Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #102

[mrjitty]

Not saying that…saying that it is much easier for jurors to convict in my opinion when there is direct forensic evidence for the “how” question and “where question”. I think means, motive,opportunity are great but the problem with circumstances is not getting challenged on the probabilities.

To be fair there is 'direct' digital evidence of the "where"

The how is more opaque

 

[MassGuy]

RSBM

This is why I don't quite understand the idea that the case was brought too early

There was more than enough time to analyse the digital evidence, which is what the case is all about.

I think it was brought too early in the sense that everything wasn't organized and ready to turn over to the defense. As we know, the defense capitalized heavily on that.

But I totally agree, this idea that that it was brought too early (in reference to the evidence), is absolutely insane.

 

[mrjitty]

I think it was brought too early in the sense that everything wasn't organized and ready to turn over to the defense. As we know, the defense capitalized heavily on that.

But I totally agree, this idea that that it was brought too early (in reference to the evidence), is absolutely insane.

Yes I agree with that - they are somehow institutionally a mess.

 

[GatorFL]

She was elected.
The voters wanted a tough DA willing to a no body case to trial. The other DA was more cautious and an interim appointee. As a career she defended correction officers against prisoner lawsuits.
MOO she would have brought the right people in. So MOO would the republican primary challenger to LS.

Yes, I know she was elected.

I learned at a young age that people can be elected into a Peter principle as well as promoted into one. Seems that is becoming the norm nationally here in the USA.

 

[Seattle1]

To be clear, let me restate that the buck stops with DA Stanley, regardless of who failed, this happened under her watch, and LS won't disagree.

DA Stanley was responsible for recommending BM charged with 1st-degree murder of his wife, and the decision for the State (People of Colorado) to prosecute a no-body homicide in Chaffee County. And if after a year, where LS did not return to the Morphew courtroom since the PH, it should be obvious LS wasn't wearing a "trial lawyer" hat, at least not for this case.

And I have no idea what LS or Dan May or any other representative In Colorado campaigned on. No time for politics. MOO

I'm quoting myself because I realized I didn't complete my post as intended when I stopped to search for the linked news below.

I intended to include why I had no interest in the campaign rhetoric being cited because I think politics that occur at any given DA's office can be just as dirty as any other office.

Colorado law states that a chief deputy "holds office at the pleasure of the district attorney."

Jeff Lindsey, Dan Mays right-hand dude for nearly two decades, was hired by DA Stanley after he was fired by the the the new, 4th Judicial District DA, Michael Allen. Lindsey had served the 4th District for more than 16 years.

Lindsey, who was one of the longest-serving attorneys in the DA's office, had risen to oversee county court, supervising young prosecutors who had recently joined the 4th Judicial District.

“Mr. Lindsey’s employment with the District Attorney’s Office ended because the district attorney lacks confidence in Mr. Lindsey to competently perform the duties of a chief deputy district attorney based upon his years of experience working, and trying cases, with Mr. Lindsey and input from others in the District Attorney’s Office and elsewhere who have had similar experiences,” El Paso County Attorney Nathan Whitney wrote in a letter to Lindsey's lawyer on behalf of the DA's office.

Multiple employees from the DA's office have reported that Jeff was fired because of the perception that he helped Mark Waller's campaign.

DA claims former Barry Morphew prosecutor was previously fired for incompetence, but some former employees say otherwise

The former top prosecutor in the high-profile murder case against a southwest Colorado man was fired from his previous position in Colorado Springs because the incoming district attorney believed he

gazette.com

11/2021

 

[GatorFL]

Yes. This case was winnable, because the evidence made it that way. It's built on a foundation of proven lies (more than I've ever seen in my life).

I'm not mad that Stanley brought a losing case foward (she didn't), it's that the DA's office didn't win a winnable case.

The evidence is there, and it all points at the only man with the motive, means, and opportunity.

One thing I learned about this case: if you're a suspect in a circumstantial case you would be highly advised to throw as much crap as you can to the cops because it sends them off on too many wild goose chases. I've said it before, in this aspect, the Morphew case reminds me a lot of the Casey Anthony case. She definitely threw more BS at the cops than Barry, but he wasn't far behind.

I don't know that this was winnable. Murphy granted bail and said it was not likely Barry would be convicted. I, for one, would have liked to seen what the defense had prepared in Barry's defense. I believe @Momofthreeboys has said the same.

But I do agree he seems to be the one person with the motive, and opportunity. Based on the evidence at hand, any means is also highly circumstantial IMO and even the things the detectives found, nothing seems definitive. He had lots of weapons in the house but nothing seems to fit, especially the tranq gun/dart theory. I think strangulation seems to make the most sense since there was no blood found anywhere. I would hope that would be the path the prosecution would follow since establishing the means would be critical for a conviction.

And looking back, this case was a mess beyond the wild goose chases. The judge swap. DA's office and CBI not in agreeable on filing charges. Original lead prosecutor taking a job elsewhere. LS's inability to manage her office to meet deadlines. And her subsequent suspension. The only thing I can chalk it up to is that this rural area was simply overwhelmed by the complexities of this case. I think this would be a difficult case for an urban area DA's office, but more more manageable on the semantics and so more hopeful for a better outcome. If charges are ever refiled I hope the state steps in and brings in a prosecutor with more resources.

 

[GatorFL]

To be fair there is 'direct' digital evidence of the "where"

The how is more opaque

Yeah. As I said just above the prosecution would definitely need to narrow down the means in this one. Because if they could, then where Suzanne's body went would not be as big of an issue. They path they were headed down with the tranq dart, the guns, etc would be the wrong path. Got to keep is simple for a jury.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Yeah. As I said just above the prosecution would definitely need to narrow down the means in this one. Because if they could, then where Suzanne's body went would not be as big of an issue. They path they were headed down with the tranq dart, the guns, etc would be the wrong path. Got to keep is simple for a jury.

Not necessarily simple but clear and without an possible alternative theory.

 

[DizzyB]

One thing I learned about this case: if you're a suspect in a circumstantial case you would be highly advised to throw as much crap as you can to the cops because it sends them off on too many wild goose chases. I've said it before, in this aspect, the Morphew case reminds me a lot of the Casey Anthony case. She definitely threw more BS at the cops than Barry, but he wasn't far behind.

I don't know that this was winnable. Murphy granted bail and said it was not likely Barry would be convicted. I, for one, would have liked to seen what the defense had prepared in Barry's defense. I believe @Momofthreeboys has said the same.

But I do agree he seems to be the one person with the motive, and opportunity. Based on the evidence at hand, any means is also highly circumstantial IMO and even the things the detectives found, nothing seems definitive. He had lots of weapons in the house but nothing seems to fit, especially the tranq gun/dart theory. I think strangulation seems to make the most sense since there was no blood found anywhere. I would hope that would be the path the prosecution would follow since establishing the means would be critical for a conviction.

And looking back, this case was a mess beyond the wild goose chases. The judge swap. DA's office and CBI not in agreeable on filing charges. Original lead prosecutor taking a job elsewhere. LS's inability to manage her office to meet deadlines. And her subsequent suspension. The only thing I can chalk it up to is that this rural area was simply overwhelmed by the complexities of this case. I think this would be a difficult case for an urban area DA's office, but more more manageable on the semantics and so more hopeful for a better outcome. If charges are ever refiled I hope the state steps in and brings in a prosecutor with more resources.

Only part i take issue with is the where you said Murphy said it was not likely Barry would be convicted. If I remember correctly, he said it could go either way-hence bond. Casey Anthony, OJ, lots of cases can go either way with a jury trial. Not a LS fan here, and I have been troubled for a long time in the way the state’s case progressed. Winnable for them, with no body? Absolutely, with the evidence they have. The defense is skilled and the prosecution was no match for them, sadly.

 

[MassGuy]

One thing I learned about this case: if you're a suspect in a circumstantial case you would be highly advised to throw as much crap as you can to the cops because it sends them off on too many wild goose chases. I've said it before, in this aspect, the Morphew case reminds me a lot of the Casey Anthony case. She definitely threw more BS at the cops than Barry, but he wasn't far behind.

I don't know that this was winnable. Murphy granted bail and said it was not likely Barry would be convicted. I, for one, would have liked to seen what the defense had prepared in Barry's defense. I believe @Momofthreeboys has said the same.

But I do agree he seems to be the one person with the motive, and opportunity. Based on the evidence at hand, any means is also highly circumstantial IMO and even the things the detectives found, nothing seems definitive. He had lots of weapons in the house but nothing seems to fit, especially the tranq gun/dart theory. I think strangulation seems to make the most sense since there was no blood found anywhere. I would hope that would be the path the prosecution would follow since establishing the means would be critical for a conviction.

And looking back, this case was a mess beyond the wild goose chases. The judge swap. DA's office and CBI not in agreeable on filing charges. Original lead prosecutor taking a job elsewhere. LS's inability to manage her office to meet deadlines. And her subsequent suspension. The only thing I can chalk it up to is that this rural area was simply overwhelmed by the complexities of this case. I think this would be a difficult case for an urban area DA's office, but more more manageable on the semantics and so more hopeful for a better outcome. If charges are ever refiled I hope the state steps in and brings in a prosecutor with more resources.

Barry tells us the tranquilizer is relevant:

First he claims he's never fired one in Colorado, adding that he can't remember the name of the reversal agent.

When he becomes concerned that law enforcement has evidence that proves this to be a lie, he concocts an insane story about shooting two deer with a tranquilizer just weeks before.

It's absurd on its face, but becomes even crazier when you consider the fact that deer don't even have antlers (or ones you'd want) that time of year.

He's doing what all these killers do though, in that he's admitting to lesser crimes. It's crazy how often that happens.

He also concedes that he may have thrown tranquilizer materials away in Broomfield, during those damning trash dumps. Amazing.

On top of that, that gun in the garage was not operable in the condition it was found in, and no corresponding antlers were found (obviously).

That sheath was huge, and there's no way it could have gone undiscovered for over a month in the dryer.

It's almost as if an idiot did the laundry that day, and has no idea how dryers work...

 

[CGray123]

Not saying that…saying that it is much easier for jurors to convict in my opinion when there is direct forensic evidence for the “how” question and “where question”. I think means, motive,opportunity are great but the problem with circumstances is not getting challenged on the probabilities.

Some people who study juries theorize that individual jurors employ a mathematical model during the trial, adding up the evidence as they hear it until it meets their individual thresholds. Others theorize that the jurors use a story model, in which they try, as they listen, to weave the evidence into a coherent story as they listen.

I grew up in a family of trial lawyers who were, and are, part of the Colorado legal community. I listened to their stories, and the stories of others - judges, prosecutors, plaintiffs attorneys, defenders. I watched some of their trials.

When I was in late high school and at university, I worked for my parents. One of my assignments was to interview jurors post-trial, so my parents could learn as much as possible about their thinking and deliberations. My dad holds that the jurors see the pieces of evidence as composing a mosaic picture: they don't need all their questions answered if there are sufficient pieces that they can see the picture the prosecution (or the plaintiff, in his case) are trying to present.

I believe that there are probably a variety of approaches to the evaluation of evidence taken by the twelve different people comprising a felony jury. But what matters is the deliberation process, where they have a dialog structured by the instructions they receive from the judge, until they can all agree. Even though there may be different perspectives, no one view is allowed to prevail in such a system. People who see the picture have an opportunity to persuade people who think they need more pieces of the mosaic.

So, although I certainly agree that it's easier for jurors to see the picture with more details concerning the how, it isn't necessary if they have enough to get the picture.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Some people who study juries theorize that individual jurors employ a mathematical model during the trial, adding up the evidence as they hear it until it meets their individual thresholds. Others theorize that the jurors use a story model, in which they try, as they listen, to weave the evidence into a coherent story as they listen.

I grew up in a family of trial lawyers who were, and are, part of the Colorado legal community. I listened to their stories, and the stories of others - judges, prosecutors, plaintiffs attorneys, defenders. I watched some of their trials.

When I was in late high school and at university, I worked for my parents. One of my assignments was to interview jurors post-trial, so my parents could learn as much as possible about their thinking and deliberations. My dad holds that the jurors see the pieces of evidence as composing a mosaic picture: they don't need all their questions answered if there are sufficient pieces that they can see the picture the prosecution (or the plaintiff, in his case) are trying to present.

I believe that there are probably a variety of approaches to the evaluation of evidence taken by the twelve different people comprising a felony jury. But what matters is the deliberation process, where they have a dialog structured by the instructions they receive from the judge, until they can all agree. Even though there may be different perspectives, no one view is allowed to prevail in such a system. People who see the picture have an opportunity to persuade people who think they need more pieces of the mosaic.

So, although I certainly agree that it's easier for jurors to see the picture with more details concerning the how, it isn't necessary if they have enough to get the picture.

That makes sense although I would posit it is tougher to put a person away for life without parole than lesser sentences. But I could be projecting because I would struggle with a guilty verdict if I only knew the pieces we know so far. But I also suspect he won’t be charged again until they have a stronger case.

 

[fcavanaugh]

IMO, the wild goose chase and lies from BM started/were planted well before his face to face interviews with LE namely, him staging the bike and helmet. IMO, this case is all about staging and misdirection in attempt to throw off LE/LE investigation and there’s only one person with reason to do all that- someone that is very close to the victim.

In addition to him staging the bike, helmet and his staged/fake alibi, the fact that Suzanne’s digital footprint ceased forever within minutes of BM arriving home Saturday afternoon and BM’s many provable lies and changing stories each time LE presented him with evidence that disproved his previous statements such as stating that he and SM had the perfect marriage when digital evidence (the new DNA) proved he deleted texts relating to the fact that he and Suzanne did NOT have the perfect marriage, and other digital evidence which proved he tampered with his truck’s computer in the late afternoon of May 9th, and that he was up moving around during the night of the 9th into the wee hours of the 10th after claiming to have been sound asleep since 8pm until he woke up at 4:30am to go to a Sunday (non) job in Broomfield i.e., digital evidence showed that he backed up his truck late Saturday evening and that numerous other truck “events” happened overnight into the wee hours of Sunday morning to include opening and closing doors, and placing him in the area of the staged bike just before the 4am hour, in addition to his other insane lies about where he said he was when he got the call from the Ritter’s in Broomfield, saying he was tranq’ing deer weeks before to saw off antlers yet they don’t have antlers that time of year, saying he turned in opposite direction of Broomfield in same area helmet was found to follow bull elk, the dart sheath in the dryer, dumping of trash to include tranquilizer material, imo he dumped other incriminating evidence too, in 5 different locations over one hundred miles away, and Suzanne’s missing/burned journal, totality of all of these things is solid circumstantial evidence against BM imo enough for a reasonable, rational jury to put the pieces together/connect the dots to BM being the responsible perpetrator in eliminating SM from this earth.

IMO, no abductor/s stick around staging items or get rid of/burn the victim’s journal, nor do they force the victim’s husband to tell lie after lie to investigators in a matter as serious as that of his missing wife of 3 decades, his “angel”. Innocent people with nothing to hide hide/lie about nothing, nor does digital evidence lie. Period.

As others have stated and I agree, the evidence is there to be able to win the case and BM is the only person that had the motive, means and opportunity. IMO, LE/prosecution had/has the right man and it’s just too bad that disorganization and a series of administrative missteps, missing deadlines etc., in the prosecution’s office resulting in severe sanctions causing them to lose almost all of their expert witnesses has delayed justice for Suzanne. They got a second chance though with the case having been dismissed without prejudice and my hope is that the prosecution takes this time to further build and organize their case, actually finds Suzanne’s remains/new evidence and that when charges are refiled, there’s either a new, more experienced District Attorney overseeing the 11th judicial district and/or a special prosecutor is brought on board to assist in presenting the case against BM clearly, methodically and convincingly to a future jury to ensure BM is held accountable for his nefarious deeds and securing his conviction.

It bothers me that a murderer imo is currently roaming free and it’s in cases/times like this that I find I have to remind myself that the wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly. Having said that,
I do believe that the investigators in this case are determined/won’t give up which helps me to practice patience and also gives me hope that Suzanne will eventually receive the justice she rightfully deserves.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[GatorFL]

Only part i take issue with is the where you said Murphy said it was not likely Barry would be convicted. If I remember correctly, he said it could go either way-hence bond. Casey Anthony, OJ, lots of cases can go either way with a jury trial. Not a LS fan here, and I have been troubled for a long time in the way the state’s case progressed. Winnable for them, with no body? Absolutely, with the evidence they have. The defense is skilled and the prosecution was no match for them, sadly.

Murphy said a conviction was possible but not likely: "Is it possible that he would be convicted? Yes. But is it likely that he would be convicted? I find no.”

Suzanne Morphew Murder to Proceed to Trial, Barry Morphew Bail set at $500,000 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

On Friday afternoon, Sept. 17, a series of decisions by District 11 Judge Patrick Murphy set the course of the murder trial for Barry Morphew, in the

arkvalleyvoice.com

 

[GatorFL]

Barry tells us the tranquilizer is relevant:

First he claims he's never fired one in Colorado, adding that he can't remember the name of the reversal agent.

When he becomes concerned that law enforcement has evidence that proves this to be a lie, he concocts an insane story about shooting two deer with a tranquilizer just weeks before.

It's absurd on its face, but becomes even crazier when you consider the fact that deer don't even have antlers (or ones you'd want) that time of year.

He's doing what all these killers do though, in that he's admitting to lesser crimes. It's crazy how often that happens.

He also concedes that he may have thrown tranquilizer materials away in Broomfield, during those damning trash dumps. Amazing.

On top of that, that gun in the garage was not operable in the condition it was found in, and no corresponding antlers were found (obviously).

That sheath was huge, and there's no way it could have gone undiscovered for over a month in the dryer.

It's almost as if an idiot did the laundry that day, and has no idea how dryers work...

And yet, no operable firearm that could have fired the dart.

 

[MassGuy]

And yet, no operable firearm that could have fired the dart.

Exactly, which makes his deer tranquillizing story so damning.

 

[mrjitty]

Not necessarily simple but clear and without an possible alternative theory.

This is by far the most important thing.

It's beyond argument that there is highly incriminating evidence against the accused.

The key to a successful prosecution is ruling out any reasonably possible alternative.

 

[mrjitty]

Murphy said a conviction was possible but not likely: "Is it possible that he would be convicted? Yes. But is it likely that he would be convicted? I find no.”

Suzanne Morphew Murder to Proceed to Trial, Barry Morphew Bail set at $500,000 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

On Friday afternoon, Sept. 17, a series of decisions by District 11 Judge Patrick Murphy set the course of the murder trial for Barry Morphew, in the

arkvalleyvoice.com

We have to be a bit careful with this ruling which was mostly driven by the DNA evidence in a bail context.

The judge found probable cause, so it can go to trial, in a short form format where the defence alleged there was a DNA match for an out of state sex offender in the victims vehicle. Resolution of that question was never happening at the prelim. Hence the judge's ruling, as he has to proceed on the basis that it is possible. We now know there is no sex offender DNA

 

[MassGuy]

This is by far the most important thing.

It's beyond argument that there is highly incriminating evidence against the accused.

The key to a successful prosecution is ruling out any reasonably possible alternative.

And that's the thing, the alternate scenarios border between hilarious and insane.

 

[GatorFL]

We have to be a bit careful with this ruling which was mostly driven by the DNA evidence in a bail context.

The judge found probable cause, so it can go to trial, in a short form format where the defence alleged there was a DNA match for an out of state sex offender in the victims vehicle. Resolution of that question was never happening at the prelim. Hence the judge's ruling, as he has to proceed on the basis that it is possible. We now know there is no sex offender DNA

Another quote from the same article: "The Judge reminded the court that he applied the lowest standard of proof in the U.S. Court system. “There is a reasonable belief that the defendant may have committed the crimes charged. I must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. The evidence to support a conviction of the crime is not necessary at this stage of the hearings.” He reminded the court that evidence that wouldn’t normally be allowed, may be allowed at a preliminary hearing such as the one that was concluding that day."

We often forget this sentence as well. And I am not talking about only the DNA evidence.