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

[Scootie98]

I just don't know. It would be an understandable bluff on the one hand (getting case dismissed without prejudice), but unfair to Suzanne's family on the other. A huge piece for them is having closure in that regard.

So for me to believe they do know, it would mean that they obtained new information at some point. I say that, because they've had two summers now in which to search this area of interest.

So I guess I'm leaning against this being true, but the door is open. I guess we'll find out in the coming weeks and months.

In my view...the prosecution has established some linkage between the dismissal "without prejudice" and their position that Suzanne will be found. I doubt that it was intentional...but I do not see the necessity of invoking that language into their motion to dismiss. Now they are in effect, bound to it. They had a "no body case"....Now they have a "show me the body case". Quite a departure, imo....and could backfire greatly without finding Suzanne.

 

[GatorFL]

If you look at the context of what he is saying, it is actually criticism of the judge who way overreached in throwing out the expert testimony critical to proving a credible but highly circumstancial case.

Missed deadlines and other prosecution misses could have been sanctioned without throwing the burden of proof into the trash. Judge L gutted the case against a domestic abuser and capital murderer.

May simply agrees there is not a winnable case UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I'd like to see the entire interview. Because context is critical to understanding this outcome.

I'd also like to see fewer unforceable errors when they bring this case again. That's a given.

But once again, I ask, why did Judge L choose to handicap this case? If there's an elephant in the room - calling out @Kemug here - it's the one sitting behind the bench. Not the ones in front of it.

Even the defense, while temporarily rejoicing, has to either 1) wonder why or 2) know why.

JMHO

I have a much different read on May's commentary. IMO, his interview pointed out what a woefully undermanned and unprepared DA Linda Stanley is. Especially his comments on why the prosecution did not appeal some of the judge's rulings. Stanley's office has consistently took the easy way out.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I remember a MG quote from early on in the investigation, she talked about (I believe in a Lauren Scharf interview) her repeated interviews with LE. She said, “I mostly cooperated.” I found it strange that she said that, because if she mostly cooperated then she didn’t entirely cooperate.

I think MG is terrified of something being known, such as a relationship of some kind with Barry or someone, i.e., Barry. Or she could have used some controlled drugs that she was fearful of LE finding out.

I don’t think MG had anything to do with Suzanne’s disappearance but she might know more about Barry cheating on Suzanne with others or about some criminal element.
In any case, I think she is terrified right now and may open up to LE more in the future.

 

[Boxer]

Shameless Hussey! I hope it bites her in the azzzz!

As much as this annoyed me, what really burned my socks were the outright, blatant falsehoods that proceeded out of her lyin’ mouth. She’s been hanging out with Bare too long! The CODIS nonsense, long since having been excluded as irrelevant and inconsequential in this case and the assertion that Suzanne used her phone and computer on the evening of May 9th when we all know she was dead by then. The only one using anything was her worthless murdering husband.

I really like Lauren S and her dedication to this case, but I was hoping she or someone would call Iris out on her BS, especially the CODIS distraction. Instead it was just left hanging there as if it were truth. What I would love to see in the next couple of days is a reporter dissect Iris’ “production” on the Court House grass and expose her disingenuous tiatribe so the public has a clear picture of what evidence there REALLY is! JMHO

IE is a yeller.

There was weak evidence from the start and the prosecution filed for arrest seemingly in hopes the body would be recovered in the meantime. So disappointing. Saying now that they expect to find the remains soon sounds even more like a joke. This woman is most probably dead and there will be no justice for her. A person vanished just like that with no consequences. (my personal opinion)

MOO the evidence is strong. But it is missing biological evidence.
The DA office did not keep appropriate and organized notes on the discussion follow up on the glove box DNA and left a barn door open for the defense to complain.

MOO BMs movements show clear running activity at the time of his return home.
His subsequent lies are a form of confession.

 

[Boxer]

MOO IE used the microphone to be able to talk to cameras and get footage on the news, while those she inulted at the PC had no mikes so haf no chance to reply.
One side yelling.
Planned and executed.
She needs a foil.

 

[Love Never Fails]

And of course, Lauren knows the real facts and Iris does not?

I don't think she will, but we shall see.

Iris knows the real facts and LIED about them.

On the other hand, Lauren is only a reporter and Iris might sue her.

My hope is a great DA prosecutes BM and he goes to jail for life. Sick of games courts play.

The guy is a murderer.

 

[WingsOverTX]

In my view...the prosecution has established some linkage between the dismissal "without prejudice" and their position that Suzanne will be found. I doubt that it was intentional...but I do not see the necessity of invoking that language into their motion to dismiss. Now they are in effect, bound to it. They had a "no body case"....Now they have a "show me the body case". Quite a departure, imo....and could backfire greatly without finding Suzanne.

Yes, having her body would prove beyond a doubt Suzanne is dead.

I don't think the only logical conclusion to the request for and granting of the dismissal without prejudice is a case that is only winnable with SM being properly laid to rest.

And I don't think the prosecution thinks that.

It's a good case either way IMO. But they can't win without expert testimony. And the one party who had the power to gut the case did just that. That was the judge.

Justice is never served when by ignorance or overreach the judiciary itself errs, leaving no recourse but to try again another day.

MOO

 

[Love Never Fails]

If you look at the context of what he is saying, it is actually criticism of the judge who way overreached in throwing out the expert testimony critical to proving a credible but highly circumstancial case.

Missed deadlines and other prosecution misses could have been sanctioned without throwing the burden of proof into the trash. Judge L gutted the case against a domestic abuser and capital murderer.

May simply agrees there is not a winnable case UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I'd like to see the entire interview. Because context is critical to understanding this outcome.

I'd also like to see fewer unforceable errors when they bring this case again. That's a given.

But once again, I ask, why did Judge L choose to handicap this case? If there's an elephant in the room - calling out @Kemug here - it's the one sitting behind the bench. Not the ones in front of it.

Even the defense, while temporarily rejoicing, has to either 1) wonder why or 2) know why.

JMHO

Amen!

 

[Boxer]

Yeah, I think she was ready to battle to the death yesterday to not get anything changed or case dismissed based on the sanctions. She was furious because they pulled the rug out from under her with the last second surprise about Suzanne’s body and gave her no say in the matter.

Agree.
She gave her closing argument to the media anyway.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I really think he'll go back to his home base; Indiana.

There's nothing for him in Colorado now, and I think he was already getting ready to leave before he was even arrested.

Imagine the feeling though, knowing at any moment it can all be over, and this time it's for real.

I can’t imagine him coming here to Indiana. He is not welcome and I think he ran from something here. Maybe dirty business dealings, maybe from the things he buried in his yard . Maybe an affair with a married woman. I just can’t see him staying in the US.
Of course, I’m hoping Suzanne is found and he spends the rest of his life in CO.

 

[Boxer]

Snow level around 9000 feet over the weekend.
I didn't realize how high the Morphew home really is.
Looks like 9400.

Monarch Crest Trail to South Fooses Creek - Buena Vista & Salida, Colorado Vacation

 

[Love Never Fails]

BBM My guess is she is trying to save face however she can. Asking for a dismissal because they think they know of an area where Suzanne May be located sounds better than basically saying she screwed up the case by not following judge’s orders. How is anyone going to determine if this was a BS claim?

I disagree. If anything, watching IE had to make her more determined than ever to prosecute Barry and get a conviction. I don’t think she is bluffing.

However, Barry knows where Suzanne is. If he knows they are off track, then he knows he is a free man.

 

[GatorFL]

I disagree with some of the posters that there’s only weak evidence or there’s no case without the body.

A wife disappeared. She was having sex with a high school rival in the two years prior. In the week prior she wanted a divorce and her hundreds of thousands of dollars of inheritance.

The husband admits to being with her for 14 hours when her digital life went completely silent. She was never seen or heard from again.

The husband lied about almost everything that happened for 30 hours after she went silent. Using digital data, auto data, security camera footage, many of his lies can be proven false.

He was not doing what he says he was doing, he was not where he says he was, and digital data puts him at incriminating places over and over again.

He admits to having and using a weapon during that time, he admits to having and engaging with tranquilizer materials during that time. there’s evidence of many cover-up activities and evidence that place him In the middle of the cover-up activities.

On and on and on. All of that and much more cannot possibly be hundreds of coincidences miraculously within the perfect 30 hour window. It just takes a very good prosecution team to paint the whole picture and this team was failing.

I agree with you, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. And yet, Linda Stanley's office seemed to be overwhelmed with the evidence, with the process, and with the defense. Prosecutors must carefully build a case when there is plentiful circumstantial evidence and that is to tell a story that implicates the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

I said from the beginning this reminded me a lot of the Casey Anthony prosecution. While yesterday's outcome was a bit different than the Anthony case, it highlights the fact that Linda Stanley simply did not have the skills to tell the right story and she opted out, for now.

 

[CGray123]

Former 4th Judicial District Attorney Dan May weighs in :

Former DA: Morphew case would have resulted in 'not guilty' verdict - KRDO

I have immense respect for Dan May, so I am discouraged to hear his suggestion that the DA had a good chance of overturning Judge L's devastating sanctions through a Rule 21 petition to the Supreme Court. That was not my assessment.

He does not say on screen, but the reporter's concluding remarks say that if the case is re-filed the sanctions excluding key evidence will remain in place. I can only assume this came from May. Again, that is not my impression of the applicable law. If true, discovery of SM's remains will not substantially increase the prosecution's chance of conviction.

 

[windrower]

Wow. She talks about lies and misinformation, she’s got those in spades. Apparently money can buy you a really good liar who lies and uses lies to paint a picture of innocence for her client. BM and his defense team are cut from the same cloth.

Lying liars who lie.

Why isn’t it perjury when she lies in the courtroom regarding evidence??

 

[abams]

I agree with you, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. And yet, Linda Stanley's office seemed to be overwhelmed with the evidence, with the process, and with the defense. Prosecutors must carefully build a case when there is plentiful circumstantial evidence and that is to tell a story that implicates the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

I said from the beginning this reminded me a lot of the Casey Anthony prosecution. While yesterday's outcome was a bit different than the Anthony case, it highlights the fact that Linda Stanley simply did not have the skills to tell the right story and she opted out, for now.

It's actually worse when you remember it came out that the deputy director and director of the CBI personally called the sheriff and relayed various agents' opinion that the case was not ready for an arrest. I think it was the dep. director that testified at the prelim he couldn't remember ever doing that before. Yet, they brought charges anyway. For glory, arrogance, whatever....I'd feel peeved as a county resident and state taxpayer before even getting to justice for the victim.

 

[Rural_PC]

I told you guys as soon as I saw the DA's press conference, she was in way over her head. I think this dismissal proves it.

I remember this, and my gut agreed.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

In my view...the prosecution has established some linkage between the dismissal "without prejudice" and their position that Suzanne will be found. I doubt that it was intentional...but I do not see the necessity of invoking that language into their motion to dismiss. Now they are in effect, bound to it. They had a "no body case"....Now they have a "show me the body case". Quite a departure, imo....and could backfire greatly without finding Suzanne.

I agree making the claim they were close to finding the body was yet one more DA error in a case riddled with mistakes by prosecution. Even if they have reason to believe they know where she is they should have not made that claim in my opinion.

 

[Diddian]

I have immense respect for Dan May, so I am discouraged to hear his suggestion that the DA had a good chance of overturning Judge L's devastating sanctions through a Rule 21 petition to the Supreme Court. That was not my assessment.

He does not say on screen, but the reporter's concluding remarks say that if the case is re-filed the sanctions excluding key evidence will remain in place. I can only assume this came from May. Again, that is not my impression of the applicable law. If true, discovery of SM's remains will not substantially increase the prosecution's chance of conviction.

If the reporter DID get that information from May, it’s unfortunate the reporter did not say that or get May on camera saying it. I’d like to hear an experienced prosecutor weigh in.

It’s my understanding that pretrial orders suppressing evidence CAN be appealed and in this case, the prosecution team had filed a motion to reconsider. To my knowledge, we were still awaiting a ruling on that motion.

So, with the judge granting the motion for dismissal without prejudice without first ruling on the other outstanding motion (for reconsideration of the order suppressing evidence), I don’t understand why a subsequent prosecution wouldn’t resume the place of the first, with the question of overturning or reducing suppression of evidence still to be ruled on.

 

[WingsOverTX]

I have immense respect for Dan May, so I am discouraged to hear his suggestion that the DA had a good chance of overturning Judge L's devastating sanctions through a Rule 21 petition to the Supreme Court. That was not my assessment.

He does not say on screen, but the reporter's concluding remarks say that if the case is re-filed the sanctions excluding key evidence will remain in place. I can only assume this came from May. Again, that is not my impression of the applicable law. If true, discovery of SM's remains will not substantially increase the prosecution's chance of conviction.

RBBM
I caught that, too. Thanks for bringing it into this forum.

Unless circumstances were exactly replicated, it is hard to see expert testimony being mostly excluded in a new trial.

I think a lot of context is missing in the interview, making it a poor reflection of the facts and the points May was making, which is very unfortunate because loosely interpreted it is just wrong.

But maybe that's just my biased inference.

Hard to put something complicated and nuanced adequately into a short interview and sound bites.

JMO