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

[katydid23]

[snipped by me for focus...]

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.

I really like the sound of this---I hope it is true. I'd like to think it is and they are putting together a laser focused presentation for the jury.

It gives me pause though, that they couldn't meet their 2 week extension for Discovery. Surely they knew the judge was angry about the situation already? So it does worry me that there might be some weak links in there, that are dropping the ball. I hope not.

 

[katydid23]

Wonder what Barry said when confronted on his lies about Saturday night? Or Was he ever confronted? From what I've read he was allowed to lie without being questioned.

Allowing him to lie is the perfect response by an experienced profiler. That keeps the lies coming which then can be used as ammo in front of the jury. If Grusing is sitting alone with the defendant, confronting him does little damage. The defendant will just end the conversation, and lawyer up.

Grusing is totally able to confront his suspects when the time is right. But it is more effective for Barry to be confronted at tr5ial, in front of the jury, with facts and evidence, pointing out his endless lies. JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Lauren is doing a YouTube Live to go over the latest documents ( Defense Motions) she’s received from the Court.

Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time.
https://youtu.be/yV6H-bEHSFw

 

[CGray123]

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"

ITA.

I would add that the typical murder defendant does not have the resources BM brings to the case. He has very competent counsel, but they are able to employ strategies and pursue issues the ordinary defendant couldn't afford.

Linda Stanley, who never tried a felony case or faced a well funded, fully staffed legal team of any kind, and whose professional judgement - reflected in the public censure she received for abandoning a client - is questionable, simply wasn't up to the challenge. All she saw was a high profile case that she could use to enhance her political image. Whatever you may think of Cahill, his assessment that the case was filed before it was ready was right on target. And the decision to file was Linda Stanley's.

Colorado saw a similar situation before, when an inexperienced and newly elected rural DA, Mark Hurlburt, filed rape charges against basketball legend Coby Bryant and was nearly overwhelmed by the fully funded Colorado defense legend Pam Mackey. Don't get me wrong: Hurlburt had a case and pursued it with uncommon vigor and without a lot of outside help - but he nearly bankrupted the 5th JD budget before the victim decided she would not testify and subsequently entered a civil settlement with Bryant. We saw there all the defense elements we see here: the relentless blizzard of motions, the sophisticated PR strategy, the victim-shaming. We also saw a rural court with limited resources, that failed to protect the victim's identity in the process of posting documents online.

It points to a weakness in Colorado's rural justice system, where very wealthy individuals who feel as sense of impunity can commit crimes and expect to get away with them because local law enforcement can't match them in terms of resources.

Someone mentioned that it might help if Colorado established a state-level prosecutor's office to try class one and two felonies. I'm beginning to come around to that idea.

 

[WingsOverTX]

ITA.

I would add that the typical murder defendant does not have the resources BM brings to the case. He has very competent counsel, but they are able to employ strategies and pursue issues the ordinary defendant couldn't afford.

Linda Stanley, who never tried a felony case or faced a well funded, fully staffed legal team of any kind, and whose professional judgement - reflected in the public censure she received for abandoning a client - is questionable, simply wasn't up to the challenge. All she saw was a high profile case that she could use to enhance her political image. Whatever you may think of Cahill, his assessment that the case was filed before it was ready was right on target. And the decision to file was Linda Stanley's.

Colorado saw a similar situation before, when an inexperienced and newly elected rural DA, Mark Hurlburt, filed rape charges against basketball legend Coby Bryant and was nearly overwhelmed by the fully funded Colorado defense legend Pam Mackey. Don't get me wrong: Hurlburt had a case and pursued it with uncommon vigor and without a lot of outside help - but he nearly bankrupted the 5th JD budget before the victim decided she would not testify and subsequently entered a civil settlement with Bryant. We saw there all the defense elements we see here: the relentless blizzard of motions, the sophisticated PR strategy, the victim-shaming. We also saw a rural court with limited resources, that failed to protect the victim's identity in the process of posting documents online.

It points to a weakness in Colorado's rural justice system, where very wealthy individuals who feel as sense of impunity can commit crimes and expect to get away with them because local law enforcement can't match them in terms of resources.

Someone mentioned that it might help if Colorado established a state-level prosecutor's office to try class one and two felonies. I'm beginning to come around to that idea.

Excellent analysis!

But it still doesn't explain Judge L's decision to gut the prosecution's case by throwing out expert testimony as punishment for missed deadlines and other errors.

While I realize the prosecution's need to be sanctioned, should justice for BM be the sacrifice? Because that's the consequence & shows something beyond the problems of trying a high profile case in a rural CO county is afoot IMO.

But what?

JMHO

 

[CGray123]

Excellent analysis!

But it still doesn't explain Judge L's decision to gut the prosecution's case by throwing out expert testimony as punishment for missed deadlines and other errors.

While I realize the prosecution's need to be sanctioned, should justice for BM be the sacrifice? Because that's the consequence & shows something beyond the problems of trying a high profile case in a rural CO county is afoot IMO.

But what?

JMHO

This is the central question, and always has been.

Prosecutors can, and have been, personally penalized with contempt citations, ethics complaints, and even criminal charges, but such actions are difficult and rare.

Just as important, personal sanctions do nothing to protect the defendant whose rights have been trampled and who may be innocent. This undermines the rule of law, which is the lynchpin of our civil order and our respect for government.

I disagree with some of Judge L's rulings, but I recognize that he is staying within the law and the proper scope of his authority.

The question you raise has no simple answer - at least I have none to offer even though I have thought about it often.

As in business, there is no substitute for having the right people on the bus...

 

[CGray123]

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

I don't necessarily disagree with your thoughts and feelings about this.

However, I think it's always worth reminding ourselves that defense attorneys aren't the only participants in the justice system who sometimes seek to win at all costs. In fact, many of the popular media crime shows and feature films glorify law enforcement agents who violate the law in their zealous pursuit of wronguns. What is remarkable is that this over the top, no holds barred behavior by both prosecution and defense seems relatively rare, at least where I have been able to observe it.

I do think defense attorneys have a value system that recognizes justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and that if we are to be a society of laws we can only define justice in terms of the fairness of the process. This value system allows defense attorneys to "compartmentalize" and to see zealous defense of both the guilty and the innocent as equally important. If we allow the government to cut corners to punish the guilty, we will very soon find ourselves a country of authoritarian rulers and political prisoners. Most of us forget this in our desire to see the victim avenged, but defense attorneys are able to see themselves as playing a vital role in preserving the integrity of the justice system and protecting all of us against tyranny.

 

[K9Enzo]

I don't necessarily disagree with your thoughts and feelings about this.

However, I think it's always worth reminding ourselves that defense attorneys aren't the only participants in the justice system who sometimes seek to win at all costs. In fact, many of the popular media crime shows and feature films glorify law enforcement agents who violate the law in their zealous pursuit of wronguns. What is remarkable is that this over the top, no holds barred behavior by both prosecution and defense seems relatively rare, at least where I have been able to observe it.

I do think defense attorneys have a value system that recognizes justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and that if we are to be a society of laws we can only define justice in terms of the fairness of the process. This value system allows defense attorneys to "compartmentalize" and to see zealous defense of both the guilty and the innocent as equally important. If we allow the government to cut corners to punish the guilty, we will very soon find ourselves a country of authoritarian rulers and political prisoners. Most of us forget this in our desire to see the victim avenged, but defense attorneys are able to see themselves as playing a vital role in preserving the integrity of the justice system and protecting all of us against tyranny.

I offer you a virtual respectful nod. Very well stated. Thank you.

 

[MountainDad]

ITA.

I would add that the typical murder defendant does not have the resources BM brings to the case. He has very competent counsel, but they are able to employ strategies and pursue issues the ordinary defendant couldn't afford.

Linda Stanley, who never tried a felony case or faced a well funded, fully staffed legal team of any kind, and whose professional judgement - reflected in the public censure she received for abandoning a client - is questionable, simply wasn't up to the challenge. All she saw was a high profile case that she could use to enhance her political image. Whatever you may think of Cahill, his assessment that the case was filed before it was ready was right on target. And the decision to file was Linda Stanley's.

Colorado saw a similar situation before, when an inexperienced and newly elected rural DA, Mark Hurlburt, filed rape charges against basketball legend Coby Bryant and was nearly overwhelmed by the fully funded Colorado defense legend Pam Mackey. Don't get me wrong: Hurlburt had a case and pursued it with uncommon vigor and without a lot of outside help - but he nearly bankrupted the 5th JD budget before the victim decided she would not testify and subsequently entered a civil settlement with Bryant. We saw there all the defense elements we see here: the relentless blizzard of motions, the sophisticated PR strategy, the victim-shaming. We also saw a rural court with limited resources, that failed to protect the victim's identity in the process of posting documents online.

It points to a weakness in Colorado's rural justice system, where very wealthy individuals who feel as sense of impunity can commit crimes and expect to get away with them because local law enforcement can't match them in terms of resources.

Someone mentioned that it might help if Colorado established a state-level prosecutor's office to try class one and two felonies. I'm beginning to come around to that idea.

Im wondering the logic of having inexperienced DA prisecute murder cases. Why not each state have a murder unit that handles homicides?

 

[MassGuy]

On Thursday, I went over court documents about the CODIS matches in the Morphew case and the prosecution's motions to exclude defense expert witnesses. Let's discuss what #BarryMorphew attorneys are wanting to leave out from trial.

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1515381972893241344?s=21&t=BaqnrknC2vfF_ASKQcKtVQ

 

[Boxer]

Dbm

 

[swedeheart]

For the defense to be so concerned about all of this evidence being submitted in the trial, doesn't that, in and of itself, mean that the evidence (they are trying to have disregarded) points straight to their main man, one Barry Morphew? Otherwise, why not just let it fly in the face of the jurors??!

 

[waldojabba]

On Thursday, I went over court documents about the CODIS matches in the Morphew case and the prosecution's motions to exclude defense expert witnesses. Let's discuss what #BarryMorphew attorneys are wanting to leave out from trial.

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1515381972893241344?s=21&t=BaqnrknC2vfF_ASKQcKtVQ

I don't know lol - that was a long listen. I think maybe it would have best on Lauren's part to post the motions first.

Quickly off the top of my head-
I think perhaps the judge has backed himself into a corner

The D seems to be claiming that if you don't have an expert to explain your evidence you cannot introduce
your evidence -
For example they want to totally exclude All Digital and All Telematic/Telemetrics /No pushpin maps or diagrams re cell phone location / Anything to do with the needle sheath tranq etc including BM's converstions with LE etc

IF the D's arguments hold water -
Big trouble -IMO it will be tantamount to dismissal - words the Prosecution used in their appeal to the judge about exclusion of certain experts
And since the judge indicated in his own ruling that dismissal was out of his purview -
Has he effectively done the same thing giving Prosecution an argument for appeal ?

There were tons of other motions too that were truly ludicrous
One is P cannot use the puzzle theory - cannot instruct the jury to connect the dots -
Cannot refer to that in any form or fashion or with any exhibits etc

I am sure someone else will post a comprehensive review - there was a lot -

Once Lauren writes her article she will attach the motions which I wish I had already.
I guess Lauren is afraid if she posts them first no one will tune in to her Live.
Which for me... would be accurate

 

[Diddian]

I don't know lol - that was a long listen. I think maybe it would have best on Lauren's part to post the motions first.

Quickly off the top of my head-
I think perhaps the judge has backed himself into a corner

The D seems to be claiming that if you don't have an expert to explain your evidence you cannot introduce
your evidence -
For example they want to totally exclude All Digital and All Telematic/Telemetrics /No pushpin maps or diagrams re cell phone location / Anything to do with the needle sheath tranq etc including BM's converstions with LE etc

IF the D's arguments hold water -
Big trouble -IMO it will be tantamount to dismissal - words the Prosecution used in their appeal to the judge about exclusion of certain experts
And since the judge indicated in his own ruling that dismissal was out of his purview -
Has he effectively done the same thing giving Prosecution an argument for appeal ?

There were tons of other motions too that were truly ludicrous
One is P cannot use the puzzle theory - cannot instruct the jury to connect the dots -
Cannot refer to that in any form or fashion or with any exhibits etc

I am sure someone else will post a comprehensive review - there was a lot -

Once Lauren writes her article she will attach the motions which I wish I had already.
I guess Lauren is afraid if she posts them first no one will tune in to her Live.
Which for me... would be accurate

My tip for long YouTube presentations: Listen at 1.25 normal playback speed. In this particular case, you don't miss anything and it saves you half an hour.

ETA: Of course, you have to wait and listen to the recorded presentation, rather than livestream to do this.

 

[windrower]

Motions In Limine filed by the Defense on 4/5/22 and 4/6/22 from the Register of Actions uploaded here today:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/4_19_22 morphew roa.pdf

Page 34 through 39

D-85. Exclude any testimony that BM had the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit murder or that SM did not have the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit suicide or leave her family.

D-84 Exclude recordings and irrelevant testimony of former friends ( EG, HW and spouse, SO and spouse, the Ritters, the Moorman family and others) about their suspicions and hunches.

D-83. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about digital forensics.

D-82 Exclude conversation about immunity.

D-81 Exclude irrelevant material, including clothing found in a community dumpster.

D-80. Exclude evidence of crime shows.

D-79 Exclude irrelevant materials examined or taken from the Morphew home.

D-78. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about a needle sheath cover, pneu darts, Marlin rifle and animal tranquilizers.

D-87. Prohibit any reference to polygraphs as an investigatory tool in this case.

D-89 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about BM’s hunting or firearm skills.

D-88 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about Telematics.

D-90. Exclude pushpin map, diagrams or testimony about alleged locations of cell phones.

D-91. Prohibit improper and unconstitutional comments, questions, statements and arguments.

ETA:

Looks like I missed one.

D-86
Exclude the use of the term no body homicide.

For the defense to be so concerned about all of this evidence being submitted in the trial, doesn't that, in and of itself, mean that the evidence (they are trying to have disregarded) points straight to their main man, one Barry Morphew? Otherwise, why not just let it fly in the face of the jurors??!

Well, exactly.

BM’s defense team have NO evidence that he is not responsible for making SUZANNE go missing be dead. And because there is NOTHING pointing away from BM as the murderer, all they can do is posture and quibble and make a paperwork storm.

Um, yes, Defense Team, all of the evidence makes your client look guilty because he IS guilty.

Laughable if it wasn’t so dang serious for SUZANNE and justice for her.

On another note, I had this convoluted thought that perhaps SD trespassed at the PP house so she could hire the law firm that caused Judge Murphy’s recusal from the Morphew case. Sounds like something a devious defense team might try? Betting on a more defense-friendly judge taking over?

SUZANNE, I hope the universe works in your favor and that you are soon found.

I believe she is findable. May it happen soon.

 

[Diddian]

Well, exactly.

BM’s defense team have NO evidence that he is not responsible for making SUZANNE go missing be dead. And because there is NOTHING pointing away from BM as the murderer, all they can do is posture and quibble and make a paperwork storm.

Um, yes, Defense Team, all of the evidence makes your client look guilty because he IS guilty.

Laughable if it wasn’t so dang serious for SUZANNE and justice for her.

On another note, I had this convoluted thought that perhaps SD trespassed at the PP house so she could hire the law firm that caused Judge Murphy’s recusal from the Morphew case. Sounds like something a devious defense team might try? Betting on a more defense-friendly judge taking over?

SUZANNE, I hope the universe works in your favor and that you are soon found.

I believe she is findable. May it happen soon.

About the trespassing... I also believe that is what likely happened. JMO.

 

[al66pine]

I don't know lol - that was a long listen. I think maybe it would have best on Lauren's part to post the motions first. Once Lauren writes her article she will attach the motions which I wish I had already.

@waldojabba bbm sbm for focus. I appreciate all Lauren's efforts in this case & other cases. A fine reporter w good delivery, great on-camera presence, pleasant voice.

Seems some ppl (well, me for one. You too?) understand content more by reading or seeing, waaay more than by just listening. For me, hearing/reading commentary & summaries is more enlightening when done in conjunction w motions in hand or on split screen.

It would be ever so helpful for me as a youtube watcher to see, under Lauren's pic w "Show More," to see a Table of Contents (term?) w time marks for the episode. Hypo:
0:00:15 .... Intro.
0:01:01 ....Def's MiL to Exclude Yadda Yadda.
0:04:30 ... Def's MiL to Ref. to Polygraph as LE Tool.
etc.

Helpful before/as we watch initially and again later as we and many others on line discuss a certain motion or topic, to be able to pinpoint the time.
Also w a ToC, members of Websleuths/any forum could locate the specific info more easily, post a comment w a link to LS, then others could easily find it & re-watch/re-read and respond.

And more hits for the Latest Scoop with Lauren Scharf???

 

[MassGuy]

Well, exactly.

BM’s defense team have NO evidence that he is not responsible for making SUZANNE go missing be dead. And because there is NOTHING pointing away from BM as the murderer, all they can do is posture and quibble and make a paperwork storm.

Um, yes, Defense Team, all of the evidence makes your client look guilty because he IS guilty.

Laughable if it wasn’t so dang serious for SUZANNE and justice for her.

On another note, I had this convoluted thought that perhaps SD trespassed at the PP house so she could hire the law firm that caused Judge Murphy’s recusal from the Morphew case. Sounds like something a devious defense team might try? Betting on a more defense-friendly judge taking over?

SUZANNE, I hope the universe works in your favor and that you are soon found.

I believe she is findable. May it happen soon.

Lol, the "well, exactly," will never not be funny.

Patrick Frazee, what a dope. Barry may even be worse.

 

[waldojabba]

@waldojabba bbm sbm for focus. I appreciate all Lauren's efforts in this case & other cases. A fine reporter w good delivery, great on-camera presence, pleasant voice.

Seems some ppl (well, me for one. You too?) understand content more by reading or seeing, waaay more than by just listening. For me, hearing/reading commentary & summaries is more enlightening when done in conjunction w motions in hand or on split screen.

It would be ever so helpful for me as a youtube watcher to see, under Lauren's pic w "Show More," to see a Table of Contents (term?) w time marks for the episode. Hypo:
0:00:15 .... Intro.
0:01:01 ....Def's MiL to Exclude Yadda Yadda.
0:04:30 ... Def's MiL to Ref. to Polygraph as LE Tool.
etc.

Helpful before/as we watch initially and again later as we and many others on line discuss a certain motion or topic, to be able to pinpoint the time.
Also w a ToC, members of Websleuths/any forum could locate the specific info more easily, post a comment w a link to LS, then others could easily find it & re-watch/re-read and respond.

And more hits for the Latest Scoop with Lauren Scharf???

Totally agree. I am a big Lauren fan. These are legal docs though and she is not a lawyer - might be best to have a legal guest for discussion, after she releases the docs. The current format is frankly not good for her brand. IMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

For the defense to be so concerned about all of this evidence being submitted in the trial, doesn't that, in and of itself, mean that the evidence (they are trying to have disregarded) points straight to their main man, one Barry Morphew? Otherwise, why not just let it fly in the face of the jurors??!

It does. The judge, however, is making rulings siding with the defense. It’s insane but he seems to plan on Barry walking. I don’t understand it.