Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #90

[al66pine]

Victims' Rights Act? Sequestration?

I believe after the witness testifies and is excused by the court, their sequester from the courtroom is over. Yes, I do recall pursuant to the Victim's Rights Act, qualified victims may be excluded from the order. Also, it appears Colorado Rule 615 - Exclusion of Witnesses was amended effective Oct 14, 2021.

A victim's right to be present at all critical stages of the criminal justice process under Const. Art. II § 16 a and § 24-4.1-302.5(1)(d) takes precedence over a party's right to sequester witnesses under this rule. The father of a murder victim who testified in the defendant's trial was wrongly excluded from subsequent portions of the trial. People v. Coney, 98 P.3d 930 (Colo. App. 2004). Applied in People v. Beltran, 634 P.2d 1003 (Colo. App. 1981).

Rule 615 - Exclusion of Witnesses, Colo. R. Evid. 615

Rule 615 - Exclusion of Witnesses, Colo. R. Evid. 615 | Casetext Search + Citator

@Seattle1 Thankyou very much for your post, citing both CO. Constitution & VRA.
First, not saying I disagree w your post in any way, shape or form.
In my post just above this one, I had not reviewed the state Constitution, which may prompt me to change gears or reverse thoughts on that post.

Too late for my brain cells to think through this properly.
Always appreciate your insightful posts.

 

[mrjitty]

On the CODIS information:

Lindsey said a match is a lead, and a hit is a person.

So a match is partial and a hit is a specific person.

They had a match.

So they don't know whose DNA was on the glove box.

I guess I am still not that worried about the DNA fishing expedition.

Of course it is not that hard to make Walker look bad under direct examination in a discovery hearing - making it out like he doesn't have certain emails and notes or a huge investigation into this. But the reality is, this wasn't some huge clue, and that is why that stuff does not exist. In a trial the prosecution gets to lay out it's case and deal with the glove box aspect (if they want to), and it's harder for the defence to make a huge song and dance about things that don't exist, or by calling a witness who doesn't know about something. Walker's job was to decide if the AA met the evidential standard vis-a-vis Barry, which it obviously does IMO.

What will be not good is if the defence can actually show at trial, that the investigators decided to bury glovebox guy because he was inconvenient after they already were so far down the road with BM.

Personally I think that is hard at trial because

1. Law Enforcement built a strong case against BM - the likelihood some rando did it doesn't fit the evidence, and that is why the case against BM developed the way it did over months.

2. Expert testimony will explain why glove box guy isn't a material clue in the case. Walker can't do that - which is why he looks stupid in this hearing.

So congrats to the defence for trying, but this seems a better defence for television than trial - which is, I suspect, their real purpose.

 

[MassGuy]

I guess I am still not that worried about the DNA fishing expedition.

Of course it is not that hard to make Walker look bad under direct examination in a discovery hearing - making it out like he doesn't have certain emails and notes or a huge investigation into this. But the reality is, this wasn't some huge clue, and that is why that stuff does not exist. In a trial the prosecution gets to lay out it's case and deal with the glove box aspect (if they want to), and it's harder for the defence to make a huge song and dance about things that don't exist, or by calling a witness who doesn't know about something. Walker's job was to decide if the AA met the evidential standard vis-a-vis Barry, which it obviously does IMO.

What will be not good is if the defence can actually show at trial, that the investigators decided to bury glovebox guy because he was inconvenient after they already were so far down the road with BM.

Personally I think that is hard at trial because

1. Law Enforcement built a strong case against BM - the likelihood some rando did it doesn't fit the evidence, and that is why the case against BM developed the way it did over months.

2. Expert testimony will explain why glove box guy isn't a material clue in the case. Walker can't do that - which is why he looks stupid in this hearing.

So congrats to the defence for trying, but this seems a better defence for television than trial - which is, I suspect, their real purpose.

The tweets made it sound way worse than it really was apparently. I was mildly concerned earlier today, but Lauren's live put things in context.

Just a desperation play by a defense team trying to mislead everyone as to both the strength of the DNA evidence, and it's exculpatory nature.

Hell, they've made it sound like it somehow exonerates Barry.

Nice try.

 

[Seattle1]

The tweets made it sound way worse than it really was apparently. I was mildly concerned earlier today, but Lauren's live put things in context.

Just a desperation play by a defense team trying to mislead everyone as to both the strength of the DNA evidence, and it's exculpatory nature.

Hell, they've made it sound like it somehow exonerates Barry.

Nice try.

I don't think we can overlook that attorney IE wants to butter both sides of their bread here: BM's October 2021 intent to sue notice for civil rights violations (false arrest and defamation) are decided/settled by a financial award.

In addition to sanctions in the criminal case, the defense also needs to help generate evidence for this civil claim that investigators failed to mention that they knew the name of the man’s DNA that was allegedly found on Suzanne’s bike, helmet, sheets in the dryer, one of the bedrooms and in Suzanne’s car.

This was mentioned during the preliminary hearing, but investigators didn’t go into detail about it. Morphew’s attorney’s claim that DNA allegedly matched sexual assault cases in Arizona. They say investigators never followed up on the matches.

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, January 25th:
*Motions Hearing (Murder) & Status Hearing (Voter Fraud) (@ 8am) - CO – Suzanne Renee Moorman Morphew (49) (missing May 10, 2020, did not return from bike ride (supposedly), Maysville, Chaffee County, not found) - *Barry Lee Morphew (53/now 54) arrested & charged (5/5/21) with 1st degree murder after deliberation, tampering with physical evidence & attempting to influence public servants. And additional charges (5/18/21) of tampering with a deceased human body & possession of a dangerous weapon (short rifle) & amended (5/18/21) to add domestic violence as sentencing enhancement. Plead not guilty. $500K Cash only bond. Bonded out on 9/20/21.
Trial set to begin on 5/3/22 (thru 6/1/22).
*Charged (5/13/21) with felony forgery of public records & misdemeanor elections-mail ballot offense. $1K Bond.
Missing info, Barry’s PP loan & court info from 5/10/21 thru 1/12/22 reference post #6 here:
Still Missing - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #90
1/14/22 Update: His defense attorneys submitted a list of requests including a change of venue, moving the trial date up by a week to April 25 & a modification to his bond orders. Added to court hearings - a motions hearing for new trial motion on 2/24/22. Motions hearing for murder charge on 1/24/22, 1/25/22 & 2/1/22. Also Status hearing have been added on 1/24, 2/15, 2/1 & 2/24 for voter fraud charge.
1/24/22 Update: Sorry this is so long, I wanted to capture most of what happened. Judge Ramsey Lama will first be looking at the motions to quash. The defense has subpoenaed members of the Chaffee County Sheriff's Office & CBI. The judge says he has reviewed previous documents & is up to speed in this case. Attorneys for CBI & Attorney General speaking about the motion. Attorney for AG says prosecution withheld material from defense attorneys in the case who diligently continued to file motions asking for discovery information. She says the defense continued to ask & prosecutors never gave them the material they needed. The defense attorney said Morphew's legal team has been deprived of material that should have been provided & is relevant to the discovery sanctions. The prosecution is supporting the motion to quash. A defense attorney is saying Morphew's legal counsel pleaded with the prosecution before critical deadlines to get all discovery. They claim emails to the prosecution were not responded to so they reached out to specific CBI agents directly to get information in this case. The defense attorney for Morphew is going down a list of agents' names, members of the AG's office & other investigators on this case that they haven't received emails they've requested. The defense claims they've only received about 5% of this information. The defense attorney is now talking about an internal affairs investigation involving CBI Agent Joseph Cahill. He resigned on Dec. 8, 2021. There was an accidental discharge of his weapon in his home. She's now explaining Cahill's part during the Morphew case & his credibility. Iris Eytan is now providing the judge the transcript from the hearing of May 27th, 2021. It is now being admitted into the court as an exhibit. The defense is now responding to the statements of the prosecution to the judge. Judge Lama says he needs to consider if the materials exist - he says the defense has shown him that they do. Are they relevant? He says yes they are & that parts of the material were ordered to be disclosed to the defense. But there are other things he considers before ruling. He also says defense has shown a need for this information regarding the IA investigation into Agent Cahill because he was the lead for CBI on the investigation. He says that Morphew has a right to see these materials. Judge Lama rules the defense has met their burden for information about Agent Cahill's internal affairs investigation. The judge will do an in-camera review. Prosecutor Hulbert claims he doesn't have the affidavit that Former Agent Cahill was speaking about & the one that Eytan is discussing. Judge is ordering that it would be provided to the DA's Office. Cahill subpoena will be continued until 2/1/22 at 9:30am. Eytan clarified that there are two agents that revised the affidavit. CBI attorney said they know about Agent Graham but not Cahill. The judge is only ordering Graham's revision & is giving the prosecution 7 days to hand it over to the defense. Judge Lama says emails should have been provided this past summer, it's a big burden. He denies the prosecution's motion to quash. Discovery needs to be handed over to the defense no later than Jan. 31. Next motions for pre-trial publicity violations. The defense wanted to call former ADA Jeff Lindsey to the stand but is searching for him in the courthouse. Mr. Lindsey is not here. The prosecution is texting him to see if he is on his way. The prosecution is wanting the pre-trial publicity violations to be heard on Feb. 1. Eytan wants it today. District Attorney Linda Stanley is not here. At the previous status conference, the judge did alert both parties about discussing the pre-trial publicity violations. Former ADA Jeff Lindsey will appear at 2pm.
Defense calls Commander Alex Walker with CCSO, he previously worked at 11th Judicial DA office. He was the lead investigator on the Suzanne Morphew case. Commander Walker was the one to sign the AA for Barry Morphew. He doesn't recall what the revisions to the AA were from Agent Cahill. He says he remembers that Cahill had only revised up to about page 19. Commander says no-one told him about the matches to the unknown DNA on the glove compartment before he signed the AA. Walker says he did nothing to preserve the emails from the DA account. Eytan asks if he has been asked to locate the emails from the DA's office. "No." This is the order he sent out to multiple LE agencies on June 4th. Defense asks if Walker had produced any notes on the unknown male DNA profile. He says no. She asks about emails. He says no. According to information divulged in court hearings, the glove box DNA was a mixed partial profile of three people, including Suzanne, one of the Morphew daughters & a third profile, which has markers similar to three profiles found in three sex assault cases in Arizona & Chicago through the Combined DNA Index System. Defense requested that witnesses will be sequestered-granted. Motions hearing continues for murder charge on 1/25/22 & status hearing re voter fraud on 1/25/22.

 

[Kemug]

Ritters said they were afraid of Morphew and discussed the issue in person with Lindsey. They believe Barry is guilty of this homicide.

Does that mean that they are afraid of Barry now, or that they were afraid of Barry before his arrest, or that they have always been afraid of him? Sorry to be dense, and I daresay it means "now", but I'd just like to be clear about it.

 

[mrjitty]

The tweets made it sound way worse than it really was apparently. I was mildly concerned earlier today, but Lauren's live put things in context.

Just a desperation play by a defense team trying to mislead everyone as to both the strength of the DNA evidence, and it's exculpatory nature.

Hell, they've made it sound like it somehow exonerates Barry.

Nice try.

Yes - its a police conspiracy built on the head of a pin

There is no actual link to sex offenders. Nothing to do with the case. There is no mysterious suspect. There is no way for police to investigate it.

They are trying to make a mountain out of the alleged failure to disclose it, but that has nothing to do with its relevance at trial.

 

[girlhasnoname]

During LS live recap about today's hearing, she was repeatedly asked to identify the alleged YT party that was broadcasting the hearing. Although LS would not name anybody specifically, she did say near the end of the recap that it was a paralegal from the defense that alleged a specific YT blogger responsible. Important to note that it was NOT the court that identified the party but an allegation by the defense.

I find this more than a little suspect that the Defense alerted the Court.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't get why someone bootlegging the webex means that actual journalists in Court should have their reporting restricted. Makes no sense

 

[303gmf]

During LS live recap about today's hearing, she was repeatedly asked to identify the alleged YT party that was broadcasting the hearing. Although LS would not name anybody specifically, she did say near the end of the recap that it was a paralegal from the defense that alleged a specific YT blogger responsible. Important to note that it was NOT the court that identified the party but an allegation by the defense.

A YT’er misidentified is spitting nails!

 

[303gmf]

I find this more than a little suspect that the Defense alerted the Court.

Agree!

 

[genuineusa77]

I don't think we can overlook that attorney IE wants to butter both sides of their bread here: BM's October 2021 intent to sue notice for civil rights violations (false arrest and defamation) are decided/settled by a financial award.

In addition to sanctions in the criminal case, the defense also needs to help generate evidence for this civil claim that investigators failed to mention that they knew the name of the man’s DNA that was allegedly found on Suzanne’s bike, helmet, sheets in the dryer, one of the bedrooms and in Suzanne’s car.

This was mentioned during the preliminary hearing, but investigators didn’t go into detail about it. Morphew’s attorney’s claim that DNA allegedly matched sexual assault cases in Arizona. They say investigators never followed up on the matches.

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

BBM: Sorry I can't keep up, Who was the man who's DNA was found on these items? Was it ever disclosed??

 

[DizzyB]

It will be interesting if no YT-er was ever found to be streaming the hearing. I would not be surprised at all. Honestly, if they were, I think news would have spread like wildfire among people paying attention to the case. I know it did last time. I chose not to click on it (didn’t need to, we were able to log into that hearing), but everyone knew it was against the rules, in real time.

 

[Lyanna]

I find this more than a little suspect that the Defense alerted the Court.

I think @Skigh was spot on yesterday in reference to hoping it wasn't done to create more distraction in the case.
Really trying hard not to be so pessimistic about the defence team and keep reminding myself they are just doing their job, but it's sooooooo hard!!

Ebm for accuracy and grammar

 

[MrsWatson]

BBM: Sorry I can't keep up, Who was the man who's DNA was found on these items? Was it ever disclosed??

It was not disclosed because it was a partial match. In other words, the DNA found on the glove box did not match a specific person in CODIS. It did match PARTIALLY to a sex offender. Which means it is NOT a match to the sex offender and there would be no reason to disclose that person's name since it's NOT their DNA.

This explains partial DNA matches, and I think has already been posted in the thread, but obviously bears repeating.

italics by me

Partial Matches
Overview
A partial match occurs when a Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) search is conducted and the results clearly show that the offender profile is not the source of the crime scene profile (also referred to as a forensic profile), but the possibility does exist that a close biological relative of the offender might be the source of the crime scene profile.1 CODIS searches can be conducted using various stringency modes:

• A high stringency search would only ‘hit’ on an offender sample when the DNA profiles are identical
• Moderate stringency searches include situations where one DNA profile is homozygous at a locus and the other is heterozygous with one of the two alleles being the same as the homozygous allele

1 Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods Ad Hoc Committee on Partial Matches: SWGDAM Recommendations to the FBI Director on the “Interim Plan for the Release of Information in the Event of a ‘Partial Match’ at NDIS”, Forensic Science

Source: Partial Matches • Overview

 

[Megnut]

Let's see.

Defense is running strong.

Sequestered witnesses will keep witnesses from knowing what all else is presented at trial.

Swirling this nonsense about a named match to DNA from Suzanne's car. (Am I wrong? It's a partial match to DNA in a string of unsolved crimes -- a profoundly useless data point! And even if they solved those crimes and had a name of that individual, there's no evidence that that individual was anywhere near PP when Suzanne's last proof of life was recorded!)

Media -- everything that shuts down or slows reporting on the finer details works in the defendent's favor. Raise the spectre of misconduct, blow smoke, hyper focus on the banal, minimize the facts.

While I'm certain Barry's attorneys drive his defense bus, I can't help but to think he's his own driving force, trying hard to keep those closest to him separated from the truth.

I seem to recall him saying whatever it takes.

JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

I am curious about the former ADA on this case. I was watching SR's YT last night and he made some interesting points. Right near the end if anyone is interested.

 

[Boxer]

It was not disclosed because it was a partial match. In other words, the DNA found on the glove box did not match a specific person in CODIS. It did match PARTIALLY to a sex offender. Which means it is NOT a match to the sex offender and there would be no reason to disclose that person's name since it's NOT their DNA.

This explains partial DNA matches, and I think has already been posted in the thread, but obviously bears repeating.

italics by me

Partial Matches
Overview
A partial match occurs when a Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) search is conducted and the results clearly show that the offender profile is not the source of the crime scene profile (also referred to as a forensic profile), but the possibility does exist that a close biological relative of the offender might be the source of the crime scene profile.1 CODIS searches can be conducted using various stringency modes:

• A high stringency search would only ‘hit’ on an offender sample when the DNA profiles are identical
• Moderate stringency searches include situations where one DNA profile is homozygous at a locus and the other is heterozygous with one of the two alleles being the same as the homozygous allele

1 Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods Ad Hoc Committee on Partial Matches: SWGDAM Recommendations to the FBI Director on the “Interim Plan for the Release of Information in the Event of a ‘Partial Match’ at NDIS”, Forensic Science

Source: Partial Matches • Overview

MOO to review.


There is no identity for the RR dash DNA contributor which is somehow a "limited sample" (usually means trace) or for the "partial match" which means the relative identified by a CODIS search.

The contrubtor is not in CODIS but a relative of the RR dash contributor is, and that insividual is the "partial match."

A relative who is a criminal, is unidentified but whose DNA is in rhe CODIS database.

MOO Both contributor and the relative are not identified. They are not the same person.
****
Please let me know if the identity of the RR dash contributor is known.

 

[MrsWatson]

If anyone on the defense team is reading Websleuths, they must be quite giddy with how much controversy this DNA on the glove box is creating and banking on it creating a lot more confusion for jurors who probably don't follow true crime.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Does that mean that they are afraid of Barry now, or that they were afraid of Barry before his arrest, or that they have always been afraid of him? Sorry to be dense, and I daresay it means "now", but I'd just like to be clear about it.

I honestly don't believe that statement in it's entirety and without context. I do believe the prosecutors office, someone had a conversation with the Ritters about the restraining order and that the Ritters did not want to cause a legal problem taking trash to the subdivision dumpster during the time Barry was still living in PP or current location if that is on their way to the dumpster but I do not believe the Ritters were "afraid" of Barry. I personally think there has been some "bending" of the truth by both sides in this legal battle. Defense has also said on the record they spoke with the Ritters and that the Rititers were not afraid of Barry so again...context matters. So pick your version to believe. I am more firmly on the fence now that I ever have been. I'm waiting for the trial and see it through the jurors eyes (if we are going to be able to do that) and stop trying to analyze based on one sentence snippet cut from one of the gazillion pages of documentation. The trial if it happens is soon.