• #581
That’s odd. And when I try to search dockets it only allows me to go back 6 months. Also, when I enter today’s date for hearings in Chaffee, I don’t see BM listed.

People of the State of Colorado v Barry Morphew | Colorado Judicial Branch - this may work, goes to June last year.

Was just going to try my luck on Webex and click join on the judges name - Amanda Hopkins (iirc?)

 
  • #582
  • #583
Thanks - not seeing a motion for July 9 (as you said too). I searched this thread for Keairns, nada. Hmmmm
No, didn't recognise the name at all - thought he was paying for his attorneys?

(Am in the lobby for the court on Webex)

moo
 
  • #584
No, didn't recognise the name at all - thought he was paying for his attorneys?

(Am in the lobby for the court on Webex)

moo
I'm haven't gone back to look but a PD I think represented Barry in his first appearance or second appearance so probably this guy then when his defense attorneys were official part of his "team" the PD bowed out.
 
  • #585
SM's Autopsy (# 23-1011) dated 9/27/23, pgs 1-4, linked above. (Excludes anthropology and toxicology reports):

E. Postmortem toxicology of femoral trabecular bone identified butorphanol, butorphanol metabolites, azaperone, and medetomidine. (See toxicology reports). Ref Autopsy pg 1/4.
The right femoral head (femur fragment and femur head) is retained for toxicology testing prior to release for forensic anthropology examination. Ref Autopsy pg 3/4.

The skeletal remains are released to Dr. Diane France for forensic anthropology examination on 10/3/23 and returned to El Paso County Coroner's Office on 12/27/23. Ref Autopsy pg 4/4.

On 1/17/24, the femurs are sectioned at the proximal and distal metaphyses for toxicology and DNA samples (right femur proximal, right femur distal, left femur proximal, left femur distal).

Distal femurs (right femur distal and left femur distal) are released to CBI on 1/22/24 for DNA testing, returned to El Paso County Coroner's Office on 4/3/24, and re-released to CBI on 4/5/24.

_____________________________________

Forensic toxicology using bone samples, such as femur fragments and femoral heads, is a specialized, highly sensitive method used to detect drug intoxication in cases of advanced decomposition, skeletonization, or when traditional fluids (blood, urine) are unavailable. Bone marrow, particularly in the femur, acts as a reservoir for certain drugs.

Recent investigations have highlighted the ability to detect specialized drug compounds, including wildlife sedatives like butorphanol, within bone marrow.

Forensic Analysis of Femur Samples for Drug Detection:
  • Sample Type: The femur is an ideal specimen due to its density, size, and the presence of significant marrow. The femur head and surrounding marrow can contain high concentrations of substances, sometimes higher than blood in postmortem studies.
  • Preparation Method: Bones are cleaned of soft tissue, and the bone marrow is extracted. The sample is typically ground into a fine powder and subjected to solvent extraction (e.g., using methanol).
  • Analytical Techniques: High-sensitivity instruments, such as liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), are used to detect and quantify trace levels of analytes (often at picogram per gram levels).
Detecting Butorphanol Intoxication: Butorphanol is a synthetic opioid agonist-antagonist that is heavily metabolized in the liver.
  • Evidence in Bones: In cases of suspicious death, toxicological analysis has identified butorphanol—along with companions like medetomidine and azaperone (together known as "BAM")—within the bone marrow.
  • Metabolites: While butorphanol is metabolized to hydroxybutorphanol and norbutorphanol, forensic analysis in bone targets both the parent drug and metabolites for detection.
  • Interpretation: While bone analysis can prove exposure to the drug, it is challenging to definitively determine the exact time of ingestion or correlate the concentration directly with an acute fatal dose, making context from a full autopsy necessary.
Advantages and Limitations
  • Advantages: Bone provides a stable environment, protecting drugs from rapid degradation.
  • Limitations: Standardization is difficult, as drug concentration in bones can be affected by the burial environment, soil pH, and moisture. Additionally, not all drugs detected in blood are equally detectable in bone, requiring advanced, specialized laboratory protocols.



It could be very easy to confuse a jury on this.

You may know this so I apologize if I over-explain anything.

as I understand it, the outside labs did not do an independent analysis of different samples, they re-interpreted data given to them in discovery.

GC/MS and HPLC/MS spit out data called total ion current vs time. A simple LC/MS or GC/MS will just report Mass/Charge (M/z). More advanced instruments fragment the initial ions and you get a spray of individual M/z's for each fragment. These are more informative, because while many chemicals have the same M/z, once you fragment the results are more unique. This is the first place they will attack, you can adjust the instrument in any number of ways that will shift the fragmentation and include/exclude peaks that are coming out the instrument. Before you try to measure anything, you need to perform a validation that proves you seeing what you think you are seeing and it is accurate, reproducible, and robust to interference.

Even though the fragmentation patterns are more informative, they are still not completely unique like fingerprints. You need to run standards against the same extracted sample to be 99% sure your identification is correct. This will be the second place you can attack the analysis because you have multiple analytes you need to find so there are lots of targets. For example if BAM is metabolized into 5-10 different things, you might only be able to find a few of them. To a chemist or biologist this is normal, you could also pay a chemist or biologist to say it's not.

Analysis like this is normally layered and requires extensive background knowledge to know what to trust and distrust.

The defense has to do this because if the jury believes there was BAM in her system then Barry basically admitted to it in his questioning where that BAM came from.
 
  • #586
I'm haven't gone back to look but a PD I think represented Barry in his first appearance or second appearance so probably this guy then when his defense attorneys were official part of his "team" the PD bowed out.
Thanks
Interested to find out what the conflict is about though on the motion to withdraw last week
 
  • #587
It could be very easy to confuse a jury on this.

You may know this so I apologize if I over-explain anything.

as I understand it, the outside labs did not do an independent analysis of different samples, they re-interpreted data given to them in discovery.

GC/MS and HPLC/MS spit out data called total ion current vs time. A simple LC/MS or GC/MS will just report Mass/Charge (M/z). More advanced instruments fragment the initial ions and you get a spray of individual M/z's for each fragment. These are more informative, because while many chemicals have the same M/z, once you fragment the results are more unique. This is the first place they will attack, you can adjust the instrument in any number of ways that will shift the fragmentation and include/exclude peaks that are coming out the instrument. Before you try to measure anything, you need to perform a validation that proves you seeing what you think you are seeing and it is accurate, reproducible, and robust to interference.

Even though the fragmentation patterns are more informative, they are still not completely unique like fingerprints. You need to run standards against the same extracted sample to be 99% sure your identification is correct. This will be the second place you can attack the analysis because you have multiple analytes you need to find so there are lots of targets. For example if BAM is metabolized into 5-10 different things, you might only be able to find a few of them. To a chemist or biologist this is normal, you could also pay a chemist or biologist to say it's not.

Analysis like this is normally layered and requires extensive background knowledge to know what to trust and distrust.

The defense has to do this because if the jury believes there was BAM in her system then Barry basically admitted to it in his questioning where that BAM came from.

Thank you! I don't recall any chatter about 'consumption testing,' and/or if Motions filed to protect consuming the evidence (femur fragments/head), so it follows that only the State's results were analyzed by the defense.
 
  • #588
  • #589
  • #590
Of course he supports his daughters.



In court Monday, the judge said she is going to hear arguments on the motion filed on behalf of Macy and Mallory, saying she will give the daughters “an opportunity to be heard.”

Anne Kelly, District Attorney for Alamosa County and prosecutor on the case, said she believes the issue can be resolved “without a hearing at all.”

David Beller, Barry Morphew’s attorney, said Barry takes no legal stance on Macy and Mallory’s motion but says he is a father “willing to support his girls.”

 
  • #591
Went to check whether could join status hearing today via Webex


Can’t join without prior permission from the court 😕

And Jamie Keairns has withdrawn on 5th March (conflict persists)

moo

Ebm
Here is Jaimie K's linked in page

She is Office Head at Colorado State Public Defender

IIRC BM is using David and Jane as his "public defenders" bc they agreed to it and no one else was "available" from the PD office ? BM is not paying them. Remember he is out of money. Maybe Jaimie was riding third chair for the D to make it look legit.

JK possibly read the briefs and decided she wanted no part of the charade and has a "conflict" - perhaps a moral conflict ? Just a thought imo/wink

The no money thing will be convenient when he also talks about how he had no money to have Suzanne's remains re examined independently bc you know he would have wanted that ( eye roll). Wondering if he pursued getting money from the justice fund or other such entity. His attorney's could have made the argument it was pivotal to establish his innocence... but imo they did not make any argument bc they know it does not benefit their client.

JMO
 
  • #592
During the March 9 status conference, Judge Hopkins said she is treating the request as three separate orders: a motion to intervene, a temporary protection order and an order to show cause. Hopkins added that she doesn’t know if the children have a legal standing to intervene, and if they don’t, the other two motions are moot.

<snip>

Anne Kelly, representing the 12th Judicial District, also online, said she doesn’t believe this request from the children warrants a hearing, and that once she responds to the filed motion, it might be resolved. She said this is an argument between the parties.

<snip>

Judge Hopkins said, “To a certain extent, I agree with Ms. Kelly, I could rule on the motions. (But) these young ladies are the victims of the crime. We have a Victims’ Rights Act in Colorado. While this particular issue does not fall within the act, I will most certainly give them the opportunity to be heard.”

___________


Hopkins is ridiculous. She admits the daughter's motion is NOT covered under the Victims' Rights Act, then says she's going to ignore that fact and go with her feels for Team Barry, regardless.

Call me crazy, but when someone sits in the courtroom making heart signals ❤️ at the accused murderer and sashays in and out of court holding the accused's hand, I don't consider them a "victim."

Show of hands: Who here believes those two are in that courtroom on behalf of their mother vs. their father?
Yeah. Exactly.

This judge is bad news.

JMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #593
Of course he supports his daughters.



In court Monday, the judge said she is going to hear arguments on the motion filed on behalf of Macy and Mallory, saying she will give the daughters “an opportunity to be heard.”

Anne Kelly, District Attorney for Alamosa County and prosecutor on the case, said she believes the issue can be resolved “without a hearing at all.”

David Beller, Barry Morphew’s attorney, said Barry takes no legal stance on Macy and Mallory’s motion but says he is a father “willing to support his girls.”

Oh Boy

FYI to Amanda Hopkins.. this is pretty cut and dried.
We have all said it - its pure manipulation and tampering with evidence on the D's part using the "girls" to effectuate this "con" IMO

I do strongly hope that Suzanne's family will also be given an opportunity to be Heard - and of course the Prosecutor will point out what is evident to us all

JMO
 
  • #594
Of course he supports his daughters.

In court Monday, the judge said she is going to hear arguments on the motion filed on behalf of Macy and Mallory, saying she will give the daughters “an opportunity to be heard.”

Anne Kelly, District Attorney for Alamosa County and prosecutor on the case, said she believes the issue can be resolved “without a hearing at all.”

David Beller, Barry Morphew’s attorney, said Barry takes no legal stance on Macy and Mallory’s motion but says he is a father “willing to support his girls.”


This isn't about Barry supporting "his girls."
It's about them supporting him.

This attempted body grab has Barry's pawprints all over it.

JMO.
 
  • #595
This isn't about Barry supporting "his girls."
It's about them supporting him.

This attempted body grab has Barry's pawprints all over it.

JMO.

The very same body he (allegedly, ahem) he concealed, then moved (but not in whole). Now he wants a proper burial??????? Now he supports the daughters wanting to bury/scatter her? He didn't seem care to much about that in May of 2020 nor up until now.

He robbed them of that, and continued to do so.

He should be in trial, not Suzanne's remains.

JMO
 
  • #596
I hope this judge is aware of coercive control, and that is possible for victims to remain under control of another, victims of a crime and victims of manipulation.

IMO not protecting them from him was a failure on the part of the Court. They are twice victims who may not even realize it, having grown up in the dysfunctional dynamic.

Barry is using them. For his own purposes.

It's what he does. Unless he discards you.

JMO
 
  • #597
  • #598
Current Status: Rewatching the initial Puma Path bodycam footage from the Barry's Greatest .132 Average Hits Compilation.

Barry pulled off the Trifecta: All-Time Worst Original Screenplay, Worst Director, and Worst Performance by a Lead Actor.
"Lion?" "Mountain lion?" (arms outstretched quizzically)

Who told this dufus he could act?
I can't wait for the jury to see this video.
Cannot. Wait.

JMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #599
Refresh of the Court Documents as of today:


People of the State of Colorado v Barry Morphew​


Hearing on Motion to Intervene: March 30, 2026 at 1:30 pm.

You will not be able to join the Court's Webex room without prior permission from the Court.



 
  • #600
IMO, per the Sept 22, 2025 Defense Motion D-10, and Court Order Granting Changed Attorney Status D-10 dated Oct 8, 2025, I don't think there's been any change to Defense Attorneys Beller and Fisher-Byrialsen status, and they remain “Privately Retained Counsel.”

David M. Beller of Recht Kornfeld, P.C., and Jane Fisher-Byrialsen of Fisher &Byrialsen, PLLC, on behalf of Barry L. Morphew, and moves to change their status designation from “Alternate Defense Counsel” to “Privately Retained Counsel.” On today’s date, supporters of Mr. Morphew posted bond on his behalf. As such, Mr. Morphew will exhaust all resources and pay for his representation moving forward. Should his status change in the future, Mr. Morphew will comply with the requirements of Chief Justice Directive 04-04. CJD 04-04

However, I do believe the Defense Team is probably in need of additional help (i.e., a local attorney to handle more of the grunt work) as the case proceeds closer to Motion deadlines and trial prep, and the most recent Withdrawls/Motions/Orders linked below illustrate where Team Morphew went through the process to recognize the earlier conflict with the CO Public Defender's Office, first recognized on July 9, 2025, opening the way for the Court to grant the Motion and Order the appointment of additional Defense Counsel via the Office of ADC.

The Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel (ADC) was established pursuant to §21-2-101, C.R.S. (Senate Bill 96-205). The ADC is funded to provide representation for indigent persons in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases in which the Public Defender’s office determines that an ethical conflict of interest exists.


 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
1,612
Total visitors
1,776

Forum statistics

Threads
646,920
Messages
18,867,853
Members
246,147
Latest member
briannadckr
Top