Momofthreeboys
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,665
- Reaction score
- 17,493
As well as the DNa discovery. When Kohberger gets to trial I will be interested in how both sides and their experts handle the DNa.
Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #115
- Thread starter Mysti88c
- Start date
I disagreed with many of Judge Lama's rulings at the time they were made, and like Dan May I wondered why the prosecutors decided to dismiss the charges rather than appeal those rulings. Surely if they were so egregious as to justify your personal demonization of Judge Lama, the appeal would have been successful and the trial would have proceeded.To explain to some of the discrepancies written in the summary of Domenico's ruling compared to the facts as we know them, one need go no further than Ramsey Lama's April 8, 2022 Order:
ORDER RE: [D-17] DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING; [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17C] SUPPLEMENT; AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT
--which effectively served to exclude 11 out of 16 of the People’s endorsed expert witnesses and essentially dismissed the State's case. Also, be reminded how Ramsey Lama conveniently ignored the States response for consideration in the ruling, and admitted IE's misstatements as if they were valid, conveniently disclosing the Court's bias in the lowly footnotes to the Order!
1 However, the Court noted on March 30, 2022 on the record, that it would only consider [D-17] through [D-17d] in this Order as the arguments in those motions are fully briefed at this time.
8 The Court notes there is an outstanding motion submitted by the People to “partially reconsider” its March 10, 2022 Order striking Expert Witnesses. Mot., 1 (Apr. 1, 2022). However, as of the date of this Order, the Motion has not been fully briefed by the parties and the Court does not consider these arguments in its discussion of its findings today. On April 5, 2022, Defendant filed his Response to the Motion to Partially Reconsider.
As I've opined before, it's unfortunate when a Justice relies on the Ruling of another fellow Justice because they should be able to trust the ruling was made with all the facts and information from both parties, in the interest of justice, but in this case, the ruling is missing "the rest of the story."
It bears repeating -- Ramsey Lama was a cancer to this case. MOO.
People of the State of Colorado v. Barry Lee Morphew | Colorado Judicial Branch
www.coloradojudicial.gov
By April 8, Judge Lama had already excluded 11 witnesses as sanctions for discovery reasons and 3 witnesses on other grounds. His order of that date was made in response to Morphew's request for additional sanctions, which Lama rejected. The prosecution's arguments for partial reconsideration of his prior exclusion order were not properly before the court but more importantly, the court's ruling on the request for additional sanctions was favorable to the prosecution even though the reconsideration arguments were not considered. Subsequent developments made the arguments for reconsideration moot.
I am puzzled by your reference to footnote 1 in the order, which refers to Judge Lams's decision not to consider all of MORPHEW's requests for discovery sanctions in the April 8 order.
Judge Lama's decisions to exclude witnesses certainly doomed the prosecution of the case before him, but they could have been appealed. He was wrong but he is not, IMO, the sole reason the case collapsed, let alone a "cancer" on the case. All MOO.
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,369
- Reaction score
- 438,892
^^rsbm
To be clear, nowhere did I state that Lama was the "sole reason the case collapsed," and I'm sorry if you read my post to infer these words.
waldojabba
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 1,937
- Reaction score
- 30,265
There is no doubt in my mind that Yes the prosecution could have appealed and should have appealed.
But, have you “ met” the prosecution team lol? The “gang that could not shoot straight”?
Under staffed and perhaps out of their league with remarkably little leadership with their DA constantly under the microscope for real or perceived indiscretions.
I don’t believe that team had the energy to mobilize an appeal or even the will to do it at that point. Over worked and exhausted.
Just my opinion of course
Momofthreeboys
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,665
- Reaction score
- 17,493
I don’t disagree and in hindsight Lama’s decisions were reasoned and probably saved the state for the possibility of a second trial by giving them an “out”.
You're right, of course. The prosecution team was not ready for trial. They were pretty good trial lawyers as far as I can tell, and they wrote very good motions and briefs.
But organizational leadership and support was lacking. Lindsey brought them in but resigned just after the initial hearing: Stanley had no organizational leadership experience and had checked out as a decision maker, leaving it to Lindsey. The team didn't know who would be lead trial counsel! Even though Judge Lama allowed it to go to trial, prospects for victory were already Slim to None, and Slim had left town with the excluded witnesses.
Still, a successful appeal would have given them time to get their act together and restored the essential evidence. The appeal might have outlasted the retiring Lama and they could get another judge appointed.
Maybe they just didn't believe they could be successful enough on appeal to make it worthwhile. Maybe they thought their sorry records management would continue to haunt them, giving Eytan chances to blow up the trial after jeopardy attached. We'll never know.
I must say I was relieved when I learned that DA Kelly would take over the investigation and prosecution.
Love Never Fails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 13,040
- Reaction score
- 83,827
Hi. Anyone hear or read anything new as to when (if) charges are being filed against the “Oh Suzanne…..” suspect?
I will be traveling for a while and may not be able to post. But I think it's important to record in this thread what has not been addressed in the media: Judge Domenico's conclusion as to the significance of the UNCONTESTED facts derived from Morphew's civil complaint.
"Accounting for the exculpatory omissions and leaving out the allegedly fabricated or misleading evidence Plaintiff depends on, the arrest affidavit would tell an objective observer the following:
Plaintiff was controlling and both physically and emotionally abusive according to his wife. He was suspicious that she was cheating, at least emotionally, and they fought frequently. She didn’t feel safe at home with him and tried to break up with him a few days before she disappeared.
Plaintiff’s behavior on the Sunday of her disappearance was unusual. He had a job planned in Broomfield and was supposed to pick up an employee at 5:30 p.m. to drive to Broomfield and stay overnight in a hotel that he had booked over a week in advance. But he instead left his house at 5:30 a.m. and drove to Broomfield alone. This was Mother’s Day, and according to Plaintiff’s father-in-law, it was strange that he would work the Sunday of Mother’s Day, as he rarely worked on Sundays. He was observed throwing trash away in a McDonald’s parking lot in Broomfield around 10:00 a.m. and when questioned couldn’t remember what it was, stating it was “probably old clothes” or an old pair of boots. He tried to call and text his wife several times throughout this day.
Plaintiff was the last person to see his wife alive. By his own admission, he was alone with her from the afternoon of May 9 until the morning of May 10, when she disappeared, and he would have had time to murder her and dispose of the evidence. His wife’s computer and phone exhibited activity late into the evening of May 9, however, indicating she may still have been alive at that time.
His memory regarding the events leading up to his wife’s disappearance is fuzzy, and he gave conflicting statements about those events, including about whether they went on a hike together the day before her disappearance. He had scratches on his arm after she disappeared.
He suggested that saying “I don’t recall” is code for not wanting to tell the truth, but himself stated that he didn’t recall a number of key events leading to his wife’s disappearance.
He has previously bought and used tranquilizer chemicals in darts that he filled himself. He had a tranquilizer gun, but it was not operable and hadn’t been used recently. He gave conflicting statements about whether he had used the tranquilizer darts in Colorado. An expert was surprised that a civilian would have those tranquilizer chemicals.
He started liquidating assets and seeing another woman shortly after his wife disappeared, long before her body was found.
His wife’s mountain bike was found in a ravine near their home, and dogs detected her scent in that area. Unknown male DNA was found on the bike, on the carpet by their bed and on a stair in their house, and in her car. The DNA from her car potentially matched that from unsolved sexual assault investigations.
Cadaver dogs did not alert to Plaintiff’s truck, and GPS data indicated that his Bobcat skid steer had not been moved since before his wife’s disappearance.
Plaintiff is a skilled hunter and a landscaper and may have had the tools and expertise to kill his wife, bury her body, and destroy the evidence.
On these facts, I find no room for debate that the relatively low bar of probable cause was met."
My point is that Morphew could be arrested tomorrow on the basis of facts he does not contest. What is unknown is the additional evidence produced by the investigation that began when Suzanne's remains were found. I believe that with the support of the state and her fellow DAs, Kelly will put together a strong case. Not a perfect case because there has never been such a thing. But a very compelling case. I hope the discussion here will include speculation about what that case would look like and where additional evidence may be found to refute Morphew's defenses.
Again, thanks to all for your insights.
"Accounting for the exculpatory omissions and leaving out the allegedly fabricated or misleading evidence Plaintiff depends on, the arrest affidavit would tell an objective observer the following:
Plaintiff was controlling and both physically and emotionally abusive according to his wife. He was suspicious that she was cheating, at least emotionally, and they fought frequently. She didn’t feel safe at home with him and tried to break up with him a few days before she disappeared.
Plaintiff’s behavior on the Sunday of her disappearance was unusual. He had a job planned in Broomfield and was supposed to pick up an employee at 5:30 p.m. to drive to Broomfield and stay overnight in a hotel that he had booked over a week in advance. But he instead left his house at 5:30 a.m. and drove to Broomfield alone. This was Mother’s Day, and according to Plaintiff’s father-in-law, it was strange that he would work the Sunday of Mother’s Day, as he rarely worked on Sundays. He was observed throwing trash away in a McDonald’s parking lot in Broomfield around 10:00 a.m. and when questioned couldn’t remember what it was, stating it was “probably old clothes” or an old pair of boots. He tried to call and text his wife several times throughout this day.
Plaintiff was the last person to see his wife alive. By his own admission, he was alone with her from the afternoon of May 9 until the morning of May 10, when she disappeared, and he would have had time to murder her and dispose of the evidence. His wife’s computer and phone exhibited activity late into the evening of May 9, however, indicating she may still have been alive at that time.
His memory regarding the events leading up to his wife’s disappearance is fuzzy, and he gave conflicting statements about those events, including about whether they went on a hike together the day before her disappearance. He had scratches on his arm after she disappeared.
He suggested that saying “I don’t recall” is code for not wanting to tell the truth, but himself stated that he didn’t recall a number of key events leading to his wife’s disappearance.
He has previously bought and used tranquilizer chemicals in darts that he filled himself. He had a tranquilizer gun, but it was not operable and hadn’t been used recently. He gave conflicting statements about whether he had used the tranquilizer darts in Colorado. An expert was surprised that a civilian would have those tranquilizer chemicals.
He started liquidating assets and seeing another woman shortly after his wife disappeared, long before her body was found.
His wife’s mountain bike was found in a ravine near their home, and dogs detected her scent in that area. Unknown male DNA was found on the bike, on the carpet by their bed and on a stair in their house, and in her car. The DNA from her car potentially matched that from unsolved sexual assault investigations.
Cadaver dogs did not alert to Plaintiff’s truck, and GPS data indicated that his Bobcat skid steer had not been moved since before his wife’s disappearance.
Plaintiff is a skilled hunter and a landscaper and may have had the tools and expertise to kill his wife, bury her body, and destroy the evidence.
On these facts, I find no room for debate that the relatively low bar of probable cause was met."
My point is that Morphew could be arrested tomorrow on the basis of facts he does not contest. What is unknown is the additional evidence produced by the investigation that began when Suzanne's remains were found. I believe that with the support of the state and her fellow DAs, Kelly will put together a strong case. Not a perfect case because there has never been such a thing. But a very compelling case. I hope the discussion here will include speculation about what that case would look like and where additional evidence may be found to refute Morphew's defenses.
Again, thanks to all for your insights.
Last edited:
i suspect they simply thought it was worth getting a dismissal and see if they couldn’t find the body. Which ended up happening and seems to have answered a lot of questions. they don’t have to rely on theories about dart guns anymore because they have the drugs in the skeleton.
IMO and BTL that is also what the Judge wanted them to do.
I agree that this is an issue that will go to a jury. But juries tend to decide based on a quantum of evidence. If the overall case against Morphew is strong, the "unknown DNA" will not matter unless Morphew can affirmatively connect it with a credible suspect. IMO
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,369
- Reaction score
- 438,892
I don't think there's a chance in hades that BM will be charged in any form short of a grand jury indictment. Nope. There's no fool like an old fool, and lessons were no doubt learned in Southern Colorado where small districts with mini budgets and mediocre talent are no comparison to a defense strategy known to frustrate both the Court and the prosecution.
At best, the new prosecution team will keep afloat by supplementing their team with borrowed staff from across the state, and certainly don't need to borrow trouble by a defense team bent on scrubbing the prosecutions actions and documents to repeat allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, violations of the defendant's civil rights, and requests for sanctions. Take away the PCA and preliminary hearing, and let the games begin at bare bones Information and Discovery. Bring it on! MOO
ETA: Hoping one or more legal talking heads produces a YT to talk us through what to expect following a Colorado criminal indictment -- a rarity where a grand jury indictment is not the norm.
ETA2: add link
Rule 7 - The Indictment and the Information, Colo. R. Crim. P. 7 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Rule 7 - The Indictment and the Information, Colo. R. Crim. P. 7, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Last edited:
I am not Sherlock H.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 19,099
Also wondering what became of the investigation into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation analyst Yvonne Woods? Is that a settled matter? IMO it doesn’t seem to be? Might that need resolution and clarity before the BM case proceeds to a grand jury and / or indictment?
IANAL. Yet after the first false start in the case against BM it would seem this needs to be addressed? Beforehand?
I am not able to find a current update on this matter. CBI online website undated statement entitled ‘Colorado Bureau of Investigation Releases Findings from Internal Affairs Probe into Laboratory Testing‘; which indicates ‘A separate criminal investigation initiated late last year in the Woods matter is still underway.’*:
cbi.colorado.gov
CNN online March 11, 2024 article by Emma Tucker and Andi Babineau entitled ‘Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades’:
Maybe I am simply overlooking an update or resolution in this matter? *And exactly what year does this statement refer to? MOO
IANAL. Yet after the first false start in the case against BM it would seem this needs to be addressed? Beforehand?
I am not able to find a current update on this matter. CBI online website undated statement entitled ‘Colorado Bureau of Investigation Releases Findings from Internal Affairs Probe into Laboratory Testing‘; which indicates ‘A separate criminal investigation initiated late last year in the Woods matter is still underway.’*:
Colorado Bureau of Investigation Releases Findings from Internal Affairs Probe into Laboratory Testing | Colorado Bureau of Investigation
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) today announced the findings of an internal affairs investigation into a former CBI DNA scientist accused of data manipulation of DNA test results.
CNN online March 11, 2024 article by Emma Tucker and Andi Babineau entitled ‘Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades’:
Maybe I am simply overlooking an update or resolution in this matter? *And exactly what year does this statement refer to? MOO
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,369
- Reaction score
- 438,892
Granted, this is not a murder but it's the most current grand jury indictment I could locate in Colorado per MSM dated July 25, 2024 --and involves two public officials. It's my understanding that this is generally when Colorado employs a grand jury:
Indicted Robert Joel Gordanier and his daughter, Brenda Renee Hamilton, for crimes committed between July 2019 and November 2023. Gordanier was Mayor, Chief of Police, and Fire Department Chief, of the Town of Lakeside, and Hamilton was Town Clerk. The ten count indictment includes Embezzlement of Public Property, Theft, First Degree Official Misconduct, and Impersonating a Peace Officer.
In the linked MSM, I found instructions where to email the Court for a copy of the grand jury indictment, but not finding anything other than the docket (hearing dates) on the Colorado court site for Jefferson County.
And zilch for Jefferson County "public interest case" where you'd think this case would qualify!
Hmmm -- I'm not feeling optimistic about searching for future BM's docs with the updated Colorado Judicial Court site. MOO
www.coloradojudicial.gov
Indicted Robert Joel Gordanier and his daughter, Brenda Renee Hamilton, for crimes committed between July 2019 and November 2023. Gordanier was Mayor, Chief of Police, and Fire Department Chief, of the Town of Lakeside, and Hamilton was Town Clerk. The ten count indictment includes Embezzlement of Public Property, Theft, First Degree Official Misconduct, and Impersonating a Peace Officer.
In the linked MSM, I found instructions where to email the Court for a copy of the grand jury indictment, but not finding anything other than the docket (hearing dates) on the Colorado court site for Jefferson County.
And zilch for Jefferson County "public interest case" where you'd think this case would qualify!
Hmmm -- I'm not feeling optimistic about searching for future BM's docs with the updated Colorado Judicial Court site. MOO
Docket Search | Colorado Judicial Branch
Last edited:
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,369
- Reaction score
- 438,892
For illustration purposes only -- Copy of 39 Count Indictment (Violation of Colo Organized Crime Control Act) naming one individual.. December 2023 in Denver, County.
The 2023 Denver County Statutory Grand Jury, authorizes and instructs the Denver District Attorney to return this Indictment to open court with or without the ...
39 pages
The 2023 Denver County Statutory Grand Jury, authorizes and instructs the Denver District Attorney to return this Indictment to open court with or without the ...
39 pages
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,369
- Reaction score
- 438,892
Also wondering what became of the investigation into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation analyst Yvonne Woods? Is that a settled matter? IMO it doesn’t seem to be? Might that need resolution and clarity before the BM case proceeds to a grand jury and / or indictment?
IANAL. Yet after the first false start in the case against BM it would seem this needs to be addressed? Beforehand?
I am not able to find a current update on this matter. CBI online website undated statement entitled ‘Colorado Bureau of Investigation Releases Findings from Internal Affairs Probe into Laboratory Testing‘; which indicates ‘A separate criminal investigation initiated late last year in the Woods matter is still underway.’*:
Colorado Bureau of Investigation Releases Findings from Internal Affairs Probe into Laboratory Testing | Colorado Bureau of Investigation
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) today announced the findings of an internal affairs investigation into a former CBI DNA scientist accused of data manipulation of DNA test results.
CNN online March 11, 2024 article by Emma Tucker and Andi Babineau entitled ‘Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades’:
Maybe I am simply overlooking an update or resolution in this matter? *And exactly what year does this statement refer to? MOO
We know authorities discovered anomalies in Woods' work in September 2023, which was publicly announced in November. She retired just before the announcement.
I recall that one case was resolved by a plea deal but I don't know about Michael Clark, convicted of the 1994 homicide of Marty Grisham, 36, in Boulder, and sentenced to life in
prison.
Brackley also said he understands that the prosecution retested the DNA evidence in the Coughlin case and noted that the second results were the same as the first. Coughlin's case was not dismissed as defense requested but he will be eligible for parole in about 24 years (vs LWOP).
Unfortunately, Woods 29 year history with the CBI is being called into question so good luck with that! It's like MSP Michael Proctor to the 900M power.
Internal Affairs Report
ETA: In other words, it's almost like those making the most noise about Woods are most likely guilty as charged, and already unsuccessfully appealed their cases. I'm afraid this "free for all" will only clog the courts where those with legit, credible claims will get pushed back even further. There should be a better way to make this equitable. JMO
Last edited:
Thx for linking the 39 count indictment in Denver.Momofthreeboys
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,665
- Reaction score
- 17,493
I don’t disagree my point is only it will be part of any trial and agree that it is one piece or part of everything in this trial.
Right - but I personally doubt IE would be allowed to suggest to the jury that the DNA means an out of state sex offender was in the RR unless the evidence actually does show that.
There are likely to be a pre-trial rulings on this stuff.
IMO the weakness might be that IE can still call Cahill to say stupid things. She got lucky at the prelim that he said dumb things on the record that she could then bring in to the civil case. But of course next time he won't be the state witness. But maybe she can still call him to talk nonsense.
Momofthreeboys
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,665
- Reaction score
- 17,493
My gut says the battles will be around what hearsay and what circumstantial evidence and what recorded conversations will be allowed in. And I agree there probably would be no grand jury. Even in the first attempt I think there was "enough" to get to trial it was just the prosecutorial execution that failed so enough to get to trial would hold true in a second attempt so why impanel a GJ...get the arrest warrant and get through the low bar of the preliminary unscathed.
Grand Jury indictment definitely has some advantages.
Prosecutors in Idaho, expecting a defense of Bryan Kohberger no less aggressive than Morphew's, procured an indictment that superseded the information/complaint upon which Kohberger was initially arrested. They didn't avoid the entire blizzard of motions but they did avoid the kind of games lawyers can play with witnesses in preliminary hearings, before an ongoing investigation is entirely complete.
But convening and supporting a grand jury is expensive and burdensome, especially for small, resource poor counties. In Idaho, the state stepped in to provide logistical support and top legal talent as lead counsel, which IMO has prevented the local prosecutor from being overwhelmed as Stanley and company were. It also enabled use of the grand jury.
The Colorado AG has a special prosecutions unit that similarly supports rural DAs. Most recently, the team participated in the prosecution of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted of crimes associated with her effort to support false election denial theories. I don't believe DA Kelly will hesitate to bring in the AG's team and let the AG share the credit for the conviction of Morphew. I am surprised that DA Stanley and her assistant Lindsey didn't call them: just one of many missed opportunities in a leaderless office.
All MOO.