Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #98

[dlk1949]

It's worth remembering how prosecutors use DNA to convict people in murder cases.

They don't scour every surface of crime scenes looking for some DNA. The focus is on surfaces the killer has likely touched, so that they can rule the suspect into a scene or object (e.g the murder weapon).

For example, finding other peoples DNA in BM's truck is meaningless in the case because it's not the crime scene, and you expect to find such DNA. The same logic applies to SM's vehicle, and indeed MM2's vehicle. It's only probative if you find the DNA of someone who shouldn't be there.

So the defence is trying to use a logic that would be laughable if the prosecution tried it.

 

[dlk1949]

DBM. Sorry.

 

[Boxer]

It couldn't be that Judge RL is trained as and previously had a career as a defense lawyer? It has to be that DA LS is problematic?

Evidence allowed should follow the rule of law and not depend on the faults or biases of these two. Judge PM is the one who should be sanctioned for allowing the flimsiness of partial DNA "evidence" to put a man charged with 1st degree murder back on the street.

Lack of proof evident presumption great hinging on that one thing is truly where this started going off the rails.

Before Cahill testifies, he needs a mental health evaluation. He is the most unfit person in this entire case. And that was true even before he carelessly shot himself.

JMO

IIRC and MOO problems with the bench started with the length of the AA.

 

[K9Enzo]

DBM- wrong thread. Apologies

 

[WingsOverTX]

IIRC and MOO problems with the bench started with the length of the AA.

The length of the AA has benefitted us as sleuths, with details that will not qualify as evidentiary and/or inadmissable in court but give us insight we would not otherwise have.
Much great analysis here because of it.

From the beginning I have seen Judge Murphy's criticism of the AA as very odd. He is the one who signed off on its use to take a man into custody for first degree murder. If he was uncomfortable doing that the time to act was before it became the means with which to begin to pursue justice.

Non-lawyers like myself can find it prejudicial to the DA, CBI and LE to infer they erred in bringing the case on the basis of an "unusually long" AA.

Judge Lama continues the same refrain, also making himself appear prejudicial IMO.

How about the judges pointing out to the defense that their tactics and antics, including obvious ongoing dishonest attempts at obfuscation of facts and evidence are not acceptable? Impeaching of witnesses should be honest, not using tactics like changing an exhibit into a format a witness is unfamiliar with without notice (as presented to Grusing at the prelim with the judge giving that a pass).

I'm glad BM is getting an aggressive defense. But I am concerned the judges are leaving the prosecution little recourse in stopping their attempts to confuse & mislead. Like a 4th DNA "suspect." Maybe this prosecution just isn't up to the task. If so, the justice system will have failed. An aggressive defense is not the same as one that wins by dirty tricks and lies getting a pass.

MOO

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I think we will hear about sexual depravity with this one. IMO

I apologize if I missed something. I was confused in regard to the sexual depravity. Did you mean by BM or someone else?

 

[K9Enzo]

I apologize if I missed something. I was confused in regard to the sexual depravity. Did you mean by BM or someone else?

Thank you for alerting me. Wrong thread. This was meant for the guy who was arrested in the missing Naomi Irion case.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The length of the AA has benefitted us as sleuths, with details that will not qualify as evidentiary and/or inadmissable in court but give us insight we would not otherwise have.
Much great analysis here because of it.

From the beginning I have seen Judge Murphy's criticism of the AA as very odd. He is the one who signed off on its use to take a man into custody for first degree murder. If he was uncomfortable doing that the time to act was before it became the means with which to begin to pursue justice.

Non-lawyers like myself can find it prejudicial to the DA, CBI and LE to infer they erred in bringing the case on the basis of an "unusually long" AA.

Judge Lama continues the same refrain, also making himself appear prejudicial IMO.

How about the judges pointing out to the defense that their tactics and antics, including obvious ongoing dishonest attempts at obfuscation of facts and evidence are not acceptable? Impeaching of witnesses should be honest, not using tactics like changing an exhibit into a format a witness is unfamiliar with without notice (as presented to Grusing at the prelim with the judge giving that a pass).

I'm glad BM is getting an aggressive defense. But I am concerned the judges are leaving the prosecution little recourse in stopping their attempts to confuse & mislead. Like a 4th DNA "suspect." Maybe this prosecution just isn't up to the task. If so, the justice system will have failed. An aggressive defense is not the same as one that wins by dirty tricks and lies getting a pass.

MOO

This all began with a premature arrest and arrest affidavit and got worse as prosecution disorganization from the prematurity left them disorganized in turning over documents and playing the “whose on first” scramble. Of course a good defense pounced. I still think this case has been a mess since day one. Perhaps Barry not lawyering up early gave LE and DA false confidence. Perhaps the DNA is meaningless but the obfuscation left prosecution exposed. The prosecution never gets to pick and choose what they turnover. They have to turn it all over. I think people also might not understand that exculpatory simply means favorable to defense…exculpatory doesn’t always mean it exonerates a defendant. We will never know if the preliminary would have had a different outcome if both sides would have had all the information. That is in the rear view window now.

 

[WingsOverTX]

This all began with a premature arrest and arrest affidavit and got worse as prosecution disorganization from the prematurity left them disorganized in turning over documents and playing the “whose on first” scramble. Of course a good defense pounced. I still think this case has been a mess since day one. Perhaps Barry not lawyering up early gave LE and DA false confidence. Perhaps the DNA is meaningless but the obfuscation left prosecution exposed. The prosecution never gets to pick and choose what they turnover. They have to turn it all over. I think people also might not understand that exculpatory simply means favorable to defense…exculpatory doesn’t always mean it exonerates a defendant. We will never know if the preliminary would have had a different outcome if both sides would have had all the information. That is in the rear view window now.

I don't agree. And I don't blame the prosecution except to be disappointed that they do not bring an aggressive attitude into court. I would enjoy seeing some emotional energy on their part. But they can win without it.

IMO this case's main flaw is lack of a body. It would be unwise to delay prosecution on that basis only since it could be years or never before pursuit of justice begins.

The courts' main flaw is hiding this case from the public. It is important that mass media stop being denied any means other than note taking to give us the facts. If we could see both sides in action and judge for ourselves, much frustration would cease because light would shine on the proceedings. Releasing documents in a timely manner would also be less prejudicial to the prosecution. The defense benefits from the hidden nature of this case.

If BM walks and the only thing the public is privy to is 2nd and 3rd hand information plus any docs that are finally released, the right to access public information as enshrined in our Constitution will be the victim here. And that will be the fault of the Colorado legal system that likes to act in secret as much as possible. That is shameful.

JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I don't agree. And I don't blame the prosecution except to be disappointed that they do not bring an aggressive attitude into court. I would enjoy seeing some emotional energy on their part. But they can win without it.

IMO this case's main flaw is lack of a body. It would be unwise to delay prosecution on that basis only since it could be years or never before pursuit of justice begins.

The courts' main flaw is hiding this case from the public. It is important that mass media stop being denied any means other than note taking to give us the facts. If we could see both sides in action and judge for ourselves, much frustration would cease because light would shine on the proceedings. Releasing documents in a timely manner would also be less prejudicial to the prosecution. The defense benefits from the hidden nature of this case.

If BM walks and the only thing the public is privy to is 2nd and 3rd hand information plus any docs that are finally released, justice will be the victim here. And that will be the fault of the Colorado legal system that likes to act in secret as much as possible. That is shameful.

JMO

I don’t totally disagree. I think it would have helped the public better understand the flaws with the arrest affidavit and once that was released I think there was a obligation to release everything. And perhaps we would be discussing more things relative to the case and less characterization of all involved. Not having a substantive how, why and when and no body is pretty unique in my opinion.

 

[abams]

This all began with a premature arrest and arrest affidavit and got worse as prosecution disorganization from the prematurity left them disorganized in turning over documents and playing the “whose on first” scramble. Of course a good defense pounced. I still think this case has been a mess since day one. Perhaps Barry not lawyering up early gave LE and DA false confidence. Perhaps the DNA is meaningless but the obfuscation left prosecution exposed. The prosecution never gets to pick and choose what they turnover. They have to turn it all over. I think people also might not understand that exculpatory simply means favorable to defense…exculpatory doesn’t always mean it exonerates a defendant. We will never know if the preliminary would have had a different outcome if both sides would have had all the information. That is in the rear view window now.

Reading the defense motions it's hard to disagree with this. However, I don't think prosecutorial "disorganization" re: possible exculpatory evidence is a good excuse before the court, especially in a murder case. It's not exactly one the DA should be offering up, but hey who knows with this one.

 

[CGray123]

The length of the AA has benefitted us as sleuths, with details that will not qualify as evidentiary and/or inadmissable in court but give us insight we would not otherwise have.
Much great analysis here because of it.

From the beginning I have seen Judge Murphy's criticism of the AA as very odd. He is the one who signed off on its use to take a man into custody for first degree murder. If he was uncomfortable doing that the time to act was before it became the means with which to begin to pursue justice.

Non-lawyers like myself can find it prejudicial to the DA, CBI and LE to infer they erred in bringing the case on the basis of an "unusually long" AA.

Judge Lama continues the same refrain, also making himself appear prejudicial IMO.

How about the judges pointing out to the defense that their tactics and antics, including obvious ongoing dishonest attempts at obfuscation of facts and evidence are not acceptable? Impeaching of witnesses should be honest, not using tactics like changing an exhibit into a format a witness is unfamiliar with without notice (as presented to Grusing at the prelim with the judge giving that a pass).

I'm glad BM is getting an aggressive defense. But I am concerned the judges are leaving the prosecution little recourse in stopping their attempts to confuse & mislead. Like a 4th DNA "suspect." Maybe this prosecution just isn't up to the task. If so, the justice system will have failed. An aggressive defense is not the same as one that wins by dirty tricks and lies getting a pass.

MOO

I think this is fair criticism. I have criticized both judges for much the same reasons. I just don't share your view that their acts and omissions arise from bias or prejudice.

I speculate that Judge M signed the warrant expecting that it would be cleaned up before release to the public with input from the prosecution and the defense. He withheld it from release for that specific purpose. But given his strongly expressed concerns I was dumbstruck by his decision to release it without redacting the evidence he believed was inadmissible at trial. I can only guess that he felt confident he could find an unbiased jury regardless, applying the usual standard and using the normal method.

He could not forsee that SD would be arrested or that he would be removed from the case because he had a longstanding relationship with the name partner in the firm that represented her. I speculate that she selected the firm with help from E&N, who saw an advantage in disrupting the proceedings by removing the one judge in the district who is most experienced in handling criminal law cases.

I disagreed with Judge L's decision to change venue. I thought he failed to apply the legal test in the proper manner and that he relied on anecdotal information, not data. I don't think it will affect the outcome, but I am offended that Chaffee County citizens have been unfairly deprived of the opportunity to do justice for one of their own. However, I see this as an issue of competence, not bias or prejudice.

But I must say, again, it's undeniable that Linda Stanley's decisions in this case have contributed to these problems. She gave the defense sticks to beat the prosecution with by: filing before the case had been properly organized and planned; failing (twice) to assure that the was properly edited to AA to remove evidence that was clearly unfairly prejudicial and inadmissible and that contributed to prejudgement of the case by those who read it; and by holding a press conference in which she announced that BM had asked for a lawyer after his arrest and was no longer speaking to investigators. These were all decisions that subordinates would not have made without consulting her. Given her interest in appearing aggressive to her constituents and her less than stellar professional history, I am not surprised by these missteps.

Nonetheless, I agree that Judge L must maintain control of the courtroom and come down hard on BM's attorneys when they are out of bounds. Those attorneys are far more experienced than he is, and they have a sense of how far they can go, so Judge L will have his hands full. Again, I don't see this so much as a matter of bias as a matter of experience, judgment, and competence.

But as others have said, the prosecution needs to keep is simple and stop scoring own goals.

 

[justtrish]

It's worth remembering how prosecutors use DNA to convict people in murder cases.

They don't scour every surface of crime scenes looking for some DNA. The focus is on surfaces the killer has likely touched, so that they can rule the suspect into a scene or object (e.g the murder weapon).

For example, finding other peoples DNA in BM's truck is meaningless in the case because it's not the crime scene, and you expect to find such DNA. The same logic applies to SM's vehicle, and indeed MM2's vehicle. It's only probative if you find the DNA of someone who shouldn't be there.

So the defence is trying to use a logic that would be laughable if the prosecution tried it.

Oh great point!!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

dNA on The helmet would be “more significant”, the bike, things in the house. The car glovebox is just curious. Other than that it does not exonerate but it is legally exculpable and must be given to the defense. Which I believe is their point…defense needs the time to do their own investigation and decide it’s importance to their defense. Finding out anything in a trial like this just weeks before trial is not right. People are calling it smoke and mirrors but the reality is it is the process in this trial that is the problem not necessarily the DNA. We might never have heard of the DNA had it been turned over quickly after the reports from CBI were issued and rejected from need by the defense.

 

[CGray123]

The courts' main flaw is hiding this case from the public. It is important that mass media stop being denied any means other than note taking to give us the facts. If we could see both sides in action and judge for ourselves, much frustration would cease because light would shine on the proceedings. Releasing documents in a timely manner would also be less prejudicial to the prosecution. The defense benefits from the hidden nature of this case.

If BM walks and the only thing the public is privy to is 2nd and 3rd hand information plus any docs that are finally released, the right to access public information as enshrined in our Constitution will be the victim here. And that will be the fault of the Colorado legal system that likes to act in secret as much as possible. That is shameful.

JMO

RSBM;BBM.

I respectfully disagree with the bolded statements. Since the PH, the court has made available to the press copies of all the documents they requested, including verbatim transcripts of the proceedings. I assume the press was charged for transcripts and perhaps for other extraordinary costs. What they haven't done is post absolutely everything on their website where individuals like us can see them at no cost. I'd love it if they did that, and I hope they eventually do, but I assume there are staffing and technical issues to overcome.

As much as I believe in open records and transparent government decision making, I also believe in the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. The latter is a right enshrined in the constitution: the right of the press to access public information is not (see In re People v. Sir Mario Owens). The inherent tension between pre-trial publicity and the right to a fair trial has long been recognized (see Sheppard v. Maxwell). In my view, there are sound reasons that courts tend to keep some documents from the public until after the trial, and limit access to the proceedings themselves: the press demonstrates a propensity to sensationalize, creating the kind of "circus atmosphere" the SCOTUS has criticized and that is incompatible with the seriousness of proceedings in which a person's life and liberty may be taken (see, e.g., Nancy Grace). These proceedings should not be grist for the entertainment industry or the disinformation blogosphere, IMO.

Judge M was operating under a brand new rule, COCrP 55.1, which is a major step toward transparency. However, it recognizes that openness must be balanced against other substantial interests and requires that judges who close records to protect those interests articulate them in a written order and specify the date the order will expire, as Judge M did at the outset of the proceedings.

The people of Chafee County, who have lost a valued community member and whose sense of their own safety has been violated, have been deprived of the opportunity to consider the just resolution of the matter recommended by their elected officials, largely because an AA containing unfairly prejudicial and inadmissible evidence was released un-redacted. That's what is shameful IMO.

 

[Megnut]

Why didn't Murphy simply refuse to sign the warrant in the form it was in? Was he obligated to, if it met the threshold, despite about 80 pages of extraneous detail?

 

[justtrish]

RSBM;BBM.

I respectfully disagree with the bolded statements. Since the PH, the court has made available to the press copies of all the documents they requested, including verbatim transcripts of the proceedings. I assume the press was charged for transcripts and perhaps for other extraordinary costs. What they haven't done is post absolutely everything on their website where individuals like us can see them at no cost. I'd love it if they did that, and I hope they eventually do, but I assume there are staffing and technical issues to overcome.

As much as I believe in open records and transparent government decision making, I also believe in the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. The latter is a right enshrined in the constitution: the right of the press to access public information is not (see In re People v. Sir Mario Owens). The inherent tension between pre-trial publicity and the right to a fair trial has long been recognized (see Sheppard v. Maxwell). In my view, there are sound reasons that courts tend to keep some documents from the public until after the trial, and limit access to the proceedings themselves: the press demonstrates a propensity to sensationalize, creating the kind of "circus atmosphere" the SCOTUS has criticized and that is incompatible with the seriousness of proceedings in which a person's life and liberty may be taken (see, e.g., Nancy Grace). These proceedings should not be grist for the entertainment industry or the disinformation blogosphere, IMO.

Judge M was operating under a brand new rule, COCrP 55.1, which is a major step toward transparency. However, it recognizes that openness must be balanced against other substantial interests and requires that judges who close records to protect those interests articulate them in a written order and specify the date the order will expire, as Judge M did at the outset of the proceedings.

The people of Chafee County, who have lost a valued community member and whose sense of their own safety has been violated, have been deprived of the opportunity to consider the just resolution of the matter recommended by their elected officials, largely because an AA containing unfairly prejudicial and inadmissible evidence was released un-redacted. That's what is shameful IMO.

I don't know that they have made the documents available to the public. I mean sure we could all buy them, but Plunder on Youtube did buy them and the instructions were she could read some of them, but couldn't post them in their entirety. So to me that means they aren't really available unless each person that wants to read the entire thing purchases it at the same cost that plunder did. That is not really making it available. It shouldn't cost the average person hundreds of dollars to read court transcripts. Plunder certainly can make money from her youtube channel to recoup costs, but the average person that wants to read what is going on isn't doing this to make money. The news stations could certainly pay for them, but they also wouldn't be allowed to post them in their entirety so I don't really see those as being available. We need to see/hear it all to understand context most of the time and if the public had a recording of these proceedings it would clear up most of the discussion and speculation going on. Even having one camera recording to post later would do and not allow other electronics in. We lost a lot with people taking notes to tweet during breaks or having someone read parts of transcripts later. To me that seems to be worse trying to piece together tweets to understand what exactly is happening and that would taint potential jurors more than just having the transcripts to read fully.

 

[MassGuy]

I don’t totally disagree. I think it would have helped the public better understand the flaws with the arrest affidavit and once that was released I think there was a obligation to release everything. And perhaps we would be discussing more things relative to the case and less characterization of all involved. Not having a substantive how, why and when and no body is pretty unique in my opinion.

We know how, why, and when though.

Barry tells us that the dart in the dryer is involved, first claiming that he'd never fired one in the state of Colorado, then claiming who shot two deer for their antlers the previous month.

No one is dumb enough to believe that is true, as it's ridiculous on its face. But if one is inclined to give Barry the benefit of the doubt there, then the fact that deer don't even have antlers that time of year (or certainly ones you'd keep as a trophy), closes the door.

I've noticed that killers have a habit of confessing to lesser crimes, which is what Barry was doing there.

The "when" is answered by Suzanne's phone activity. Based on established patterns, and the significance of the timeframe (lover, wedding, Mother's Day, daughters away), a couple hours of her not using her phone would be suspicious. She went dark for something like 15, before her phone powered down forever.

Barry's phone and truck activity, coupled with his lies, offer further support for this.

The why is easy, and Murphy focused on two aspects of motive, both with a great deal of nuance.

He pointed to her asking for a divorce, and Barry's discovery of the affair.

A controlling man was about to lose all control, and he was powerless to stop it this time.

So he did something that countless men have done in the past, and will do in the future.

Barry Morphew murdered his wife.

 

[MassGuy]

The length of the AA has benefitted us as sleuths, with details that will not qualify as evidentiary and/or inadmissable in court but give us insight we would not otherwise have.
Much great analysis here because of it.

From the beginning I have seen Judge Murphy's criticism of the AA as very odd. He is the one who signed off on its use to take a man into custody for first degree murder. If he was uncomfortable doing that the time to act was before it became the means with which to begin to pursue justice.

Non-lawyers like myself can find it prejudicial to the DA, CBI and LE to infer they erred in bringing the case on the basis of an "unusually long" AA.

Judge Lama continues the same refrain, also making himself appear prejudicial IMO.

How about the judges pointing out to the defense that their tactics and antics, including obvious ongoing dishonest attempts at obfuscation of facts and evidence are not acceptable? Impeaching of witnesses should be honest, not using tactics like changing an exhibit into a format a witness is unfamiliar with without notice (as presented to Grusing at the prelim with the judge giving that a pass).

I'm glad BM is getting an aggressive defense. But I am concerned the judges are leaving the prosecution little recourse in stopping their attempts to confuse & mislead. Like a 4th DNA "suspect." Maybe this prosecution just isn't up to the task. If so, the justice system will have failed. An aggressive defense is not the same as one that wins by dirty tricks and lies getting a pass.

MOO

Yup. I love the nuance of the AA, as it gives us tremendous insight into Barry's character and thought process.

It also may have told us how Barry disposed of Suzanne:

Barry's reaction to Grusing bringing up a mine was such an enormous tell, that I'm now convinced that's where she is.

And I absolutely hated the mine idea up until I read that:

"SA Grusing talked about mine shafts and Barry shifted in his chair. The possibility was posed to Barry that she could not be seen in one of those, also considering the staging of the bike and helmet. Barry said, "If that is the case, then why wouldn't we have as many thousands of Agents as they've said has been on this case, why don't we have thousands of people doing a grid search, looking for any, anything that could be -a dig site, a bury site, a piece of clothing?" Page 92.

So Barry shifts in his chair, but then says something way more important than merely his physical reaction, he suggests search methods for a grave, which would not help them find her if she is in a mine.

It's really transparent, and doesn't follow Grusing's statement at all.

I believe this is the reason that several mines have been searched since he was arrested. I'm sure many were searched prior to that as well.

So I think she's in a mine shaft within an hour (or so) drive from the home (based on the timeline).

 

[CGray123]

I don't know that they have made the documents available to the public. I mean sure we could all buy them, but Plunder on Youtube did buy them and the instructions were she could read some of them, but couldn't post them in their entirety. So to me that means they aren't really available unless each person that wants to read the entire thing purchases it at the same cost that plunder did. That is not really making it available. It shouldn't cost the average person hundreds of dollars to read court transcripts. Plunder certainly can make money from her youtube channel to recoup costs, but the average person that wants to read what is going on isn't doing this to make money. The news stations could certainly pay for them, but they also wouldn't be allowed to post them in their entirety so I don't really see those as being available. We need to see/hear it all to understand context most of the time and if the public had a recording of these proceedings it would clear up most of the discussion and speculation going on. Even having one camera recording to post later would do and not allow other electronics in. We lost a lot with people taking notes to tweet during breaks or having someone read parts of transcripts later. To me that seems to be worse trying to piece together tweets to understand what exactly is happening and that would taint potential jurors more than just having the transcripts to read fully.

BBM. I tend to agree with much of your criticism and wish all motions, exhibits, responses, and decisions were posted on the court website when they are filed. The open records law does not currently require this, but I see no legal reason to require a request before release. I am giving the court the benefit of the doubt by assuming the limited posting on the website relates to a resource issue.

As to the bolded statement, transcripts are not court records or any other form of public record unless they are filed with the court by a party. Even if they were, any restriction on their use could not have been made by the court without a written order explaining why (there is no such order).

I believe the use restriction most likely would have been imposed by the court reporter - I speculate that she claims the copyright and wants a share of Plunder's revenue if they are used as clickbait. "Fair use" she can't restrict, but publication she can.

I haven't decided were I will come down on streaming court proceedings live in real time. The "circus atmosphere" that continues to concern the SCOTUS has only grown more poisonous in the age of social media and extreme partisanship. I wouldn't want ranting conspiracy theorists who invent facts, or "vivid" personalities like NG, or clickbait artists of any stripe to have any influence over the judge or jury in proceedings involving any of my fellow citizens, let alone me or my loved ones. Until I can have confidence that won't happen, I will not support routine live streaming of court hearings.