Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #114

[Seattle1]

I see no reason why a sitting DA or ESPECIALLY a former DA would not rise to the defense of a colleague unjustly accused of unprofessional conduct. In fact, since they are all at the same risk it would seem especially important to protect their own professional careers by protecting hers - IF they believed she was being unfairly accused and unjustly prosecuted. To me, the absence of any defenders among the DAs speaks volumes and the scathing public condemnation of Stanley by highly respected former DAs carries great weight.

^^rsbm

What's happening right now to the District Attorney and the DA's Office is very serious, and I won't endorse promoting the subject of measuring support by whether or not a former prosecutor/defender reaches out to MSM to offer a soundbite or a quote. We already see too much of this --the critique of family of victims. It just seems petty, and should be reserved for election endorsements.

<modsnip: personalizing>

Also, while the legal profession is largely self-governing, professional ethics and the rules of professional conduct go hand in hand, they're married. I'm not following why OP seeks to sever them here?? (i.e., Discovery is addressed in the Complaint).

It further makes no sense to me to suggest Stanley would spend two weeks before a Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Colorado Supreme Court for anything less than Case Number: 23PDJ041, October 30, 2023, Claims I-VII, including but not limited to: Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness (i.e., Discovery), Pretrial Publicity, Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, pursuant to Colo R.P.C. [Colo R.P.C. citation omitted].

IMO, at the core of this case, I think it always comes down to Rule-16- Discovery, and whether or not you adopt an opinion based on the true spirit of Rule 16, or something else. In other words, whether you adopt that the prosecution discovering a Cover Page a couple of days late, withheld for an address change, makes a valid claim of trial by ambush, or withholding evidence.

Whether or not you approve Motioning for Sanctions for Discovery Violations, after telling the Court you have not received files XYZ, when the truth is you received files XYZ-- but don't know how to open them. These examples are intentionally elementary to make a point. Because to my dismay, there are truly viewers here that adopt the same as being valid to claim trial by ambush, or evidence withheld, as is their right.

Just the same, for those who do not endorse the later view of Rule-16, and stand up to to say "enough is enough," (i.e., striking expert witnesses on the eve of trial), this is hardly the equivalent of wearing blinders for the embattled District Attorney. IMO, I think it's just the opposite, and I would never call it a wasted effort to learn to recognize the difference.

As a facts based crime forum, I think the only thing that's undisputed on this thread is that no Court that presided over this case ever cited Stanley or the DA's Office with willful misconduct, where Statute provides for the trial court to reserve "severe sanctions" for willful, negligent, conduct.

Finally, my earlier reference to People v Tippet, a split decision, was not fruit salad. And nothing fruity about Justice Samour, Boatright, and Marquez's Opinion "the rest of the story," affirming their belief that Turner's decision for "severe sanctions" appeared to be motivated by something less than honorable, forced, capricious, under the guise of "Extreme Sanctions for Deterrence Purposes."

But were they ever correct to fear that the Tippet decision by Turner would set a ghastly precedent. Since Tippet, Turner passed on Chief Judge Murphy's advice last November to send the baby killer (Jacobs) case to a different part of the state, and instead kept the defendant in her Court. No baby killer should be allowed to walk just because the DA used poor judgement to invite a reporter inside her office. IMO, and more importantly, not acting on the advice of your Chief Judge who provided a solution serves as another reason to question Turner's motivation. Turner has proved more harmful than the DA's Office!
(And no, this does not mean I believe the DA should not be disciplined for this conduct). MOO

The only issue is, if they did that, they would have to recuse themselves from all cases the DA is a part of. In a district as small as this, that would be impossible. So instead, the Chief Judge recused every single judge in the district and the case was asked to be transferred to a different part of the state.

Samour's words are worth repeating-- clear, foretelling, and need no further interpretation:

"They were looking for an opportunity to impose a severe sanction. Having sat on a trial court for many years, I understand their frustration," he elaborated. "But that doesn’t justify the severe sanction handed out here, which seems capricious and forced."

Samour concluded that Tippet should not "get a freebie," meaning face a lesser murder charge, just because the prosecution took weeks to fulfill its obligations.

link: See OP post 448

 

[Seattle1]

This article says that the CDAC actually filed one of the complaints.

Former Morphew prosecutor's marathon disciplinary hearing concludes

Either the district attorney who oversaw the Barry Morphew alleged murder case was so loose-lipped with the press that she sunk the case, or, she had a First Amendment right

www.google.com

Subscriber only content....

 

[Seattle1]

Again, People v. Tippet addressed different issues than Stanley's alleged violations of ethical standards, so you are not comparing similar things. In particular, discovery issues are not per se the subject of the disciplinary complaint.

^^rsbm

I suggest OP reference Claim I of VII of the respondents Complaint. (Tippet is Rule 16, Sanctions for Violation).

ETA: Discovery issues even made IE's complaint.

 

[Kemug]

Iirc, one of our good posters kept a list of all the animals in Barry’s zoo. It was funny. We need some of that humor again. It kind of gives me chills to think of all the ways he gaslit her in their years together. A narcissist like BM knows how to do that well.

I’m hoping the circus in Chaffee county wraps up so it is history and he can be charged again. The finding of her body and autopsy results should make that happen very soon.

Our zoo had chipmunks, elks, mountain lions, bobcats, red herrings, turkeys, and many others. And I was the zookeeper! I formed them into a choir, and was teaching them the "Hallelujah Chorus" to sing when BM is found guilty. I must get them rehearsing again, as that happy day (hopefully) draws nearer and nearer!

 

[Charlot123]

Doubling down. Not a good look.

I thought her comments at the time were very generic and very DAspeak, both after his arrest and on the podcast. They arrested him so obviously they believed he was guilty and it would be proven in the court of law. It is probably to MikeKing's credit she DIDN'T barry herself on the show because I felt it was measured and didn't get into BM's case, evidence or guilt. But still, the optics are bad. She should know that.

But the second part? No need to assign a lead to the biggest case they had going? She's going to stand behind that Very Bad Decision?

They were up against IE, a formidable opponent. You don't GIVE HER a great big door to plow through.

There's no room for administrative errors, even late by a day, when IE is right there, scouting for them.

The sanctions IMO were wrong, unfair, disproportionate but I am STUNNED she's satisfied with her decision not to name a lead prosecutor. Crown? Like it was some sort of ego contest?

I'm out of words.

JMO

I remember how during the Delphi murders investigation, Doug Carter, head of Indiana State Police, was on every channel, every podcast, even in an interview by a victim’s relative, speaking about the case. Now, granted, ISP was not playing against a brilliant lawyer, but as I can see now, they had no clue at that time who the perpetrator was, much less about his resources.

No matter how I personally feel about Doug Carter’s sightings around the Internet at that time, as long as LE appearances on TV shows and YouTube videos in active cases are not deemed unethical, IMO, LS’s optics are not especially bad. The question regarding the practicality of such handling of mass media during active (and especially, high-profile) cases is another matter. Ultimately, as we can see, it might compromise the results, and open the door for potential liability. However, as long as no one is admonished in one case, LE can always point at the precedents.

In addition, when it comes to the ethics of using mass media by the defense in public cases, First Amendment has been successfully used to protect such approach. IMHO, First Amendment is a strong argument in general.

There is another side to it, namely, the argument, “be careful, what if the defendant hires another IE?” No one has used it here, but one can read something very similar about another case. JMO, showcasing economic stratification of the society leaves a bad aftertaste. While strong lawyers are the pillars of justice, the situation when there is enough time and money on one side to drag and kill the cases on technicalities is also very poor optics.

One wishes for the middle ground when either the prosecution can be provided with additional temporary staff during such resource-draining cases, or, the state takes the high road like Idaho did. It may be disadvantageous for them, but they assigned a brilliant public defender to an indigent, out-of-state defendant. From the point of justice and even PR, their approach was remarkable. JMO.

 

[Megnut]

He wouldn't even need a dart in that situation. All he had to do was use a syringe to remove the tranquilizer from the vial, and inject Suzanne with that same syringe.

One can imagine Suzanne digging into Barry's arm if the push up king kneeled on her and injected BAM into her port.

Still, we may never know just how exactly he got the BAM into her body or on which sIde of the bedroom door it occurred. But you're right -- he didn't necessarily need a gun or a dart to deliver it.

We just know that he did.

He lies but her bone marrow does not.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

LS’s attorney is a former prosecutor, and supports her. This all stinks anyhow. Barry should be the one on trial.
JMO

Stanley’s lawyer, former prosecutor Steven Jensen, told the three-member panel considering the case in Denver that rural district attorney offices like Stanley’s do not have as many resources to handle high-profile cases as larger, urban ones.
[…]
The state will not be able to show “clear and convincing” evidence that Stanley violated ethical rules, Jensen said.

Colorado district attorney who prosecuted Barry Morphew faces disciplinary hearing

A lawyer for Colorado’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel described 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley during opening statements of the two-week hearing as an absent leader who failed to steer the case and let it crash

coloradosun.com

From the article -
“Lindsey, the first witness called by the state, testified that he was the main prosecutor working on the Morphew case with help from another one who, like him, was also working on many other cases. He said the case needed a prosecutor working exclusivlely on it as well as a full-time investigator and victim’s advocate. He said he had to work nights and weekends to try to keep up with the case, and quit as preparations began for trial.”

First let me acknowledge - Linda Stanley has always been a lightening rod for what went wrong with the Morphew case. Anyone on these threads can likely see she is personally not cut out to be a politician. I think that’s what the voters liked about her. But that very same lack of political awareness and political demeanor are what led her to this moment.
She made an easy target for the much more cunning and politically savvy, sharp elbowed ( razor blade sharp) IE and her “element”.
Linda with her “damn the optics full speed ahead” and trust of a reporter ( eye roll) served herself up to scrutiny. And IE, the political animal that she is, seized the opportunity.
To me that’s it in a nutshell. There is no doubt in my mind that Linda Stanley is not any more or less ethical than most lawyers in Colorado.

As far as the Morphew case -
Of course as DA Linda bears the responsibility for the failure of her team to put BM away.
But it’s not that simple.

The true failure of bringing Justice for Suzanne rests on so many other shoulders as well. A whole lot of people in Colorado are culpable for BM being free. And a lot of it had to do with “politics”.

Anybody on these threads could also see from the early days that without help and resources the prosecution of BM was going to blow up and become the CF it ultimately became.

Without resources I don’t care who is sailing the ship - you are going to run aground.

With the notoriety of this case and all eyes being on it, my hope would be that the second time around with BM arrested the state of Colorado will give this case what it needs.

Do I think that will actually happen? I give it 50-50 at best.
JMO.

 

[waldojabba]

^^rsbm

What's happening right now to the District Attorney and the DA's Office is very serious, and I won't endorse promoting the subject of measuring support by whether or not a former prosecutor/defender reaches out to MSM to offer a soundbite or a quote. We already see too much of this --the critique of family of victims. It just seems petty, and should be reserved for election endorsements.

<modsnip>

Also, while the legal profession is largely self-governing, professional ethics and the rules of professional conduct go hand in hand, they're married. I'm not following why OP seeks to sever them here?? (i.e., Discovery is addressed in the Complaint).

It further makes no sense to me to suggest Stanley would spend two weeks before a Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Colorado Supreme Court for anything less than Case Number: 23PDJ041, October 30, 2023, Claims I-VII, including but not limited to: Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness (i.e., Discovery), Pretrial Publicity, Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, pursuant to Colo R.P.C. [Colo R.P.C. citation omitted].

IMO, at the core of this case, I think it always comes down to Rule-16- Discovery, and whether or not you adopt an opinion based on the true spirit of Rule 16, or something else. In other words, whether you adopt that the prosecution discovering a Cover Page a couple of days late, withheld for an address change, makes a valid claim of trial by ambush, or withholding evidence.

Whether or not you approve Motioning for Sanctions for Discovery Violations, after telling the Court you have not received files XYZ, when the truth is you received files XYZ-- but don't know how to open them. These examples are intentionally elementary to make a point. Because to my dismay, there are truly viewers here that adopt the same as being valid to claim trial by ambush, or evidence withheld, as is their right.

Just the same, for those who do not endorse the later view of Rule-16, and stand up to to say "enough is enough," (i.e., striking expert witnesses on the eve of trial), this is hardly the equivalent of wearing blinders for the embattled District Attorney. IMO, I think it's just the opposite, and I would never call it a wasted effort to learn to recognize the difference.

As a facts based crime forum, I think the only thing that's undisputed on this thread is that no Court that presided over this case ever cited Stanley or the DA's Office with willful misconduct, where Statute provides for the trial court to reserve "severe sanctions" for willful, negligent, conduct.

Finally, my earlier reference to People v Tippet, a split decision, was not fruit salad. And nothing fruity about Justice Samour, Boatright, and Marquez's Opinion "the rest of the story," affirming their belief that Turner's decision for "severe sanctions" appeared to be motivated by something less than honorable, forced, capricious, under the guise of "Extreme Sanctions for Deterrence Purposes."

But were they ever correct to fear that the Tippet decision by Turner would set a ghastly precedent. Since Tippet, Turner passed on Chief Judge Murphy's advice last November to send the baby killer (Jacobs) case to a different part of the state, and instead kept the defendant in her Court. No baby killer should be allowed to walk just because the DA used poor judgement to invite a reporter inside her office. IMO, and more importantly, not acting on the advice of your Chief Judge who provided a solution serves as another reason to question Turner's motivation. Turner has proved more harmful than the DA's Office!
(And no, this does not mean I believe the DA should not be disciplined for this conduct). MOO




Samour's words are worth repeating-- clear, foretelling, and need no further interpretation:

"They were looking for an opportunity to impose a severe sanction. Having sat on a trial court for many years, I understand their frustration," he elaborated. "But that doesn’t justify the severe sanction handed out here, which seems capricious and forced."

Samour concluded that Tippet should not "get a freebie," meaning face a lesser murder charge, just because the prosecution took weeks to fulfill its obligations.

link: See OP post 448

Thanks @Seattle1
Reposting a snip for emphasis since this Fact gets lost in all the noise -
“As a facts based crime forum, I think the only thing that's undisputed on this thread is that no Court that presided over this case ever cited Stanley or the DA's Office with willful misconduct, where Statute provides for the trial court to reserve "severe sanctions" for willful, negligent, conduct.”

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Noise started this case with an AA full of characterization, speculation and hearsay that lay people assumed would all be able to be used in an actual trial and made this case the social media viral that it is, moved to a preliminary where the prosecution generated noise with their confusion and disarray and ended with judicial noise from a judge trying to get the ship righted from noise on both sides. But for me the bottom line is it is the state’s responsibility to bring people to trial and it is the state that essentially ruined this first attempt. Everything else is hmmmm just more noise. Of course IE capitalized on it. That is called legal strategy. It wouldn’t surprise me if LS never played chess or Risk in her younger years.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Our zoo had chipmunks, elks, mountain lions, bobcats, red herrings, turkeys, and many others. And I was the zookeeper! I formed them into a choir, and was teaching them the "Hallelujah Chorus" to sing when BM is found guilty. I must get them rehearsing again, as that happy day (hopefully) draws nearer and nearer!

Thank you Kemug! I remember now that you were the one who round up the animals and kept them! Yes that will be a great song of praise. We can probably think of a few others. I had a good laugh this morning just remembering all the animals.

 

[Waxahachie1]

I don't think anyone can truly understand the facts and the law that the Supreme Court applied in upholding Judge Turner's sanction in People v. Tippet for a "pattern of neglect" - reduction of the charge from First Degree to Second Degree Murder - without reading the majority decision in its entirety. I cannot effectively summarize it. Reading the posts in this forum (including mine) just won't get you there. In fact, you may be misled. For those interested in learning the court's reasoning, the decision can be found here.

Three of the justices dissented, as OP has pointed out. If - as the justices speculate - the judges of the 11th District were looking for an opportunity to address the DA's longstanding pattern of neglecting discovery violations, I don't see a problem with that so long as the pattern exists. The fact that Judge Turner is one of many militates against the judgments of OP that her motives were suspect. If you read the case you may agree with me that the minority opinion is more gut reaction than a principled application of the applicable rules and judicially established standards. If you don't agree with me, that's great - tell me more!

 

[Love Never Fails]

@Waxahachie1

By the way, welcome!

 

[Love Never Fails]

Noise started this case with an AA full of characterization, speculation and hearsay that lay people assumed would all be able to be used in an actual trial and made this case the social media viral that it is, moved to a preliminary where the prosecution generated noise with their confusion and disarray and ended with judicial noise from a judge trying to get the ship righted from noise on both sides. But for me the bottom line is it is the state’s responsibility to bring people to trial and it is the state that essentially ruined this first attempt. Everything else is hmmmm just more noise. Of course IE capitalized on it. That is called legal strategy. It wouldn’t surprise me if LS never played chess or Risk in her younger years.

Well. Excuse our “noise” as we carry on.

Oh and I believe lay people can have an opinion as not everyone posting is an attorney. Otherwise we would find another website to post our comments so as not to irritate the more “intelligent” posters!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Well. Excuse our “noise” as we carry on.

Oh and I believe lay people can have an opinion as not everyone posting is an attorney. Otherwise we would find another website to post our comments so as not to irritate the more “intelligent” posters!

Oh I enjoy watching the noise lol since I generally don’t get emotionally invested.I enjoy all kinds of posts but primarily I like watching the analysis and trial strategies. I am not much of a speculator and try not to get pinned down to any particular theory of any case I choose to watch so squishy in that regard. The more complex the more I am apt to follow. I enjoy the back and forth here.

 

[Love Never Fails]

From the article -
“Lindsey, the first witness called by the state, testified that he was the main prosecutor working on the Morphew case with help from another one who, like him, was also working on many other cases. He said the case needed a prosecutor working exclusivlely on it as well as a full-time investigator and victim’s advocate. He said he had to work nights and weekends to try to keep up with the case, and quit as preparations began for trial.”

First let me acknowledge - Linda Stanley has always been a lightening rod for what went wrong with the Morphew case. Anyone on these threads can likely see she is personally not cut out to be a politician. I think that’s what the voters liked about her. But that very same lack of political awareness and political demeanor are what led her to this moment.
She made an easy target for the much more cunning and politically savvy, sharp elbowed ( razor blade sharp) IE and her “element”.
Linda with her “damn the optics full speed ahead” and trust of a reporter ( eye roll) served herself up to scrutiny. And IE, the political animal that she is, seized the opportunity.
To me that’s it in a nutshell. There is no doubt in my mind that Linda Stanley is not any more or less ethical than most lawyers in Colorado.

As far as the Morphew case -
Of course as DA Linda bears the responsibility for the failure of her team to put BM away.
But it’s not that simple.

The true failure of bringing Justice for Suzanne rests on so many other shoulders as well. A whole lot of people in Colorado are culpable for BM being free. And a lot of it had to do with “politics”.

Anybody on these threads could also see from the early days that without help and resources the prosecution of BM was going to blow up and become the CF it ultimately became.

Without resources I don’t care who is sailing the ship - you are going to run aground.

With the notoriety of this case and all eyes being on it, my hope would be that the second time around with BM arrested the state of Colorado will give this case what it needs.

Do I think that will actually happen? I give it 50-50 at best.
JMO.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[kittythehare]

From the article -
“Lindsey, the first witness called by the state, testified that he was the main prosecutor working on the Morphew case with help from another one who, like him, was also working on many other cases. He said the case needed a prosecutor working exclusivlely on it as well as a full-time investigator and victim’s advocate. He said he had to work nights and weekends to try to keep up with the case, and quit as preparations began for trial.”

First let me acknowledge - Linda Stanley has always been a lightening rod for what went wrong with the Morphew case. Anyone on these threads can likely see she is personally not cut out to be a politician. I think that’s what the voters liked about her. But that very same lack of political awareness and political demeanor are what led her to this moment.
She made an easy target for the much more cunning and politically savvy, sharp elbowed ( razor blade sharp) IE and her “element”.
Linda with her “damn the optics full speed ahead” and trust of a reporter ( eye roll) served herself up to scrutiny. And IE, the political animal that she is, seized the opportunity.
To me that’s it in a nutshell. There is no doubt in my mind that Linda Stanley is not any more or less ethical than most lawyers in Colorado.

As far as the Morphew case -
Of course as DA Linda bears the responsibility for the failure of her team to put BM away.
But it’s not that simple.

The true failure of bringing Justice for Suzanne rests on so many other shoulders as well. A whole lot of people in Colorado are culpable for BM being free. And a lot of it had to do with “politics”.

Anybody on these threads could also see from the early days that without help and resources the prosecution of BM was going to blow up and become the CF it ultimately became.

Without resources I don’t care who is sailing the ship - you are going to run aground.

With the notoriety of this case and all eyes being on it, my hope would be that the second time around with BM arrested the state of Colorado will give this case what it needs.

Do I think that will actually happen? I give it 50-50 at best.
JMO.

50-50 feels about right to me too.

Of course a lot depends upon what the full details of the autopsy revealed..
We simply do not know but if, as you rightly say . the resources and staffing levels are not in place there is no chance it will succeed..

 

[Love Never Fails]

Oh I enjoy watching the noise lol since I generally don’t get emotionally invested.I enjoy all kinds of posts but primarily I like watching the analysis and trial strategies. I am not much of a speculator and try not to get pinned down to any particular theory of any case I choose to watch so squishy in that regard. The more complex the more I am apt to follow. I enjoy the back and forth here.

I know you enjoy it and that’s great. Just not for me. I want justice for Suzanne without the haggling and antics of attorneys and media. BM is guilty and if a DA isn’t polished or political, so be it. If the high priced defense plays games in the media for her client, I detest it. It becomes very personal to me.

The only reason I come to Websleuths is to find out if a perp has been arrested with just cause and if justice is ultimately served. I may get a bit carried away when a a snake is allowed to slither away. And even more so when he can afford some high priced attorney while many a poor man sits on death row because he didn’t have that kind of representation. And would that same high priced attorney represent the underprivileged man? No of course not. She is too busy showing off her high priced skills and playing games. I will never change my opinion and am happy being a lay person making noise.

You have a right to your reasons and I respect that.

 

[MassGuy]

Noise started this case with an AA full of characterization, speculation and hearsay that lay people assumed would all be able to be used in an actual trial and made this case the social media viral that it is, moved to a preliminary where the prosecution generated noise with their confusion and disarray and ended with judicial noise from a judge trying to get the ship righted from noise on both sides. But for me the bottom line is it is the state’s responsibility to bring people to trial and it is the state that essentially ruined this first attempt. Everything else is hmmmm just more noise. Of course IE capitalized on it. That is called legal strategy. It wouldn’t surprise me if LS never played chess or Risk in her younger years.

The noise started a full year before we ever saw that AA. We had this low risk victim disappear in a low crime area, allegedly on Mother’s Day. We had this bizarre YouTube video from Barry, an FBI led dig at Barry’s job site, rumors coming from all over the place, Suzanne’s brother leading a search, interviews with witnesses, and a husband who continued to dig himself a hole.

Right now we are 114 threads in. We were at thread 67 when the prelim began, and 82 when the AA was released.

A bit of inadmissible evidence was not necessary to keep that fire burning, and some of that evidence that was ruled inadmissible should have been allowed.

The AA successfully led to an arrest warrant being signed. That preliminary hearing was successful in providing the probable cause to send this to trial.

I couldn’t care less about the noise generated by idiots on the internet. If they thought that Barry being a conman, making women uncomfortable, looking at *advertiser censored*, and discussing his daughter’s virginity in front of dinner guests was evidence of his guilt, then they need their devices taken away.

 

[kittythehare]

Victim friendly first and foremost.
Nothing compares to that.
Nothing under the Sun.

 

[Love Never Fails]

The noise started a full year before we ever saw that AA. We had this low risk victim disappear in a low crime area, allegedly on Mother’s Day. We had this bizarre YouTube video from Barry, an FBI led dig at Barry’s job site, rumors coming from all over the place, Suzanne’s brother leading a search, interviews with witnesses, and a husband who continued to dig himself a hole.

Right now we are 114 threads in. We were at thread 67 when the prelim began, and 82 when the AA was released.

A bit of inadmissible evidence was not necessary to keep that fire burning, and some of that evidence that was ruled inadmissible should have been allowed.

The AA successfully led to an arrest warrant being signed. That preliminary hearing was successful in providing the probable cause to send this to trial.

I couldn’t care less about the noise generated by idiots on the internet. If they thought that Barry being a conman, making women uncomfortable, looking at *advertiser censored*, and discussing his daughter’s virginity in front of dinner guests was evidence of his guilt, then they need their devices taken away.

As I said, simple logic. He controlled, manipulated, gaslighted, abused and then murdered his wife.