underthehat
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 10
How would this happen?I really want Suzanne's cancer port to tell her story.
How would this happen?I really want Suzanne's cancer port to tell her story.
Why do you say Anne Kelly is most definitely Republican?
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.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.
Wishful thinking but I'm hopeful that blood may have dried inside it, preserving any tranquilizer that may have been injected, protected and preserved from the elements.How would this happen?
What makes you think so?I think he threw it in the creek at the same time he tossed her bike.
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.How would this happen?
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.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.
I see what you see.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
There's a whole season of the podcast "Unraveled" about all the unprofessional and/or crooked and/or dishonest expert witnesses out there.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.
Any chipmunk experts in there yet?There's a whole season of the podcast "Unraveled" about all the unprofessional and/or crooked and/or dishonest expert witnesses out there.
Unraveled: Introducing Unraveled: Experts on Trial on Apple Podcasts
Show Unraveled, Ep Introducing Unraveled: Experts on Trial - 22 Sept 2021podcasts.apple.com
I think that is one of the easiest thing to prove in this case.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.
To be honest, I'm not really crazy about the smell in the 11th or 12th district courts. The case needs a judge not easily intimated by the rabid IE and a strong experienced prosecutor that's on the mark.Thank goodness Lama’s gone! I pray there is Justice somewhere in Colorado’s courts! MOO
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?
BRAVO!!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.
Absolutely agree @SeattleOP 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 databasecasetext.com
Excellent points @Seattle1 Thank you!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 databasecasetext.com
^^rsbmThis shows that the legislative body that adopted the rule considered what would be fair as a remedy for discovery violations. I can't fault a judge for choosing a remedy that is specifically mentioned in the text of the statute.
This is an interesting video @osu Thank you.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.
How, if they hide evidence or witnesses it would be a Brady violation at trial.it could have been done at the actual trial itself, had it been relevant.
It was neither hidden nor evidence is the point.How, if they hide evidence or witnesses it would be a Brady violation at trial.