Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 #100 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice*

[Love Never Fails]

LOL Well I think if they play the videos fully, the jury can interpret how he looks on their own anyway. Won't take an "expert" to analyze his body language.. just looking at him and how he responds, facial expressions, shifty eyes, looking away, how long he takes to respond, hesitation to respond. A jury can interpret that for sure. It doesn't sound like he hid the guilty appearance at all during these interviews.

Or play his “Oh Suzanne” video of 46 seconds.

It was 26 seconds. I don't think he had enough acting stamina to go another 20, although I guess if he HAD to fill closer to a full minute in time, he could have always claimed that the local wildlife missed her.

lol. I remembered 46. But 26 is so damning!
Play it and stress it. She didn’t even deserve 30 seconds of his time. It was just “too soon”!

 

[swedeheart]

 

[Aloe]

Two.
judges have been dissatisfied with the DAs professionalism.

Judge Lama outstanding reviews across the board. Hard to believe he would be biased one way or the other.

The defense is energetically making a text book defense. Predictable.
The prosecution, possibly FUBAR.

Do you have the link for those reviews still handy? I've only been able to come up with a bio.

 

[MassGuy]

Solid argument in one of those docs:

Even without further investigation by CBI, the evidence of the CODIS matches should be excluded. The unknown DNA found on the glove compartment was not found anywhere else in the victim's SUV. That means, the person who left their DNA in the Range Rover would have had to somehow enter the SUV in the Morphew garage, without touching anything other than the glove compartment.

Further, if they had abducted Suzanne, as the defense contends, they would have done that while leaving no other DNA and leaving Suzanne's wallet with cash and credit cards on the passenger seat of the vehicle.

And, if, as the defense contends, this person who abducted the victim and left her cash and credit cards then somehow took her bicycle and helmet out of the car and staged them at vapors points without leaving any of their DNA, while also contending with Suzanne, who would understandably have resisted any kidnapping.

Setting aside the sheer insanity of any one of the three CODIS matches being the person who abducted and murdered Suzanne Morphew CBI has shown that none of these suspects would have been in her Range Rover.

 

[Aloe]

Judge Lama was a public defender for 2008 - 2012 in Salida and then opened his criminal law practice in Salida until he was appointed judge in Fremont county, 2015. Chances are he has bias against the Chaffe county DA and LE. He probably has some views regarding Chaffee county elections. Does he still live there? He also says, "I think I’ll be a good judge. I am even-tempered, and I think my clients would say I am fair". MK. MOO
Ramsey Lama appointed judge

 

[Megnut]

The defense should be sanctioned for misrepresentation, in particular as it relates to the CODIS nothingburgers.

JMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

As a profiler...Grusing, imo, knew that Barry's character and makeup is very self-absorbed, and egocentric. The "breaking of bread" is interesting. Barry is the kind of person who would only "feed" someone if he thought he was going to get something in return. I think he picked his hunting buddies based upon what they could do for him. It wasn't about simply comraderie or friendship. As for the steaks...Barry expected something in return for "feeding" Grusing...the steak, in his mind, wasn't free, nor was the hospitality. So, when he was surprised and "crushed" when Grusing lowered the boom...it was the reality check that he was getting nothing in return for his investment. He practiced "quid pro quo" on both the professional and personal level...You know....we men only need sex...give us that, and we are good to go. What we give in return for it is just the cost of doing business....per Barry, of course.

While it appears that the judge is "verticalizing the climb" for the prosecution....this is not over. I do have some degree of confidence that the prosecution, over the course of 2 years, has sharpened the lens on their electronic and physical evidence...as well as structuring and articulating Barry's statements, timelines and behaviors. If their preparation has been focused on formulating a clear, understandable and reasonable presentation of the circumstantial evidence...I'd say the odds are better than even for a conviction. JMO.

You are correct. Narcissists use others. That’s what BM does best.

 

[girlhasnoname]

So, know we know what the Defense is going to be, even though we guessed it long ago. They are putting the VICTIM on trial.

Suzanne was having an affair, using drugs, lying to everyone blah, blah, blah. No body, no crime scene, she was taken on side of the road.

And the DNA, it was a HIT not a MATCH to any of the 4 tested. That should have been thrown out, especially seeing how they did follow up and eliminate those suspects. Something fishy about that ruling by Judge L, IMO.

If the Judge does limit the scope of the Defense's claims, it will be an outrage. He has tied the hands of the State together and behind their backs. I'm anxious to see how he responds to the States April 5th motion.

MOO

#Justice4Suzanne

ETA - Sorry for yelling, I'm just so disgusted with these Defense blow hards.

 

[waldojabba]

Solid argument in one of those docs:

Even without further investigation by CBI, the evidence of the CODIS matches should be excluded. The unknown DNA found on the glove compartment was not found anywhere else in the victim's SUV. That means, the person who left their DNA in the Range Rover would have had to somehow enter the SUV in the Morphew garage, without touching anything other than the glove compartment.

Further, if they had abducted Suzanne, as the defense contends, they would have done that while leaving no other DNA and leaving Suzanne's wallet with cash and credit cards on the passenger seat of the vehicle.

And, if, as the defense contends, this person who abducted the victim and left her cash and credit cards then somehow took her bicycle and helmet out of the car and staged them at vapors points without leaving any of their DNA, while also contending with Suzanne, who would understandably have resisted any kidnapping.

Setting aside the sheer insanity of any one of the three CODIS matches being the person who abducted and murdered Suzanne Morphew CBI has shown that none of these suspects would have been in her Range Rover.

Lauren is having another live either tomorrow night or Sat morning. In the next live she will go over the motions by Defense asking to limit info from the prosecution and strike witnesses. Today was obvi codis and she went over prosecution motions to limit certain things and also strike defense witnesses. She will post the motions as soon as she has time. Cannot wait to eyeball them all!

 

[mom2chloe]

So, know we know what the Defense is going to be, even though we guessed it long ago. They are putting the VICTIM on trial.

Suzanne was having an affair, using drugs, lying to everyone blah, blah, blah. No body, no crime scene, she was taken on side of the road.

And the DNA, it was a HIT not a MATCH to any of the 4 tested. That should have been thrown out, especially seeing how they did follow up and eliminate those suspects. Something fishy about that ruling by Judge L, IMO.

If the Judge does limit the scope of the Defense's claims, it will be an outrage. He has tied the hands of the State together and behind their backs. I'm anxious to see how he responds to the States April 5th motion.

MOO

#Justice4Suzanne

Wondering what kind of time frame we can expect for Judge L to respond to the State’s motion? Hoping it will be timely considering we are quickly approaching the trial date and if appeals are required hopefully that will be a speedy process too. IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Wondering what kind of time frame we can expect for Judge L to respond to the State’s motion? Hoping it will be timely considering we are quickly approaching the trial date and if appeals are required hopefully that will be a speedy process too. IMO

Hah, the way he's ruling against the State, I'd say he's not going to be rushing it.

 

[mom2chloe]

Hah, the way he's ruling against the State, I'd say he's not going to be rushing it.

Don’t say it lol even the Judge is on borrowed time at this point. Hoping he has had the opportunity to review some transcripts rather than his own notes prior to his next move. I have zero respect for him and his decisions and I truly hate that! Ugh

 

[Boxer]

Do you have the link for those reviews still handy? I've only been able to come up with a bio.

Here you go.

Lama, Ramsey 2018 Evaluation | Judicial Performance

 

[WildOrchid]

I remember a year ago when BM first appeared in court in his stripes and many of us expressed elation and relief that finally justice was in sight for Suzanne. What a difference a year makes huh? It seemed from May 2020 to a year later that an arrest took forever. Remember the dig and the sifting under the tent on the cement patio? I thought sure an arrest was imminent then too. Poor Suzanne. Freedom was so close for her and now, justice also seems fleeting. Who will finally speak for Suzanne? And who will hear?

Wondering what kind of time frame we can expect for Judge L to respond to the State’s motion? Hoping it will be timely considering we are quickly approaching the trial date and if appeals are required hopefully that will be a speedy process too. IMO

 

[Cindizzi]

I remember a year ago when BM first appeared in court in his stripes and many of us expressed elation and relief that finally justice was in sight for Suzanne. What a difference a year makes huh? It seemed from May 2020 to a year later that an arrest took forever. Remember the dig and the sifting under the tent on the cement patio? I thought sure an arrest was imminent then too. Poor Suzanne. Freedom was so close for her and now, justice also seems fleeting. Who will finally speak for Suzanne? And who will hear?

Thank you for your simple and eloquent thoughts that seem to mirror my own.
I hope and pray that the Prosecution will portray and put forth a very strong presence that will not let anyone forget that Suzanne is very much loved and missed.
Missing by no choice of her own.
I do believe that everyone deserves a fair trial.
And I’ve seen very aggressive Defense teams before.
But I just don’t know how THIS Defense team can sleep at night.
I dread what they have up their sleeves to malign SM at trial.
I don’t know how they, as women, can be okay with it.
JMO

 

[Boxer]

Thank you for your simple and eloquent thoughts that seem to mirror my own.
I hope and pray that the Prosecution will portray and put forth a very strong presence that will not let anyone forget that Suzanne is very much loved and missed.
Missing by no choice of her own.
I do believe that everyone deserves a fair trial.
And I’ve seen very aggressive Defense teams before.
But I just don’t know how THIS Defense team can sleep at night.
I dread what they have up their sleeves to malign SM at trial.
I don’t know how they, as women, can be okay with it.
JMO

Money.

 

[al66pine]

Def. Law Firm's Motivation in Rep'ing. BM?

...I don’t know how they, as women, can be okay with it.JMO

@Cindizzi TY. sbm

Money.

@Boxer You have a way of cutting to the heart of the matter.
Thank you.

 

[OldCop]

But I just don’t know how THIS Defense team can sleep at night.

RSBM
If defense attorneys cared about victims, there would be no defense attorneys.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

It appears they are trying to exclude 99% of the evidence. See below.

Maybe they are trying to pressure the prosecution to drop the case? I guess that could happen since the prosecution has already filed a motion to reinstate the majority of expert testimony the judge has excluded that they say will gut the case if excluded.

Without knowing anything about the case, it's hard for me to speculate. However, it is very common to file MILs before a trial. It'll be up to the Judge whether they will be granted or denied.

I don't practice criminal law, so I'm not super familiar with how many MILs are typically normal, but I have a feeling this is excessive.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Date Len Appearance Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
4/19/22
9:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Pre-Trial Readiness Conference D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/28/22 - Jury selection
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/29/22 - Skreck Hearing
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Motions Hearing D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/29/22 - Jury selection continues
8:00 AM 1D MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

5/3/22 - Voir Dire
8:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

thru

6/3/22
8:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

link: Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

Thank you.

I should have been more specific. Do we have copies of these MILs?