Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #109

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
10ofRods said:
While it is true that "no judge is going to react well" to a last deadline being missed, I can't even count the number of times where the judge gave leeway in a major case, and, well, used a phone call to outline what needed to happen (throwing experts out for reasons like this...it's rare...if people can find more cases where this is has happened, I am trying to compile them). It was a big mess, IOW. If the judge had done what most judges I've observed have done, this would not have gone down exactly as it did.
Click to expand...
If there were ever an expert witness who needed tossed, it was Dr. Dorothy Lewis. Judge Werner extended a wider berth than she is deserved. His rulings leaned in the interest of protecting the case which included tolerating the detestable antics of LS and DL.
 
underthehat said:
How would this happen?
Click to expand...
There is a slight chance that it will contain Suzanne's blood and depending upon how much time her body had to process the tranq. dart, if administered, it may show it.
BUT, this is a very long shot.
3 yrs have passed and weather and other conditions may have rendered a sample useless for analysis.
 
Kemug said:
As an Aussie, I really cannot understand this US obsession with putting politics into everything. I don't know all 26 million Australians (now there's a surprise!), but I've yet to hear of even one who votes for law, local council, etc vacancies on the basis of their politics (their own or the nominees'). We vote for the person whom we think is best for the job. It just seems so odd to me to do otherwise.
Click to expand...
The US political influence dates back to the end of George Washington’s term as our first President, which is when the various party affiliations originated and it’s been chaos ever since.
 
Last edited:
For those of us who have been here to watch this all unfold in real time, IMO there is no one in their heart of hearts that thinks this man did not kill his wife.

When LS arrested BM and she and Speeze had their press conference, I thought well here is a woman, seemingly confident in her own skin, who is going to get this right. Turns out, she got the right man, she just could not close it out. In my mind she had the deck stacked against her from the start. And yes due to some of her own making. What we don't know is what she contended with behind the "curtain". We know the blatant animosity that was hurled at her by the former DA KT in the run up to the election and I have to assume that some of the old DA's former employees were now LS's employees. I honestly don't rule out sabotage from within her own office.

From my viewpoint there is a very unhealthy "underbelly" out that way that's not at all conducive to justice. It makes me think "whatsup" to be so backward Colorado? But I know sadly it's everywhere. Personal agendas, gaming the system etc, we see it played out everyday in the headlines and in our daily lives.

The criticism and subtle undermining started with Judge Murphy opining on the length of the AA. I wanted to say Seriously? Are we focusing on form over substance here? The press and talking heads latched on to that comment.... and so it went mostly for the duration - anything to tarnish LS. Lauren Scharf of the media was seeminly the only one who had her eyes open and her finger on the pulse of what was happening.

All the talk at the Prelim about Suzanne's affair. Fine, the prosecution put it out there as an fyi but then it was on and on. Pinning the "scarlet letter" on poor murdered Suzanne. The only reason the affair would have any bearing on whether BM killed her was if her lover had not alibied out and he had, or if it was the motive for the killing. For IE it was a "dog whistle" to every bigot and misogynist out there. Of course in their thirst for anything salacious the media grabbed on quickly and the affair was echoed around the globe. Again, media and people of Colorado, whatsup? The affair didn't kill her, the husband did!

We've already beat the "sex offender"dna to death which also thanks to IE's misrepresentation was another media darling and even the judges could not seem to unspin thier brains on that one.

Murphy recused and then LLama took over. LLama, we found out was in excrutiaitng pain just having to sit due to some health problem( back?). He quickly became a parrot for IE. We also found out it had been Llama's intent to retire even before he took the case bc of his health problem. How this affected his judgement is anyone's guess but I wouldn't minimize its impact. He resigned and skeedaddled very quickly after dismissal. I am in the camp that believes his sanctions of the experts should have been appealed. I truly believe for one reason or another, just like Murphy, LLama wanted off that case and orchestrated that departure.

I could go on and on and on .... but bottom line, for soooo many reasons, the legal system failed Suzanne Moorman Morphew. Right does not always win. I hate that fact but I know it to be true. It will take a lot to get this right and have all the pieces fall into place the second time around.

I am confident that it's a winnable case on its merits but I am also acutely aware of the disparities between the legal representation for the two sides. You have a defendant presumably who is going to find the money, whatever it takes, to hire the high powered steam roller IE or someone like her . And you need to fight fire with fire. Where is the prosecution going to get that "fire" ? Are one of the local DA's all of the sudden going to become the "little engine" that could?

It's not an even playing field no matter what district arrests BM and takes him to court. So I am left with hoping that they bring in a well funded special prosecutor.

ALL JMO
 
Last edited:
waldojabba said:
For those of us who have been here to watch this all unfold in real time, IMO there is no one in their heart of hearts that thinks this man did not kill his wife.

When LS arrested BM and she and Speeze had their press conference, I thought well here is a woman, seemingly confident in her own skin, who is going to get this right. Turns out, she got the right man, she just could not close it out. In my mind she had the deck stacked against her from the start. And yes due to some of her own making. What we don't know is what she contended with behind the "curtain". We know the blatant animosity that was hurled at her by the former DA KT in the run up to the election and I have to assume that some of the old DA's former employees were now LS's employees. I honestly don't rule out sabotage from within her own office.

From my viewpoint there is a very unhealthy "underbelly" out that way that's not at all conducive to justice. It makes me think "whatsup" to be so backward Colorado? But I know sadly it's everywhere. Personal agendas, gaming the system etc, we see it played out everyday in the headlines and in our daily lives.

The criticism and subtle undermining started with Judge Murphy opining on the length of the AA. I wanted to say Seriously? Are we focusing on form over substance here? The press and talking heads latched on to that comment.... and so it went mostly for the duration - anything to tarnish LS. Lauren Scharf of the media was seeminly the only one who had her eyes open and her finger on the pulse of what was happening.

All the talk at the Prelim about Suzanne's affair. Fine, the prosecution put it out there as an fyi but then it was on and on. Pinning the "scarlet letter" on poor murdered Suzanne. The only reason the affair would have any bearing on whether BM killed her was if her lover had not alibied out and he had, or if it was the motive for the killing. For IE it was a "dog whistle" to every bigot and misogynist out there. Of course in their thirst for anything salacious the media grabbed on quickly and the affair was echoed around the globe. Again, media and people of Colorado, whatsup? The affair didn't kill her, the husband did!

We've already beat the "sex offender"dna to death which was also thanks to IE's misrepresentation was another media darling and even the judges could not seem to unspin thier brains on that one.

Murphy recused and then LLama took over. LLama, we found out was in excrutiaitng pain just having to sit due to some health problem( back?). He quickly became a parrot for IE. We also found out it had been Llama's intent to retire even before he took the case bc of his health problem. How this affected his judgement is anyone's guess but I wouldn't minimize its impact. He resigned and skeedaddled very quickly after dismissal. I am in the camp that believes his sanctions of the experts should have been appealed. I truly believe for one reason or another, just like Murphy, LLama wanted off that case and orchestrated that departure.

I could go on and on and on .... but bottom line, for soooo many reasons, the legal system failed Suzanne Moorman Morphew. Right does not always win. I hate that fact but I know it to be true. It will take a lot to get this right and have all the pieces fall into place the second time around.

I am confident that it's a winnable case on its merits but I am also acutely aware of the disparities between the legal representation for the two sides. You have a defendant presumably who is going to find the money, whatever it takes, to hire the high powered steam roller IE or someone like her . And you need to fight fire with fire. Where is the prosecution going to get that "fire" ? Are one of the local DA's allof the sudden going to become the "little engine" that could?

It's not an even playing field no matter what district arrests BM and takes him to court. So I am left with hoping that they bring in a well funded special prosecutor.

ALL JMO
Click to expand...
I see what you see.
 
SleuthBee said:
If there were ever an expert witness who needed tossed, it was Dr. Dorothy Lewis. Judge Werner extended a wider berth than she is deserved. His rulings leaned in the interest of protecting the case which included tolerating the detestable antics of LS and DL.
Click to expand...
There's a whole season of the podcast "Unraveled" about all the unprofessional and/or crooked and/or dishonest expert witnesses out there.

podcasts.apple.com

‎Unraveled: Introducing Unraveled: Experts on Trial on Apple Podcasts

‎Show Unraveled, Ep Introducing Unraveled: Experts on Trial - 22 Sept 2021
podcasts.apple.com
 
Momofthreeboys said:
Caught staging the scene? I don’t know if they can prove he did that yet beyond reasonable doubt. I am sure they are pouring over everything including the dog handler so maybe they can win that one but I have my doubts. The driveway telematics hold my interest around activity now more than the bike and helmet.
Click to expand...
I think that is one of the easiest thing to prove in this case.

There are some things which make it seem improbable that she went for a bike ride that morning.

---Her sunglasses, camelback, credit card, and ID were in her Range Rover--who doesn't take their water bottle and sunglasses on a long bike ride?
---She usually drove her RR to a biking trail ---but this time her bike was on a very steep hill near her home, which was very unusual for her. It was too steep for a beginning rider. Bike was not wrecked.
---It was a very busy Mother's Day Sunday when she was supposedly riding on that hilly roadside---but no one reported seeing her riding that day. Nor was she seen abandoning her bike and walking away, or being abducted on that busy Sunday.
---she never used her phone that morning, Mothers Day morning, before supposedly going on her ride. She hadn't used it since the afternoon before. Had not been in communication with anyone, since the day before.
 
Last edited:
AugustWest said:
I respect Seattle's opinion, I just don't agree in this instance. IMO, the judge had the grounds to rule the way he did regardless of extraneous facts.

The portion pertaining to remedy allows the judge these options:

(g) Failure to Comply; Sanctions.
If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

I wrote my analysis down, which I feel follows logically from Rule 16. Where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...

He had several different actions available to him. He chose, IMO, the most Draconian one for Suzanne's case.

Not fond of that approach. Would not vote for him as a judge. Am glad he retired.

Notice the use of the word may in what you quoted. That's a judge's entire job (to determine which of several options MAY be put into use). I can't think of a single type of case where a judge is bound to just one option. Notice that "grant a continuance" is on the list of options you speak of.

And that's what most judges do, in major cases like this one. They have some sympathy for the victim and for the LE that is trying to find a killer. Notice that the judge has an even further option (enter such other order as it deems just..." That's their whole job!

Could have been handled differently, but political forces were very much at work, IMO.

That's where you went wrong. Your logic led you to conclude that the judge choosing just ONE of those options means he's right, whereas the rule clearly states he had more than one option. What's your defense of his choosing that one option?

There is no clear way to use "logic" on a branching tree diagram where there are 5 different options. All of them are logical and logic is, well, binomial in principle (and advanced logic forms are not part of law or the teaching of law). Nor does the law require the judge to be "logical." Analysis should be of legal matters (if one is a judge) and that is beyond ordinary logic. As is analysis of this case. It's legal, social, political, and much more. Not merely logical.

IMO.
 
fcavanaugh said:
I’m going to try this again. (Hit post in error previously before I was done editing lol)

IE and BM are masters of misdirection, 2 peas in a pod, twin flames if you will (insert vomit emoji). IE hoping the masses would fall for irrelevant DNA, (LE did eventually investigate the glove box DNA and ruled it out) and unfortunately many, many people did at first and still some to this day fall for it. I truly believe BM has a fan club not so much here but in other places I’ve ventured onto to read about this case who no matter what-

IMO Barry Morphew is guilty AF and the 2nd time around, (and I believe there will be a second time, eventually), it’s going to take a highly skilled, experienced, meticulous and methodical trial prosecutor the likes of Matt Murphy (former Orange County Senior DDA) to bring the dirtbag (pardon the pun) down and put him where he belongs- behind bars for LWOP.
Click to expand...
BRAVO!!

You explained the DNA situation so perfectly that even I understand now. This same scenerio can railroad every murder investigation moving forward. The good news is, IE only had one shot to pull that stunt. I won't work twice.

BM has a fan club? I'm disappointed, but not surprised. Again, there are women attracted to men who commit violent crimes. It's called Hybristophilia. They support, DEFEND, enable, protect, pen pal, visit, marry, and load their prison canteen and phone accounts. Dr. Das explains the causes. IIRC Nickolas Cruz told his brother to stop giving him money because he gets plenty in the mail from women. Chris Watts is another.

I agree with you. Let's get BM behind bars for LWOP.

Justice for Suzanne!
 
Seattle1 said:
OP makes a valid point-- one that is currently before the higher court for a decision on another case re. failure to Comply; Sanctions, minus bad faith or willful conduct.

As explained by Dan May about the brief by the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC) filed in the Colorado Supreme Court supporting Linda Stanley, the agency never denies that Stanley’s office struggled with discovery violations, but said the sanctions were excessive and “unprecedented.”

“Given the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the truth-seeking that this Court recognized to be the ‘paramount interest at stake’ in ‘the criminal justice context,’ the ‘pattern of neglect’ on discovery issues found by the Court cannot justify the drastic sanction imposed here,” the CDAC said in its brief.

Dan May previously opined on this case (People v Morphew) that he believed the Court (Lama) sanctions, tantamount to dismissal, also required consideration of willfulness, fault or bad faith, as well as the availability of lesser sanctions.

IMO, similar to Judge Turner above, Lama abused his discretion when he failed to undertake such considerations -- resulting in punishment that did not fit the crime. One doesn't impose the death penalty for failing to follow a Motions imposed calendar-- or a Statutory discovery calendar for that matter!

Colorado DA Council backs 11th Judicial DA in appeal of first-degree murder sanctions | KRDO

ETA:

To be clear, on its face, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16, does not require a court to impose any particular sanction in the case of a discovery violation. Instead, the rule leaves the choice of a sanction, if any, to the sound discretion of the district trial court.

“n fashioning a sanction, the court should impose the least severe
sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the discovery rules” (id. at P.16), which “‘is
to give a defendant the necessary time to prepare a full and adequate defense.’”

Raynor v. State, 201 Md. App. 209, 228 (2011) (quoting Ross v. State, 78 Md. App. 275, 286
(1989)), aff’d, 440 Md. 71 (2014); accord State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439, 459
(2017).

“‘[T]he sanction of dismissal should be used sparingly, if at all[.]’” State v.
Graham, 233 Md. App. at 459 (quoting Thompson v. State, 395 Md. 240, 261 (2006)).

State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree @Seattle
Seattle1 said:
OP makes a valid point-- one that is currently before the higher court for a decision on another case re. failure to Comply; Sanctions, minus bad faith or willful conduct.

As explained by Dan May about the brief by the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC) filed in the Colorado Supreme Court supporting Linda Stanley, the agency never denies that Stanley’s office struggled with discovery violations, but said the sanctions were excessive and “unprecedented.”

“Given the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the truth-seeking that this Court recognized to be the ‘paramount interest at stake’ in ‘the criminal justice context,’ the ‘pattern of neglect’ on discovery issues found by the Court cannot justify the drastic sanction imposed here,” the CDAC said in its brief.

Dan May previously opined on this case (People v Morphew) that he believed the Court (Lama) sanctions, tantamount to dismissal, also required consideration of willfulness, fault or bad faith, as well as the availability of lesser sanctions.

IMO, similar to Judge Turner above, Lama abused his discretion when he failed to undertake such considerations -- resulting in punishment that did not fit the crime. One doesn't impose the death penalty for failing to follow a Motions imposed calendar-- or a Statutory discovery calendar for that matter!

Colorado DA Council backs 11th Judicial DA in appeal of first-degree murder sanctions | KRDO

ETA:

To be clear, on its face, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16, does not require a court to impose any particular sanction in the case of a discovery violation. Instead, the rule leaves the choice of a sanction, if any, to the sound discretion of the district trial court.

“n fashioning a sanction, the court should impose the least severe
sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the discovery rules” (id. at P.16), which “‘is
to give a defendant the necessary time to prepare a full and adequate defense.’”

Raynor v. State, 201 Md. App. 209, 228 (2011) (quoting Ross v. State, 78 Md. App. 275, 286
(1989)), aff’d, 440 Md. 71 (2014); accord State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439, 459
(2017).

“‘[T]he sanction of dismissal should be used sparingly, if at all[.]’” State v.
Graham, 233 Md. App. at 459 (quoting Thompson v. State, 395 Md. 240, 261 (2006)).

State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Click to expand...
Excellent points @Seattle1 Thank you!
In my old layman terms, I’ll explain it this way…
The judge didn’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water!
Sanctions which would have allowed a fair trial to go forward is all that was
needed. That’s my .02. MOO
 
osu said:
Ran across this short video that was originally posted over 2 years ago.

Lauren Scharf describes her conversation with George Davis. How he first heard that Suzanne was missing, he then called Barry, he was the first civilian on-scene where her bike was found, he said it wasn’t a mountain lion attack and told Lauren about the subsequent searches in the following weeks.


Click to expand...
This is an interesting video @osu Thank you.
So, GD told Lauren he called Barry as soon as he heard the police scan about Suzanne's bike. Is there a record of BM receiving that call?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 2,186 (members: 148, guests: 2,038)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
2,038
Total visitors
2,186
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,828
Messages
18,130,347
Members
231,153
Latest member
Horrorgirl87
Back
Top