Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #115

[Momofthreeboys]

Thank you for the summary and details @Tragg …. the information is a nice assembly of some key points in the BM case. With respect to this note in the above excerpt:

“His wife’s phone and computer exhibited activity into the evening of May 9, suggesting that she was alive past the time investigators theorized he had killed her.”

Perhaps it might be more accurate to indicate that IIUC SM phone and computer were ‘active’ or being used (by someone….. perhaps not SM?) in a time possibly after that in which she was theorized to have been deceased. It is also possible that the investigators and prosecution might further refine the timeline of events. And the location of electronic devices at time of ‘use’ still needs to be considered.

There are similarities in the Idaho Bryan Kohberger slaying case of four students where certain electronic activity (or the absence of activity) is a factor in assembling that case. MOO

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.

 

[Tragg]

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

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.

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]

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.

^^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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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”.

 

[Tragg]

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

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.