward and his wife, Nielsen. Human nature being what it is, a confidentiality wall is not sufficient given the pressures involved in BM's case.

IMHO as a non-attorney, the senior attorneys at the McDermott firm should think very seriously of handing SM off to another firm before January 11.

Not to nitpick, but I believe you meant SD and not SM in a couple of your statements.
Looks like SD has a hearing coming up on 12/29.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Re SYNC, GPS and POWER REMOVED event

I will be fascinated to see if we get detailed evidence on this. Thinking about it a bit, if the system could log "power removed' event that means there must still be power to log it? (unless using some stored power in the circuitry). So does this even mean some systems were depowered (i.e fuse(s) removed) rather than an entire battery disconnection?

That might lean towards BM having the (stupid) idea to disable the SYNC thinking that the events would not be logged. But of course they were still logged locally on the truck, including GPS.

Looking at that list - did he ever reconnect whatever he de-powered?

I can only speak to what I've seen working systems and software engineering on avionics systems, where the systems recognize that they are going down (losing power) and power is held up long enough to log the power off event, whether it is expected or not. I don't know if cars are designed the same way, but it seems like it's possible, given the power removal action logged in the Reboot Events log. (At least that is what I think it says.) It could have just been a momentary power interruption, or something longer, but it's impossible to tell IMO. The next event listed in the telematics data is not for another ~1.5 hours. All we can ascertain is that at that 1.5 hours point, there was enough power to log stuff.

 

[Whitneyh]

I’ve been slammed at work but still keeping up in the background. Not sure if this has been discussed but, the fact that the most recent filing BM attorney mentions on page 5 the “validity” of the search warrants of SD home, interesting she brings up cards, letters and mentions her attorneys will challenge the validity of the search warrants. Man, I am dying to know what the result of those warrants are. !!

 

[Megnut]

I’ve been slammed at work but still keeping up in the background. Not sure if this has been discussed but, the fact that the most recent filing BM attorney mentions on page 5 the “validity” of the search warrants of SD home, interesting she brings up cards, letters and mentions her attorneys will challenge the validity of the search warrants. Man, I am dying to know what the result of those warrants are. !!

Oooooo cards and letters!! Are the just-friends swapping love notes? Valentine's Day cards perhaps? Love letters on Antler's letterhead? Oh, please let it all be dated.

Can someone remind me? Does Hallmark have a happy dumpsterversary section?

Wheredjameet?

Whendjameet?

Sharing a bed, are we?

Sleeping double with a single ankle monitor... sexy.

Whatever the truth is, I hope it's revealed. The truth, the whole truth. Characters exposed.

Suzanne deserves that.

JMO

 

[Whitneyh]

Oooooo cards and letters!! Are the just-friends swapping love notes? Valentine's Day cards perhaps? Love letters on Antler's letterhead? Oh, please let it all be dated.

Can someone remind me? Does Hallmark have a happy dumpsterversary section?

Wheredjameet?

Whendjameet?

Sharing a bed, are we?

Sleeping double with a single ankle monitor... sexy.

Whatever the truth is, I hope it's revealed. The truth, the whole truth. Characters exposed.

Suzanne deserves that.

JMO

Remember back when Barry tried to convince us all of how much Suzanne loved him with old anniversary cards

 

[Hoss569]

It's not unheard of IMO for a lawyer to recognize conflicts of interest and advise his or her client. "Therefore, I can't in good faith continue to represent you, but I can recommend another lawyer or firm to you."

Barry's attorneys are whipsmart and IMO will use every means possible to cloud issues, spin doubt, misdirect focus, delay proceedings, woo the court of public opinion while simultaneously towncrying about the impropriety of others doing that very thing.

They will pull a strategy out of whatever is availed them.

I don't like it, but it is their job.

It'll be a sad day for them when Barry marries his conviction. LWOP + 156 years. Behind bars till death does him part.

I can live with that.

The greatest sadness here is that Suzanne didn't get to.

JMO

I had a thought tho, wouldn't the Judge's friend have called him and let him know they are representing SD? Or ask him about representing her? He would have to know that Judge M is on the case and wanting to go by the book?

Just an opinion or thought.

 

[Hoss569]

Also @Tumbleweed

The AA is full of typos and contradictory info, not all of it from Barry. As I said before, I based the timeline on the most detailed lines and comparing it to PH tweets. Barry Morphew Redacted Arrest Affidavit – Find Suzanne Morphew

Check the GPS of where Barry began his chipmunk chase. He didn't start it in the garage. He pulled in with the trailer attached. At 16:44 he unhooked the trailer and pulled the truck into the garage. At 21:25 he backed the 96 feet out of the garage.

http://www./wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BarrysChipmunkChase.jpg

If he had started in the garage he wouldn't have needed to detour there to get the tranqs from his workbench (#4).

http://www./wp-content/uploads/2020/05/BarrysChipmunkChasept3.jpg
Screencap CBS Denver

Nice, Wasn't there at one time speculation of some newly planted tree('s) or boulder('s)?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

http://www./wp-content/uploads/2020/05/BarrysChipmunkChasept3.jpg
Screencap CBS Denver

Can anyone identify what is to the left of the propane tank, on the left side of the photo? Looks almost like a stack of tires? I don't recall seeing that before.

 

[MissTilly]

Remember back when Barry tried to convince us all of how much Suzanne loved him with old anniversary cards

I do! I thought it was incredibly telling that he was determined to convince everyone how much she loved him, not how much he loved her. It is always all about him.
moo