Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #99

[WingsOverTX]

I’m curious why the judge would not allow an expert to testify about tranquilizing animals?

Prejudice? It's looking like everything important to this prosecution is prejudicial in this judge's eyes.

When BM is convicted, he won't be able to say it was due to prejudicial evidence because the prosecution isn't allowed to present basic explanatory information about evidence.

I look forward to the defense's courtroom victories causing PTSD for BM for the rest of his life. I know, that's unrealistic since he's a narcissist. Watching years of appeals go nowhere will be sweet justice, though.
JMO

 

[Yesiamapirate]

Yup! He said "Do you girls want to split a steak, and eat it off the same plate?"

Well played!

 

[Megnut]

Ooooooo, the Defense really wants to divorce Barry from all things tranquilizy.

You think they'd do that because it's irrelevant?

I wonder if Barry's beloved inoperable dart gun had residue on it.

Duck residue.

Duck, duck, grey duck.

Duct tape.

I'll bet the defense would like to throw out the defendant's entire workbench, including everything the defendant already threw out.

Duck, duck, desperate defense duck.

JMO

 

[O.Incandenza]

I’m curious why the judge would not allow an expert to testify about tranquilizing animals?

Any side who wants an expert to testify needs to qualify them for the opinions they'll present at the trial. It's hard to know based on the tweets why this expert was disqualified, but if I had to guess it's because the prosecution wanted a veterinarian to testify about the effects of animal tranquilizers on humans. While a veterinarian might be qualified to testify as an expert about the effects on animals, it seems like a doctor or someone like that would be more qualified to testify about the effect on humans.

 

[MassGuy]

So I’m concerned if the judge is partial to the defense by allowing them to strike so many witnesses, thereby excluding evidence for trial.

Or has the prosecution derailed their own case by not being prepared with what their expert witnesses were going to say?

Will any of the evidence in the AA even come in?

Is a murderer going to be acquitted?

These people can still testify, just not as expert witnesses.

I'm not worried.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

No surprise here. My guys tend to buy multiples when they find shorts or pants they like. There isn't a ton of value in that other than I "think" prosecution wanted to say that Barry did the laundry and threw his shorts in with the needle sheath in the pocket "because" his shorts were in with the sheets. Apparently there is yet another hearing on the 29th. Apparently a forensic nurse looked at the pictures, but didn't actually examine the scratches on his arm or the abrasions on his hands so that one is up in the air according to Lauren.




Lauren Scharf
@LaurenScharfTV

Prosecution believes the shorts #BarryMorphew was wearing on May 9 were in the dryer where LE found the needle sheath cap. Defense says BM has many of the same shorts and one of the pairs were found in his truck.

Replying to
@LaurenScharfTV
One of the expert witnesses the defense wants to strike is a forensic nurse who looked at photos of #BarryMorphew scratches on his arms/hand, but did not meet examine BM in person. That will be determined on April 29.

 

[Megnut]

Can anyone lip read?

Yeah, I can't. But safe bet it started with,

"Listen..."

JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

So I’m concerned if the judge is partial to the defense by allowing them to strike so many witnesses, thereby excluding evidence for trial.

Or has the prosecution derailed their own case by not being prepared with what their expert witnesses were going to say?

Will any of the evidence in the AA even come in?

Is a murderer going to be acquitted?

Remember two judges and many legal experts said there was quite abit in the AA that would not be admitted so some of it you are just seeing now as what will be allowed is codified through these hearings.

 

[DizzyB]

I definitely think it’s normal to sell your wife’s vehicle weeks after she went missing.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/spencersoicher/status/1509267523224555521?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

The judge ruled that a vet cannot testify about how an animal tranquilizer dart could sedate a human, based on a dart sheath found in the dryer.
Also due to a blunder on the prosecutor's part in collecting and sharing information, a K9 handler cannot testify for the prosecution.

https://twitter.com/spencersoicher/status/1509268740868763649?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

The prosecution was given another violation for that. Morphew's team asked to have the case thrown out based on the pattern of behavior. Judge Lama wouldn't do that, but is still considering previous motion for dismissal.
"Pattern is now greater, there's no way around it." -Lama

 

[mom2chloe]

Any side who wants an expert to testify needs to qualify them for the opinions they'll present at the trial. It's hard to know based on the tweets why this expert was disqualified, but if I had to guess it's because the prosecution wanted a veterinarian to testify about the effects of animal tranquilizers on humans. While a veterinarian might be qualified to testify as an expert about the effects on animals, it seems like a doctor or someone like that would be more qualified to testify about the effect on humans.

So is there a possibility another medical professional can testify or is it too late for that? I can see the benefit of both a veterinarian and a MD testifying. Maybe an anesthesiologist expert witness? Possibly even a PHD?
I don’t understand this Judge at all and hate the fact that we the audience are reduced to tweets. Continuing to keep us in the dark while feeding us a load of crap. IMO

 

[Megnut]

I definitely think it’s normal to sell your wife’s vehicle weeks after she went missing.

Normal, just like tranquilizing your trophy mount to saw it off the wall because it didn't want to be there anymore.

JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Any side who wants an expert to testify needs to qualify them for the opinions they'll present at the trial. It's hard to know based on the tweets why this expert was disqualified, but if I had to guess it's because the prosecution wanted a veterinarian to testify about the effects of animal tranquilizers on humans. While a veterinarian might be qualified to testify as an expert about the effects on animals, it seems like a doctor or someone like that would be more qualified to testify about the effect on humans.

I wonder why on earth they would have picked a veterinarian? That one seems like a no brainer for the judge. Surely they could have found a doctor or scientist that could testify about the actual drug chemicals and potential affects on humans. I have shook my head so many times during this trial my husband probably thinks I've developed some rare disease.

 

[susiQ]

These people can still testify, just not as expert witnesses.

I'm not worried.

I wondered about that! Thanks for this. Feeling much better now! . Regardless of whether they are considered “expert,” I have no doubt their testimony is relevant and will further the prosecution’s case against Bare. JMO

 

[waldojabba]

https://twitter.com/spencersoicher/status/1509267523224555521?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

The judge ruled that a vet cannot testify about how an animal tranquilizer dart could sedate a human, based on a dart sheath found in the dryer.
Also due to a blunder on the prosecutor's part in collecting and sharing information, a K9 handler cannot testify for the prosecution.

https://twitter.com/spencersoicher/status/1509268740868763649?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

The prosecution was given another violation for that. Morphew's team asked to have the case thrown out based on the pattern of behavior. Judge Lama wouldn't do that, but is still considering previous motion for dismissal.
"Pattern is now greater, there's no way around it." -Lama

I am wonderng why the prosecution is having such a struggle procedurally with this case after all this time? Are they just inexperienced ? A "blunder" on the prosecutions part in collecting and sharing info? Bewildering. Fingers crossed they get it together. If they cannot shape up, dismissal without prejudice might be a better route?
Hopefully Lauren has a "live" later to go over it all in greater detail so we can really get a sense of what this "pattern of behavior" statement by the judge was all about.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1509276031730995211?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

Some updates from the #BarryMorphew case:
Judge rules several of the prosecutions expert witnesses will NOT be able to testify as an expert at trial.
-Doug Spence: a K-9 handler who assisted in the search for Suzanne
-Lisa Wolf: CPW expert on tranquilizer darts and serum


This makes 12 out of 14 expert witnesses on the prosecutions side that will NOT be allowed to testify as experts at the trial.

Prosecutors say it wasn’t intentional but because it was their witness the judge ruled the pros was once again in violation of a discovery order because they didn’t produce a copy of Spence’s report.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1509277028696178693?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

On the topic of Doug Spence-
He generated a report from the search with his K-9.
He says prosecutors never asked for it so he didn’t give it to them.
Prosecutors didn’t know about the report until today.
Defense says they knew about it but never got a copy

 

[Love Never Fails]

https://twitter.com/spencersoicher/status/1509267523224555521?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

The judge ruled that a vet cannot testify about how an animal tranquilizer dart could sedate a human, based on a dart sheath found in the dryer.
Also due to a blunder on the prosecutor's part in collecting and sharing information, a K9 handler cannot testify for the prosecution.

https://twitter.com/spencersoicher/status/1509268740868763649?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

The prosecution was given another violation for that. Morphew's team asked to have the case thrown out based on the pattern of behavior. Judge Lama wouldn't do that, but is still considering previous motion for dismissal.
"Pattern is now greater, there's no way around it." -Lama

He is definitely not liking the DA here. It’s not a good look for her.

 

[Love Never Fails]

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1509277028696178693?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

On the topic of Doug Spence-
He generated a report from the search with his K-9.
He says prosecutors never asked for it so he didn’t give it to them.
Prosecutors didn’t know about the report until today.
Defense says they knew about it but never got a copy

Just wow. Ok LS, throw your case.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1509278043898056706?s=21&t=KyxF3Rftc6toP3tDj0daYQ

Defense asked for sanctions including a dismissal and/or for the prosecution to pay restitution for preparations for todays hearing.

Judge denied both requests.

Prosecutors admitted they did not know there was a report and they themselves decided to dismiss the witness.