Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w prejudice* #104

[Boxer]

Defense team presented partial DNA evidence located in SM glove box to the court as a partial match to a possible sex offender in Arizona and Judge Murphy grants bail for murder 1 based on possibility of unknown sex offender abducted Suzanne and left a single partial DNA marker only in her glove box, planted the helmet, planted the bike, made BM lie through his veneered teeth, fake a job on mother's day, mess with his truck throughout the night, place his phone in airplane mode at crucial times, shoot chipmunks during the time of SM last sign of life etc etc etc. IMO it is very difficult to win a no body case. It is impossible if a Judge places such significant weight to a partial DNA marker, totally unrelated to the case.... Murphy recused after SD trespasses imo all staged by defense team for a recusal.... Llama takes over... Guts the case after deciding before the case to retire after the case...says publicly he was wanting to retire before he received the case....Llama enters private practice after retiring.

LS also needs to be held accountable for her failures to present a case. Was she even in court for the PH?LE was not on the same page, and had many missteps with the local sheriff deputies mishandling the bike scene and asking BM for evidence bags from the house. CBI and FBI seemed in competition for notoriety and ego boosting. Cahill, who shot himself with his own gun, threw a wrench in the case with testimony favoring the defense as a prosecution witness.Grusing talks with BM for thirty hours, gets a ton of lies- but no smoking gun irrefutable evidence or a confession. I've never heard Spezee say anything about the case except the one press conference. Why did fail at getting poncho market video? What info was in the search warrant for the concrete slab? Why not release info and ask the public for help? Why did Spezee not assist Andy Moorman with a search? BM arrives at the bike scene on Sunday, looks guilty as hell, talking about a mountain lion knocking SM off her bike and killing her. Do your job. Start asking questions! Then BM and theGeorge guy (workout frosted tips buddy who happens to be at the bike scene before BM)touch the bike and walk away. LE is suspect. They say it on bodycam. Why not question BM at that point?

Also- it's been on my mind about Jeff Libler and the affair. He knew vital info about SM disappearance and withheld that info. SM was having a years long affair with a married man with 6 kids- she goes missing- and he says nothing for 6 months? SM behavior with the affair imo pushed a controlling, manipulative BM over the edge. I believe BM was watching her sexting with JL that Saturday of her murder. BM had it planned. Too many coincidences, and the fact she has not been found clearly point to planning.

Agree. It’s the DAs job to reign in all these factors. Shooting from the hip just doesn’t work.
MOO DA May should have been brought to mentor LS through this sprawling investigation. The inability to edit an AA down to the irrefutable was a red flag.
Then add a harridan (though a competent defense attorney) like IE and you get tipped over.

 

[Seattle1]

Agree. It’s the DAs job to reign in all these factors. Shooting from the hip just doesn’t work.
MOO DA May should have been brought to mentor LS through this sprawling investigation. The inability to edit an AA down to the irrefutable was a red flag.
Then add a harridan (though a competent defense attorney) like IE and you get tipped over.

^^BBM

While I'd never seen a 120+ page AA prior to BM's arrest, I've also never seen a two-page AA in Colorado.

For example, I just looked up the AA for Patrick Frazee and it was 15 pages, and the search warrant for his residence was 30 pages. (Noting that Colorado Courts do not seem to make search warrants as readily available to the public).

And the AA for Letecia Stauch was 32 pages. JMO

ETA: add link

Home | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.courts.state.co.us

The District Attorney is responsible for preparing the Complaint and Information (informs the court of the statutory offenses committed, or triable, in the County of Chaffee) after a judge signs the arrest warrant and the suspect is arrested.

Similar to each of the cases cited above from the district of the former DA Dan May, the Application and Affidavit in support of probable cause (AA) here was also not by the district attorney (LS) but by the affiant Alex Walker of CCSO.

Since it's sport to pile everything imaginable-- including the weather on LS , I think it would be good for somebody to ask former DA Dan May why he did not and would not edit the facts in support of probable cause (i.e., the AA) by the Woodland Park Police or El Paso County Sheriff's Office-- linked in the quoted post. MOO

 

[O.Incandenza]

I think you've answered my question now @Seattle1 - thank you!

In summary, there could have been a better editing job to summarise the content to make it more concise - because the State need only rise to probable cause standard, which will be fully tested at the prelim, so no need to have the whole case (to date) in the AA.

What I particularly note, is that hearsay evidence etc is allowed in the AA - so this oft repeated criticism seems to be incorrectly made.

www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/affidavit_writing_made_easy.pdf

Has that been a criticism? I haven't heard it. There's definitely no rule against hearsay in an AA, they're usually almost entirely hearsay as they're just a narrative told by the affiant, who isn't usually recounting first-hand experience.

The criticism of the AA is that it includes lots of inadmissible character evidence (accounts of bad business dealings in Indiana, neighbors being creeped out by statements about his daughter, etc). None of that stuff was relevant to probable cause, none of it will be admissible at trial, and including all of it practically guaranteed a change of venue.

There are also just weird parts, like including lots of information on the bobcat and then stating it had nothing to with the crime. That section just reads like they wrote it in anticipation of finding evidence it was involved, found out it wasn't and then didn't bother to remove it from the AA.

It got the job done, so I don't think its deficiencies are all that important. But to me it's a very messy document, and was one of the first indications that the prosecution was not totally on top of the case when they filed it.

 

[CGray123]

BIB - my point continues to be that this material arose in the Prelim in any event - e.g. the Domestic Abuse/Violence evidence which was later restricted at trial. And that type of evidence is also allowed in the AA where rules of evidence do not apply. The Judge only rules on admissibility of evidence at trial once the prelim is decided.

So the complaints about the AA seem to be more in the grumpy judge category (too long!), and subsequent public access to that document (which could have been redacted), rather than the actual presentation of hearsay or inadmissible evidence which is allowed at the prelim stage in open court, covered by journalists.

Reading the AA, i don't get the feeling of lack of preparation - rather of a very thorough and complete investigation. So presumably someone intentionally decided to go this route for reasons we don't know.

But it's possible they simply felt that in such an unusual case, the Judge needed to see the full picture?

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied at preliminary hearings in Colorado, as Judge M states in his ruling. But he initially sealed the AA, in part to give the parties time to give him input on redactions that might be necessary to allow BM to prepare his defense and to protect witnesses, including the daughters, from efforts to influence them or harass them. He noted, in connection with these substantial public interests, that the AA contained a substantial amount of information that was irrelevant to his finding of probable cause for arrest and possibly not admissible at trial.

There is no question in my mind that he was giving the prosecution an opportunity to redact the affidavit and avoid, or at least mitigate, the issues that led to Judge L's decision to change venue. There was never any hope that the defense would offer any meaningful or reasonable help with redactions; his comments were a message to LS that the AA could be a problem, and that he was giving her a chance to correct it. She didn't take that opportunity, and Judge M made minimal redactions as a consequence. IMO, LS's failure to edit the AA is one of her many tactical and strategic mistakes in this case. Politically effective, legally harmful.

I also agree with your assessment that the AA attests to the thoroughness of the investigation by the CCSO, CBI, and FBI.

There was no need to throw in the irrelevant, inadmissible, and unfairly prejudicial stuff to bolster the case at prelim. Judge M had seen it already, and found probable cause on the basis of the admissible evidence: he signed the AA. Binding BM over for trial should have been a slam dunk. Why didn't LS insist on redactions when the judge gave her the high sign? Did she want to prejudice the jury pool? Or was she just stupid? I can't believe she did it out of ignorance: her experienced deputy Jeff Lindsey would have advised her to do it, in the interest of keeping jurisdiction in Chaffee County. And I don't believe she's stupid. So...

 

[CGray123]

^^BBM

The District Attorney is responsible for preparing the Complaint and Information (informs the court of the statutory offenses committed, or triable, in the County of Chaffee) after a judge signs the arrest warrant and the suspect is arrested.

Similar to each of the cases cited above from the district of the former DA Dan May, the Application and Affidavit in support of probable cause (AA) here was also not by the district attorney (LS) but by the affiant Alex Walker of CCSO.

Since it's sport to pile everything imaginable-- including the weather on LS , I think it would be good for somebody to ask former DA Dan May why he did not and would not edit the facts in support of probable cause (i.e., the AA) by the Woodland Park Police or El Paso County Sheriff's Office-- linked in the quoted post. MOO

<modsnip - personalizing>

I have read the AA in the Stauch case, and I found no issues of the kind that troubled Judge M in the Morphew case. Perhaps this reflects the fact that investigators consulted the DA and edited the AA before they signed it. <modsnip>

 

[Momofthreeboys]

...

There was no need to throw in the irrelevant, inadmissible, and unfairly prejudicial stuff to bolster the case at prelim. Judge M had seen it already, and found probable cause on the basis of the admissible evidence: he signed the AA. Binding BM over for trial should have been a slam dunk. Why didn't LS insist on redactions when the judge gave her the high sign? Did she want to prejudice the jury pool? Or was she just stupid? I can't believe she did it out of ignorance: her experienced deputy Jeff Lindsey would have advised her to do it, in the interest of keeping jurisdiction in Chaffee County. And I don't believe she's stupid. So...

Excellent observation. I've pondered many things about the early part of the trial. I did say and do believe and agree there were enough facts to sign the arrest warrant and let the process move forward but probably will never understand how the case became so tangled into the preliminary.

 

[Seattle1]

There is no question in my mind that he was giving the prosecution an opportunity to redact the affidavit and avoid, or at least mitigate, the issues that led to Judge L's decision to change venue.

^^bbm

Given the DA's office made it perfectly clear from the very first hearing that they had no reason to request the AA withheld from the public, but would support whatever position or decision by the Court, I disagree the prosecution needed or wanted an opportunity to redact the AA.

Instead, it was the defense that rather than suggest any redaction to the AA by law enforcement, they drafted their own version of the AA that they wanted to be substituted for the AA and released to the public! Fortunately, the court shut down that idea before IE could finish her statement.

As to the change of venue, Salida residents made up their minds about BM's guilt or innocence long before the AA was released. I cite this was due more to small-town gossip and politics than the AA. MOO

ETA: add link

The defense teams filed that motion because, they said, too many people in Salida and Chaffee County are familiar with the case. They say that will make it difficult to find an impartial jury.

Judge grants change of venue request in Barry Morphew murder trial

Accused murderer Barry Morphew and his defense team have been granted a change of venue request.

kdvr.com

 

[CGray123]

^^rsbm
Nope, I don't think my statement is over-the-top -- especially when read as intended: in the full context of the post where I believe LS rightfully lost credibility here and where the respected Dan May should answer the question of why district attorneys do not edit AA's written in support of probable cause for an arrest warrant by law enforcement.

To my personal knowledge, prosecutors work with investigators at every stage, including the preparation of the arrest affidavit.

 

[CGray123]

The defense teams filed that motion because, they said, too many people in Salida and Chaffee County are familiar with the case. They say that will make it difficult to find an impartial jury.

Well, yeah. And LS, given a chance to deny this argument to the defense by Judge M, passed.

 

[Seattle1]

Well, yeah. And LS, given a chance to deny this argument to the defense by Judge M, passed.

<modsnip>

This was an order by Judge Lama.

Again, the residents were more likely to learn about this case by the way of small-town gossip than by reading the 130+pgae AA.

The personnel from the DA's office live in these communities. They didn't deny this. Everybody wanted BM to have a fair trial and if that meant Canon City then so be it. JMO

 

[Goldenseal]

Just a vague memory. I certainly didn't know who AWP was at the time. In retrospect, they were clearly involved in her water search.

864K views · 1K comments | WATER SEARCH for SUZANNE MORPHEW..! (Missing Person Case) | WATER SEARCH for SUZANNE MORPHEW..! (Missing Person Case) Searching a frozen mine and river for Suzanne Morphew on Monarch Pass with AK (Kurt) from... | By Advent

WATER SEARCH for SUZANNE MORPHEW..! (Missing Person Case) Searching a frozen mine and river for Suzanne Morphew on Monarch Pass with AK (Kurt) from...

www.facebook.com

The only thing that has stuck in my mind was that certain volunteer search partys were threatened and 'were encouraged' to back off'.

Consider this IIRC, but I will try to go back and see if I can find this.

JMO

ETA - hoping to jog someone's memory.

I remember this fairly clearly -- AWP came out to start a water search. Someone requested them, but I don't remember exactly who. They started working in a body of water, but soon were feeling watched AND threatened; they didn't explain the nature of the threats, but soon withdrew because they were pretty scared. They had hardly begun.

 

[Puzzles8]

I remember this fairly clearly -- AWP came out to start a water search. Someone requested them, but I don't remember exactly who. They started working in a body of water, but soon were feeling watched AND threatened; they didn't explain the nature of the threats, but soon withdrew because they were pretty scared. They had hardly begun.

In retrospect from re watching old AWP YouTube videos, AWP had a early heads up from LE/CBI regarding their safety in pursuing this search. They had CBI protection from the start. CBI noticed enough suspicious activity that they advised AWP to abandon their search on one of the earliest days. AWP took CBI's advice seriously regarding their safety and left the area without completing their planned search. In AWP videos, they comment that this was one of the creepiest searches they had ever embarked on.

I still think it is odd that there were people trying to interfere with the search for Suzanne. I have to ask myself, what would have been their possible motive/s?

Someone really didn't want Suzanne to be found, and it seemed to be more people than BM alone.......

#Find Suzanne

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

In retrospect from re watching old AWP YouTube videos, AWP had a early heads up from LE/CBI regarding their safety in pursuing this search. They had CBI protection from the start. CBI noticed enough suspicious activity that they advised AWP to abandon their search on one of the earliest days. AWP took CBI's advice seriously regarding their safety and left the area without completing their planned search. In AWP videos, they comment that this was one of the creepiest searches they had ever embarked on.

I still think it is odd that there were people trying to interfere with the search for Suzanne. I have to ask myself, what would have been their possible motive/s?

Someone really didn't want Suzanne to be found, and it seemed to be more people than BM alone.......

#Find Suzanne

JMO

It is interesting to revisit AWP with the benefit of hindsight. I too remember seeing them interviewed on profiling evil, during the early days of Mike and Chris iirc. When I get a moment It might be interesting like you did to go back and have another listen.
They were in town for only a short period of time. AWP’s security peeps pulled them from their mission I believe due to the threatening actions and behavior on the part of unknown people. Was it at fosse’s people were seen watching AWP from the woods above the water with guns ? I wonder who from CBI was helping them out. We know from previous threads and mountain mail articles that there was an active militia in the Salida area. Connected? Not connected?
So thinking as I write, if AWP was working with LE/CBI - strange to have LE tell them to leave town due to threats - why didn’t LE ferret out those threats and let AWP go about business.
Interesting dynamic there. Cartel like imo.
Really does make me wonder who LE could not protect them from.
Makes me wonder too if AWP was getting too close for comfort.
Lots to think about

 

[crhedBngr]

In retrospect from re watching old AWP YouTube videos, AWP had a early heads up from LE/CBI regarding their safety in pursuing this search. They had CBI protection from the start. CBI noticed enough suspicious activity that they advised AWP to abandon their search on one of the earliest days. AWP took CBI's advice seriously regarding their safety and left the area without completing their planned search. In AWP videos, they comment that this was one of the creepiest searches they had ever embarked on.

I still think it is odd that there were people trying to interfere with the search for Suzanne. I have to ask myself, what would have been their possible motive/s?

Someone really didn't want Suzanne to be found, and it seemed to be more people than BM alone.......

#Find Suzanne

JMO

RBBM

IF those engaging in threatening behavior were there at BM's request, I really wonder what he told them.

Scary.

JMVHO.

 

[GOBliaison]

In retrospect from re watching old AWP YouTube videos, AWP had a early heads up from LE/CBI regarding their safety in pursuing this search. They had CBI protection from the start. CBI noticed enough suspicious activity that they advised AWP to abandon their search on one of the earliest days. AWP took CBI's advice seriously regarding their safety and left the area without completing their planned search. In AWP videos, they comment that this was one of the creepiest searches they had ever embarked on.

I still think it is odd that there were people trying to interfere with the search for Suzanne. I have to ask myself, what would have been their possible motive/s?

Someone really didn't want Suzanne to be found, and it seemed to be more people than BM alone.......

#Find Suzanne

JMO

^ ^ it. + bbm ^ ^

Uhhh...perhaps...

• ...some Firehouse Buds/Other Buds of Barry ...
• ...merely taking the liberty of meandering around area(s) not expressly closed to them by the Sheriff of Salida..
• ... to air their winter-stored musty, ninja-inspired outerwear...
• ... and to show & tell, compare and contrast and generally grabass about their individual and collective fire-power

<modsnip - off topic>

 

[Puzzles8]

For anyone curious, I have linked the two AWP YouTube videos regarding Suzanne's search here:

October 29, 2020

and November 1, 2020

I know AWP did an interview with either Mike and/or Chris later that week, but I can't find it now.

I also think the AWP interviews might be out of sequence, I would watch the 11/1 show first.

Almost two years ago, I initially didn't pay much attention to these videos because they seemed to be following Psychics for their leads in search locations. Regardless of how they chose the locations to search, strange things happened while they were searching and LE/CBI advised them to leave. Warning, you need to weed through a lot of things not related to Suzanne.

#Find Suzanne

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Has that been a criticism? I haven't heard it. There's definitely no rule against hearsay in an AA, they're usually almost entirely hearsay as they're just a narrative told by the affiant, who isn't usually recounting first-hand experience.

The criticism of the AA is that it includes lots of inadmissible character evidence (accounts of bad business dealings in Indiana, neighbors being creeped out by statements about his daughter, etc). None of that stuff was relevant to probable cause, none of it will be admissible at trial, and including all of it practically guaranteed a change of venue.

There are also just weird parts, like including lots of information on the bobcat and then stating it had nothing to with the crime. That section just reads like they wrote it in anticipation of finding evidence it was involved, found out it wasn't and then didn't bother to remove it from the AA.

It got the job done, so I don't think its deficiencies are all that important. But to me it's a very messy document, and was one of the first indications that the prosecution was not totally on top of the case when they filed it.

I agree that the speculative character evidence should likely not have been in there, though it is part of the story - but i keep coming back to two points

1. By far the most prejudicial evidence was the DV/DA evidence which was always going to be in the AA and in the Prelim in open court. The decisions about what parts of that evidence may or may not be admissible at trial is only made after the prelim. The judge does not need to be protected from that content (cf the jury) but he does need to know about all of it, so he can decide what weight to give it when assessing the AA, and also at the prelim.
   
   So that aspect seemed baked into the AA no matter what IMO
   
   
2. The bobcat stuff probably needs to be seen in light of the other activities like digging up of the construction site. It's potentially exculpatory to an explored theory, so I can see why for completeness it might be included - this is covered in @Seattle1 's guidance document

So if this is all really about subsequent public availability of the AA with prejudicial content surely the Court should have addressed that because the DV stuff was by far the most prejudicial.

 

[mrjitty]

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied at preliminary hearings in Colorado, as Judge M states in his ruling. But he initially sealed the AA, in part to give the parties time to give him input on redactions that might be necessary to allow BM to prepare his defense and to protect witnesses, including the daughters, from efforts to influence them or harass them. He noted, in connection with these substantial public interests, that the AA contained a substantial amount of information that was irrelevant to his finding of probable cause for arrest and possibly not admissible at trial.

There is no question in my mind that he was giving the prosecution an opportunity to redact the affidavit and avoid, or at least mitigate, the issues that led to Judge L's decision to change venue. There was never any hope that the defense would offer any meaningful or reasonable help with redactions; his comments were a message to LS that the AA could be a problem, and that he was giving her a chance to correct it. She didn't take that opportunity, and Judge M made minimal redactions as a consequence. IMO, LS's failure to edit the AA is one of her many tactical and strategic mistakes in this case. Politically effective, legally harmful.

I also agree with your assessment that the AA attests to the thoroughness of the investigation by the CCSO, CBI, and FBI.

There was no need to throw in the irrelevant, inadmissible, and unfairly prejudicial stuff to bolster the case at prelim. Judge M had seen it already, and found probable cause on the basis of the admissible evidence: he signed the AA. Binding BM over for trial should have been a slam dunk. Why didn't LS insist on redactions when the judge gave her the high sign? Did she want to prejudice the jury pool? Or was she just stupid? I can't believe she did it out of ignorance: her experienced deputy Jeff Lindsey would have advised her to do it, in the interest of keeping jurisdiction in Chaffee County. And I don't believe she's stupid. So...

I think your first para is the nub of the issue, and I guess philosophically it illustrates why I don't agree

Let's focus on one aspect which is the DV evidence which is highly prejudicial, precisely because, as the Judge noted later in ruling some of it inadmissible, it tends to suggest the accused is guilty, but may be too unreliable.

The State must make its best case, and does so by putting the evidence before the judge. The state surely cannot be required to leave out critical evidence from the AA because there is say a 50-50 chance that some parts may be excluded but other parts included.

This is why I was asking that if these things are not in the AA, then where shall they be presented to the Court in normal practice? e.g in a separate affidavit? Only in testimony at the prelim?

The US has an open system of justice, so in any event, this material will be presented in open Court, and journalists can report on it - that is fundamental to our western concepts!

Also, in the adversarial system, responsibility for suppressing things sits with the Court, on application from the party who so asserts. The judge made no such order because the material was properly public IMO - indeed the highly prejudicial material was documented all over again in the pre-trial hearing where it was excluded from trial!

So I wonder what you think in relation to the DV evidence - how you believe this should have been handled, that makes any real difference?

 

[mrjitty]

I don't see how we can remain a people with a right to be free of false arrest, overcharging, discriminatory enforcement and the many other documented types of abuse by the police, without competent, aggressive, ethical defense counsel who play this role. I respect them very much.


However, some attorneys come to see the struggle with authorities like Butch Cassidy saw the knife fight at Hole in the Wall: no rules apply. Some prosecutors see it the same way. BOTH should be removed from their roles and disciplined IMO.

Snipped for focus / BBM

My issue is with this part. I agree that is absolutely the role of defence attorneys.

What I object to is the promotion of conspiracy theories which undermine the legitimacy of law enforcement / the DA

It's fine to say "the DA has made a mistake here" or "the DA has not proved this beyond reasonable doubt" or "there is a real possibility of an abductor"

What I think is not OK is to claim the prosecution case has been manufactured in bad faith and that there is no evidence

“The prosecution was manufacturing a murder case. Prosecutorial misconduct has never been seen to this degree in my 30 year career,” Eytan says

https://twitter.com/x/status/1516461184173629443

 

[scapa]

Snipped for focus / BBM

My issue is with this part. I agree that is absolutely the role of defence attorneys.

What I object to is the promotion of conspiracy theories which undermine the legitimacy of law enforcement / the DA

It's fine to say "the DA has made a mistake here" or "the DA has not proved this beyond reasonable doubt" or "there is a real possibility of an abductor"

What I think is not OK is to claim the prosecution case has been manufactured in bad faith and that there is no evidence

“The prosecution was manufacturing a murder case. Prosecutorial misconduct has never been seen to this degree in my 30 year career,” Eytan says

https://twitter.com/x/status/1516461184173629443

Fine post and yep, the bolded was pure grandstanding and IMO had nothing to do with the case as it was but as it might be when refiled sometime in the future. It was bombastic and prophylactic, full stop, was pretty clearly "If I lose, then the election was rigged" stuff, and an experienced and seemingly respected attorney looking back on a 30-year career will have known better.

I wonder about the prospects for a civil suit at some point, depending of course on the Morphew family's appetite for risk and possible financial losses. Barring the recovery of a body with some compelling evidence attached (unlikely, I fear) I don't see this case moving forward anytime soon, despite the (to my mind) obvious and vexing guilt of BM.