Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #85

[Scootie98]

The question still remains as to why BM is paying rent for a property he is not living in.

SD is not a dependent....so this would be gifting....would it not? Better claim that on his tax returns....jmo.

 

[Scootie98]

The question still remains as to why BM is paying rent for a property he is not living in.

SD is not a dependent....so this would be gifting....would it not? Better claim that on his tax returns....jmo.

100%
Over reaching is an understatement
IMO total BS
Trying to capitalize on the total ignorance of so many when it comes to dna and specifically the dna on the glove box. Obfuscation.
Smoke and mirrors.
Maybe next BM will take a page out of Maya Millett’s husband’s book, another wife killer IMO , and consult with some “spell casters”. Might be a better use of his murdered wife’s money
IMO

The best defense is a good offense....or so it seems. I too see a Go Fund Me on the horizon. Suzanne's foundation and the search fund were just practice for the big leagues.

 

[girlhasnoname]

NEW- Source of unknown male DNA revealed in letter from Barry Morphew attorneys promising to sue case investigators for false arrest, defamation denvergazette.com/premium/barry-… via @dnvrgazette


https://twitter.com/carolamckinley/status/1450619956874268673?s=21

The only good thing about this nonsense is that it's going to cost Ole' Barry lots of money.

I hope he goes through every penny of the ill gotten money, and is left broke and behind bars.

 

[303gmf]

It's a brilliant move, because even when this does inevitably get chucked, it serves its purpose. It makes the news cycle, and reframes this whole thing. Poor Barry is a victim!

I’d pay a good chunk to hear reactions from all 26
BM continuing to besmirch the law in his adopted state and county an interesting strategy at least

 

[pseudo_hum]

So, let me get this straight; BM says a random bike abduction, but the random bike abductor checked SM's vehicles glove box. Or is it mountain lion paw prints? I think the defense is just trying to keep the investigators pre-occupied. IMO, they are trying to keep the pressure on.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

So, let me get this straight; BM says a random bike abduction, but the random bike abductor checked SM's vehicles glove box. Or is it mountain lion paw prints? I think the defense is just trying to keep the investigators pre-occupied. IMO, they are trying to keep the pressure on.

We're way way past the mountain lion theory LOL but defense is definitely attacking all angles. There is a hearing already set for Nov. 9 on the set aside discussions of failure to provide disclosure on time and I think Linda Stanley's social media interview(s) so we'll perhaps get a taste of all of this. Clearly the defense is taking a "leave no stone unturned" approach. Let's hope investigators and prosecution did the same with in the last year and a half.

 

[Megnut]

Don't forget the unknown male DNA on Suzanne's bike as well.

I hope the Prosecution adjusts their witness list to include all the people in the universe, including those on the space station, who share a partial match to the partial DNA samples, forcing the Defense to concede the point. Ludicrous.

Even the DNA on the security cables, as I understand it, wasn't A MATCH to Suzanne and her daughter; they just couldn't be excluded!

Perhaps the Defense would next like us to believe that, when their client fired the tranq dart, he mistakenly took Suzanne for a deer or turkey or chipmunk, and it was only when he discovered she had no antlers, feathers, nor chipmunk stripes, that he let the sedative wear off, so she could skitter away and he could have his steak?

JMO

 

[SeattleStew]

Pig rejection! The option of grilling hot dogs with peanut butter aside, I wonder if it was a gift basket (like Swiss Colony or Hickory Farms), and someone doesn’t eat meat.

I was thinking maybe the hot dogs came from a Airbnb rental clean-out. We always leave unopened food and booze for the housekeeping staff when we stay at an Airbnb or a resort with a full kitchen. Then again, we have a bad habit of stopping at the first Costco we see on vacation, and loading up like we do at home. Of course we end up with tons of food and drinks leftover, never opened. We just leave a note for housekeeping to take what they want. We have heard that staff appreciates this (in addition to tipping).

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Don't forget the unknown male DNA on Suzanne's bike as well.

I hope the Prosecution adjusts their witness list to include all the people in the universe, including those on the space station, who share a partial match to the partial DNA samples, forcing the Defense to concede the point. Ludicrous.

Even the DNA on the security cables, as I understand it, wasn't A MATCH to Suzanne and her daughter; they just couldn't be excluded!

Perhaps the Defense would next like us to believe that, when their client fired the tranq dart, he mistakenly took Suzanne for a deer or turkey or chipmunk, and it was only when he discovered she had no antlers, feathers, nor chipmunk stripes, that he let the sedative wear off, so she could skitter away and he could have his steak?

JMO

The news article indicates that investigators had a name in August. I would think having a singular name attached to the DNA implies more. But it is also entirely possible that the article misstated the facts. If they had a name, one would hope that investigators got an alibi at that time to discount the person who matched the DNA. That, an alibi, was not disclosed in the news article. I'm thinking they did not obtain an alibi or this civil suit would not have been filed. These ladies do not mess around and prosecution has to dot their proverbial "i"s and cross their "t"s. In my opinion, defense isn't going to hang their case on prosecution theories, they are going to dig into the actual facts within the disclosure and any fact that can reasonably be disproven or left open ended.

 

[Wendyb1063]

I looked up the noise level of a Bobcat skid steer. The manufacturer says it's 86 dB inside the thing (operator's perspective) or 96 dB total (someone standing just outside the machine's perspective). That's pretty loud, roughly as loud as a tablesaw. Would a neighbor in residence notice this noise if operating 1 mile away?

Our neighbor (a farmer) uses a Bobcat to transport silage, move snow, etc. He also plows our long (1/3 mile long) driveway. We cannot hear him (and neither can our outside dogs who bark whenever someone is coming down our driveway) until he is less than ~1/4 mile away (maybe even less than 1000 ft) from our house. We never hear him moving silage, and the silage pile is near the end of our driveway (1/3 mile way). But is possible the terrain affects how the sound travels. There is a big hill (100 ft. according to my Apple watch) and some trees between the silage pile and our house.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I was not aware that SD had Covid since she seemed healthy yesterday. SD had a hearing in Chaffee County District Court on 10/18 initiated by her former neighbor "PG" when she filed a petition for a civil protection order against SD on 9/29/21. The following is a recap of my recollection of the Webex hearing.

Thanks so much Seattle.
SD did say she had Covid a couple weeks ago and her hearing then was postponed. It has to do with her trespassing at PP property. I guess that case has not been heard as yet?

SD is full of surprises, some mischievous.
She and BM could have been a perfect storm in May of 2020. MOO.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I doubt it. This would have surely been the defense's idea, and it's purpose probably isn't to win.

It creates news, and helps the defense when it comes to influencing future jurors. It changes the narrative, and will generate favorable publicity.

It is absolutely impossible for this DNA to actually be exculpatory. It wasn't exculpatory when it had yet to be identified, and it isn't exculpatory now that it has.

Also, this was in her car, and not in her bicycle or something relevant.

I can't wait to find out who this guy is though, and I'm confident he'll be able to be excluded.

I see this as a move projecting weakness, but smart nonetheless.

What bothers me about this lawsuit is the fact that these investigators are being sued personally and that means each one needs an attorney. A good attorney isn’t cheap and these men and women may not have high incomes and they have families to support. The defense knows this and they know the emotional and financial toll it will take. BM doesn’t give a rats behind about what he does to other people.

As for the FBI, I’m not even sure a lawsuit can brought against them but it will hurt the others.

If the defense had a real claim of fact, it would have been brought up during the PH.

 

[Murphy1950]

Does anyone have access to the entire article??? Other sources say this is part

Morphew’s civil attorneys say investigators knew the man’s identity as early as Aug. 2, a week before the evidence hearing in the murder case. The 10-page document says prosecutors waited until Morphew was ordered to trial before they released it to his defense team. In doing this, Morphew's attorneys contend, prosecutors “conspired to commit a fraud upon the court by withholding exculpatory evidence.”
The DNA issue did come up during Morphew's August evidence hearing. Colorado Bureau of Investigations agent Joe Cahill told Morphew attorney Iris Eytan that the DNA on the glove box is a partial profile.
Investigators collected several DNA samples amid a frantic search for Suzanne Morphew. Other unknown male DNA was also found on the grips of Suzanne Morphew’s bicycle, on her bike helmet and on sheets found in the Morphew’s dryer. None of these DNA profiles matched the DNA on the glovebox.

I don't care what the fellow with the "bad" DNA did to get his name in a database...it is not Exculpatory to the mountains of evidence pointing the other way.

My only question is the accusation of tunnel vision and Jury being swayed by that, missing that this "partial DNA" is nonsense. Is it safe to figure they investigated this person? It would hint at tunnel vision if they knew his name/ID and there was zero follow through IMO. It is my understanding this case hasn't been filed as of yet...it's a threat at this point. I hope this is nothing to do with Jeff Lindsay leaving, I would think the 26 investigators had a heads up and surely Lindsay was on that list. timing here stinks. the whole thing stinks!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

What bothers me about this lawsuit is the fact that these investigators are being sued personally and that means each one needs an attorney. A good attorney isn’t cheap and these men and women may not have high incomes and they have families to support. The defense knows this and they know the emotional and financial toll it will take. BM doesn’t give a rats behind about what he does to other people.

As for the FBI, I’m not even sure a lawsuit can brought against them but it will hurt the others.

If the defense had a real claim of fact, it would have been brought up during the PH.

Let's hope since the suit is coming about because of actions while on the job their employer is covering the legal costs. I'm guessing there is some qualified immunity but not absolute immunity. My husband had a civil servant type job/career and any law suits related to his job performance legal fees were covered by the municipality he was acting on behalf of. We also on the advice of the municipality lawyer carried personal liability insurance. I believe most "government" officials named in this suit will claim qualified immunity but that does not necessarily mean the case will be dismissed. I've love to read the ten pages Regarding the point that it was not brought up at the preliminary, the fact that it was known prior to the PH and not disclosed is one of the cornerstones of the claim. They attorneys are alleging that the facts were intentionally kept from the defense team until after the preliminary even though the information was known prior to the preliminary.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Let's hope since the suit is coming about because of actions while on the job their employer is covering the legal costs. I'm guessing there is some qualified immunity but not absolute immunity. My husband had a civil servant type job/career and any law suits related to his job performance legal fees were covered by the municipality he was acting on behalf of. We also on the advice of the municipality lawyer carried personal liability insurance. I believe most "government" officials named in this suit will claim qualified immunity but that does not necessarily mean the case will be dismissed. I've love to read the ten pages Regarding the point that it was not brought up at the preliminary, the fact that it was known prior to the PH and not disclosed is one of the cornerstones of the claim. They attorneys are alleging that the facts were intentionally kept from the defense team until after the preliminary even though the information was known prior to the preliminary.

But let’s say the prosecution did know about the John Doe dna before the hearing, was it required they bring it up? They gave everything to the defense and maybe the defense didn’t do their due diligence? I thought the prosecutors only job at PH was to present evidence that their suspect is guilty. Why is it incumbent upon the prosecution to say they found dna in the glove box (that a thousand people could have touched) that belonged to a sexual offender? Isn’t that something defense should do at trial? Either way, seems to me this is a frivolous suit and only to obfuscate what is coming at trial.

As far as professional liability being covered by the entity the investigators work for, that’s likely true. But if the suit is brought against them on a personal level, that means defense is going after the county/feds AND each investigator personally. Meaning each person will require an attorney to protect each person assets. Bunch of crap IMO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

But let’s say the prosecution did know about the John Doe dna before the hearing, was it required they bring it up? They gave everything to the defense and maybe the defense didn’t do their due diligence? I thought the prosecutors only job at PH was to present evidence that their suspect is guilty. Why is it incumbent upon the prosecution to say they found dna in the glove box (that a thousand people could have touched) that belonged to a sexual offender? Isn’t that something defense should do at trial? Either way, seems to me this is a frivolous suit and only to obfuscate what is coming at trial.

As far as professional liability being covered by the entity the investigators work for, that’s likely true. But if the suit is brought against them on a personal level, that means defense is going after the county/feds AND each investigator personally. Meaning each person will require an attorney to protect each person assets. Bunch of crap IMO.

They didn't need to bring it up at the preliminary.....the defense is talking about disclosure. Prosecution is obligated to turn over all disclosure regardless if they intend to use it or not. They can't hold back information. The suit is not filed yet.....this was a letter of intent. Not unusual and generally a demand for action or money depending on the circumstances. They may or may not file an actual lawsuit. The timing, in my opinion, for leaking the letter of intent was strategic ahead of the Nov. 9 hearing but that is just me thinking through the potential strategy.

 

[Scootie98]

I’d pay a good chunk to hear reactions from all 26
BM continuing to besmirch the law in his adopted state and county an interesting strategy at least

if there is a lawyer out there...a question: So...wouldn't this suit open up a new chapter of discovery for which Barry would be deposed? On a more humorous note....wouldn't Barry technically be exposed to 27 more depositions?

 

[Scootie98]

The news article indicates that investigators had a name in August. I would think having a singular name attached to the DNA implies more. But it is also entirely possible that the article misstated the facts. If they had a name, one would hope that investigators got an alibi at that time to discount the person who matched the DNA. That, an alibi, was not disclosed in the news article. I'm thinking they did not obtain an alibi or this civil suit would not have been filed. These ladies do not mess around and prosecution has to dot their proverbial "i"s and cross their "t"s. In my opinion, defense isn't going to hang their case on prosecution theories, they are going to dig into the actual facts within the disclosure and any fact that can reasonably be disproven or left open ended.

the person who partially matched can be eliminated based upon his or her whereabouts being verified as elsewhere on that date...same as JL.

 

[Scootie98]

But let’s say the prosecution did know about the John Doe dna before the hearing, was it required they bring it up? They gave everything to the defense and maybe the defense didn’t do their due diligence? I thought the prosecutors only job at PH was to present evidence that their suspect is guilty. Why is it incumbent upon the prosecution to say they found dna in the glove box (that a thousand people could have touched) that belonged to a sexual offender? Isn’t that something defense should do at trial? Either way, seems to me this is a frivolous suit and only to obfuscate what is coming at trial.

As far as professional liability being covered by the entity the investigators work for, that’s likely true. But if the suit is brought against them on a personal level, that means defense is going after the county/feds AND each investigator personally. Meaning each person will require an attorney to protect each person assets. Bunch of crap IMO.

One other thought...this is a civil trial...so we are dealing with an entirely different judge and court...correct?

 

[Cindizzi]

Does anyone have access to the entire article??? Other sources say this is part

Morphew’s civil attorneys say investigators knew the man’s identity as early as Aug. 2, a week before the evidence hearing in the murder case. The 10-page document says prosecutors waited until Morphew was ordered to trial before they released it to his defense team. In doing this, Morphew's attorneys contend, prosecutors “conspired to commit a fraud upon the court by withholding exculpatory evidence.”
The DNA issue did come up during Morphew's August evidence hearing. Colorado Bureau of Investigations agent Joe Cahill told Morphew attorney Iris Eytan that the DNA on the glove box is a partial profile.
Investigators collected several DNA samples amid a frantic search for Suzanne Morphew. Other unknown male DNA was also found on the grips of Suzanne Morphew’s bicycle, on her bike helmet and on sheets found in the Morphew’s dryer. None of these DNA profiles matched the DNA on the glovebox.

I don't care what the fellow with the "bad" DNA did to get his name in a database...it is not Exculpatory to the mountains of evidence pointing the other way.

My only question is the accusation of tunnel vision and Jury being swayed by that, missing that this "partial DNA" is nonsense. Is it safe to figure they investigated this person? It would hint at tunnel vision if they knew his name/ID and there was zero follow through IMO. It is my understanding this case hasn't been filed as of yet...it's a threat at this point. I hope this is nothing to do with Jeff Lindsay leaving, I would think the 26 investigators had a heads up and surely Lindsay was on that list. timing here stinks. the whole thing stinks!

Exclusive: Barry Morphew attorneys to sue case investigators for false arrest, defamation