Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #98

[Boxer]

It's incredibly frustrating that the court does not post the documents on the docket site. Aren't these supposed to be public records?

Do we know if it was an actual motion filed by the defense, properly date-stamped and entered into the case file? I would hope Ashley Franco actually verified with the court that it was a motion and not a draft of a motion.

IMO, the defense is very busy trying to already sow seed of reasonable doubt everywhere.

That's their job.
The prosecution is aware of what to expect from a vigorous defense.

1. SODDI
2. I did it but it was...self defense, i was impaired, enraged or other mitigating factor
3. I did it but I am crazy.

E&N are going with #1.
All they need to do is convince one juror that they can't say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To do that they work the main themes: no body, DNA, forign DNA etc. Lack of evidence.

They work before and during the trial to discredit the state's case, questioning the character of witnesses and the knowledge of experts.
That FBI agent lying in another context. Will be a big presentation to the jury.
A taste of this was Grusing beung made to look unprepared by not being familiar with a different form of BM's cell phone location report.
They will challenge all crucial state's evidence to supress it.

Prosecution knows these things are coming and that is why Ii find it incomprehensible that they allowed themselves to get sanctioned by the court.

 

[Kemug]

How are you doing leading the more defensive ones to water?It must be frustrating when you can't make them drink.

Yes it is, at least the dead ones were easier that way.

 

[Kemug]

Thanks for this! From what I read, these filings are attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill and generate media coverage that may prejudice the jury pool. This case will not be dismissed. The defense may try to use some of these arguments during the trial. We'll see if the jury is in the market for eyewash.

Is that the same as hogwash?

 

[mrjitty]

I think you're spot on. For anyone interested in a more in depth (yet accessible) view of legal procedure, evidence, and trial practice, readers might benefit from Making Sense of the Rules of Evidence and Preparing Your Case for Trial, a web page article on the site of The Law Offices of William Markham, a California litigation firm. The firm represents businesses and executives, but its practice is not limited to the civil side of their clients' litigation needs: "white collar" criminal defense is part of their services.

I would add one wrinkle from my observations. In most cases, when the case is ready for trial the judge will issue a pre-trial order that requires - among many other things - that the parties stipulate the admissibility of evidence so that the case can be presented without interruption. The order also commonly includes pre-trial rulings on such issues so that objections need not be raised and resolved during the trial. I don't know whether such an order has been or will be issued in People v. Morphew, but if it isn't I think the risk of a chaotic trial will go way up. It would also raise concerns about the Judge's courtroom management IMO.

I think that is what has been going on - i.e the fight about the DV evidence is where state and defence disagreed.

We haven't seen motions to exclude anything else significant IIRC?

 

[mrjitty]

So probably the most relevant thing to the trial is what this motion says about the DNA.

It sounds like the 4th CODIS hit is also from the glove box DNA. It's to a case in Maryland that the CBI does not think will be solved. It sounds like the hit was not disclosed to the defense until right before the last hearing. I would not be shocked if the prosecution is sanctioned over the delayed disclosure of that hit. However, it's good news that this is still just the glove box DNA. I was worried that this might be a sample from the bike which would be more useful to the defense.

Also, it sounds like when the prosecution says that the 3 other CODIS hits have been ruled out, what that meant is that they have identified a suspect in those cases and have determined somehow that he could not be the source of the glove box DNA. I don't know how much that really rules them out though, since this person hasn't been convicted of the crimes yet. It's not even clear if they've been arrested. The defense refers to them as 'one of the possible suspects' in the case, though I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in their characterization.

BIB - absolutely.

The defence isn't really doing SODDI because there is no real evidence of an abductor.

So they have to pretend that law enforcement are the bad guys for failing to look for the evidence of "the real killer" when they railroaded BM. That is effectively the defence case. A conspiracy theory.

It will mostly consist of wild speculation and attempting to gaslight the jury

 

[DeDee]

What the prosecution needs to show is that any ordinary household has touch DNA.

Forensics — the use of science in crime investigations — dates back to 44 B.C., when a Roman physician performed one of the world’s first recorded autopsies on Julius Caesar after he’d been stabbed to death. Significant advancements in the field came at the turn of the nineteenth century, with the development of fingerprint analysis and a principle formulated by criminologist Edmond Locard — the “Sherlock Holmes of France” — stating that “every contact leaves a trace.”

"Witching" To Find Corpses? This Police Training Alarms Experts.

 

[FromGermany1]

View attachment 337674

View attachment 337675
From pg 21 of the AA, BM alleges Cody threatened to kill him after he fired him for the crooked wall (another meth-head).

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

ETA: In other words, AM didn't draw Cody's name out of a hat -- we know where he got this name from.

Isn't Barry afraid, some of these men he's slandering, will ambush him one day?

 

[MaisieBella]

Just found this -
Barry Morphew's lawyers ask judge to drop murder case against Colorado husband | Daily Mail Online

 

[BeachSky]

“Still missing”
BM knows nothing of her will ever be found IMO.
…this case & Maya’s case…just grrrrrr!
I guess you can get away with murder.

MOO

 

[Scootie98]

That's their job.
The prosecution is aware of what to expect from a vigorous defense.

1. SODDI
2. I did it but it was...self defense, i was impaired, enraged or other mitigating factor
3. I did it but I am crazy.

E&N are going with #1.
All they need to do is convince one juror that they can't say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To do that they work the main themes: no body, DNA, forign DNA etc. Lack of evidence.

They work before and during the trial to discredit the state's case, questioning the character of witnesses and the knowledge of experts.
That FBI agent lying in another context. Will be a big presentation to the jury.
A taste of this was Grusing beung made to look unprepared by not being familiar with a different form of BM's cell phone location report.
They will challenge all crucial state's evidence to supress it.

Prosecution knows these things are coming and that is why Ii find it incomprehensible that they allowed themselves to get sanctioned by the court.

I anticipate the defense producing their own tekkie witness(es) to counter interpret the vehicle and phone ping data...and dilute its value to the prosecution. jmo.

 

[Scootie98]

Isn't Barry afraid, some of these men he's slandering, will ambush him one day?

I think he's more concerned about being ambushed inside Slam City.

 

[girlhasnoname]

All of this is just more hyperbole by E&N. They literally have no other defense of BARE so this is all they can do to try and gain any traction in the court of public opinion.

We have no idea of the State's case in chief at this point. It might have appeared lacking and disjointed during the PH (intentionally so I believe ), but I can bet they've got it nailed down tight by now.

They are well aware of the tactics used by the Defense, and with all the civil trials pending and bad publicity LE has gotten from trampling on poor innocent BARE's rights, I have every faith the State will be laser focused to present a case that will prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

BARE IS guilty; nothing else points to anyone or anything else no matter how hard E&N spin it. I think 12 jurors will be able to see that also.

#Justice4Suzanne

MOO

 

[Niner]

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1507064814278959113?s=21

You can read the motions filed by #BarryMorphew defense counsel this month in this article. I am still waiting to get the 17 exhibits that were supposed to be attached to the D-17 (e) motion from the Fremont County Court.


Morphew’s defense files motion to dismiss murder case again | FOX21 News Colorado

This content is not available in your country/region.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

All of this is just more hyperbole by E&N. They literally have no other defense of BARE so this is all they can do to try and gain any traction in the court of public opinion.

We have no idea of the State's case in chief at this point. It might have appeared lacking and disjointed during the PH (intentionally so I believe ), but I can bet they've got it nailed down tight by now.

They are well aware of the tactics used by the Defense, and with all the civil trials pending and bad publicity LE has gotten from trampling on poor innocent BARE's rights, I have every faith the State will be laser focused to present a case that will prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

BARE IS guilty; nothing else points to anyone or anything else no matter how hard E&N spin it. I think 12 jurors will be able to see that also.

#Justice4Suzanne

MOO

I think we'll know more if we ever learn who the prosecution witnesses are. Technically defense doesn't need to do anything but cross examine prosecution's witnesses if they want to. Do I think it will happen that way...no I am assuming they will have some witnesses themselves, but the point is they have quite a bit to work with as it is, in my opinion. Once the motions are completed the trial is more or less formed by the prosecution and the defense. I'm definitely more curious how prosecution will get around the weaknesses that came up during the preliminary and the info that will be not admissible than I am how Barry's defense team handles the trial.

 

[DeDee]

This content is not available in your country/region.

Which content do you need, Niner? Can you access the FOX News article?
Morphew’s defense files motion to dismiss murder case again | FOX21 News Colorado

7 page doc
https://www.fox21news.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2022/03/motion-to-dismiss-9-pgs.pdf

Motion to dismiss the case, this time based on the presentation of false testimony at pretrial hearings.
Many of the 1,000 potential jurors have already received their jury summons.

Morphew’s defense attorney provides a list of some of the topics of false testimony:

• Reasons for Barry Morphew’s arrest
• Falsifying CBI’s support for Morphew’s arrest
• Reasons for removal of primary investigator CBI Agent Joseph Cahill
• Presenting unsupported/false/undisclosed testimony regarding the CODIS matches at the Preliminary Hearing
• Filing pleadings with false information

 

[CGray123]

This would not be the first time I've shown myself to be slow on the uptake...
I pray, humor me:
"eyewash" ?

Used in its informal definition: "insincere talk; nonsense"

 

[CGray123]

DA Stanley. The 2017 censure for failing to file correctly matches the current sanction for failing to provide discovery correctly.
Revealing confidences matches going on YT and talking to much about specifics of the case.


People v. Linda Stanley. 18PDJ058. May 16, 2019.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ conditional admission of misconduct
and publicly censured Linda Stanley (attorney registration number 45298), effective May 16,
2019.
In February 2017, Stanley agreed to represent a client in a civil case. Eight days after she
executed the engagement letter, Stanley accepted employment as a hearing officer for the
Colorado Department of Revenue. She began working for the state ten days thereafter. But
Stanley did not advise the client that she left private practice. Instead, Stanley sent the client
a past-due invoice, assessing late fees. When the client learned of Stanley’s new position in
April 2017 from a third-party, the client asked Stanley about her new employ. Stanley merely
replied that the client owed fees and stated that she would find substitute counsel. When
the client had not paid the invoice by April 30, Stanley threatened to send his account to
collections and told the client that she could not in good faith refer his case to another
lawyer.
In June 2017, Stanley’s client expressed concerns to the court about Stanley’s
representation. By this time, a three-day jury trial had been set in the case. The next month,
Stanley attempted to withdraw from the client’s case but her filing was rejected due to
errors in the caption and an improper form. She tried that same month to file another
motion to withdraw, but that motion too was rejected, this time because she had filed it in
the wrong court. She did not successfully file a motion to withdraw until August 2017.
As of August 2017, Stanley had not given the client actual notice of her intent to withdraw.
The client filed a pro se motion to terminate her representation, and the court set a hearing
on the motion for October 2, 2017. Stanley failed to appear, however, so the court ordered
her to personally appear at a hearing set for late October 2017. Before that hearing, Stanley
filed a response to the court’s order, in which she revealed numerous client confidences.
Three days before the hearing, the court considered Stanley’s response and granted her
motion to withdraw.
Through her conduct, Stanley violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shall
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter); Colo. RPC 1.6(a) (a lawyer
shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives
informed consent); Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (a lawyer shall protect a client’s interests upon
termination of the representation, including by giving reasonable notice to the client).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.

This came out during the campaign IIRC, but voters who hate "the government" (even though in a democracy, we collectively are the government) seem to be irrationally drawn to candidates whose integrity is highly questionable.

One of my concerns has been that the judges of the 11th Judicial District are quite aware of both Stanley's integrity issues and her much-less-than-distinguished legal career, and are inclined to be skeptical of her decisions. We see this skepticism very clearly in Judge L's decision on venue. I see her overt involvement in the prosecution as problematic, and I hope she simply stays away from the hearings and trial.

 

[Niner]

Which content do you need, Niner? Can you access the FOX News article?
Morphew’s defense files motion to dismiss murder case again | FOX21 News Colorado

7 page doc
https://www.fox21news.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2022/03/motion-to-dismiss-9-pgs.pdf

Motion to dismiss the case, this time based on the presentation of false testimony at pretrial hearings.
Many of the 1,000 potential jurors have already received their jury summons.

Morphew’s defense attorney provides a list of some of the topics of false testimony:

• Reasons for Barry Morphew’s arrest
• Falsifying CBI’s support for Morphew’s arrest
• Reasons for removal of primary investigator CBI Agent Joseph Cahill
• Presenting unsupported/false/undisclosed testimony regarding the CODIS matches at the Preliminary Hearing
• Filing pleadings with false information

It was the Fox article - and thanks I can see the pdf.

 

[pseudo_hum]

BIB

I don't agree this would be a plausible counter.
First this version can't be placed in evidence unless BM testifies. Or if counsel tries to sock puppet it into existence, they are in fact speculating that BM is lying about his own versions and there was a fight with the victim who has gone missing?
This would seem disastrous to me.
I don't think they will offer a version outside of what BM himself claimed. BM won't testify IMO.

No, no fight, in fact, paraphrasing, "it had been a perfect night".

 

[Megnut]

Let's fact check Suzanne's claims.

Barry is lying about his relationship with another woman.

Barry is using their daughters as a shield and as props to prop up an image.

Barry is doing sketchy stuff with money.

Barry continues to be angry, aggressive, controlling.

Barry continues to lie about where he is and who he's with.

Fair chance Barry isn't holding Suzanne's rightful share of their holdings in trust.

Suzanne was right.

Barry is wrong.

Suzanne wanted to live her life with transparency.

She didn't get to have the living part, but the transparency is coming -- as its all laid BARE.

May justice catch up to him swiftly.

JMO