Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #63 *ARREST*

[10ofRods]

My reading of the Judge's opinion to seal the AA is:

1. He is being careful not to give Barry and <modsnip> Legals grounds for appeal.

2. It's his job to avoid tainting the jury pool.

3. The AA is too horrifically graphic as to SM's death and subsequent disposal
to make public until the daughters have had time to accept it and grieve.

DOES ANYONE THINK THE JUDGE IS ENGAGED IN DELIBERATE WRONGDOING?

DOES ANYONE THINK THE JUDGE IS MAKING A SERIOUIS MISTAKE?

Well, the Judge didn't give the daughters access to the A.A. except via one route (Barry). So leave #3 off your list. The daughters are in the dark the same as the rest of us - until the prelim. Or unless Barry tells them (or their lawyers disobey the Judge's order and give it to them).

It is to remain sealed to all officers of the court (the lawyers), and their staffs, including courthouse staff, and parties to the case (Barry).

Barry of course has it. He also is not an officer of the court and cannot be disbarred for sharing. Plus, he doesn't even have the ability to give them the actual document. But he could certain have a phone call with the daughters and give them the jist of it.

I don't think he'll do that. At any rate, the Judge did NOT decide to give the AA to the daughters, much less to "give them time to accept it and to grieve." He is going to have it redacted. And no one - unless Barry spills the beans - is going to know what's in it until September (and it will be redacted by then).

I know you posed your questions as questions, but when they are in all caps it certainly makes it look as if you are fishing for a particular answer.

Apparently no one involved in the legal process (either in Salida or as an observer out in the world) would answer "yes" to that question. And that's what matters.

The media is a different matter, and they have made their arguments.

 

[marylamby]

Well, the Judge didn't give the daughters access to the A.A. except via one route (Barry). So leave #3 off your list. The daughters are in the dark the same as the rest of us - until the prelim. Or unless Barry tells them (or their lawyers disobey the Judge's order and give it to them).

It is to remain sealed to all officers of the court (the lawyers), and their staffs, including courthouse staff, and parties to the case (Barry).

Barry of course has it. He also is not an officer of the court and cannot be disbarred for sharing. Plus, he doesn't even have the ability to give them the actual document. But he could certain have a phone call with the daughters and give them the jist of it.

I don't think he'll do that. At any rate, the Judge did NOT decide to give the AA to the daughters, much less to "give them time to accept it and to grieve." He is going to have it redacted. And no one - unless Barry spills the beans - is going to know what's in it until September (and it will be redacted by then).

I know you posed your questions as questions, but when they are in all caps it certainly makes it look as if you are fishing for a particular answer.

Apparently no one involved in the legal process (either in Salida or as an observer out in the world) would answer "yes" to that question. And that's what matters.

The media is a different matter, and they have made their arguments.

I'm sure BM has had conversations about the AA with his daughter(s) but I highly doubt there was much truth to it's contents. More like 'Barry-washed' lamentations of horrible accusations and vitriolic persecution.
IMO

 

[10ofRods]

I'm sure BM has had conversations about the AA with his daughter(s) but I highly doubt there was much truth to it's contents. More like 'Barry-washed' lamentations of horrible accusations and vitriolic persecution.
IMO

Which is why the problem, for the daughters, still remains. Still, I'm sure that if they are talking to him via the jail's virtual visit system, those conversations must be very interesting to LE.

 

[jondaba]

Astonished by your idea that M&M (“victims”) have not seen the AA.

caps not intended to suggest any answer.

people here use pseudonyms in their posts so I am not sure if anyone, even Salida residents, would be afraid to state their true opinions
.

 

[marylamby]

Which is why the problem, for the daughters, still remains. Still, I'm sure that if they are talking to him via the jail's virtual visit system, those conversations must be very interesting to LE.

Exactly. The only thing this time is affording the daughters is more confusion and eventually more shock and pain. That is, if they pay attention to the heavily redacted AA (they will be told that ALL redactions are inadmissible, which they may or may not be at trial, and lies) and/or the trial at all.

 

[Alethea]

Astonished by your idea that M&M (“victims”) have not seen the AA.

caps not intended to suggest any answer.

people here use pseudonyms in their posts so I am not sure if anyone, even Salida residents, would be afraid to state their true opinions
.

Why do you think the daughters saw the affidavit? It is currently sealed. Sealed means it is confidential and cannot be shared with the public. Only parties to the case and their attorneys have access to it. BM is not free to walk around prison with sealed documents to show anyone he wants. He may have told his daughters to prepare for what is in it but he isn't just making copies at the photocopier in the prison library.

 

[10ofRods]

Astonished by your idea that M&M (“victims”) have not seen the AA.

caps not intended to suggest any answer.o on

people here use pseudonyms in their posts so I am not sure if anyone, even Salida residents, would be afraid to state their true opinions
.

Well, it's not my idea. It's the order of the court that has jurisdiction. I don't have the link handy, but someone will.

The only people to whom it can be released are parties to the case. Not victims. And the law about victims does not make them parties to the case.

I don't know what "true opinion" you could get to your last question. Because it is currently the COurt's position that the AA can only be shown to lawyers, the court and Barry.

No one else. If you can find a statute or an example of an AA being shown to victims of a crime when the judge did not include them in the order, please provide. I'm very curious. It's possible - I've just never heard of it and I've read the order in this case multiple times.

Unless Barry describes or holds up the AA to his daughters, they don't get to see it. They will see a redacted version after the Prelim (which, on the same theory, should be pretty awful for them - unless they avoid it, but not as awful as the AA).

 

[10ofRods]

Exactly. The only thing this time is affording the daughters is more confusion and eventually more shock and pain. That is, if they pay attention to the heavily redacted AA (they will be told that ALL redactions are inadmissible, which they may or may not be at trial, and lies) and/or the trial at all.

I have to say I'm with you on this one, MaryLamby. The bandaid is going to have to be pulled off sometime.

First, the Court has determined that a murder has occurred and has found the AA more than adequate to establish that, sadly.

Second, the Court has determined that for the purposes of an arrest, the murderer is the husband of the victim.

For most cases, the children in that situation are extremely upset and I would urge professional counseling. But here on WS, we've had people suggest that the daughters are getting automatic access to this document (which is precisely why the Judge sealed it) or that the daughters are being remanded by the Court for psychiatric help/treatment (??? has that ever happened?)

That being said, I am pretty old. And I work in a legal-adjacent field and have done so for...let's see, 45 years? But I still haven't seen everything, by any means. And I'm not a judge but I'm pretty sure that the judge's order is crystal clear. Whether it was intended or not, that order puts the onus on Barry to communicate as best he can what is about to happen, what is about to be claimed. If he gives the daughters no clues (or lies to them) between now and early August, then wow, what does that say about him?

Because it's all going to come out. The Prelim is not going to be cancelled because the daughters might be upset. And even if just the bare outline of the case is covered, it *must* cover why. LE and the DA (and the Judge) believe that Suzanne is 1) dead; 2) murdered and 3) murdered by Barry.

 

[Alethea]

Well, it's not my idea. It's the order of the court that has jurisdiction. I don't have the link handy, but someone will.

The only people to whom it can be released are parties to the case. Not victims. And the law about victims does not make them parties to the case.

I don't know what "true opinion" you could get to your last question. Because it is currently the COurt's position that the AA can only be shown to lawyers, the court and Barry.

No one else. If you can find a statute or an example of an AA being shown to victims of a crime when the judge did not include them in the order, please provide. I'm very curious. It's possible - I've just never heard of it and I've read the order in this case multiple times.

Unless Barry describes or holds up the AA to his daughters, they don't get to see it. They will see a redacted version after the Prelim (which, on the same theory, should be pretty awful for them - unless they avoid it, but not as awful as the AA).

Agree 100%. During a regular criminal case when records are not sealed, the state can and will work with victims and witnesses on the case. Just like the defense will work with witnesses (and hire experts and investigators) to assist in the defense. But once something is sealed, you are limited to the legal team who is bound to keep the information confidential. It would be a serious ethical issue - and contempt of court - to ignore a court order. An individual attorney could be sanctioned personally which is very serious and could affect their ability to practice law in the state.

When I worked at a big firm and we had cases filed under seal, only the attorneys who appeared in the case and their assistants were granted access to the files. If you wanted a new associate to work on your case, you had to have the firm formally add them to the case team. You were not permitted to take copies out of the building and occasionally you had to access only a secure virtual file room through a VPN (with additional security credentials). Lawyers take these things very seriously because it is their career on the line, not just a case.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Well, it's not my idea. It's the order of the court that has jurisdiction. I don't have the link handy, but someone will.

The only people to whom it can be released are parties to the case. Not victims. And the law about victims does not make them parties to the case.

I don't know what "true opinion" you could get to your last question. Because it is currently the COurt's position that the AA can only be shown to lawyers, the court and Barry.

No one else. If you can find a statute or an example of an AA being shown to victims of a crime when the judge did not include them in the order, please provide. I'm very curious. It's possible - I've just never heard of it and I've read the order in this case multiple times.

Unless Barry describes or holds up the AA to his daughters, they don't get to see it. They will see a redacted version after the Prelim (which, on the same theory, should be pretty awful for them - unless they avoid it, but not as awful as the AA).

I have the impression that some people really do believe that “secret conversations” have been occurring throughout this case. In my opinion if that comes to light and was occurring it could be damaging to the trial. I agree that the judges orders were very explicit about who gets to see what. Barry has good attorneys and I have zero doubt that he is well appraised of what he can and can’t discuss in any conversations written or otherwise from jail. <modsnip>

 

[Puzzles8]

I found and posted SM's Linkedin profile. I didn't see a clear indication she was working toward a personal trainer career. If you do find that, i'd love to see it. Thank you!

All IMO,
If someone is in an abusive situation, they need to have some real life skills in place to allow them to escape.

They need to know of a safe place to immediately escape to. Also have a small bag packed, with list of meds and important contact information.

They need to know what their financial situation is and a way to live and financially survive if they were to leave.

Especially if they are not currently working, they need to have an idea of what jobs they might like or be qualified for. Setting up a LinkedIn profile and making contacts is a good way to start to establish this foundation.

JMO, MOO

 

[marylamby]

.

I appreciated your comment very much.
Persecution is often a criminals defense, whether feigned or due to personality disorders/organic disease. Head injuries can also play a part in any of the above.
I've no doubt that BM justifies his actions in his own mind.
I'm not terribly concerned with what's wrong with him. He'll deflect, transfer, project, and cry persecution, through his lawyers, of course.
I'd LOVE for him to take the stand and a little part of me thinks he just might as he's so sure of himself. The jury will see through it, either way.
IMO

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I understand that you do not like or approve of how the legal system works in the United States. I understand that you're projecting your personal feelings on my answers that are based on the procedural rules that everyone involved in this system has to follow. I am not going to respond to badgering or condescending questions or comments that imply that I have some agenda when I am simply answering procedural questions about how this actually works in the real world as a practicing litigator.

True crime has become a vibrant hobby for many people, including everyone on this website. But it does not control the system that decides whether people live or die, whether they are incarcerated or not.

Legal proceedings are governed by the federal and state Constitutions and the rules of criminal procedure in each state. Every state has a criminal code and rules of criminal procedure. Those statutes determine how a criminal proceeding progresses and what must be done to introduce evidence at trial.

1) Defendants are tried in open Court before a jury of their peers. Only evidence that is deemed admissible under the state rules of evidence can be introduced. Everything that is introduced must be substantiated and authenticated by a person qualified to introduce the evidence. Only in opening and closing statements can prosecutors or defense attorneys pontificate or give their theories of the case. Everything else is based on introducing or challenging admissible evidence. Evidence is a fact introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted. It must be relevant to the fact at issue and admissible.

At the end of the trial, jurors are instructed to go through the list of questions in the jury questionnaire and render their decisions only based on the evidence that is introduced as evidence in Court. They are explicitly instructed to not consider extraneous information they may have heard before or outside of trial. They could not consider what they read in the arrest affidavit a year before the trial. The arrest affidavit is literally irrelevant unless and until it is introduced as evidence in trial.

Before trial, both sides are able to file motions in limine to exclude evidence or testimony. The defense is able to file motions to suppress to exclude testimony or evidence that may have been collected in violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights. There are motions to qualify experts and Daubert motions to disqualify experts or certain scientific testimony.

Each piece of evidence will be introduced individually by the person who can authenticate the evidence. If we are discussing the defendant's phone records, a representative from the phone company will be called to the stand to authenticate the phone records. A detective who read the phone records will then testify as to what they say and why they find them important. The defense will have an opportunity to question the detective.

There is literally an entire statutory process that outlines how to determine what is relevant and admissible to prove the claims asserted.

2) It's not admissible because it's not evidence. I'm not here to teach a law school class. You can purchase a book on the Federal Rules of Evidence and learn what constitutes evidence on your own time.

3) A 150+ page arrest affidavit is odd because you don't normally need a novel to get a person arrested. Most arrest affidavits are 1-2 pages. In very complicated cases they can be 20-30 pages. All you need to arrest someone is probable cause that a crime was committed. You are not proving guilt or innocence. You are asking a judge for permission to restrict the person's liberty. It is up to the judge to grant or deny the request. Defendants can challenge the validity of arrest or information contained in the AA, but it is not evidence. It is the state's argument and interpretation. It is not subject to the rules of evidence because it is not evidence.

A typical arrest affidavit: "I pulled over the driver for not signaling before changing lanes. When the driver rolled down his window, I smelled marijuana. I asked the driver for permission to search the car. When I looked in the passenger window, I saw a bag that looked to me like marijuana."

Or "I responded to a call at XYZ ABC Street. Wife reports that her husband attacked her. The door is broken in and the wife has a black eye. Neighbor saw husband storm out and drive away minutes prior to the 911 call. Based on this testimony and what officers observed at the scene, we have probable cause to arrest the husband for assault, domestic violence."

I really have to ask: who benefits from releasing the arrest affidavit? Just nosy people overly involved in true crime. It doesn't benefit the victim, who was murdered, as it can jeopardize the state's case and give the defense an argument that the state's ex parte pontificating is poisoning the jury pool. It doesn't benefit the victim's children, who the judge already ruled could be harmed by the pretrial publicity. It doesn't benefit the state in that it will give the defense a way to challenge any changes in the state's case - why would you want to be tied to a document you drafted before actually having all of the evidence?

Sunshine laws are meant to hold the government accountable, not provide fodder for gossip. Public servants who attempt to use public access laws to circumvent Constitutional protections are just as bad as the gossips.

People are treating a very serious crime like a game. Like their personal novella. I have represented many victims and I have never seen a victim want their life exploited for the financial gain of true crime writers and Facebook gossip groups.

Victims want justice. And that means a conviction at trial that results in a serious sentence.

You say: "I really have to ask: who benefits from releasing the arrest affidavit? Just nosy people overly involved in true crime." BBM

I believe another attorney, Steve Zansberg, answered your question in the Media Consortium's Response to the judge's order to seal the AA.

There are longstanding reasons why the public interest is justified as more than just prurient. See the amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Just because the criminal courts have operated under a cloak of darkness to protect the rights that judges deem most important doesn't mean those judges are correct.

"How it has been" in CO is shameful in an open society. Thank goodness for lawyers like Zansberg who are willing to pursue the public's presumed right to know the evidence that put BM in jail for a potential capital crime.

 

[SouthAussie]

You say: "I really have to ask: who benefits from releasing the arrest affidavit? Just nosy people overly involved in true crime." BBM

I believe another attorney, Steve Zansberg, answered your question in the Media Consortium's Response to the judge's order to seal the AA.

There are longstanding reasons why the public interest is justified as more than just prurient. See the amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Just because the criminal courts have operated under a cloak of darkness to protect the rights that judges deem most important doesn't mean those judges are correct.

"How it has been" in CO is shameful in an open society. Thank goodness for lawyers like Zansberg who are willing to pursue the public's presumed right to know the evidence that put BM in jail for a potential capital crime.

I guess my ongoing problem with this is that it doesn't say in the Constitution that the public has a presumed right to know immediately. At least, not that I can see.

So, once the redacted AA is released after the prelim hearing (which we need to give the judge the opportunity to do), wouldn't that fulfil the obligation of the public's right to know?

And please note that I am not speaking of other cases ... only this one.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I guess my ongoing problem with this is that it doesn't say in the Constitution that the public has a presumed right to know immediately. At least, not that I can see.

So, once the redacted AA is released after the prelim hearing (which we need to give the judge the opportunity to do), wouldn't that fulfil the obligation of the public's right to know?

And please note that I am not speaking of other cases ... only this one.

I think the only immediacy in this case results from the Media Consortium's Response to the order to seal. (Which BTW we only know about because Zansberg released it. The court docket still does not reflect it or any response to it from the judge).

If the Media had found the judge's reasoning to seal to comport with Rule 55.1 then his ruling would have gone unchallenged until the expiration of the order, when the AA would be released with or without redaction (or postponed by the judge with a new date certain). The media did not find his reasoning proper since the right which sealing violates (the public's right to know) is presumed to have a greater weight than the defendant's right to withhold. The Media Response makes it clear - at least to me - that the judge is in violation of Rule 55.1 since there is a reasonable remedy for each harm he presumes releasing creates.

For one, if redacting is too burdensome (gee, the judge opines, we have to work to comply with the Rule?) then maybe there should be a page limit on AAs? This most specious of reasoning says to me that this judge will only comply with the Rule before the prelim ends if forced to by a higher court.

The clock is ticking. Lack of timeliness violates the spirit of the Rule in my view (a rule which was vigorously reviewed the CO Supreme Court and all other appropriate parties before adoption).

We should remember the criminal courts in CO have historically deemed the public an unnecessary party to most of their actions.

Having to continue to litigate for enforcement of the presumptive right now in force makes me think again of the phrase, justice delayed is justice denied.

JMHO

 

[DizzyB]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf

Quick clarification question: Why does the judges motion to keep the AA sealed state the following if the daughters aren't seeing it? Last paragraph on this page? TIA

Are you referring to this paragraph? Apologies if not, but this is the language that I am struggling with. The judge’s ruling is specific to the release of the AA, right? How would they have time to review, or choose not to review the evidence, if the AA is not available to them?

 

[CGray123]

I have seen defendants waive their right to a preliminary hearing. I am not sure I understand the advantages and disadvantages of doing this, but I found some on the Nolo website:

• The defendant intends to plead guilty and wants to avoid publicity (and expense, if the defendant is represented by private counsel).
• The defendant is guilty of more than the charged offenses and fears further charges from the potentially damning evidence that may come out at the preliminary hearing. Also, if the facts of the case are particularly nasty, and the defendant plans to plead guilty anyway, the less the sentencing judge hears about the facts, the better for the defendant.
• The prosecution's case is strong, and the defense fears that prosecution witnesses may become so entrenched in their positions once they testify under oath at a prelim that they may become angry (or angrier) with the defendant and possibly refuse later interviews requested by the defense as it prepares for trial.
• The prosecution intends to call witnesses at the prelim who may be unavailable at the time of trial. If the prelim goes forward, this testimony will be available in the form of transcripts from the prelim for the prosecution to use at trial. By waiving the prelim, the defendant may prevent the testimony from coming in when trial time rolls around.
• The defendant wants to stall in the hopes that by the time the case comes to trial, the prosecution's witnesses will have either disappeared, forgotten, or become confused about what happened during the alleged crime. In this situation, the defense may waive the prelim and move for several continuances (delays) of the trial date.

This is not offered as an inclusive list, so there may be other reasons. But I speculate that BM may consider a couple of these tactics after his attorneys complete their investigation. @althea do you have any thoughts about this?

 

[CGray123]

The public policy underlying advocacy for immediate and unreacted access to all court records is based on First Amendment freedoms.

However, in 2018 the Colorado Supreme Court specifically rejected this argument in the case of In re Sir Mario Owens:

"We find no support in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence for Petitioner’s contention that the First Amendment provides the public with a constitutional right of access to any and all court records in cases involving matters of public concern. Petitioner cites none. The Tenth Circuit has more than once declined to recognize a First Amendment right of access to court records. See, e.g., Lanphere & Urbaniak v. Colorado, 21 F.3d 1508, 1512 (10th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no general First Amendment right in the public to access criminal justice records.”); United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 709 (10th Cir. 1985) (distinguishing between the acknowledged right of the public and press to attend trial proceedings and a claimed of right to access court files)."

...

"We also see no compelling reason to interpret our state constitution as guaranteeing such a sweeping—and previously unrecognized—right of unfettered access to criminal justice records. On the contrary, such a ruling would do violence to the comprehensive open records laws and administrative procedures currently in place—including, but not limited to, the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, §§24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. (2017)—that are predicated upon the absence of a constitutionally guaranteed right of access to criminal justice records."

The press petitioned the United States Supreme Court, which refused to review the case.

Advocates on this thread continue to make the First Amendment argument as if it is the law of the land. It isn't. They know it: now we do, too.

 

[Alethea]

The public policy underlying advocacy for immediate and unreacted access to all court records is based on First Amendment freedoms.

However, in 2018 the Colorado Supreme Court specifically rejected this argument in the case of In re Sir Mario Owens:

"We find no support in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence for Petitioner’s contention that the First Amendment provides the public with a constitutional right of access to any and all court records in cases involving matters of public concern. Petitioner cites none. The Tenth Circuit has more than once declined to recognize a First Amendment right of access to court records. See, e.g., Lanphere & Urbaniak v. Colorado, 21 F.3d 1508, 1512 (10th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no general First Amendment right in the public to access criminal justice records.”); United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 709 (10th Cir. 1985) (distinguishing between the acknowledged right of the public and press to attend trial proceedings and a claimed of right to access court files)."

...

"We also see no compelling reason to interpret our state constitution as guaranteeing such a sweeping—and previously unrecognized—right of unfettered access to criminal justice records. On the contrary, such a ruling would do violence to the comprehensive open records laws and administrative procedures currently in place—including, but not limited to, the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, §§24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. (2017)—that are predicated upon the absence of a constitutionally guaranteed right of access to criminal justice records."

The press petitioned the United States Supreme Court, which refused to review the case.

Advocates on this thread continue to make the First Amendment argument as if it is the law of the land. It isn't. They know it: now we do, too.

This is a very important point. Also, the First Amendment is not the only Amendment that matters. The entire field of Constitutional law is built on balancing the competing rights and freedoms found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Any alleged right to know under the First Amendment must be balanced against the just as serious and long-standing right to due process. Courts have routinely found that the state taking away someone's life or liberty is the most serious action the state can take and obviously it holds quite a lot of weight in any balancing against other rights.

You can read more about these balancing tests here: Balancing.

 

[10ofRods]

Okay - so the prelim could be cancelled if Barry decides to plead guilty (either because the evidence is so strong or more charges might be filed) or because the defense fears that the witnesses, once they all hear each other, will become so entrenched that "interviewing" them is not possible.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf
Are you referring to this paragraph? Apologies if not, but this is the language that I am struggling with. The judge’s ruling is specific to the release of the AA, right? How would they have time to review, or choose not to review the evidence, if the AA is not available to them?

I take it to mean that until the thing is redacted, the daughters won't see it - and that will be after the preliminary. The judge is keeping the AA sealed because if he unseals it, we all read it at the same time, giving some of us the ability to "harass" the daughters (presumably on SM) before they've had time to grieve and process.

It's kind of a trickle truth model, IMO. And of course, as a couple of us keep saying, Barry Morphew, their father, has the ability to share what's in it with them (not a physical copy, but he can "prepare" them for what's to come).

At the Preliminary Hearings, there will be a lot of in chambers discussion about what's admissible, as well as formal lists of evidence presented by both sides. Exhibits will be numbered and marked (at least, they are in most courts at this time). Whatever is deemed inadmissible by the Court will be excluded (which will make redaction of the AA easier to accomplish, I assume).

We are very unlikely to see an unredacted version of the AA (but I could be wrong of course). The daughters will hear the evidence against their father when the open courtroom hears it (or read about it later if they choose not to attend). I personally do not think that the daughters can be permanently protected from whatever it is that LE and the DA (and the Court) is using to determine that Suzanne is dead and that Barry is the agent of her death. I think there will be some grim stuff - but it will come out gradually, over almost a month, and it will not include whatever the Judge thinks is inadmissible.

If the Court intended for the daughters to see the document right away, he needed to specify that as well as how the daughters are supposed to get it (they are not parties to this case). I don't see how they can be added as parties in the case. If in fact, he's treating them as parties when they're not, I think that's a big legal oops and I do not think this judge would do that.

He just wants them protected from something in that AA that's inflammatory to the public and grievously hurtful to the daughters themselves, in favor of using the Preliminary Hearings to only allow them to hear what will be permitted at the actual trial. IMO.