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

[al66pine]

Gun Lights. Weapon-Mounted Lights.

,.. Trying to figure out what a gun light is...

@Cindizzi sbm. Some info sources from my dive down the rabbit hole, below.*
Intended for low light conditions, any user (military, LE, civvy) handling a gun w light mounted on it (instead having flashlight unattached to gun) may extend finger to switch the light on, but instead, pull firearm trigger by mistake. The manu's design & placement of switch on the light is important.

Denver Police Chief addressed that concern in 2014 Denver Post interview** linked in your post. Per article, he banned his force from using certain models of light for weapon mounting. Current DPD policy, IDK. Current CBI policy, IDK.

Seems likely imo some weapon-mounted lights are permitted in all P.D.s. There are always some low light conditions, where an LEO dedicating both hands to operate a light and gun separately incurs unwarranted danger. A gun w light mounted to it allows LEO's non-dominant hand free to defend self, to shield another person, etc. my2ct.
{ ETA. Added paragraph}
________________________________
* Tactical light - Wikipedia
Info for any/all users of gun lights, not focused on LE.
^ The Martialist: The Magazine For Those Who Fight Unfairly
2 pages re LE use of flashlights and guns.
^Do elephants jump? : Feldman, David : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
** Gun-mounted flashlights spark concerns in wake of accidental Denver police shootings – The Denver Post (Mar. 2014)

 

[OldCop]

Still nitpicking the AA. Copied this section from @sk716’s excellent timeline:
(Barry Morphew Interview – March 5, 2021 – Part 2)
SA Grusing asked Barry about accounting for mileage when he saw the bull elk, whether he climbed or how he turned around. Barry said, “No, I just turned around.” When asked where, Barry stated, “Garfield, probably the first place that I could tum left in, I just- I didn’t go in and then turn around. I just backed in and went straight to Broomsfield.”
This does not make sense to me. The Garfield road would be on his right as he traveled west on 50.
However, the road where SM’s helmet was found was on his left. He turned left on that road, CR 226, went down away out of sight of Hwy 50, threw out the helmet, and then continued on until he came to 225 near the intersection of 50. He got back on 50 and continued on towards 285 in Poncha Springs where he turned north to head to Broomfield.
He told Grusing he turned left then backed in because he didn’t want to put himself driving right by the helmet’s location. (I think he actually meant to say he backed out, as in a 3 point turn.) MOO

 

[Cindizzi]

Still nitpicking the AA. Copied this section from @sk716’s excellent timeline:
(Barry Morphew Interview – March 5, 2021 – Part 2)
SA Grusing asked Barry about accounting for mileage when he saw the bull elk, whether he climbed or how he turned around. Barry said, “No, I just turned around.” When asked where, Barry stated, “Garfield, probably the first place that I could tum left in, I just- I didn’t go in and then turn around. I just backed in and went straight to Broomsfield.”
This does not make sense to me. The Garfield road would be on his right as he traveled west on 50.
However, the road where SM’s helmet was found was on his left. He turned left on that road, CR 226, went down away out of sight of Hwy 50, threw out the helmet, and then continued on until he came to 225 near the intersection of 50. He got back on 50 and continued on towards 285 in Poncha Springs where he turned north to head to Broomfield.
He told Grusing he turned left then backed in because he didn’t want to put himself driving right by the helmet’s location. (I think he actually meant to say he backed out, as in a 3 point turn.) MOO

From that same interview.
He says he stopped in the road. Then says he didn’t.

 

[mrjitty]

Of course they are. They don't have a defense, there is no exculpatory evidence. All they've got is deny and distract.

Yep

 

[Cindizzi]

 

[Cindizzi]

Another little preview of tonight’s Dateline.

I hope we aren’t going to see a lot of victim blaming in this.
EDIT. I hope we aren’t going to see ANY.

https://twitter.com/datelinenbc/status/1496652345639321601?s=21

 

[mrjitty]

Still nitpicking the AA. Copied this section from @sk716’s excellent timeline:
(Barry Morphew Interview – March 5, 2021 – Part 2)
SA Grusing asked Barry about accounting for mileage when he saw the bull elk, whether he climbed or how he turned around. Barry said, “No, I just turned around.” When asked where, Barry stated, “Garfield, probably the first place that I could tum left in, I just- I didn’t go in and then turn around. I just backed in and went straight to Broomsfield.”
This does not make sense to me. The Garfield road would be on his right as he traveled west on 50.
However, the road where SM’s helmet was found was on his left. He turned left on that road, CR 226, went down away out of sight of Hwy 50, threw out the helmet, and then continued on until he came to 225 near the intersection of 50. He got back on 50 and continued on towards 285 in Poncha Springs where he turned north to head to Broomfield.
He told Grusing he turned left then backed in because he didn’t want to put himself driving right by the helmet’s location. (I think he actually meant to say he backed out, as in a 3 point turn.) MOO

Ah - so you think he turned left and looped back down to the intersection where he turned west in the first place? That makes a lot of sense...

It will be interesting if the telematics can show no stops on that section of his drive

 

[mrjitty]

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1497036035498274822?s=21

In Fremont Co. Court, #BarryMorphew motions hearing discussed what will be allowed during the trial scheduled for April 28.

“We believe they (prosecution) are going to call officer after officer after officer testifying about the prosecutors theory of the case,” defense said.

Which makes sense given what we know about the defence case to date.

 

[mrjitty]

Regarding the subpoenas sent out by defense, why would they want to question the director and deputy director of the CBI? I can see calling the head of the major crimes unit. But the other two are pretty high up the food chain.

They are fishing for some kind of defence.

There is real danger for the defence in this approach because they can end up sparking an avalanche of evidence proving how the prosecution eliminated the defence theories.

I experienced this on a recent case where the defence overpromised on shadowy killers in opening, then got killed when Law Enforcement testified

 

[mrjitty]

In regard to the 3 DNA CODIS Matches from #SuzanneMorphew Range Rover glovebox, Prosecutor Mark Hulbert said "It doesn't have the weight it does that it had in August (during the prelim)."

He said an investigation has ruled them out, but the DNA is still pending at the lab.

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1497037588183625732?s=21

This is exactly the kind of danger I mean in my post above

The defence could rave on about the shadowy 'real' killer - only for the evidence to rule "him" out at trial

 

[al66pine]

Gun Lights. Part 2. Cahill & CBI Weapon?

... gun light ...why Cahill would lie about when he bought it. Sounds like after he lied he went and bought a new one ( I guess for the date on the receipt?) to cover his lie. JMO

@Cindizzi bbm sbm Yes, good question. Going back to what* @MassGuy quoted, post 45, Cahill had installed his own personally owned gun light on CBI-issued firearm. Was gunlight on an approved or non-approved list of gun-lights, for use w that CBI gun?
Did he have plans to retire that day, remove the light, turn in gun???
Either approved or not approved, okay, I can see someone doing that. Still a big co-hinky-dink.
Or
If no plan to retire, did a special circumstance that day prompt/compel him to remove (possibly unapproved) light from gun? Say, inventory/audit type function? "Investigators, present your gun, ammo, etc at (time & place) tomorrow, like we do quarterly/annually." Or surprise inspection?
Really s-t-r-e-c-h-i-n-g here. my2ct. Anyone have plausible alternative?

_________________________________________
* "The CBI Internal Affairs investigation found that Cahill was attempting to remove a gun-light that he owned from his CBI issued weapon because he said he was planning to resign from the CBI that day.
"Cahill bought a new gun-light to attempt to cover his lie when he was interviewed by another CBI agent.
"Before admitting to the truth, "Cahill initially lied on four occasions upon being specifically asked when he purchased the new gun-light before correction," the report obtained by 9Wants to Know states." bbm
* Defense attorneys file motion to dismiss Barry Morphew's murder case

 

[mrjitty]

Eytan pressed her case, citing the thousands of pages of documents and the time needed to get through them, saying they couldn’t prepare a defense if they didn’t know what evidence from the discovery they had been given would be used."

I know this is from the previous hearing but this is a ridiculous submission.

We don't like how decades of trial procedure works!

Of course the prosecution does give a sense of the case against the defendant, the evidence that exists and the witnesses.

The defendant knows the "real truth"

 

[mrjitty]

Gun Lights. Part 2. Cahill & CBI Weapon?
@Cindizzi bbm sbm Yes, good question. Going back to what @MassGuy quoted, post 45, Cahill had installed his own personally owned gun light on CBI-issued firearm. Was gunlight on an approved or non-approved list of gun-lights, for use w that CBI gun?
Did he have plans to retire that day, remove the light, turn in gun???
Either approved or not approved, okay, I can see someone doing that. Still a big co-hinky-dink.
Or
If no plan to retire, did a special circumstance that day prompt/compel him to remove (possibly unapproved) light from gun? Say, inventory/audit type function? "Investigators, present your gun, ammo, etc at (time & place) tomorrow, like we do quarterly/annually." Or surprise inspection?
Really s-t-r-e-c-h-i-n-g here. my2ct. Anyone have plausible alternative?

_________________________________________
"The CBI Internal Affairs investigation found that Cahill was attempting to remove a gun-light that he owned from his CBI issued weapon because he said he was planning to resign from the CBI that day.
"Cahill bought a new gun-light to attempt to cover his lie when he was interviewed by another CBI agent.
"Before admitting to the truth, "Cahill initially lied on four occasions upon being specifically asked when he purchased the new gun-light before correction," the report obtained by 9Wants to Know states." bbm
* Defense attorneys file motion to dismiss Barry Morphew's murder case

It may be as simple as he was messing around with his gun after a few drinks, for whatever reason, and shot himself.

Such negligent action likely to have consequences, therefore he made up some story.

 

[Cindizzi]

Gun Lights. Part 2. Cahill & CBI Weapon?
@Cindizzi bbm sbm Yes, good question. Going back to what @MassGuy quoted, post 45, Cahill had installed his own personally owned gun light on CBI-issued firearm. Was gunlight on an approved or non-approved list of gun-lights, for use w that CBI gun?
Did he have plans to retire that day, remove the light, turn in gun???
Either approved or not approved, okay, I can see someone doing that. Still a big co-hinky-dink.
Or
If no plan to retire, did a special circumstance that day prompt/compel him to remove (possibly unapproved) light from gun? Say, inventory/audit type function? "Investigators, present your gun, ammo, etc at (time & place) tomorrow, like we do quarterly/annually." Or surprise inspection?
Really s-t-r-e-c-h-i-n-g here. my2ct. Anyone have plausible alternative?

_________________________________________
"The CBI Internal Affairs investigation found that Cahill was attempting to remove a gun-light that he owned from his CBI issued weapon because he said he was planning to resign from the CBI that day.
"Cahill bought a new gun-light to attempt to cover his lie when he was interviewed by another CBI agent.
"Before admitting to the truth, "Cahill initially lied on four occasions upon being specifically asked when he purchased the new gun-light before correction," the report obtained by 9Wants to Know states." bbm
* Defense attorneys file motion to dismiss Barry Morphew's murder case

Thanks for the research sources.
Earlier I said maybe he bought a new one to “ cover his lie” because it had to do with the date he bought it or the amount of time he had owned it.
But now I’m thinking that it could be it was the type of gun light.
Makes more sense after researching .
Perhaps the first one was not allowed by the CBI.
Very interesting.
JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Bringing @Seattle1 post over from another thread regarding CBI Agent JC background:

URL="Still Missing - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #92"]CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #92[/URL]

 

[Kemug]

Barry told SA Grusing that he thought Suzanne was abducted by someone. SA Grusing explained that the last similar violent act that occurred in the Salida area happened in 1980. Barry was informed of the time of day Suzanne was riding, the low-traffic area, her minimal exposure in the community and other low-risk factors and stabilizers in her life. SA Grusing told Barry this looked like an "intimate partner homicide" and Barry did not object.

RSBM
Perhaps good ol' Barry didn't object because he didn't understand all the big words.

 

[MassGuy]

RSBM
Perhaps good ol' Barry didn't object because he didn't understand all the big words.

Lol. I thought the same, as it's a genuine defense when you're talking about an idiot.

"Inti... what icide?"

"My client doesn't understand what words mean!"

 

[HongKongPhooey]

If I’m understanding correctly from the titbits we had from yesterday….

On one hand, defence are trying to discredit Cahill because of the gun incident (what that has to do with evidence and Barry’s ramblings - well, nothing, basically).

While on the other hand defence are jumping on some alleged comment the same man made about the arrest being premature. As if in this instance, he’s the authority.

and JMO

 

[mrjitty]

The real damage of the Cahill fiasco is the lying - that makes him a potentially unreliable witness, except where his evidence can be supported from corroboration.

On the positive side, it doesn't really seem his direct evidence is that important

What convicts BM is the digital evidence and his pre-trial statements.

 

[MrsWatson]

No matter what Cahill did, or didn't do wrt his firearm, it doesn't change what BM did and didn't do, in the time surrounding Suzanne's disappearance.