Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #96

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
swedeheart said:
BBM.

I think the reason he tried to force the mountain lion theory down everyone's throat is to throw off just how excellent of a hunter he actually is.

His subconscious was trying to downplay his hunting skills, because he knew that's exactly what he did to Suzanne.

Barry was playing dumb.
Click to expand...
his hunting excellence was on full display when he mentioned on multiple occasions how a mountain lion drags its prey "up" a mountain. Only Barry's lions do that...the rest? Well, they are an inferior species which drags its larger game down....not up.
MassGuy said:
The People's response, and it's gold.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/2022-02-23 15-35-09 17C Response.pdf
Click to expand...
The biggest reason of all that the defense would not want to retry the preliminary hearing as the "natural remedy" is...imo....the development of evidence is such that the balance weighed by Judge Murphy could likely have tilted to a degree sufficient to deny bond on the M1 charge.
 
Scootie98 said:
his hunting excellence was on full display when he mentioned on multiple occasions how a mountain lion drags its prey "up" a mountain. Only Barry's lions do that...the rest? Well, they are an inferior species which drags its larger game down....not up.

The biggest reason of all that the defense would not want to retry the preliminary hearing as the "natural remedy" is...imo....the development of evidence is such that the balance weighed by Judge Murphy could likely have tilted to a degree sufficient to deny bond on the M1 charge.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The DNA factored heavily into Murphy's decision, and without that, odds are much higher of no bond.

"Barry no Bond."
 
Point 2 in People's response

It should be noted that it appears the defense has stopped trying to confer with the People as their last request for discovery was made directly to the Court before the last hearing.

Will there or could there be a sanction for this or is it just a bit of tittle tattle so to speak?

ebm
 
MassGuy said:
The People's response, and it's gold.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/2022-02-23 15-35-09 17C Response.pdf
Click to expand...

I like Paragraph No. 5, under "Facts":

5. The defense has taken bits and pieces out of context in the IA to claim there is a discovery violation. Arguing that because Mr. Cahill opined on when the defendant should have been arrested it is exculpatory and should have been discovered. The defense uses the statement that Mr. Cahill said, “the arrest of the suspect now as the worst decision that could have been made.” Mr. Cahill also indicated in his IA that he thought, “the arrest of the suspect in this investigation was premature” and that the arrest was “hasty.” It also appears Mr. Cahill was put out because he could not be present at the arrest due to him attending the arrest, even though he “spent a year of his life putting together the investigation.” At no time did Mr. Cahill say that he did not think there was probable cause to arrest or that he thought the defendant was not guilty of murdering his wife.
Click to expand...

RBBM
 
Time Warp?
MassGuy said:
The People's response, and it's gold.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/2022-02-23 15-35-09 17C Response.pdf
Click to expand...
Thx @MassGuy Skimmed the doc. which seemed pretty comprehensive, but seems prosecutor was time traveling.

Page 9:
"Respectfully submitted this 23d day of March, 2022." bbm

Actually I'm surprised this kind of booboo does not happen more often.
_______________________________
"RESPONSE TO DEFENSE SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS[D-17(c)]"
On Page 1, in "COURT USE ONLY" field
"DATE FILED: February 23, 2022 3:38 PM" bbm
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user.../Morphew/2022-02-23 15-35-09 17C Response.pdf
 
Sounds like Cahill has his own set of problems. I would imagine that many would have thought the arrest might be premature. It’s an opinion. It doesn’t make it a fact. Okay, what if they asked Cahill why the arrest was premature-do they know how he would answer? They may not want his answer.

The CODIS hits not being connected brings me hope. If that isn’t there, what’s the new defense theory?
 
Lyanna said:
Point 2 in People's response

It should be noted that it appears the defense has stopped trying to confer with the People as their last request for discovery was made directly to the Court before the last hearing.

Will there or could there be a sanction for this or is it just a bit of tittle tattle so to speak?

ebm
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The responsibility for delivery of discovery lies on shoulders of the State through the prosecution team. The judge(s) has been responding to defense motions and setting deadlines for prosecution to deliver since the beginning.
 
Barry Morphew's attorneys move to dismiss murder case; former lead detective said arrest premature


Cahill and his colleague, CBI Agent Derek Graham, were co-lead investigators during the first year of the case before Barry Morphew was arrested. Cahill was removed from the investigation in September and reassigned to a marijuana unit.

Graham is still involved in the investigation, but it was Cahill who made the controversial statements during an internal affairs investigation interview into off-duty conduct in early December. During the interview, Cahill told Agent in Charge Ralph Gagliardi that he saw “an erosion of framework that myself and Derek Graham put together,” according to a court document filed by Barry Morphew’s attorneys.


What was the framework they put together that he now saw eroding or falling apart?
Not seeing evidence of the bobcat involved? JMO
Did he think if they held off on arrest that BM might lead them to remains?
Did he think BM was close to confessing?
 
Last edited:
Diddian said:
<modsnip -quoted post removed due to no links>

The ONLY account agents testified that SM had in any way linked to JL was the account with which she communicated to JL on Linked In. (i.e., NOT a bank account, but a social media account).

Reports about testimony in the Preliminary Hearing about the two financial accounts (Greendot and a funds management account with Compass Management) that SM set up after SO recommended she start setting money aside for the time when she'd leave:
prosecutors-outline-barry-suzanne-morphew-movements-disappearance

SUZANNE MORPHEW: Preliminary hearing in Barry Morphew trial reveals new details | FOX31 Denver

FBI agent Harris testified that he did not follow up on those accounts.

Nowhere in the AA or in what I've read coming out of the Preliminary Hearing have I seen anything to support your claim that SM had made JL beneficiary to those accounts.
Click to expand...
Seriously?? -- the allegation JL was beneficiary to SM's new bank accounts has to be the most insane thing I've ever read on this case-- especially given JL didn't even know about SM's inheritance until he read it in MSM.

ETA: OK, now I understand there was no link to the allegation and this was nothing more than a false rumor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 165 more.
Total: 3,559 (members: 166, guests: 3,393)

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
3,393
Total visitors
3,559
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,160
Messages
18,168,413
Members
232,064
Latest member
gymbo
Back
Top