Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #99

[Spartygirl]

It isn’t voluntary.
I guarantee that the majority of people know and like, or even admire someone who they think is a great person but they are truly an abusive, manipulative narcissist. The ones who aren’t fooled are people who have survived being a target of a narcissist.

TRUTH!!!
Just my personal experience and opinion

 

[Seattle1]

From April 8, 2022, Court Order [D-17] pg 19/20:

Item i., CBI Agent Duge (DNA), Andrew McDermott (??), and FBI's Kevin Hoyland (Phone/Data), are excluded as expert witnesses. Since the Order does not cite that they may provide lay opinions, I do not expect they will appear as witnesses.

For no-body homicides, one only has to reference the recent Colorado murders of Kelsey Berreth and Kelsie Schelling to see how critical the expert testimony of Hoyland is to a case.

Item ii., for the seven witnesses here (Stevens, Hicks, Walker, Rohrick, Grusing, Graham, and Harris), think "lay opinion" = "ordinary person" as cited above (post #769).

Item iii., Caitlin Rogers: CBI Analyst Caitlin Rogers advised Agent Megan Duge on what DNA has been tested or not tested and what a partial from a keyboard search meant. Rogers is allowed to testify as an expert but her testimony is restricted to only the information as written in her current report.

However, given that Agent Megan Duge has been excluded as an expert DNA witness (Item i.), I foresee yet another objectionable challenge and burden placed on Rogers during her testimony. MOO

 

[justtrish]

I don't understand how experts are not allowed to testify as experts. I don't understand what paperwork the prosecution failed submit in time. I don't understand why Barry is out on bail, based on unrelated 3rd party DNA found in the glove compartment of a vehicle not in the crime scene. I don't understand why I can't watch court proceedings. I don't understand why judge Murphy recused himself. I don't understand how Grusing could interview Barry that many times , yet fail to structure the questioning as to leave no doubt to his guilt. I don't understand local police dept handling murder investigations, and botching them many times. I do understand who killed Suzanne Morphew.

100% all of this!!

 

[Seattle1]

I am sure everybody has figured this out but me.
Iirc We talked about BM’s sister tweet attacking Lauren Friday for not being honest in her reporting. She wanted Lauren to release the court order to clear things up.
Lauren was like sure but I have not gotten it from the court yet but as soon as I have it from the court I will release.
Since then the doc was released but not by Lauren and we have not heard a peep on her end which is totally uncharacteristic
We know either she was wrong in her reporting about the handler in her live report or Llama has it wrong in the court order.
So how does this play put ?
Does she ask the court for the transcript?
If she was wrong I imagine she just says so, issues a retraction or something?
What happens in the event the judge got it wrong from the courts notes? How does that play out?

^^bbm

I disagree with OP's characterization of LS not making a peep after her public dialogue on 4/8/22, in the early morning hours, with BM's sister regarding her leaked defense documents of 4/5/22, as well as the defense leaked 4/8/22 Court Order [D17].

IMO, the Co Courts likely tweeted the Order [D-17] prior to the court responding to LS inquiry seeking whether or not she had permission to report on the same.

Regardless, it seems to me that LS received information that the 4/5/22 defense motion (leaked by defense) was not public. Accordingly, LS did not report on this document.

For example, please take note that the 4/8/22 Court order was not court stamped until 12:29 pm MST, while BM's sister was arguing about the document not being reported on several hours prior to the document being court stamped: DATE FILED: April 8, 2022 12:29 PM CASE NUMBER: 2022CR47

Colorado Judicial Branch



[URL='https://mobile.twitter.com/LaurenScharfTV']Lauren Scharf@LaurenScharfTV[/URL]
Replying to
@LaurenScharfTV
@*************

That being said, I can ONLY report on information that I have. So far, the courts have not granted my request for these documents. There is no censorship here. Again, I can only report on what the courts have approved to release.

7:21 AM · Apr 8, 2022 from Colorado Springs, CO

Lauren Scharf@LaurenScharfTV

Replying to@************

Thank you for that document. As I have already replied to your email, I have sent another request to the courts to grant me permission to release the document. Some recent documents have been suppressed so I want to make sure that this motion wasn’t one of them.

7:59 AM · Apr 8, 2022 from Colorado Springs, CO·



[URL='https://mobile.twitter.com/CoCourts']CO Courts@CoCourts[/URL]
People v. Morphew: Order re: D-17. "The Court concludes additional sanctions are not appropriate at this time. However, this Order will serve as the baseline for future orders related to discovery violations." The case is set for trial 4/28/22. https://courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/ORDER%20RE_%20DEFENDANT'S%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20FOR%20DISCOVERY%20AND%20CONTEMPT%20SANCTIONS%20AND%20FORTHWITH%20HEARING%20%20%5BD-17A%5D%20SUPPLEMENT%20%20%5BD-17B%5D%20SUPPLEMENT%20%20%5BD-17-C%5D%20SUPPLEMENT%20%20AND%20%5BD-17D%5D%20SUPPLEMENT.pdf…

11:42 AM · Apr 8, 2022·

 

[Seattle1]

I wouldn’t say that was her intent. JMO
She said LS did not report everything that was said in Court.
She kept mentioning an April 5th motion, but we can see from LS list there are many with that date.

Not only was there no document dated 4/5 on the ROA, more important, there are no April documents with the exception of the 4/8/22 Court Order [D-17] on the public cases of interest court site:

Colorado Judicial Branch

 

[Love Never Fails]

Just as Rule 16 - Discovery and Procedure Before Trial outlines the obligations of the prosecution, Part II provides for defense Disclosure to the Prosecution.

Since the prosecution has the burden of proof, it would not make sense for the defense to call their own Telematics expert except as a rebuttal witness and/or to impeach the testimony of the prosecution's expert. Otherwise, the defense would be opening the door to allow the sanction-barred expert for the prosecution (a sanction requested by the defense and the motion granted).

IMO, what's most important to recognize about the case witnesses for both parties is that although Rule 16 provides for the court's discretion to set deadlines for such disclosure, the Rule specifically provides for a statutory deadline as follows:

Part I. Disclosure to the Defense
(a) Prosecutor's Obligations.
[..]

(III) Any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons;
[..]

(3) The prosecuting attorney shall perform all other obligations under subsection (a)(1) as soon as practicable but not later than 35 days before trial.

Part II. Disclosure to Prosecution
(a) The Person of the Accused.
[..]
(c) Nature of Defense.

Subject to constitutional limitations, the defense shall disclose to the prosecution the nature of any defense, other than alibi, which the defense intends to use at trial. In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown. Upon receipt of the information required by this subsection (c), the prosecuting attorney shall notify the defense of any additional witnesses which the prosecution intends to call to rebut such defense within a reasonable time after their identity becomes known.
[..]

Part V. Time Schedules and Discovery Procedures
(a) Mandatory Discovery.

The furnishing of the items discoverable, referred to in Part I (a), (b) and (c) and Part II (b)(1), (c) and (d) herein, is mandatory and no motions for discovery with respect to such items may be filed.

(b) Time Schedule.
(1) In the event the defendant enters a plea of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, or asserts the defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall set a deadline for such disclosure to the prosecuting attorney of those items referred to in Parts II (b) (1) and (c) herein, subject to objections which may be raised by the defense within that period pursuant to Part III (d) of this rule. In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown.

Generally, the furnishing of discoverable items between the parties takes place with little supervision by the Court.

In this case, what we've seen here is not typical: IMO, BM's defense (i.e., E & N) made it known at their very first appearance in this court (days after BM fired his public defenders), that they intended to frustrate the prosecution by alleging Discovery violations whether they were valid or not!

To be clear, there's not been one court appearance where E & N has not alleged the prosecution guilty of discovery violations, complete with a defense motion for sanctions.

MOO

ETA: Prosecutor Lindsey took a lot of heat when he resigned and moved on to Pueblo. Personally, I respect that Lindsey had no desire to participate in a case where both his staff and himself would be buried in motions at every turn-- requiring too many discretionary decisions by the court, and technical wins by the defense. The price of sacrificing justice for SM was just too high.

It scares me to hear you say the price of justice was just too high. I agree but it’s so wrong. I’m sure not liking the judge.

 

[waldojabba]

^^bbm

I disagree with OP's characterization of LS not making a peep after her public dialogue on 4/8/22, in the early morning hours, with BM's sister regarding her leaked defense documents of 4/5/22, as well as the defense leaked 4/8/22 Court Order [D17].

IMO, the Co Courts likely tweeted the Order [D-17] prior to the court responding to LS inquiry seeking whether or not she had permission to report on the same.

Regardless, it seems to me that LS received information that the 4/5/22 defense motion (leaked by defense) was not public. Accordingly, LS did not report on this document.

For example, please take note that the 4/8/22 Court order was not court stamped until 12:29 pm MST, while BM's sister was arguing about the document not being reported on several hours prior to the document being court stamped: DATE FILED: April 8, 2022 12:29 PM CASE NUMBER: 2022CR47

Colorado Judicial Branch



Lauren Scharf@LaurenScharfTV
Replying to
@LaurenScharfTV
@*************

That being said, I can ONLY report on information that I have. So far, the courts have not granted my request for these documents. There is no censorship here. Again, I can only report on what the courts have approved to release.

7:21 AM · Apr 8, 2022 from Colorado Springs, CO

Lauren Scharf@LaurenScharfTV

Replying to@************

Thank you for that document. As I have already replied to your email, I have sent another request to the courts to grant me permission to release the document. Some recent documents have been suppressed so I want to make sure that this motion wasn’t one of them.

7:59 AM · Apr 8, 2022 from Colorado Springs, CO·



CO Courts@CoCourts
People v. Morphew: Order re: D-17. "The Court concludes additional sanctions are not appropriate at this time. However, this Order will serve as the baseline for future orders related to discovery violations." The case is set for trial 4/28/22. https://courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/ORDER%20RE_%20DEFENDANT'S%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20FOR%20DISCOVERY%20AND%20CONTEMPT%20SANCTIONS%20AND%20FORTHWITH%20HEARING%20%20%5BD-17A%5D%20SUPPLEMENT%20%20%5BD-17B%5D%20SUPPLEMENT%20%20%5BD-17-C%5D%20SUPPLEMENT%20%20AND%20%5BD-17D%5D%20SUPPLEMENT.pdf…

11:42 AM · Apr 8, 2022·

Thanks you are correct. I should have gone back and checked LS Twitter before posting

 

[Seattle1]

For no-body homicides, one only has to reference the recent Colorado murders of Kelsey Berreth and Kelsie Schelling to see how critical the expert testimony of Hoyland is to a case.

^^rsbm

I don't understand how anybody but an expert witness can provide testimony on the cellular/data forensics for this case. FBI expert Hoyland has been excluded from providing expert witness testimony at trial for SM's murder:

The following is just a snippet of data FBI's Kevin Hoyland, expert witness, testified about during Kelsey Berreth's 2019 murder trial (Patrick Frazee convicted):


FBI Agent explains cell phone records

FBI Agent Kevin Hoyland returned to the witness stand to further explain how cell phone records connect Patrick Frazee and Krystal Kenney to Kelsey Berreth at the time she is believed to have been killed and her body disposed of.

Hoyland testified that Kenney received six calls, accounting for 160 minutes of talk time, from Frazee’s landline on Nov. 23, when she drove from Idaho to Colorado. He said Frazee placed more calls but Kenney’s phone did not receive them. He said records also showed multiple calls between the two in the ensuing days, as well as frequent proximity to Berreth’s phone.

Hoyland said police reached out just in time to get successful location hits from Berreth’s phone, because Verizon, her carrier, only retains that data for eight days. The final records for Berreth’s phone included a text to Frazee’s phone the night of Nov. 25, a response a few minutes later, and two phone calls that went straight to voicemail.

https://www.koaa.com/news/frazee-tr...ence-would-not-have-been-found-without-kenney

 

[mom2chloe]

@Seattle1 What are your thoughts regarding if and when the Prosecution could and/ or would appeal Lama’s decisions? Is it even possible? IMO if the Judge refuses even a cell phone expert’s testimony what are we left with? I hate to sound so defeated but seriously what are we left with? Thanks in advance!

 

[abams]

Reading the latest released order now...

"It is important to note that Chief Judge Murphy did not learn about the unknown foreign male DNA and CODIS matches in the Arrest Affidavit or through the People’s elicited testimony at the PEPG and Preliminary Hearing. Over four days of testimony, the People did not discuss the CODIS matches throughout their case-in-chief. Chief Judge Murphy learned about the evidence because the defense presented it by calling and examining Agent Cahill. Shortly after his testimony, the District Attorney contacted CBI to express their displeasure with Mr. Cahill’s testimony at the Preliminary Hearing."

Oof.

 

[WildOrchid]

What a bumbling disaster. Poor Suzanne.

 

[MassGuy]

Reading the latest released order now...

"It is important to note that Chief Judge Murphy did not learn about the unknown foreign male DNA and CODIS matches in the Arrest Affidavit or through the People’s elicited testimony at the PEPG and Preliminary Hearing. Over four days of testimony, the People did not discuss the CODIS matches throughout their case-in-chief. Chief Judge Murphy learned about the evidence because the defense presented it by calling and examining Agent Cahill. Shortly after his testimony, the District Attorney contacted CBI to express their displeasure with Mr. Cahill’s testimony at the Preliminary Hearing."

Oof.

The DNA was meaningless, although the defense knew about it in discovery.

We learned that the defense totally misrepresented what happened with Cahill. He was a mess on the stand, and others within CBI, Stanley, Lindsey, and Cahill himself agreed with that.

They also lied about the reason he was sent to the drug unit, which turned out to have already been in the works for some time.

 

[Seattle1]

It scares me to hear you say the price of justice was just too high. I agree but it’s so wrong. I’m sure not liking the judge.

Perhaps it would have been better stated that the price of injustice for SM was too high.

What I'm seeing by this court-- especially after striking 14 of 16 prosecution witnesses, are clear acts of injustice for the victim.

IMO, there'd be no comparing BM's defense by his initial, court-appointed lawyers, to the E & N defense team that sought from day one to strategically frustrate the prosecution with mostly unwarranted motions for discovery violations, sanctions, and repeated motions for dismissal. MOO

ETA: Please see my following MSM post recapping the Nov 9, 2021 motions hearing with Judge Murphy.

Also, I worry if others fail to see that E & N were just as strategic to motion that Judge Murphy should be removed from this case after BM's girlfriend, SD, a potential defense witness, hired an attorney very closely related to BM's defense team, and where a partner of the firm is a longtime friend of Judge Murphy. MOO

 

[abams]

The DNA was meaningless, although the defense knew about it in discovery.

We learned that the defense totally misrepresented what happened with Cahill. He was a mess on the stand, and others within CBI, Stanley, Lindsey, and Cahill himself agreed with that.

They also lied about the reason he was sent to the drug unit, which turned out to have already been in the works for some time.

bbm.

Well it appears the Court disagrees as it's stating in this order it was favorable enough to the defense to set bond and by all rights what was known should have been disclosed at the time of the AA. I highlighted that quote because it's a very concerning way of re-stating the facts around the disclosure of the CODIS matches to put it politely.

I've got to say I've always found the scoffing at the leads of partial DNA matches to unresolved sex assaults or convicted sex offenders in these discussions odd and imo I'm not sure a jury would be as dismissive, but who knows.

Another interesting and relevant quote regarding disclosures:

"First, the Court will start with the most obvious and egregious violation in the Court’s view: the CODIS matches (i.e., unknown foreign male DNA). These type of materials, as noted by Chief Judge Murphy during his ruling on bond in September 2021, lend themselves to an alternate suspect theory of the case. [...] Chief Judge Murphy did not find the proof evident and presumption great in September 2021, based in part, on the DNA evidence and testimony discussed by Mr. Cahill. Yet, we know law enforcement was well aware of this information for months prior to seeking Mr. Morphew’s arrest. The lead detective characterized this evidence as “critical pieces” of information that would have been discussed with the investigative team. In a communications log (admitted as Exhibit 1, page 29059), Caitlin Rogers memorialized a conversation with Mr. Cahill. [...] The communications log specifically states that Mr. Cahill thinks the partial match relates to suspects who perpetrated the crime. Thus, one of the lead detectives on the case at the time, believed that the partial match related to suspects who may have perpetrated the crime other than Mr. Morphew. It is utterly absurd to this Court that anyone could even fathom arguing that this information does not fall within the mandatory disclosures of Rule 16(I)(a)(2)."

 

[MassGuy]

bbm.

Well it appears the Court disagrees as it's stating in this order it was favorable enough to the defense to set bond and by all rights what was known should have been disclosed at the time of the AA. I highlighted that quote because it's a very concerning way of re-stating the facts around the disclosure of the CODIS matches to put it politely.

I've got to say I've always found the scoffing at the leads of partial DNA matches to unresolved sex assaults or convicted sex offenders in these discussions odd and imo I'm not sure a jury would be as dismissive, but who knows.

Another interesting and relevant quote regarding disclosures:

"First, the Court will start with the most obvious and egregious violation in the Court’s view: the CODIS matches (i.e., unknown foreign male DNA). These type of materials, as noted by Chief Judge Murphy during his ruling on bond in September 2021, lend themselves to an alternate suspect theory of the case. [...] Chief Judge Murphy did not find the proof evident and presumption great in September 2021, based in part, on the DNA evidence and testimony discussed by Mr. Cahill. Yet, we know law enforcement was well aware of this information for months prior to seeking Mr. Morphew’s arrest. The lead detective characterized this evidence as “critical pieces” of information that would have been discussed with the investigative team. In a communications log (admitted as Exhibit 1, page 29059), Caitlin Rogers memorialized a conversation with Mr. Cahill. [...] The communications log specifically states that Mr. Cahill thinks the partial match relates to suspects who perpetrated the crime. Thus, one of the lead detectives on the case at the time, believed that the partial match related to suspects who may have perpetrated the crime other than Mr. Morphew. It is utterly absurd to this Court that anyone could even fathom arguing that this information does not fall within the mandatory disclosures of Rule 16(I)(a)(2)."

This partial mixed profile (on a vehicle unrelated to the crime), was so weak that it couldn't be automatically uploaded to CODIS.

Instead, it required what's called a "keyboard search," which is a manual process.

Multiple individuals in the system matched those few markers, which means untold people in the general population would also be a match.

That car was processed as a crime scene, which is standard protocol. Rogers would obviously believe she was testing for suspect DNA.

It's pure garbage, and I'm glad the prosecution has asked for it to be excluded. I'm sure they'll fail, but it's so dumb it makes my head hurt.

 

[BDAJAG]

The judge illustrates to me the structural judicial issues around domestic abuse.

The judge swims in a patriarchal culture to such an extent that he does not see the wood from the trees and then wonders "where the evidence is"

We always come back to this idea that there is some normal level of strife in a marraige and unless SM turned up with a black eye, then talk of abuse is somehow too prejudicial

Kafka IMO

OK Sleuthers!

Book?
Movie?
Origin, please:

"The woman who walked in to doors?"​

Don't recall reading/seeing it myself, but I heard about somehow/somewhere...​

HELP?!?

 

[Seattle1]

Morphew Murder Trial Hearings Continue Dec. 14 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

Dec 14, 2021

The discovery and sanctions hearings related to the Barry Morphew murder trial will continue at 1:00 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 14 in 11th District Court at 142 Crestone Ave. in Salida, presided over by District Judge Patrick Murphy. The hearing was necessitated because the Nov. 9 hearing ran much longer than anticipated, at which time the defense motions related to discovery and sanctions, including claims of unwarranted publicity during the discovery period, were not able to be completed.

[..]

During the four-hour-long Nov. 9 hearing, the defense lawyers referenced pretrial publicity and failure to adequately provide information that might have shown that someone other than Morphew was responsible for the disappearance and assumed murder of Morphew’s wife Suzanne. This evidence, they claim, wasn’t presented by the defense at pretrial hearings.

[..]

The judge questioned why special agents for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as well as former Deputy District Attorney Jeff Lindsey were being called saying, “Why are they being called as witnesses? I’m in the dark on this motion.”

[..]

Defense Attorney Eaton noted that their request to speak with Lindsey, as well as the special agents, had to do with information that they say was known by the prosecution during the discovery phase, but was not presented or revealed at that time.

[..]

The documents also show differences between the defense and the prosecution about DNA collected on the glovebox of Suzanne Morphew’s Range Rover.

[..]

While highly technical, the prosecution says it’s only a partial match and inconclusive, while the defense says the DNA belongs to a sex offender who lives in Prescott, Arizona. The defense is accusing the prosecution of sitting on the information, and not following up on this potential DNA lead.

[..]

Judge Murphy denied the defense request to sequester the witnesses and pointed out that the new prosecution teams deserve time to get up to speed.

[..]

Prosecutor Hobart [Hurlbert]pointed out that “the restraining order is for any communications, this court has ordered and the rules state you don’t need to write anything down unless it relates to the restraining order….this is such a different turn from their other motions.”

[..]

“Ms. Eaton I’m curious about your response,” said Murphy. “Your motion was filed three months ago, and it was NOT heard for the reasons discussed in this motion. It doesn’t contain what you spoke of earlier – it’s a different issue. This is a surprise.”

[..]

“The certificate said we gave discovery to defense … I object,” responded the prosecution. “We never perpetrated a fraud upon this court.”

“So your point is that discovery was produced late, or not complete, or the new material wasn’t highlighted .. .is that what we are addressing in today’s hearing?” asked Murphy, trying to clarify the concern.

“No, it’s their violation of the constitution,” she responded.

“So have we moved past the emails?” responded Murphy.

[..]

The judge went on to quash the subpoena request regarding Mr. Lindsey, saying that “I’m going to deny the request … if the questions are in work product, he can object….let’s just get this on the record.”

[..]

For the remainder of the hearing, the defense called Agent Megan Duge to testify on DNA evidence, as well as notes made by Analyst Caitlin Rogers about what has been tested or not tested and what a partial from a keyboard search meant.

[..]

Agent Joe Cahill, confirmed that a detective from the Tempe, AZ Police Dept. had reached out to them about the Chaffee County Morphew case before they got a CBI report back, but that delays in getting info back is not uncommon.

Murphy reminded defense that “you’re trying to link this testimony to what is at hand which is a discovery violation.” Eaton responded that “… I’m establishing all the communications that we didn’t have with Agent Cahill.”

[..]

The judge asked whether that was in the communications log and how the defense might know which conversations were recorded or reported?

The prosecution pointed out that while the defense doesn’t like the judge’s order, “Your order said we didn’t have to write everything down.

[..]

“She got that info before the last hearing and this court said fine.”

Murphy said he would apply Rule 16, which says that in this situation, there were a lot of discussions “that were more questions, hypotheticals, asking what did it mean when there was a match? One was more substantive; the Aug. 20 with Lindsey, Mark [Jospeh] Cahill; they walked through a CODIS 1010 and the hierarchy of what a keyboard match was.”

[..]

“It probably would have helped if we had had that….. what does it mean if there was a CODIS match [CODIS is the acronym for the Combined DNA Index System] – when I made my ruling,” he continued. “I focused a lot on this that there was this CODIS match, the prosecution didn’t present much evidence to me that they didn’t do that. The fundamental thing is you are trying to say that every time there is a contact that a report needs to be written between law enforcement and this lab.”

Eytan attempted to respond with a lengthy answer and Murphy stopped her saying, “We’re not doing speeches,” but allowed her to get to her point; which was that defense believes there are meetings going on for which there are no notes.

The prosecution responded by saying, “They had the info, judge. If there hadn’t been this computer glitch they would have gotten this as well.

[..]

Asked about the possible Tempe, AZ connection and whether reports were filed after an Oct. 2 and Oct. 6 conversation about DNA, the judge reminded the defense that “What we have bumped into is that the motion got filed in August and it was much more general than the topics today.” He indicated that if Eaton was able to determine which ones she didn’t get, that the prosecution would be asked to provide them.

[..]

Moving to a defense motion to hold Chaffee County and Sheriff John Speeze in contempt, he denied the motion procedurally.

Referencing the defense motion regarding pretrial publicity, he noted that “the court can enforce its own orders, it doesn’t always have to go through contempt. Then we have the issue of who prosecutes or hears the contempt – it’s a wheel within a wheel. If you refile it with an affidavit, the allegations in there are included in paragraph 2 – it’s just one sentence. I’d require a lot more detail in the motion to issue a contempt citation.”

[..]

Murphy reminded the courtroom that Rule 55 came into effect just as the case began. “If you haven’t read it – there is a presumption that court records are public … if you are filing something that you want protected, notify the clerk as to what needs to be protected/redacted. Once it is redacted, then it is released to the public. If you file something as suppressed, that means only the parties and court can see it. If you file something as suppressed, you have to file a separate redaction motion.”

 

[BDAJAG]

Defense Atty will rip this apart- sheath could have been in a piece of clothing for years before it came out in the dryer, likewise the sheath could have been in the dryer for years before LE discovered it. It could be from/for something else for someone else that BM wasn't aware of- daughters, wife etc.. They can't link it to the drug and they can't link it to the time and they can't link it to the person (BM). I am 100% convinced it is linked to all those things, but there isn't any evidence that it is and a good atty will make sure everybody knows that.

But...there is...
It's circumstantial.
And it's unbroken.
[&, I'd aver, "carbon-steel-linked"

 

[Seattle1]

The DNA was meaningless, although the defense knew about it in discovery.

We learned that the defense totally misrepresented what happened with Cahill. He was a mess on the stand, and others within CBI, Stanley, Lindsey, and Cahill himself agreed with that.

They also lied about the reason he was sent to the drug unit, which turned out to have already been in the works for some time.

What is so obvious here is that after the defense failed to bamboozle Judge Murphy at the 11/9 and 12/14 Discovery motions where Cahill was left untouched, the defense renewed the allegations previously shut down by Judge Murphy but successfully sold to Lama.

Then under the same false assumptions, the Court essentially axed the only two DNA prosecution experts (Duge and Rogers)!

MOO

 

[MassGuy]

It might help if prosecution has actually done any work to properly debunk it.

(Instead of obscuring it and thinking defense won't pounce.)

They investigated all those matches, and were able to rule them out. They did that because they knew the defense would try to connect the vehicle to a third party, despite that being ridiculous beyond belief.

First you have to separate Barry, which is impossible. Then you have to connect Suzanne's vehicle to a kidnapping, which makes no sense in any scenario.

Her keys, wallet, and cash were left, and this weak sample was found on the glovebox.

Anyone who knows the first thing about touch DNA, knows this isn't merely a leap; it's lunacy.