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

[Kristin Esq.]

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

I'm not sure I can agree with it. There's a right in this country to representation.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Thank you.

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

Chaffee & Fremont Counties have been slow to release and/or not releasing pertinent documents that should be in the public domain. Recent change of venue has us relying on Fremont County now.

We may get access to some or all through Reporter Lauren Scharf today or tomorrow. See below.

We appreciate you helping us out @Kristin Esq.!

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!

 

[Gardenista]

I haven't watched yet, so I don't know exactly what this means, but Lauren posted this comment on her recent video

TEMPE MATCH: (connection to Phoenix)
I feel like I didn’t explain this one really well so…

This information I gathered from People’s Exhibit 2 Motion In Limine Supplemental filed on April 5, 2022: Phoenix PD Supplement to an Incident Report originally dated 07/20/2001. Supplement was written on 08/20/2017. Report by Officer William Miller of Phoenix PD who states that physical evidence titled “DANY” in response to a sexual assault exam being sent to a private laboratory for analysis. After the Phoenix PD Crime Lab reviewed the DNA the following actions were taken:

The minor component of the DNA profile from an unidentified unknown male source was taken from the sperm fraction of the inner crotch stain from the victim’s underwear was entered into CODIS. After review of the forensic analysis showed the presence of male DNA, and right hand fingernail returned a “State Forensic Hit” notification during a search of the State’s DNA Index System (SDIS). A possible match occurred between the partial DNA profile obtained from the specimen and a specimen from the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Regional Crime Laboratory. The specimen entered into the DNA system was from a solved “theft” perpetrated by a then-convicted offender. The case was closed. There was a special note stating that there is an error in the original police report where it states that this Phoenix case was unsolved. He states that this is INCORRECT.

The report goes on to say the specimen was also obtained in conjunction to a TEMPE unsolved “sexual assault.” This unsolved status was also currently INCORRECT, although it was originally correct at the time of the report. The case this many years later was eventually solved, as detailed below:

“During a search of the State’s DNA Index System (SDIS) a possible match occurred between a partial DNA profile and a solved Mesa PD ‘commercial burglary’.’ After review of this information he learned the following:

“This is a sexual assault that was reported on 07/29/2001”…The victim was 31 year old Indian woman. The victim reported that her husband (name redacted), a 41 year old Indian man sexually assaulted her. The victim and her husband had been separated for approximately one year prior. They had not engaged in consensual sexual contact for the previous four months. On the night of the sexual assault, the victim was in bed with another male when her husband arrived and became angry and sexually assaulted her by forcing the tip of his fingers into her vagina saying, “there is probably some sperm in there.”

“During the course of the investigation, the suspect was located, arrested and transported to police headquarters where he later admitted to breaking into the victim’s apartment, physically assaulting her and forcing the tip of one finger into her vagina. At the conclusion of this interview, he was booked on counts of kidnapping, burglary, aggravated assault and sexual assault.”

“The suspect was charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault, one count each of kidnapping and sexual assault and the charges were filed by the Maricopa County State Attorney’s Office.”

The defendant reached a plea agreement and the officer noted that all charges were later dismissed by the court except for the one count of kidnapping, which he plead guilty to as part of the plea agreement. This case is closed and solved.

 

[OldCop]

I'm not sure I can agree with it. There's a right in this country to representation.

I absolutely agree with the right to representation and the premise that you are considered innocent unless and until you are proven guilty.
However, my point was if you know you are defending someone who is guilty of an atrocious crime yet you do all in your power to get them off, you are not considering justice for the victim.
ETA I think a good defense attorney must be able to compartmentalize; to separate out his feelings for the victim versus the obligation to defend a guilty client. I hope the high powered money grabbing ones who defend with smoke and mirrors, SODDI hints, and unsubstantiated claims are left with a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach when a murderer goes free.
I also hope the defense attorneys who are able to free a wrongly accused client are able to rejoice in the American justice system.

 

[waldojabba]

I absolutely agree with the right to representation and the premise that you are considered innocent unless and until you are proven guilty.
However, my point was if you know you are defending someone who is guilty of an atrocious crime yet you do all in your power to get them off, you are not considering justice for the victim.
ETA I think a good defense attorney must be able to compartmentalize; to separate out his feelings for the victim versus the obligation to defend a guilty client. I hope the high powered money grabbing ones who defend with smoke and mirrors, SODDI hints, and unsubstantiated claims are left with a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach when a murderer goes free.
I also hope the defense attorneys who are able to free a wrongly accused client are able to rejoice in the American justice system.

Thank you @OldCop ! I totally agree and I 100%believe I know what we are witnessing here - even though the court has closed off the courtroom ( due to manufacturing of info from the Defense btw) it's crystal clear that the Defense knows he is guilty but they will pull any stunt (dirty tricks are part of their strategy) they think they can get away with to win allocades for themselves and improve their earning potential. I don't think they need to compartmentalize though. They are part of the win at all cost crowd. ALL IMO

 

[WingsOverTX]

I haven't watched yet, so I don't know exactly what this means, but Lauren posted this comment on her recent video

TEMPE MATCH: (connection to Phoenix)
I feel like I didn’t explain this one really well so…

This information I gathered from People’s Exhibit 2 Motion In Limine Supplemental filed on April 5, 2022: Phoenix PD Supplement to an Incident Report originally dated 07/20/2001. Supplement was written on 08/20/2017. Report by Officer William Miller of Phoenix PD who states that physical evidence titled “DANY” in response to a sexual assault exam being sent to a private laboratory for analysis. After the Phoenix PD Crime Lab reviewed the DNA the following actions were taken:

The minor component of the DNA profile from an unidentified unknown male source was taken from the sperm fraction of the inner crotch stain from the victim’s underwear was entered into CODIS. After review of the forensic analysis showed the presence of male DNA, and right hand fingernail returned a “State Forensic Hit” notification during a search of the State’s DNA Index System (SDIS). A possible match occurred between the partial DNA profile obtained from the specimen and a specimen from the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Regional Crime Laboratory. The specimen entered into the DNA system was from a solved “theft” perpetrated by a then-convicted offender. The case was closed. There was a special note stating that there is an error in the original police report where it states that this Phoenix case was unsolved. He states that this is INCORRECT.

The report goes on to say the specimen was also obtained in conjunction to a TEMPE unsolved “sexual assault.” This unsolved status was also currently INCORRECT, although it was originally correct at the time of the report. The case this many years later was eventually solved, as detailed below:

“During a search of the State’s DNA Index System (SDIS) a possible match occurred between a partial DNA profile and a solved Mesa PD ‘commercial burglary’.’ After review of this information he learned the following:

“This is a sexual assault that was reported on 07/29/2001”…The victim was 31 year old Indian woman. The victim reported that her husband (name redacted), a 41 year old Indian man sexually assaulted her. The victim and her husband had been separated for approximately one year prior. They had not engaged in consensual sexual contact for the previous four months. On the night of the sexual assault, the victim was in bed with another male when her husband arrived and became angry and sexually assaulted her by forcing the tip of his fingers into her vagina saying, “there is probably some sperm in there.”

“During the course of the investigation, the suspect was located, arrested and transported to police headquarters where he later admitted to breaking into the victim’s apartment, physically assaulting her and forcing the tip of one finger into her vagina. At the conclusion of this interview, he was booked on counts of kidnapping, burglary, aggravated assault and sexual assault.”

“The suspect was charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault, one count each of kidnapping and sexual assault and the charges were filed by the Maricopa County State Attorney’s Office.”

The defendant reached a plea agreement and the officer noted that all charges were later dismissed by the court except for the one count of kidnapping, which he plead guilty to as part of the plea agreement. This case is closed and solved.

Surely the jury will not have to sit through this kind of detail about something irrelevant to SM's murder?

The victim pool here is one person, IMO. If the facts back that up and apparently they do, then we can move on to evidence that is relevant.

At least that's my sincere hope.

JMHO

 

[KBlackRabbit]

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

Defense attorneys are required by the US constitution to rigorously defend their clients. Otherwise you have kangaroo courts and mob “justice.” Morphew’s lawyers are doing their job. If you were accused and arrested for a crime, you’d expect no less from your defense team.

It is the judge’s responsibility to protect everyone’s constitutional rights, including the defendant’s. Otherwise you have mistrials, constitutional violations, and lawsuits. Things have to be done right.

The screwups here are all the prosecution’s fault. If they arrest prematurely, can’t meet deadlines, and withhold information (intentional or not), that’s all on them. The judge can’t turn a blind eye and fudge things in their favor or else it’s a constitutional violation.

 

[OldCop]

Defense attorneys are required by the US constitution to rigorously defend their clients. Otherwise you have kangaroo courts and mob “justice.” Morphew’s lawyers are doing their job. If you were accused and arrested for a crime, you’d expect no less from your defense team.

It is the judge’s responsibility to protect everyone’s constitutional rights, including the defendant’s. Otherwise you have mistrials, constitutional violations, and lawsuits. Things have to be done right.

The screwups here are all the prosecution’s fault. If they arrest prematurely, can’t meet deadlines, and withhold information (intentional or not), that’s all on them. The judge can’t turn a blind eye and fudge things in their favor or else it’s a constitutional violation.

If you read my other posts you would see that I agree with you on most points.

 

[KBlackRabbit]

However, my point was if you know you are defending someone who is guilty of an atrocious crime yet you do all in your power to get them off, you are not considering justice for the victim.

The victim isn’t their job. Their job is to do everything they can within what is legally allowed to defend their client. It’s what’s constitutionally required. Even if the defendant is guilty, it’s the defense team’s job to poke holes in the prosecution’s case and get the best possible outcome for their client. If a tactic seems morally slimy but is legally allowed, it’s fair game for the defense to use it.

If a guilty person walks, blame the prosecution for not bringing a strong enough case to meet legal and constitutional requirements for a conviction.

 

[OldCop]

The victim isn’t their job. Their job is to do everything they can within what is legally allowed to defend their client. It’s what’s constitutionally required. Even if the defendant is guilty, it’s the defense team’s job to poke holes in the prosecution’s case and get the best possible outcome for their client. If a tactic seems morally slimy but is legally allowed, it’s fair game for the defense to use it.

If a guilty person walks, blame the prosecution for not bringing a strong enough case to meet legal and constitutional requirements for a conviction.

If a guilty person walks, it’s not always the prosecution’s fault.

 

[mrjitty]

Personally what turns my stomach is defence lawyers intentionally misleading the Court in these trophy cases.

When i was admitted, it was drummed into me that my first duty as an officer of the Court was to the Court, no matter how much i want to win for my client, or my own career.

That means resisting the temptation to lie or mislead ... it is not about winning at all costs.

Yet over the last 10 years I've seen this intentional misleading of the Court on multiple occasions, especially

• deceiving the judge/jury/witness about the content of an exhibit or document while discussing a related matter (relies on no one checking/remembering) - we just saw this
• similarly claiming a certain state of affairs to exist when it has not been established
• making sweeping claims in opening that the defence knows will not be shown during evidence
• sock puppeting speculative exculpatory explanations which are not in testimony
• sock puppeting a version which is wholly within the knowledge of the defence but offer no evidence of it

This defence team is no different - knowingly misleading the court that there was a conspiracy to hide the DNA hit on the "real killer" when the defence knows full well the DNA was irrelevant to the case.

Unfortunately the judge seems to have fallen for this hook line and sinker with his comments about unknown male DNA "all over the crime scene"

 

[mrjitty]

The victim isn’t their job. Their job is to do everything they can within what is legally allowed to defend their client. It’s what’s constitutionally required. Even if the defendant is guilty, it’s the defense team’s job to poke holes in the prosecution’s case and get the best possible outcome for their client. If a tactic seems morally slimy but is legally allowed, it’s fair game for the defense to use it.

If a guilty person walks, blame the prosecution for not bringing a strong enough case to meet legal and constitutional requirements for a conviction.

BIB - the problem is when "morally slimy" becomes deceptive and misleading.

The lawyer is not allowed to try to convince the court of a version the lawyer knows to be false.

 

[KBlackRabbit]

If a guilty person walks, it’s not always the prosecution’s fault.

Withholding information/possible Brady violations, failing to meet deadlines, trying to have the guy removed who was calling out red flags in the investigation, what looks like witness tampering/intimidation (calling the CBI to complain about Cahill’s testimony)… in this case I absolutely think it would be the prosecution’s fault.

If anything, I think the judge has been soft on the prosecution and some of the defense’s legal fees should have been reimbursed for having to deal with the other side’s screwups.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thank you @OldCop ! I totally agree and I 100%believe I know what we are witnessing here - even though the court has closed off the courtroom ( due to manufacturing of info from the Defense btw) it's crystal clear that the Defense knows he is guilty but they will pull any stunt (dirty tricks are part of their strategy) they think they can get away with to win allocades for themselves and improve their earning potential. I don't think they need to compartmentalize though. They are part of the win at all cost crowd. ALL IMO

This duo proved they were a part of the “win at all cost crowd” when they represented KK in the Patrick Frazee trial.

 

[MrsWatson]

Withholding information/possible Brady violations, failing to meet deadlines, trying to have the guy removed who was calling out red flags in the investigation, what looks like witness tampering/intimidation (calling the CBI to complain about Cahill’s testimony)… in this case I absolutely think it would be the prosecution’s fault.

Are you talking about Cahill, who shot himself in the hand while cleaning his service weapon and then lied about it? He criticized the timing of the arrest, but he was also unhappy that he had National Guard duty when the arrest went down. He also screwed up the follow-up on the DNA. How is it intimidating or witness tampering to complain about an employee who doesn't do their job to a reasonable standard? In any case, he wasn't removed, he had an already scheduled transfer in the works.

 

[waldojabba]

Surely the jury will not have to sit through this kind of detail about something irrelevant to SM's murder?

The victim pool here is one person, IMO. If the facts back that up and apparently they do, then we can move on to evidence that is relevant.

At least that's my sincere hope.

JMHO

I believe one of the Prosecution's motions Lauren mentioned yesterday on her Live was one where the Prosecution is asking for the court to exclude the codis information, saying it will just serve to confuse the jury and invite speculation, when there is no substance there. I have to agree. Even with Lauren talking thru the information it was confusing to me. All I need to know is clearly they are not relevant.
Hopefully the motions will be posted soon so we can all make our own determination. I am also anxiously awaiting all the judge's rulings.
There are also other motions that are suppressed per Lauren. The clock is certainly ticking -

 

[WingsOverTX]

Withholding information/possible Brady violations, failing to meet deadlines, trying to have the guy removed who was calling out red flags in the investigation, what looks like witness tampering/intimidation (calling the CBI to complain about Cahill’s testimony)… in this case I absolutely think it would be the prosecution’s fault.

If anything, I think the judge has been soft on the prosecution and some of the defense’s legal fees should have been reimbursed for having to deal with the other side’s screwups.

Cahill - like him or not & approve of his character or not - is not a problem the prosecution should have been saddled with.

I think his faults in this case are related to CBI entrusting him with pursuit of a murderer when they very likely already knew of his personal and professional weaknesses.

Personal weakness - not handling stress well (by his own admission). Professional weakness - #1 being MIA for 3 months during the critical pre-PH period (off doing military service) AND #2 being assigned (at his own behest) as the key glove box DNA followup.

Then he goes and shoots himself with his service weapon and lies about it.

Thank God we have Grusing because Cahill is not only am embarrassment of an agent, he is the key reason BM was granted release while awaiting trial. How was the prosecution to foresee his weaknesses? He is not their employee.

Open to correction if I am factually wrong about anything I have stated here.

To say the DA "tampered with a witness" by addressing Cahill's conduct at the prelim seems specious to me. If they had failed to act, the case would have been more damaged.

Cahill failed at job 1 - being in it to win it.

The suggestion that the DA should reimburse the defense is laughable IMHO. The judge has their back. That's enough.

JMO

ETA: With apologies to @MrsWatson - I see she has covered the same points more than ably.

 

[MrsWatson]

E & N are throwing all of this out there, but where are their motions showing that SODDI or Suzanne is Gone Girl? You know, all the motions that point to BM being innocent?

It's getting very close to the trial, why haven't we seen those yet?

 

[susiQ]

E & N are throwing all of this out there, but where are their motions showing that SODDI or Suzanne is Gone Girl? You know, all the motions that point to BM being innocent?

It's getting very close to the trial, why haven't we seen those yet?

Well, I think SODDI is best expressed SODDI-TH, in this case.
S=same
O=old
D=dude
D=did
I=it

Spoiler

The Husband

 

[Love Never Fails]

The victim isn’t their job. Their job is to do everything they can within what is legally allowed to defend their client. It’s what’s constitutionally required. Even if the defendant is guilty, it’s the defense team’s job to poke holes in the prosecution’s case and get the best possible outcome for their client. If a tactic seems morally slimy but is legally allowed, it’s fair game for the defense to use it.

If a guilty person walks, blame the prosecution for not bringing a strong enough case to meet legal and constitutional requirements for a conviction.

Nope. I will blame the “morally slimy” defense.

ETA: you have proven my point though that I’ve made almost daily here. It’s a game. And it’s a sad game played by some morally corrupt lawyers on both sides. Judges too.