Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #65 *ARREST*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Error505 said:
If (big if) I were a defense attorney, I could not in good conscience defend someone who I felt was 100% guilty of first degree murder. I totally understand everyone deserves a fair trial, I am fully onboard with our constitutional rights. But I couldn’t be the person that possibly kept a family from receiving justice and closure by defending a killer and it boiled down to let’s say a technicality. Kudos to those who can. Our country needs good defense attorneys. Moo
Click to expand...

A little bit of history...

True legality implies that even if a person is a known criminal, he has the right for legal representation and defense. That without fair representation, the trial is invalid.

A good example would have been Nuremberg trial. It started in 1945, while the feelings were still raw. And yet it nearly got canceled.

There was a list of known defense lawyers compiled and offered to the defendants, to choose from.

You have to understand - the Nuremberg trial was not a mere no-body situation. There were millions of dead bodies, captured on the film. No one in the world asked himself why the defendants were put to trial, what each of them had done.

And yet, according to US jurisprudence, if during three months the defendants do not get legal representation, the trial is invalidated. It almost happened at Nuremberg because it took such a long time for the defendants to choose their lawyers.

And the lawyers did a good job and tried their best.

JMO - in any personal case, the lawyer can be intensely disliked, irritating, shocking, even. But together, this group of people, none of them perfect by any means, safeguards the fairness of the law.

So I try not to pay attention to BM's lawyers. I am sure I'd find them intense. I also know that everyone, including BM, needs a fair trial.
 
Charlot123 said:
A little bit of history...

True legality implies that even if a person is a known criminal, he has the right for legal representation and defense. That without fair representation, the trial is invalid.

A good example would have been Nuremberg trial. It started in 1945, while the feelings were still raw. And yet it nearly got canceled.

There was a list of known defense lawyers compiled and offered to the defendants, to choose from.

You have to understand - the Nuremberg trial was not a mere no-body situation. There were millions of dead bodies, captured on the film. No one in the world asked himself why the defendants were put to trial, what each of them had done.

And yet, according to US jurisprudence, if during three months the defendants do not get legal representation, the trial is invalidated. It almost happened at Nuremberg because it took such a long time for the defendants to choose their lawyers.

And the lawyers did a good job and tried their best.

JMO - in any personal case, the lawyer can be intensely disliked, irritating, shocking, even. But together, this group of people, none of them perfect by any means, safeguards the fairness of the law.

So I try not to pay attention to BM's lawyers. I am sure I'd find them intense. I also know that everyone, including BM, needs a fair trial.
Click to expand...
Excellent post and I appreciate your reply. I’m in full agreement, BM deserves a fair trial as does everyone. I just couldn’t be the person representing him….. moo
 
Last edited:
NWLady said:
Thank you for this! We all need a good laugh now and then. I actually laughed out loud and am still chuckling!
Click to expand...
Diddian said:
He could just be sucking on a sideways stack of Chiclets!
Click to expand...
I agree with @NWLady, love your post @Diddian You deserve an award for this post! That’s some funny, funny s***.
joke_alert.gif


"He could just be sucking on a sideways stack of Chiclets”!



 
Error505 said:
Excellent post and I appreciate your reply. I’m in full agreement, BM deserves a fair trial as does everyone. I just couldn’t be the person representing him….. moo
Click to expand...

I know ))) Like us all, you want justice for Suzanne. We all feel the same. But all that we know about BM of today is a hearsay - some journalists, some YouTubers. We know that he has been accused, but we have seen nothing, no AA, no documents, so far. The case has been a mega-hype. This is why I am glad that he is getting a very fair trial. As to his lawyers, well, it is the sheer amount of male domestic abusers that has created the niche, so someone smart would have occupied it, either way.
 
Last edited:
Charlot123 said:
A little bit of history...

True legality implies that even if a person is a known criminal, he has the right for legal representation and defense. That without fair representation, the trial is invalid.

A good example would have been Nuremberg trial. It started in 1945, while the feelings were still raw. And yet it nearly got canceled.

There was a list of known defense lawyers compiled and offered to the defendants, to choose from.

You have to understand - the Nuremberg trial was not a mere no-body situation. There were millions of dead bodies, captured on the film. No one in the world asked himself why the defendants were put to trial, what each of them had done.

And yet, according to US jurisprudence, if during three months the defendants do not get legal representation, the trial is invalidated. It almost happened at Nuremberg because it took such a long time for the defendants to choose their lawyers.

And the lawyers did a good job and tried their best.

JMO - in any personal case, the lawyer can be intensely disliked, irritating, shocking, even. But together, this group of people, none of them perfect by any means, safeguards the fairness of the law.

So I try not to pay attention to BM's lawyers. I am sure I'd find them intense. I also know that everyone, including BM, needs a fair trial.
Click to expand...
The court will appoint an attorney, with or without that attorney's satisfaction....if a person cannot afford one, correct?.. And when an attorney withdraws from a case...that withdrawal is first requested of the court, then the judge either accepts or rejects the withdrawal...is this also correct? Not to be sarcastic....but these lawyers are officers of the court, too.....we tolerate when nothing else will do.
 
As much as we all want justice for Suzanne, her family, and her daughters, I think it's important to remind ourselves of the importance of the Rule of Law that's so fundamental to our own liberty. When we fail to stand up for the rights of others, we risk losing them for ourselves and the ones we love. When the ends come to justify the means, we are done as a free country.

Sometimes, I become so angry over the injustice of a crime that it's very difficult to remember that depriving an innocent person of liberty is an injustice, and that in most cases the evidence for the charge isn't fully vetted until the process runs its course. I work at it in this case in part because I believe BM gave himself over to evil and killed his wife and I'm mad as - well, as mad as I can be about that.

Justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Without a fair process that has integrity to our Constitution, arbitrary decisions and even vigilantism become likely. The people who created the United States experienced such injustice. That's why, over the centuries, we have included fairness to the accused in our definition of justice, and refined our processes to assure that only the truly guilty will be punished. Fair processes involve precise language and legal arguments over the meaning of the rules as applied can seem "technical." But if we allow ourselves to become so convinced of BM's guilt that we abandon our respect for the law and its "technicalities" - which include the right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence - we will all be losers, big time.

All MOO, of course.
 
Error505 said:
If (big if) I were a defense attorney, I could not in good conscience defend someone who I felt was 100% guilty of first degree murder. I totally understand everyone deserves a fair trial, I am fully onboard with our constitutional rights. But I couldn’t be the person that possibly kept a family from receiving justice and closure by defending a killer and it boiled down to let’s say a technicality. Kudos to those who can. Our country needs good defense attorneys. Moo
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this, and from experience I can say that people whose practice is mostly criminal defense can only stay in the field if they view it as a calling. They are able to see themselves as protecting all Americans from an unjust government when they defend an accused they believe to be guilty. They are able to compartmentalize the idea of their client's guilt from their role as his or her attorney, which they view as essential and even noble. The are able to focus on the professional question: can the prosecution prove my client is guilty through an investigation that conforms to the high standard of fairness that justice requires.

I daresay most of us couldn't do this, including me. Criminal conduct especially generates negative emotions for nearly everyone, and even defenders who uphold the ideals involved feel the conflict between what they feel and what they must do to fulfill their ethical obligations to the client and the system.
 
Charlot123 said:
I know ))) Like us all, you want justice for Suzanne. We all feel the same. But all that we know about BM of today is a hearsay - some journalists, some YouTubers. We know that he has been accused, but we have seen nothing, no AA, no documents, so far. The case has been a mega-hype. This is why I am glad that he is getting a very fair trial. As to his lawyers, well, it is the sheer amount of male domestic abusers that has created the niche, so someone smart would have occupied it, either way.
Click to expand...

In addition to what you've noted we have several pieces from which we analyze his involvement.

1. What he has and has not done to assist in the rescue/recovery of his wife.
2. BM never called her family to inform them of her being missing nor any updates.
3. All of the pleas he did not do with all of the media attention he had.
4. Reward for "the safe return" only.
5. His behavior after was shocking. The trip to the Loaf and Jug etc.
6. Selling her vehicle 2 weeks after?
7. Buying land, selling land, selling Indiana after guardianship.
8. His taunting of LS.

Beyond the hearsay of all we've heard from, what BM himself has and has not said point to a guilty man. While one of those alone would be excusable, collectively they show an arrogance and a strong sense of entitlement.

Again, MOO. I'm sure I forgot some but this was just off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
Scootie98 said:
The court will appoint an attorney, with or without that attorney's satisfaction....if a person cannot afford one, correct?.. And when an attorney withdraws from a case...that withdrawal is first requested of the court, then the judge either accepts or rejects the withdrawal...is this also correct? Not to be sarcastic....but these lawyers are officers of the court, too.....we tolerate when nothing else will do.
Click to expand...
I think in the Samantha Josephson case (mistaken uber driver) the defendant tried to fire his court appointed attorney but the judge denied the request. The judge at the sentencing said it was the most evidence he'd seen and all the roads lead right back to him. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. I think BLM gets the same.
 
TKG said:
In addition to what you've noted we have several pieces from which we analyze his involvement.

1. What he has and has not done to assist in the rescue/recovery of his wife.
2. BM never called her family to inform them of her being missing nor any updates.
3. All of the pleas he did not do with all of the media attention he had.
4. Reward for "the safe return" only.
5. His behavior after was shocking. The trip to the Loaf and Jug etc.
6. Selling her vehicle 2 weeks after?
7. Buying land, selling land, selling Indiana after guardianship.
8. His taunting of LS.

Beyond the hearsay of all we've heard from, what BM himself has and has not said point to a guilty man. While one of those alone would be excusable, collectively they show an arrogance and a strong sense of entitlement.

Again, MOO. I'm sure I forgot some but this was just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
Did he really sell her vehicle two weeks after her disappearance? I missed that! wow...flashback of Scott Peterson!
 
CGray123 said:
I'm with you on this, and from experience I can say that people whose practice is mostly criminal defense can only stay in the field if they view it as a calling. They are able to see themselves as protecting all Americans from an unjust government when they defend an accused they believe to be guilty. They are able to compartmentalize the idea of their client's guilt from their role as his or her attorney, which they view as essential and even noble. The are able to focus on the professional question: can the prosecution prove my client is guilty through an investigation that conforms to the high standard of fairness that justice requires.

I daresay most of us couldn't do this, including me. Criminal conduct especially generates negative emotions for nearly everyone, and even defenders who uphold the ideals involved feel the conflict between what they feel and what they must do to fulfill their ethical obligations to the client and the system.
Click to expand...
I have friends who do criminal defense and ONLY want a client they think is guilty because if they truly have an innocent client and they get convicted they can’t live with it! No joke.
 
Interesting regarding the "spy pen"....here are my thoughts:

Let's just say that SM knew somehow her conversations were being overheard and this was shared with her sister via the last text between them. Being all paranoid about this, perhaps her last text to sister included instructions to delete message and SM will delete too. Once deleted texts were retrieved/recovered by detectives, they knew what to "look" for (bugging device, spy pen, etc.) MOO
 
Ontario Mom said:
Yes indeed, I had the exact thoughts.
Click to expand...
I've often wondered whether there might be other victims out there?
People that saw his face in strange or compromising or even dangerous settings?
Might well explain the speculated plastics work on his face too?
Was Suzanne his only victim, or not?
I need a favor, been offline for ages and I'm unable to figure out who owned the spypen?
Did Suzanne purchase it or did he?
Or do we know yet?
It's going on a tad, is it not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 60 more.
Total: 1,997 (members: 61, guests: 1,936)

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
1,936
Total visitors
1,997
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,392
Messages
18,108,015
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top