CO - BARRY ARRESTED AGAIN - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #119

  • #441
ADMIN NOTE:

This post lands at random.

We don't know what the daughters think or why they think that way. We are not privy to their innermost thoughts.

By WS standards they are victims and not up for discussion.
 
  • #442
17. A six-week trial is set to begin on October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. All parties shall be present in-person unless excused by the Court.

18. The parties will do the following no later than twenty-eight (28) days prior to trial:

a. Advise that a plea has been reached;

b. Request a continuance of the trial;

c. File a motion to dismiss the case.

After this date, the trial will go forward as scheduled. If the deadline falls on the weekend or falls on a holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next day the Court is open.


:D😁😇😎🥳
Bring it ON!
 
  • #443
Barry doesn’t think he’s guilty of anything. I believe he has no conscience. Even if he were to be convicted, he will appeal and await the overturning of the conviction.
my biggest fear with this case - I've prob voiced it before so sorry for the repeat - is that he will find a way to appeal a guilty verdict to a federal court and get his "pal" who Sm "voted" for to pardon him.

JMO and nightmare
 
  • #444
my biggest fear with this case - I've prob voiced it before so sorry for the repeat - is that he will find a way to appeal a guilty verdict to a federal court and get his "pal" who Sm "voted" for to pardon him.

JMO and nightmare
State convictions don't work that way.
 
  • #445
my biggest fear with this case - I've prob voiced it before so sorry for the repeat - is that he will find a way to appeal a guilty verdict to a federal court and get his "pal" who Sm "voted" for to pardon him.

JMO and nightmare
The Federal government cannot pardon a criminal’s state’s crimes. Tina Peters was found guilty in the state of Colorado of four felony election crimes. The president wants her released but she’s still in prison. Her prison terms ends in 2031.
 
  • #446
The Federal government cannot pardon a criminal’s state’s crimes. Tina Peters was found guilty in the state of Colorado of four felony election crimes. The president wants her released but she’s still in prison. Her prison terms ends in 2031.
Yes, I understand that is currently the law.
But lots of shifting sands imo leave me thinking that what I once thought was settled .... may be different as time moves along.
It's a fear I have, currently not rational - I get that - thats why its just a nightmare and
Just an Opinion
 
  • #447
We can perhaps see the outlines of Morphew's defense in the allegations of his civil complaint against Chafee County, the 11th JD, and Colorado.

Judge Domenico's decision lists two categories of allegedly "exculpatory facts" described in Morphew's complaint: (1) facts inconsistent with he prosecution's theory that were not mentioned in the arrest affidavit; and (2) facts and conclusions mentioned in the complaint that are allegedly unreliable or fabricated. What do you think of these allegations? Would the state have grounds to dispute any of them if the case had survived the immunity defense? Will DA Kelly have to deal with any of them? Which ones? Are there legal strategies and tactics she can use to avoid any of these alleged exculpatory facts? How much of a problem will these be for a second prosecution of Barry Morphew?

Below are the refuted allegations of the Chaffee County AA, as recited by Judge Domenico:
......

B. The Exculpatory Facts

These facts, however, do not paint the whole picture. The investigation into Mrs. Morphew’s disappearance also discovered facts that were inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory and that would have tended to support the conclusion that his wife was abducted by a stranger. These include the following:

1. Partial unknown genetic profiles were recovered from his wife’s car and, using a national DNA database called CODIS, identified as potential matches to unsolved sex crimes committed in other states. Doc. 1 at 20-21.

2. Unknown male DNA was found in a number of locations inside his home and on his wife’s bike. Id. at 29-30.

3. Plaintiff tried to contact his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 79.

4. A K-9 detected his wife’s scent near the scene of the abandoned bicycle. Id. at 85.

5. A K-9 did not alert to the scent of a cadaver in their home or vehicles. Id. at 89.

6. His hotel room in Broomfield may have smelled like chlorine because it was above an indoor pool (not because Plaintiff was de- stroying evidence, as the affidavit suggested). Id. at 100.

7. His wife’s phone and computer exhibited activity into the evening of May 9, suggesting that she was alive past the time investigators theorized he had killed her. Id. at 53-63.

8. The plastic needle cap allegedly found by investigators in Plaintiff’s dryer was actually a hypodermic needle cap, not a tranquil- izer dart cap. Id. at 67.

9. A tranquilizer gun is the only method by which to shoot a tranquilizer dart and Plaintiff’s tranquilizer gun, which was stored in a locked gun safe, was inoperable and had not been used in a long time. Id. at 68-69.

None of these facts was mentioned in the affidavit submitted by prosecutors to the court.

The affidavit also included a range of allegedly fabricated and unreliable information in an attempt to bolster the inference that the evidence against Plaintiff was overwhelming. This included the following:

10. A “pushpin map” that was used to suggest that Plaintiff was chasing his wife around the house on the afternoon of May 9, immediately before killing her. Investigators knew this map was unreliable because of a phenomenon called “static drift,” which would have been a better explanation for why his phone was moving around the house so quickly. Doc. 1 at 38-46.

11. Plaintiff’s alleged admission that he was probably chasing a chipmunk in response to being confronted with the “pushpin map.” Investigators also knew this admission was unreliable because it was made in response to fabricated and deceptive evidence. Id. at 44.

12. Unreliable conclusions regarding his phone being in “airplane mode” on May 9. Id. at 46-52.

13. Unreliable conclusions drawn from the “telematics” and odome- ter of his truck. Id. 87-89.

14. The false statement that he knew about his wife’s affair. Id. at 110.

15. The false statement that he admitted to keeping tranquilizer chemicals on his work bench. Id. at 74.

16. That his wife’s bicycle was “discarded.” Id. at 77.

17. That his alibi was “created” to account for her disappearance.

18. That his tools were “staged” in the Broomfield hotel lobby. Id. at 82.

19. That his wife “wanted out” of their marriage. Id. at 91.

20. That his wife bought a spy pen for “safety” reasons. Id. at 93.

21. That his wife’s romantic partner refused to travel to Colorado because Plaintiff had security cameras all over the house. Id. at 95.

22. That there was “suspected blood” near Plaintiff’s garage. Id. at 97.

23. That it was fair to assume his wife was dead because there were no records of her entering another country or using a credit card. Id. at 98.

24. That he was having an affair. Id. at 100.

25. That he used his Bobcat skid steer to dispose of his wife’s body. Id. at 107.

26. That he lied about having “steaks” for dinner with his wife the night before she disappeared. Id. at 114.

27. That he “blamed” a mountain lion for his wife’s disappearance. Id. at 116.

28. That he “blamed” a turkey for why he was down by the creek while his wife was on the phone with her lover the afternoon before she disappeared. Id. at 117-18.

29. That he used the “firing of a gun” to “describe” his violence to- wards his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 119.

30. That he described his wife’s breathing as “labored” the last time he saw her. Id. at 120.

31. That he admitted to taking his wife’s phone once or twice in the past to monitor what she was doing.
 
  • #448
We can perhaps see the outlines of Morphew's defense in the allegations of his civil complaint against Chafee County, the 11th JD, and Colorado.

Judge Domenico's decision lists two categories of allegedly "exculpatory facts" described in Morphew's complaint: (1) facts inconsistent with he prosecution's theory that were not mentioned in the arrest affidavit; and (2) facts and conclusions mentioned in the complaint that are allegedly unreliable or fabricated. What do you think of these allegations? Would the state have grounds to dispute any of them if the case had survived the immunity defense? Will DA Kelly have to deal with any of them? Which ones? Are there legal strategies and tactics she can use to avoid any of these alleged exculpatory facts? How much of a problem will these be for a second prosecution of Barry Morphew?

Below are the refuted allegations of the Chaffee County AA, as recited by Judge Domenico:
......

B. The Exculpatory Facts

These facts, however, do not paint the whole picture. The investigation into Mrs. Morphew’s disappearance also discovered facts that were inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory and that would have tended to support the conclusion that his wife was abducted by a stranger. These include the following:

1. Partial unknown genetic profiles were recovered from his wife’s car and, using a national DNA database called CODIS, identified as potential matches to unsolved sex crimes committed in other states. Doc. 1 at 20-21.

2. Unknown male DNA was found in a number of locations inside his home and on his wife’s bike. Id. at 29-30.

3. Plaintiff tried to contact his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 79.

4. A K-9 detected his wife’s scent near the scene of the abandoned bicycle. Id. at 85.

5. A K-9 did not alert to the scent of a cadaver in their home or vehicles. Id. at 89.

6. His hotel room in Broomfield may have smelled like chlorine because it was above an indoor pool (not because Plaintiff was de- stroying evidence, as the affidavit suggested). Id. at 100.

7. His wife’s phone and computer exhibited activity into the evening of May 9, suggesting that she was alive past the time investigators theorized he had killed her. Id. at 53-63.

8. The plastic needle cap allegedly found by investigators in Plaintiff’s dryer was actually a hypodermic needle cap, not a tranquil- izer dart cap. Id. at 67.

9. A tranquilizer gun is the only method by which to shoot a tranquilizer dart and Plaintiff’s tranquilizer gun, which was stored in a locked gun safe, was inoperable and had not been used in a long time. Id. at 68-69.

None of these facts was mentioned in the affidavit submitted by prosecutors to the court.

The affidavit also included a range of allegedly fabricated and unreliable information in an attempt to bolster the inference that the evidence against Plaintiff was overwhelming. This included the following:

10. A “pushpin map” that was used to suggest that Plaintiff was chasing his wife around the house on the afternoon of May 9, immediately before killing her. Investigators knew this map was unreliable because of a phenomenon called “static drift,” which would have been a better explanation for why his phone was moving around the house so quickly. Doc. 1 at 38-46.

11. Plaintiff’s alleged admission that he was probably chasing a chipmunk in response to being confronted with the “pushpin map.” Investigators also knew this admission was unreliable because it was made in response to fabricated and deceptive evidence. Id. at 44.

12. Unreliable conclusions regarding his phone being in “airplane mode” on May 9. Id. at 46-52.

13. Unreliable conclusions drawn from the “telematics” and odome- ter of his truck. Id. 87-89.

14. The false statement that he knew about his wife’s affair. Id. at 110.

15. The false statement that he admitted to keeping tranquilizer chemicals on his work bench. Id. at 74.

16. That his wife’s bicycle was “discarded.” Id. at 77.

17. That his alibi was “created” to account for her disappearance.

18. That his tools were “staged” in the Broomfield hotel lobby. Id. at 82.

19. That his wife “wanted out” of their marriage. Id. at 91.

20. That his wife bought a spy pen for “safety” reasons. Id. at 93.

21. That his wife’s romantic partner refused to travel to Colorado because Plaintiff had security cameras all over the house. Id. at 95.

22. That there was “suspected blood” near Plaintiff’s garage. Id. at 97.

23. That it was fair to assume his wife was dead because there were no records of her entering another country or using a credit card. Id. at 98.

24. That he was having an affair. Id. at 100.

25. That he used his Bobcat skid steer to dispose of his wife’s body. Id. at 107.

26. That he lied about having “steaks” for dinner with his wife the night before she disappeared. Id. at 114.

27. That he “blamed” a mountain lion for his wife’s disappearance. Id. at 116.

28. That he “blamed” a turkey for why he was down by the creek while his wife was on the phone with her lover the afternoon before she disappeared. Id. at 117-18.

29. That he used the “firing of a gun” to “describe” his violence to- wards his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 119.

30. That he described his wife’s breathing as “labored” the last time he saw her. Id. at 120.

31. That he admitted to taking his wife’s phone once or twice in the past to monitor what she was doing.

Name 31 line items that all point back at him.

So many of those items are flat out misrepresentations.

I think they have only one direction to go with this trial. Admit to the material facts and present an alternate explanation.

With any luck at all, he'll have to take the stand to sell it.

It won't sell.

JMO
 
  • #449
In any case, he is guilty of being a disgusting husband and human being IMO
 
  • #450
We can perhaps see the outlines of Morphew's defense in the allegations of his civil complaint against Chafee County, the 11th JD, and Colorado.

Judge Domenico's decision lists two categories of allegedly "exculpatory facts" described in Morphew's complaint: (1) facts inconsistent with he prosecution's theory that were not mentioned in the arrest affidavit; and (2) facts and conclusions mentioned in the complaint that are allegedly unreliable or fabricated. What do you think of these allegations? Would the state have grounds to dispute any of them if the case had survived the immunity defense? Will DA Kelly have to deal with any of them? Which ones? Are there legal strategies and tactics she can use to avoid any of these alleged exculpatory facts? How much of a problem will these be for a second prosecution of Barry Morphew?

Below are the refuted allegations of the Chaffee County AA, as recited by Judge Domenico:
......

B. The Exculpatory Facts

These facts, however, do not paint the whole picture. The investigation into Mrs. Morphew’s disappearance also discovered facts that were inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory and that would have tended to support the conclusion that his wife was abducted by a stranger. These include the following:

1. Partial unknown genetic profiles were recovered from his wife’s car and, using a national DNA database called CODIS, identified as potential matches to unsolved sex crimes committed in other states. Doc. 1 at 20-21.

2. Unknown male DNA was found in a number of locations inside his home and on his wife’s bike. Id. at 29-30.

3. Plaintiff tried to contact his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 79.

4. A K-9 detected his wife’s scent near the scene of the abandoned bicycle. Id. at 85.

5. A K-9 did not alert to the scent of a cadaver in their home or vehicles. Id. at 89.

6. His hotel room in Broomfield may have smelled like chlorine because it was above an indoor pool (not because Plaintiff was de- stroying evidence, as the affidavit suggested). Id. at 100.

7. His wife’s phone and computer exhibited activity into the evening of May 9, suggesting that she was alive past the time investigators theorized he had killed her. Id. at 53-63.

8. The plastic needle cap allegedly found by investigators in Plaintiff’s dryer was actually a hypodermic needle cap, not a tranquil- izer dart cap. Id. at 67.

9. A tranquilizer gun is the only method by which to shoot a tranquilizer dart and Plaintiff’s tranquilizer gun, which was stored in a locked gun safe, was inoperable and had not been used in a long time. Id. at 68-69.

None of these facts was mentioned in the affidavit submitted by prosecutors to the court.

The affidavit also included a range of allegedly fabricated and unreliable information in an attempt to bolster the inference that the evidence against Plaintiff was overwhelming. This included the following:

10. A “pushpin map” that was used to suggest that Plaintiff was chasing his wife around the house on the afternoon of May 9, immediately before killing her. Investigators knew this map was unreliable because of a phenomenon called “static drift,” which would have been a better explanation for why his phone was moving around the house so quickly. Doc. 1 at 38-46.

11. Plaintiff’s alleged admission that he was probably chasing a chipmunk in response to being confronted with the “pushpin map.” Investigators also knew this admission was unreliable because it was made in response to fabricated and deceptive evidence. Id. at 44.

12. Unreliable conclusions regarding his phone being in “airplane mode” on May 9. Id. at 46-52.

13. Unreliable conclusions drawn from the “telematics” and odome- ter of his truck. Id. 87-89.

14. The false statement that he knew about his wife’s affair. Id. at 110.

15. The false statement that he admitted to keeping tranquilizer chemicals on his work bench. Id. at 74.

16. That his wife’s bicycle was “discarded.” Id. at 77.

17. That his alibi was “created” to account for her disappearance.

18. That his tools were “staged” in the Broomfield hotel lobby. Id. at 82.

19. That his wife “wanted out” of their marriage. Id. at 91.

20. That his wife bought a spy pen for “safety” reasons. Id. at 93.

21. That his wife’s romantic partner refused to travel to Colorado because Plaintiff had security cameras all over the house. Id. at 95.

22. That there was “suspected blood” near Plaintiff’s garage. Id. at 97.

23. That it was fair to assume his wife was dead because there were no records of her entering another country or using a credit card. Id. at 98.

24. That he was having an affair. Id. at 100.

25. That he used his Bobcat skid steer to dispose of his wife’s body. Id. at 107.

26. That he lied about having “steaks” for dinner with his wife the night before she disappeared. Id. at 114.

27. That he “blamed” a mountain lion for his wife’s disappearance. Id. at 116.

28. That he “blamed” a turkey for why he was down by the creek while his wife was on the phone with her lover the afternoon before she disappeared. Id. at 117-18.

29. That he used the “firing of a gun” to “describe” his violence to- wards his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 119.

30. That he described his wife’s breathing as “labored” the last time he saw her. Id. at 120.

31. That he admitted to taking his wife’s phone once or twice in the past to monitor what she was doing.
I serious doubt many of these things will be used by the current prosecution for all the reasons the original AA was "bloated" and as the judge cautioned had components that might not have been admissible to begin with. Of them, they have to do a better job with the DNA...it was found in multiple places but I was never clear if it was the same DNA in the car, on the helmet, on the bike. If so that dilutes the argument that it was a mechanic working on her car as often speculated so the DNA, if used, has to be better presented by prosecution. The BAM is a major component of the current prosecution case no doubt. I have no clue how they could wrap it up with the fact that the gun was inoperable, no drugs were found at the house etc. etc. but there is a path forward for prosecution with the BAM. With us not knowing anything regarding the autopsy or the relics found at her burial site it is, in my opinion, the most important element of the case. The location of her body a second important element. The tracking dog and that report is something prosecution has to deal with as they have to prove that no one else could have committed this crime. I am assuming the prosecution has an approach that will be very different than the original attempt, will be strongly based on the facts that are less easy for defense to establish doubt and like the first attempt, I would not call this a "slam dunk" trial or at least I can't speculate until I hear the prosecution case presented.
 
  • #451
We can perhaps see the outlines of Morphew's defense in the allegations of his civil complaint against Chafee County, the 11th JD, and Colorado.

Judge Domenico's decision lists two categories of allegedly "exculpatory facts" described in Morphew's complaint: (1) facts inconsistent with he prosecution's theory that were not mentioned in the arrest affidavit; and (2) facts and conclusions mentioned in the complaint that are allegedly unreliable or fabricated. What do you think of these allegations? Would the state have grounds to dispute any of them if the case had survived the immunity defense? Will DA Kelly have to deal with any of them? Which ones? Are there legal strategies and tactics she can use to avoid any of these alleged exculpatory facts? How much of a problem will these be for a second prosecution of Barry Morphew?

Below are the refuted allegations of the Chaffee County AA, as recited by Judge Domenico:
......

B. The Exculpatory Facts

These facts, however, do not paint the whole picture. The investigation into Mrs. Morphew’s disappearance also discovered facts that were inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory and that would have tended to support the conclusion that his wife was abducted by a stranger. These include the following:

1. Partial unknown genetic profiles were recovered from his wife’s car and, using a national DNA database called CODIS, identified as potential matches to unsolved sex crimes committed in other states. Doc. 1 at 20-21.

2. Unknown male DNA was found in a number of locations inside his home and on his wife’s bike. Id. at 29-30.

3. Plaintiff tried to contact his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 79.

4. A K-9 detected his wife’s scent near the scene of the abandoned bicycle. Id. at 85.

5. A K-9 did not alert to the scent of a cadaver in their home or vehicles. Id. at 89.

6. His hotel room in Broomfield may have smelled like chlorine because it was above an indoor pool (not because Plaintiff was de- stroying evidence, as the affidavit suggested). Id. at 100.

7. His wife’s phone and computer exhibited activity into the evening of May 9, suggesting that she was alive past the time investigators theorized he had killed her. Id. at 53-63.

8. The plastic needle cap allegedly found by investigators in Plaintiff’s dryer was actually a hypodermic needle cap, not a tranquil- izer dart cap. Id. at 67.

9. A tranquilizer gun is the only method by which to shoot a tranquilizer dart and Plaintiff’s tranquilizer gun, which was stored in a locked gun safe, was inoperable and had not been used in a long time. Id. at 68-69.

None of these facts was mentioned in the affidavit submitted by prosecutors to the court.

The affidavit also included a range of allegedly fabricated and unreliable information in an attempt to bolster the inference that the evidence against Plaintiff was overwhelming. This included the following:

10. A “pushpin map” that was used to suggest that Plaintiff was chasing his wife around the house on the afternoon of May 9, immediately before killing her. Investigators knew this map was unreliable because of a phenomenon called “static drift,” which would have been a better explanation for why his phone was moving around the house so quickly. Doc. 1 at 38-46.

11. Plaintiff’s alleged admission that he was probably chasing a chipmunk in response to being confronted with the “pushpin map.” Investigators also knew this admission was unreliable because it was made in response to fabricated and deceptive evidence. Id. at 44.

12. Unreliable conclusions regarding his phone being in “airplane mode” on May 9. Id. at 46-52.

13. Unreliable conclusions drawn from the “telematics” and odome- ter of his truck. Id. 87-89.

14. The false statement that he knew about his wife’s affair. Id. at 110.

15. The false statement that he admitted to keeping tranquilizer chemicals on his work bench. Id. at 74.

16. That his wife’s bicycle was “discarded.” Id. at 77.

17. That his alibi was “created” to account for her disappearance.

18. That his tools were “staged” in the Broomfield hotel lobby. Id. at 82.

19. That his wife “wanted out” of their marriage. Id. at 91.

20. That his wife bought a spy pen for “safety” reasons. Id. at 93.

21. That his wife’s romantic partner refused to travel to Colorado because Plaintiff had security cameras all over the house. Id. at 95.

22. That there was “suspected blood” near Plaintiff’s garage. Id. at 97.

23. That it was fair to assume his wife was dead because there were no records of her entering another country or using a credit card. Id. at 98.

24. That he was having an affair. Id. at 100.

25. That he used his Bobcat skid steer to dispose of his wife’s body. Id. at 107.

26. That he lied about having “steaks” for dinner with his wife the night before she disappeared. Id. at 114.

27. That he “blamed” a mountain lion for his wife’s disappearance. Id. at 116.

28. That he “blamed” a turkey for why he was down by the creek while his wife was on the phone with her lover the afternoon before she disappeared. Id. at 117-18.

29. That he used the “firing of a gun” to “describe” his violence to- wards his wife on the day she disappeared. Id. at 119.

30. That he described his wife’s breathing as “labored” the last time he saw her. Id. at 120.

31. That he admitted to taking his wife’s phone once or twice in the past to monitor what she was doing.

We debated most of this extensively back in the day, so rather than rehash, I would simply note that at trial, we'll be in a proof phase, unlike the prelim, or the civil dismissal proceedings.

Allegations won't be enough for Team Barry.

Just one example. The lack of operable gun is not exculpatory. Barry himself claimed to shoot from the Breezeway. So where is the gun he used?

Many of Iris's 'exculpatory allegations' in fact rely on testimony from Barry to contradict all the things he already said on the record.
 
  • #452
I serious doubt many of these things will be used by the current prosecution for all the reasons the original AA was "bloated" and as the judge cautioned had components that might not have been admissible to begin with. Of them, they have to do a better job with the DNA...it was found in multiple places but I was never clear if it was the same DNA in the car, on the helmet, on the bike. If so that dilutes the argument that it was a mechanic working on her car as often speculated so the DNA, if used, has to be better presented by prosecution. The BAM is a major component of the current prosecution case no doubt. I have no clue how they could wrap it up with the fact that the gun was inoperable, no drugs were found at the house etc. etc. but there is a path forward for prosecution with the BAM. With us not knowing anything regarding the autopsy or the relics found at her burial site it is, in my opinion, the most important element of the case. The location of her body a second important element. The tracking dog and that report is something prosecution has to deal with as they have to prove that no one else could have committed this crime. I am assuming the prosecution has an approach that will be very different than the original attempt, will be strongly based on the facts that are less easy for defense to establish doubt and like the first attempt, I would not call this a "slam dunk" trial or at least I can't speculate until I hear the prosecution case presented.
I agree that Kelly and Johnson will have to address effectively the significance - or lack of significance - of the previously "unknown DNA." If I recall, that question was vigorously pursued after the original preliminary hearing and additional evidence was developed. 12th District investigators (with CBI/FBI help) had time to pursue additional evidence. I'm wondering if the prosecution will pursue a motion in limine to restrict Morphew from introducing the DNA from the car. It will be interesting to see Kelly's strategic decisions and her theory of the case as the motions are filed and heard.

I also agree that some of the evidence recited in the original affidavit seems unlikely to be offered by the prosecution, either because it would be ruled inadmissible or because cross examination could raise reasonable questions as to its credibility. I think the evidence of the dog expert may be in this category, but I could be wrong: it could be part of a case that Morphew moved the remains, but it would need to have additional support and context.

Suzanne's remains, the forensic autopsy results, the grave site crime scene evidence and location - all are new components of the case as you say.

But I must disagree with the suggestion that the prosecution must affirmatively prove that no other person could possibly have committed the murder and concealment of Suzanne. Such a requirement would be greater than their actual burden, which is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morphew committed these crimes, and would involve speculation by the jury, which would be contrary to the judge's instructions.

No case without a voluntary confession is ever a slam dunk, but I think Kelly and Johnson can make a very cogent case assuming that their telematics and phone evidence is admitted into evidence along with the BAM evidence and Morphew's statements. These will undoubtedly be contested with motions to suppress. Since most of the rulings in the 11th JD were based on discovery sanctions that don't apply here, I look forward to discussing the substantive arguments about these things, which to me are foreshadowed by the allegations of the civil complaint.
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
414
Guests online
2,908
Total visitors
3,322

Forum statistics

Threads
639,854
Messages
18,749,107
Members
244,543
Latest member
Ghost_Lily
Back
Top