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

[CGray123]

^^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

Clearly, the DA did not feel a need to remove the irrelevant and otherwise inadmissible evidence, and you're right that there is no rule requiring them to do so.

My point has been that the inclusion of the inadmissible and irrelevant information in the AA seems to have undermined the prosecution from the beginning in the eyes of the judges - it is cited along with other unfairly prejudicial behaviors in Judge L's decision to change venue. This is a self-inflicted wound that reflects poorly on the DA's professional judgment IMO.

The DA vigorously opposed the motion for change of venue, arguing that evidence of widespread prejudice was insufficient, that it is a drastic step to remove a case from the affected community, and asking the judge to attempt to seat an impartial jury in Chaffee before making a decision on the motion. I believe Judge L's decision was wrong, but my point is that the DA's own actions gave the judge the grounds to order it - unnecessarily.

 

[CGray123]

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?

BBM

I believe the DV evidence was relevant and admissible and not unfairly prejudicial, and I disagreed with Judge L's decision to the contrary. It is an essential part of the case and it belongs in the AA. The order of suppression was one of many rulings the DA could have appealed before deciding to dismiss the case IMO. Dan May seems to agree.

Clearly, there is a tension between the public's right to know and the defendant's right to a fair trial, and the existing rules do not address it adequately. Balancing these interests falls to the discretion of the judge and the sound judgement of the prosecutor. It seems to me that LS's judgment was poor in many respects.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BBM

I believe the DV evidence was relevant and admissible and not unfairly prejudicial, and I disagreed with Judge L's decision to the contrary. It is an essential part of the case and it belongs in the AA. The order of suppression was one of many rulings the DA could have appealed before deciding to dismiss the case IMO. Dan May seems to agree.

Clearly, there is a tension between the public's right to know and the defendant's right to a fair trial, and the existing rules do not address it adequately. Balancing these interests falls to the discretion of the judge and the sound judgement of the prosecutor. It seems to me that LS's judgment was poor in many respects.

Wasn’t the issue that the references to DV classified as hearsay and not first hand? That was the takeaway I had in retrospect.

 

[CGray123]

Wasn’t the issue that the references to DV classified as hearsay and not first hand? That was the takeaway I had in retrospect.

Judge L found the evidence relevant and probative, but held that as presented, it did not meet the test for admissibility set by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Spoto:

"...evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is inadmissible if the logical relevance of the proffered evidence depends upon an inference that a person who has engaged in such misconduct has a bad character and the further inference that the defendant therefore engaged in the wrongful conduct at issue. E. Imwinkelreid, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence § 2.18 (1984) (hereinafter Imwinkelreid).

Read together, these rules require a four-part analysis to determine whether evidence of prior acts is admissible. First, we must ask whether the proffered evidence relates to a material fact, i.e., a fact "that is of consequence to the determination of the action." CRE 401; Carlson, 712 P.2d at 1021. If it does, we proceed to the second question: is the evidence logically relevant, i.e., does it have "any tendency to make the existence of [the material fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?" CRE 401; Carlson, 712 P.2d at 1021. If the evidence is logically relevant, we then must determine whether the logical relevance is independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad character, which would then be employed to suggest the probability that the defendant committed the crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity with his bad character. See CRE 404(b); Imwinkelreid § 2.18. Finally, if the proffered evidence survives the first three parts of the analysis, we must assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. CRE 403; Carlson, 712 P.2d at 1022."

Judge L ruled that the evidence of prior DV by BM passed the first two tests, but questioned whether the relevance was independent of the character issue, and concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Also if you recall, he excluded the profferred testimony of a psychologist who specialized in domestic violence issues.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Personal views about other members, whether individually or collectively, how/what they think or how they form their opinions is not the topic of this discussion.

DISCUSS THE CASE, NOT OTHER MEMBERS !!

 

[waldojabba]

was helping them out. We know from previous threads and mountain mail articles that there was an active militia

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

@Puzzles8 I appreciate you posting these. You made it so much easier now for me to actually review them rather than having to search. Thanks for this kindness.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Personal views about other members, whether individually or collectively, how/what they think or how they form their opinions is not the topic of this discussion.

DISCUSS THE CASE, NOT OTHER MEMBERS !!

Nothing makes us more angry than ANY member who makes other members feel distressed or of lesser value in any discussion at Websleuths.

Post accordingly or face a permanent ban from this forum.

 

[Seattle1]

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

^^rsbm

Well said @mrjitty.

Looking over the attached no-body case list, I'm reminded that this case not only had no recovered body, but also no certain crime scene!

Another reminder of the limitations a rural community faces when investigating unusual incidents with both limited resources and personnel lacking broad experience.

And it sure puts all the AA footnotes in perspective. MOO

https://www.nobodycases.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Nobodytablelatest-1.pdf

 

[justtrish]

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

If people were threatening the team from AWP who came to help find Suzanne, then the only people that could be is the killer/those associated or acting on behalf of the killer. I don't see a stranger situation where it even makes sense to threaten searchers. If you are a stranger you are not someone known to the victim or anyone unless you leave DNA or someone very credible witnessed it or you tell someone and they talk. Why would a random abductor that killed Suzanne be responsible for threatening searchers? It logically doesn't make sense, but what does make sense is the victims husband who I also believe killed her and possibly put her in the water threatens or has others do it. Nothing else really adds up.

 

[justtrish]

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.

I'm curious how much random DNA could be found in the average persons car/glove box. I am sure every car out there likely has some random DNA in it. I mean unless someone actually wipes down the inside of the glove box regularly. I have never wiped inside my glove box and my car is 6 years old. I can't think of a reason I would. I have cleaned my car well to be shipped and still didn't wipe down inside the glove box. I think it's reasonable to say this partial hit would be fairly common for a car. I am all for fairness in our system, but knowingly pushing this very false narrative IMO is shady. No way the defense actually thinks this random DNA is from someone that took Suzanne. It defies all logic that no DNA was anywhere else, no struggle in the garage, nothing stolen, not her purse or wallet right there in the car. If someone abducted her and that car had any relevance to that abduction, then the DNA would be other places than just the glove box. Who wears gloves and then takes them off to mess with the glove box?

Agree on LS. I really have no explanation for the job the prosecution did. It was certainly lacking and the judge didn't help at all by imposing extremely harsh sanctions for the short comings.

I hope we get to hear from Jeff one day. I think he likely wanted to save his own butt by not coming forward, but I can also see him thinking the police would get Barry and the longer it went on and Barry wasn't arrested he didn't want to come forward and possibly have LE believe that Suzanne just ran away either. He could have been afraid of Barry.

One other theory I have is he was actually on WA with Suzanne and didn't disclose that. We don't have those records of when they video chatted. We only have his text messages on WA, which seem to point to them not having been on video, but what if they were and Barry interrupted it. He knew that or heard something and Suzanne abruptly hung up. Then he sends the text message later that says something about the weather.. just testing the waters to see if Barry is gone, then he never hears from her again. I think Barry seeing or knowing they were having a video chat would for sure be enough to send him into a rage. Maybe he saw with that little camera he had that they never found.

 

[justtrish]

Wasn’t the issue that the references to DV classified as hearsay and not first hand? That was the takeaway I had in retrospect.

I think so. I just don't see how Suzanne's own words via text to her best friend could be hearsay. She wrote things in her list if I recall correctly also. If this was the case of a husband eliminating his wife, her words should be allowed. She tried so hard to share in the final week/weeks. She had the list in her phone, she had a journal that is mysteriously gone, she texted her sister (I believe after she told him I'm done, she was serious and wanted to let her sister know maybe she feared something would happen to her), she told Jeff, she had been telling her best friend, her own texts show that her daughters knew, her own daughters texts show at least one of them knew. Yet it wasn't enough to be allowed in court. Victims don't speak up because they fear not being believed and here we are a woman is missing and her own words are not good enough to be take as truth.

 

[Seattle1]

The DA vigorously opposed the motion for change of venue, arguing that evidence of widespread prejudice was insufficient, that it is a drastic step to remove a case from the affected community, and asking the judge to attempt to seat an impartial jury in Chaffee before making a decision on the motion. I believe Judge L's decision was wrong, but my point is that the DA's own actions gave the judge the grounds to order it - unnecessarily.

^^rsbm

My memory differs here. And as I previously stated -- when the Judge ruled by his discretion, the is prosecution accepted the trial at Canon City.

Acknowledging that Rule 22 governs change of venue by the Court, I recall the People citing that the defense's challenge was first, deficient by law, and second, void of sufficient evidence the juror community was biased (especially when the defense more than once relied on publicity dated one year prior to BM's arrest)!

And nowhere does Rule 22 address pre-arrest publicity, or how to fault the district attorney pre-election.

In response, the Court conceded that the defense motion DID FAIL procedurally, as argued by the People, but did not deny the motion. Instead, the Court opted to exercise its discretion to continue to analyze the pleadings.

(IMO, one more example of Judge Lama relying only on his discretionary power to favor the defense).

From the Order quoted by OP:

FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Rule 22 states “[a] motion for a change of venue or for a change of judge under these Rules may be made at or before arraignment or, for good cause shown for a late filing, at any time before trial.” The Motion and Reply are devoid of any good cause argument pursuant to Rule 22 as the Motion was filed after Defendant’s Arraignment.

The arguments made in the Motion and Reply even rely on sources published prior to Defendant being arrested in May 2021. See e.g. Exs. 8-9, 11-13, 17-34 (Dec. 7, 2021)(non-exhaustive list).

The People assert the timing of the Motion is “suspect” and there “is nothing in the immediate past that would have changed the basis for the change of venue.” Resp., at 10.

While the Motion fails procedurally, the Court, in its discretion, will continue to analyze the pleadings on the merits below.

^^BBM

 

[Lyanna]

I had followed this thread closely before the trial and recall that virtually every participant was very certain of Barry's guilt. With the case dismissal, has anyone changed his/her mind and willing to talk about it? It definitely seems like the thread is still very anti-Barry but I am no longer attempting to keep up so may have missed some comments.

Barry's guilty. The evidence and facts haven't changed, he just got lucky and had a whole lot of money ( a fair bit belonging to Suzanne) to pay for a defence team that are well versed in misdirection and lies. A bit like Barry himself.

Moo

 

[GOBliaison]

It is context that should be pivotal, and I do have some thoughts relating to the extraordinary environment of the SSS, "severe sanction(s) sessions", as we (mostly) imagine them to have been.

^ ^ My post #191 (excerpt), this thread, of 9 August ^ ^​

Context is pivotal, I believe, in appreciating what transpired during what I above labeled, "the SSS".

Relative to the progression of these disappointing, unproductive - but critically consequential - proceedings, allow me to offer (not unreasonable?) guesses that - - -

• His Honor became irrepressibly aggrieved with himself for, on the cusp of retiring, "offering" to take this case;
• that this regret was exacerbated by chronic, mercilessly recurring physical pain while presiding, and
• that the bombast, specious and dilatory carrying-ons of one particular dust-devil-for-the-defense portended to him glacial progress, at best, toward any actual trial.

Bleak?

You betcha'!
​

Thus, His Honor understandably may have concluded that for him to try and persevere with any sort of judicial temperament in the face of such torment(s) might - if at any point(s) he failed to do so - jeopardize the likelihood of attaining ultmate justice in the case, (horrifyingly) relegating that result to 'coincidence', or worse, mere happenstance.

And thus/therefore & thence,
His Honor's ultimate recusal from the full Monty:
A virtual "G'bye 'n G' luck !"​

All, I emphasize, IMHO.

 

[Seattle1]

Even more weird that Murphy recused himself because of a conflict of interest when Shoshana trespassed on the Puma Path home. The new owners pressed charges, then the charges were dropped after Murphy recused himself. This was after Murphy determined that a random partial DNA profile found in Suzanne's glove compartment was means to grant bail and create this random abduction theory that was not represented by any evidence. Really weird

Judge Murphy recusing himself, and granting the defendant charged with murder bail, are both matters of law. And given the Colorado Constitution dates back to 1876 -- personally, I don't find anything weird about either law.

However, I do find it weird to blame the Judge for allegedly creating a random abduction theory. That makes no sense to me.

I think by November - December the prosecution cleaned up the DNA evidence that was first presented in Court as linked to an individual convicted of committing other sexual assaults, but unfortunately, that's not the presentation of evidence they made to the Judge in August during the preliminary hearing!
But that's on the prosecution here-- and certainly not on the Judge. MOO

Judge Murphy Recuses himself from Morphew Murder Trial - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

During the December 14 hearing on pretrial motions, Morphew’s attorneys filed a motion asking that Murphy be disqualified because he is friends with the woman’s attorney Sean McDermott.

“Even though the conflict relates to a very small portion of the case and even though the court does not personally believe the relationship with Mr. McDermott would affect the Court, the Court finds that (it) has no choice but to disqualify,” Murphy wrote in his order, dated Thursday, Dec. 30.

McDermott is representing Shoshona Darke in another court case. She is a Salida woman who has been romantically linked to Morphew. Darke is also expected to be a witness in the murder trial.

[..]

According to Ed Moss, a retired judge who has written extensively on judicial ethics, a change in judges shouldn’t hinder the trial. “I think it’s just fine. The rule on disqualification for social relationships is not crystal clear,” said Moss. “The Colorado Supreme Court has a case they decided a couple of years ago. It said the circumstance depended on the quality nature and closeness of the relationship, and the judge has to answer how close the relationship is.”

Suzanne Morphew Murder to Proceed to Trial, Barry Morphew Bail set at $500,000 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

On Friday afternoon, Sept. 17, a series of decisions by District 11 Judge Patrick Murphy set the course of the murder trial for Barry Morphew, in the

arkvalleyvoice.com

The afternoon included the pre-trial final arguments by the prosecutor and the defense, as well as the judge’s ruling regarding “proof evident presumption great”, a legal term that requires the judge to rule on whether there is enough evidence to presume the defendant is guilty. Murphy established that a trial will be held, and set a $500,000 bail for Morphew, who will be required to remain in Chaffee County and wear an ankle monitor.

[..]

The Meaning of “proof evident presumption great”

In Colorado, a defendant has an absolute right to bail except in prosecutions where the proof is evident or presumption of guilt is great. But unlike a hearing, the probable cause hearing there is no presumption in favor of the prosecution – the weight given to evidence or witnesses is solely at the discretion of the court and impacts whether bail will be considered.

So what does that term actually mean? The standard of proof for “proof evident” is greater than probable cause, but less than what is required for a conviction. “It is more than reasonable to believe that the defendant may have committed the crime but less than the proof necessary to convict in a court trial,” explained Murphy. “This is the same standard that courts use in Colorado to terminate parental rights.”

Citing court cases for decisions related to proof evident, he explained, “bail shall be denied when the circumstances disclosed indicate a
fair likelihood that the defendant would be convicted at a trial with the highest standard – proof beyond a reasonable doubt … I find that the answer to that question is no. Is it possible that he would be convicted? Yes. But is it likely that he would be convicted? I find no.”

He laid out the prosecution evidence again, (no direct evidence – no one saw him murder her, no one heard any disturbance, he hasn’t admitted anything) he also noted that the home surveillance was disabled. The cameras were off. The DVR hasn’t been found. There is no forensic evidence, no blood in the house, garage, property, or in his truck, in his bobcat, or at the hotel.

Of the three possible scenarios, the judge said that it was possible that either Morphew murdered her and disposed of the body, or that someone unknown took Suzanne and murdered her. “I think it is unlikely that she intentionally disappeared.”

He pointed out that “I find the evidence and presence of unknown DNA in the glove box of her car, and that this person has committed other sexual assaults to be important.” He noted that the DNA found is linked to three other sexual assaults; two in Arizona and one in Chicago.

“This is particularly significant – it’ doesn’t prove that he is innocent, or that someone else did it. Therefore: “proof is not evident, nor is the presumption great. Because I have found the prosecution has not met their burden, the court is obligated by the Colorado Constitution to set bail.”

 

[Seattle1]

The People assert the timing of the Motion is “suspect” and there “is nothing in the immediate past that would have changed the basis for the change of venue.” Resp., at 10.

^^rsbbm

Quoting myself to add that I very much agreed with the Prosecution then and now that the timing to request a change of venue was "suspect!"

In other words, please be reminded of the timeline of the Court conceding to have no choice but to grant the defense motion for Judge Murphy to be replaced, the coincidence (not) of a new Judge appointed, and the defense's sudden demand for a change in venue.
And then, Judge Lama actually grants the change of venue from a deficient motion (i.e., "... While the Motion fails procedurally, the Court, in its discretion, will continue to analyze the pleadings)."

But pay no mind to the Court granting the defense request to sanction the Prosecution with shall we say, the most egregious penalty possible (i.e., denial of the state's expert witnesses), for failing the meet a (defense) altered discovery date.

Respectfully, you really had to be here to believe it. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

There's an irony about deception. What you lie about spills the truth.

^^rsbm

To quote my favorite Orange County DA, "for an innocent man, there's no reason to lie about anything."

 

[MassGuy]

^^rsbm

To quote my favorite Orange County DA, "for an innocent man, there's no reason to lie about anything."

And Barry lied about everything...

 

[fcavanaugh]

I’m behind and trying to catch up, read a post awhile back about how the prosecution lied when they agreed to meet deadlines because they then turned around and didn’t meet them. Tried to go back and find the post to respond and couldn’t find it. Anyway, imo that’s a bold statement and huge leap not to mention there’s zero proof/evidence that the prosecution lied. Lying is willful/deliberate/intentional, purpose of which is to deceive/mislead. Having said that, let’s not forget what Judge L stated in one of his rulings, in part, (paraphrased) the prosecution missteps/missing deadlines was unintentional, meaning quite obviously imo, not willful/not done intentionally, in other words, not due to prosecution lies/lying.

IMO something unplanned/unforeseen went awry/amiss for the prosecution somewhere during the preparation/organization of the voluminous evidence/overall prep of case against BM. Whether it was due to mismanagement, inexperience, someone on the team dropping the ball, administrative mistakes, office understaffed and working on too many cases at once, delays and backlogs due to COVID etc., etc. It could’ve been due to any of those things and/or combination of some or all of those things, we’ll probably never know. We are not privy to what all went on behind closed doors of the prosecutor’s office therefore, we do not know exactly what happened just that whatever it was that caused the missteps/missing deadlines to happen, was unintentional and personally, I’m not going to blame LS solely nor any one individual prosecutor on the team for the missteps occurring unless or until more details of exactly what went on behind closed doors so to speak to cause the disorganization and missteps is expounded upon/released to the public, which probably will never happen so again, we’ll likely never know.

Sadly the Judge decided to penalize/sanction the prosecution heavily for their unintentional missteps by eliminating most expert witness testimony which imo was excessively harsh and not at all fair to the victim Suzanne or interests of justice. But it is what it is, Judge L ruled the way he did and imposed harsh sanctions, the sanctions weren’t appealed, and prosecution’s motion to dismiss without prejudice was (thankfully) granted by Judge L. Had the prosecution not motioned for dismissal and case proceeded to trial without their crucial experts’ testimony, higher chance BM would have been acquitted never able to be tried again due to double jeopardy. So yeah, it definitely could be worse. Again, it’s disappointing, frustrating and very unfortunate the prosecution missteps happened, but they did for whatever reason and there’s no going back now, only forward. At least they get a second chance at successfully prosecuting the case and bringing justice for Suzanne and so at this point, I can only hope lessons were learned and they come back stronger, better organized and more confident next time.
I just hope ‘next time’ happens sooner than later for lots of reasons including, the longer he roams free, chance of someone else possibly getting hurt by scary Barry. Eek, perish the thought!!

IMO the only liar in this case is BM (well ok, and IE) and there is an abundance, mountain of evidence proving that he lied from day one and continued to lie throughout the investigation.

Further, unintentional prosecutorial missteps does not change the evidence that three agencies of LE amassed over a year-long, imo very thorough investigation and which totality thereof proves that BM is not only a shameless liar, worse- an evil killer that decided to snuff out a beautiful, bright light aka Suzanne, because he thought he could, would get away with it and imo feels totally justified in doing so. He’s a monster and needs to pay for what he did. Having said that, I continue to have patience and faith that there will be justice for Suzanne some day hopefully in the not too distant future. And with that in mind and along the same vein, seems a good time to re-post Sheriff Spezze’s statement after the case was dismissed w/o prejudice:

“The Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office maintains its commitment to this case and will continue to work tirelessly to find the body of Suzanne Morphew.”

“While we are disappointed in the delay of the proceedings, we remain unwavering in our commitment to this investigation and the ultimate prosecution of Mr. Morphew.”

“I stand behind the strong work of the investigators within the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office and the many law enforcement agencies involved and the strong case we have built.”

“Above all else, we remain dedicated to seeking justice for Suzanne and her family.”

Sheriff makes statement regarding Morphew dismissal

Chaffee County Sheriff John Spezze made a public statement following Judge Ramsey Lama’s dismissal of all charges without prejudice against 54 year old Barry Lee Morphew.

www.themountainmail.com

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE

 

[mrjitty]

I think so. I just don't see how Suzanne's own words via text to her best friend could be hearsay. She wrote things in her list if I recall correctly also. If this was the case of a husband eliminating his wife, her words should be allowed. She tried so hard to share in the final week/weeks. She had the list in her phone, she had a journal that is mysteriously gone, she texted her sister (I believe after she told him I'm done, she was serious and wanted to let her sister know maybe she feared something would happen to her), she told Jeff, she had been telling her best friend, her own texts show that her daughters knew, her own daughters texts show at least one of them knew. Yet it wasn't enough to be allowed in court. Victims don't speak up because they fear not being believed and here we are a woman is missing and her own words are not good enough to be take as truth.

IIRC we only have journalists reporting on this rather than the full detail of the judge's ruling, but the what tipped the balance is the allegations of DV/DA lacked specificity - i.e when did the events take place, what exactly happened etc.

So the judge felt they were too likely to make people think BM was guilty, compared to the actual value

So not so much was she telling the truth, but what exactly did she mean

IMO