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.
Couple of things about the most recently released filings in this case.

The defendant's supplement and exhibits were dominated by the Cahill discussion. Most of the cited "exculpable" materials in the exhibits are related to info that came about after the prelim. I am not sure that having this information would have changed the outcome of the prelim or not. Either way, it was not available at the time of the prelim, so it is not likely going to lead to a dismissal as a sanction....IMO

However, that was actually filed on 09FEB2022....a day before the hearing on the 10th. If you remember at that hearing the judge ruled that the state had to turn over the victim's Icloud and RR data within 14 days. This was also part of the alleged discovery violations, but not really covered in this filing.

The state's response which is dated 23MAR2022, but was actually filed on 23FEB2022, is also entirely focussed on the "Cahill" issue. They even narrowly reference discovery violations related to "Cahill" without referencing the other discover violation allegations.

The state's filing occurred a day before the last hearing. The state attempted to float the "DNA is irrelevant" argument at that hearing and the Judge poo-poo'd their argument saying it was relevant.

These filings and the Cahill issue would not lead to a dismissal as a sanction....IMO. It creates problems for the state for sure, but not discovery violation problems...IMO.

However, it will be interesting to see if there are subsequent submissions by the parties that address the victim's icloud and RR data, which presumably was turned over sometime before last Thursday?
 
Cassady said:
Couple of things about the most recently released filings in this case.

The defendant's supplement and exhibits were dominated by the Cahill discussion. Most of the cited "exculpable" materials in the exhibits are related to info that came about after the prelim. I am not sure that having this information would have changed the outcome of the prelim or not. Either way, it was not available at the time of the prelim, so it is not likely going to lead to a dismissal as a sanction....IMO

However, that was actually filed on 09FEB2022....a day before the hearing on the 10th. If you remember at that hearing the judge ruled that the state had to turn over the victim's Icloud and RR data within 14 days. This was also part of the alleged discovery violations, but not really covered in this filing.

The state's response which is dated 23MAR2022, but was actually filed on 23FEB2022, is also entirely focussed on the "Cahill" issue. They even narrowly reference discovery violations related to "Cahill" without referencing the other discover violation allegations.

The state's filing occurred a day before the last hearing. The state attempted to float the "DNA is irrelevant" argument at that hearing and the Judge poo-poo'd their argument saying it was relevant.

These filings and the Cahill issue would not lead to a dismissal as a sanction....IMO. It creates problems for the state for sure, but not discovery violation problems...IMO.

However, it will be interesting to see if there are subsequent submissions by the parties that address the victim's icloud and RR data, which presumably was turned over sometime before last Thursday?
Click to expand...
I’m praying if there was any RR data, it will only create havoc for BM. As for Suzanne’s iCloud, I hope it “burys” him.
 
Love Never Fails said:
I’m praying if there was any RR data, it will only create havoc for BM. As for Suzanne’s iCloud, I hope it “burys” him.
Click to expand...

IMO and exerience the state is always quick to disclose incriminating data and evidence in a criminal cases. First, they want the defendant to see how strong their case is. Second, they do not want to risk discovery violations that could lead to the strong evidence being excluded by the court.

In this case, apparently the victim's icloud and RR date were still not disclosed with less that 3 months to trial, 6 months after the prelim and 18 months after the alleged crime. If there was incriminating info in there the state has placed that evidence in jeopardy of being excluded by not disclosing it in a timely manner....IMO.

Thus, I would be surprised if there was any incriminating info in this data...IMO.
 
Cassady said:
Couple of things about the most recently released filings in this case.

The defendant's supplement and exhibits were dominated by the Cahill discussion. Most of the cited "exculpable" materials in the exhibits are related to info that came about after the prelim. I am not sure that having this information would have changed the outcome of the prelim or not. Either way, it was not available at the time of the prelim, so it is not likely going to lead to a dismissal as a sanction....IMO

However, that was actually filed on 09FEB2022....a day before the hearing on the 10th. If you remember at that hearing the judge ruled that the state had to turn over the victim's Icloud and RR data within 14 days. This was also part of the alleged discovery violations, but not really covered in this filing.

The state's response which is dated 23MAR2022, but was actually filed on 23FEB2022, is also entirely focussed on the "Cahill" issue. They even narrowly reference discovery violations related to "Cahill" without referencing the other discover violation allegations.

The state's filing occurred a day before the last hearing. The state attempted to float the "DNA is irrelevant" argument at that hearing and the Judge poo-poo'd their argument saying it was relevant.

These filings and the Cahill issue would not lead to a dismissal as a sanction....IMO. It creates problems for the state for sure, but not discovery violation problems...IMO.

However, it will be interesting to see if there are subsequent submissions by the parties that address the victim's icloud and RR data, which presumably was turned over sometime before last Thursday?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your perspective. I highly doubt I&D want a redo on the prelim. That went well for them. I'm guessing, like Murphy, this judge might keep this moving forward but if they missed again on delivery of the icloud and RR data I can't see him postponing sanctions much longer.
 
Diddian said:
I'm not sure what the source of this Google Sheet is since it is not identified anywhere on the document. I also don't know much about how telematics work, but it occurs to me after viewing the data on the Google sheet that the telematics may only report those events that an operator initiates, but not what occurs automatically. For example, in my own vehicle, my lights turn on automatically when I place the vehicle into gear and my doors automatically lock when I reach a certain speed. I don't know if my own vehicle telematics would record those events which are designed to and do occur automatically.

Applying this thinking to your example of lines 35 and 36:

It may be that sometime before 8:48 PM the truck was put into gear to "Drive" and the parking lights automatically turned ON (an automatic event that perhaps isn't recorded by telematics so isn't represented here) and then the operator manually turned the parking lights OFF at 8:48PM (an operator-initiated event that is recorded by telematics). Then, sometime before 9:25PM, the truck was again switched into "Drive" gear so that the parking lights automatically turned on again (not recorded by telematics) and the operator manually turned them off at 9:25PM (recorded by telematics).
Click to expand...

That's a possibility. It would sure help explain some of the on-off events.
 
sk716 said:
There is a LOT of obviously missing data, but since what were working with came from the defense, we have to work with what we got and maybe figure out what they don't want us to see. The Systems Log Events presents a slightly clearer timeline (they line up) without the excess. I've got door events next, I expect it'll be as wild as the Parking Lights section had been. There are many entries that whatever Barry did happened so fast that it logs nearly duplicate data under the same timestamp. I'm sure I've still got a few conversion artifacts, but I believe that the dates and GPS are correct.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that data came from the defense. I'm sure it's been mentioned but I somehow missed it. I thought it was from the prosecution.

I'll look forward to the door events. You sure have done hours of work with this and I appreciate it sk716!
 
Cassady said:
IMO and exerience the state is always quick to disclose incriminating data and evidence in a criminal cases. First, they want the defendant to see how strong their case is. Second, they do not want to risk discovery violations that could lead to the strong evidence being excluded by the court.

In this case, apparently the victim's icloud and RR date were still not disclosed with less that 3 months to trial, 6 months after the prelim and 18 months after the alleged crime. If there was incriminating info in there the state has placed that evidence in jeopardy of being excluded by not disclosing it in a timely manner....IMO.

Thus, I would be surprised if there was any incriminating info in this data...IMO.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I didn’t know this. But as I said many times, I don’t know anything about the law except to obey it. :D
Which apparently is more than BM knows.
 
War of words in Morphew case as attorneys squabble over disgraced detective's opinion

Former Denver Chief Deputy DA Craig Silverman said the prosecution's lack of prompt discovery disclosure is a problem. But, despite the complaints from Barry Morphew's attorneys, he believes the trial will happen.

“Don’t expect for this motion to dismiss to be granted. As for probable cause, Judge Murphy bound this case over for trial and it hardly matters whether a detective approved or disapproved the timing of the arrest,” said Silverman, who added that the Morphew case faces a long road ahead. “Defense is building a record for the trial court, and any possible appellate courts. Expect the Morphew defense team to revisit alleged discovery violations throughout this litigation.”
 
Iwondertoo said:
I didn't realize that data came from the defense. I'm sure it's been mentioned but I somehow missed it. I thought it was from the prosecution.

I'll look forward to the door events. You sure have done hours of work with this and I appreciate it sk716!
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, the defense submitted a very incomplete phone call list and incomplete truck data. They left out key days/times I think. I am sure they don't have to submit the entire record as evidence if they don't want to, but I don't know why they wouldn't unless they just don't want that highlighted. I am sure the prosecution could submit their own complete record though. The night of the 8th on the truck data is missing and something else.. let me go look. I was analyzing that data a few weeks ago and found it interesting they didn't include this info.. might have been Friday night. I also found the phone records all over the place and missing things we know he did.
 
BeckyF said:
Prosecution response to request to dismiss case: Utter nonsense. I love it!
Click to expand...

I found it amusing that the defense had all these reasons, but as the prosecution pointed out, they weren't giving any examples, and the prosecution reiterated the lack of specific instances.

If the defense had all these reasons, why weren't they lined out, bullet pointed, on a dang Venn diagram, instead of general sweeping statements with no back up?

I would love to know what the defense is telling BM at this point. How do they explain that they aren't even in contact with the prosecution, as stated in the response?
 
Cassady said:
IMO and exerience the state is always quick to disclose incriminating data and evidence in a criminal cases. First, they want the defendant to see how strong their case is. Second, they do not want to risk discovery violations that could lead to the strong evidence being excluded by the court.

In this case, apparently the victim's icloud and RR date were still not disclosed with less that 3 months to trial, 6 months after the prelim and 18 months after the alleged crime. If there was incriminating info in there the state has placed that evidence in jeopardy of being excluded by not disclosing it in a timely manner....IMO.

Thus, I would be surprised if there was any incriminating info in this data...IMO.
Click to expand...

Why would they not turn it over in a timely manner then? Is it incompetence or just too much going on? This is such a high profile case, I feel like they would want to make every effort to show they are trying to go by the book. If the evidence shows nothing significant then why withhold it so long? If it shows something, then why withhold it?

I have always wondered about the RR data. It will give us helpful info for sure. When did Suzanne use it last? When did Barry take the bike out of the trunk (he admitted to LE she asked him to remove it some time on Saturday and he did). Was the trunk opened in that 3am hour? It would definitely show us when someone took the bike out whenever that was. If it was sometime when Suzanne was sleeping then that says a lot since Barry was up and moving around well before 4am and he says she wasn't awake and he left her sleeping at 5am.
 
MrsWatson said:
I have to admire Eytan for putting the spin on that Green Dot account. Eytan calls it secret and implies there's something very shady about it. Safe bet is that Suzanne took SO's wise advice to start putting a little money aside for when she left BM. Not very mysterious at all, except maybe news to BM. Do we know how much money was in the account?

How many accounts did BM have that Suzanne didn't know about? I would find that much more mysterious and possibly shady.

MOO
Click to expand...
I really think that account was for her settlement from the house. She was supposed to get her money back and initially I believe she thought the sale was going through in Jan and it was not and ended up being June. Wasn't this account created in Jan? I don't think it was as secret as the defense wants us to believe. I bet Barry even knew about it. If she had set it up for her part of the money from the sale of the Indiana house, then it makes sense he could know. She made it known she wanted the money back and we have the spy pen recording of them talking about it also. Barry might never admit to it, but I suspect he knew she had an account for that money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 359 (members: 91, guests: 268)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
268
Total visitors
359
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,770
Messages
18,257,727
Members
234,757
Latest member
Kezzie
Back
Top