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

[Seattle1]

Vet Not to Testify as Expert Witness?
@O.Incandenza sbm bbm Thx for your post. Agreeing in part.*
Vets had no firsthand involvement,
no direct contact w SM, not before or after her disappearance.

From info in AA, afaik -
- neither Vet administered BAM to human.
- no peer-reviewed lit, no controlled studies, no FDA investigational or trial studies, yadda yadda, re BAM use on humans, so there's no scientific basis on which Vet could base expert or professional opinion re BAM effects on humans.***
Even if the Vet had been allowed to speak as an expert witness, imo Vet's opinion about BAM effects on human would be inadmissible. Imo no scientific basis.
my2ct
___________________________
* Not sure exactly what part of BAM & dart info from AA, the prosecution wants to put on.
Per AA, LE interviewed two vet's w CO wildlife agency, familiar w BAM animal tranq/similar use on wildlife. Basically, if administered to a human, predicted that BAM would cause sedation, possibly death of human.
Not sure if or how it's relevant.

** These Vets had no firsthand involvement w SM
- did not administer BAM/similar drug to SM, by dart or otherwise.
- did not observe BM or anyone administer BAM/similar drug to SM.
- did not perform or assist in an autopsy on SM, did not run tox/drug tests, did not examine X-rays or scans done p.m., did not examine tissues p.m. under a scope, etc.

*** In AA, one vet said she read of one case where 1/100 of a dose (without specifying quantity - an ounce, gram; milligram, microgram?) was administered to a person.
One anecdote does not constitute scientific evidence.

Thanks for your informative post @al66pine.

I have a real problem with the logic they're using here to disqualify an expert (if they are citing no scientific studies as the basis).

First, I really wouldn't expect any investment in scientific research on using BAM tranq darts on humans but that doesn't mean that there are not anecdotal examples where humans have accidentally or intentionally been shot with tranquilizer dart/sedative that can't be referenced.

For example, what about the 2014 incident where a zookeeper was participating in an emergency drill when he was accidentally shot with a tranquilizer dart (drawn for a 400 lb gorilla). The unexpected reaction here was not the sedation but the allergic reaction to the anesthetic that nearly killed him!

The Rx used with darts would already have scientific data prior to receiving Govt approval. Reportedly, BM was in possession of (expired) BAM Deer Tranquilizer which is a combination of Butorphanol, Azaperone, and Medetomidine where the distributor provides the following:

Butorphanol (butorphanol tartrate) is a synthetically derived opioid agonist-antagonist analgesic of the phenanthrene series, with a potency of about four to seven times that of morphine. In the United States, it is a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) class IV controlled substance. Generally, there is minimal cardiopulmonary depression with its use compared with other opioids and, at lower doses, there is a dose-dependent effect on respiratory depression but then a ceiling is reached and no further respiratory depression occurs.4

Azaperone is a butyrophenone tranquilizer that causes tranquilization and sedation, antiemetic activity, reduced motor activity, and inhibition of CNS catecholamines. Azaperone has been used as a neuroleptic in horses, but some horses develop adverse reactions (eg, sweating, muscle tremors, panic reaction, and CNS excitement) and IV administration has resulted in significant arterial hypotension. Because of these effects, most clinicians avoid the use of this drug in equines.

Medetomidine (medetomidine hydrochloride), used alone and in combination with other drugs, has been shown to be useful for anesthesia and immobilization in zoo animals.1,4 Medetomidine is an α-2-adrenoreceptor agonist with sedative and analgesic properties. It is used by veterinarians as both a surgical anesthetic and analgesic. The pharmacological restraint and pain relief provided by medetomidine facilitates handling and aids in the conduct of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures.4

IMO, just reading the manufacturer's description above is sufficient to infer the possible reaction by a petite woman already taking certain other Rx.

And better yet -- I don't think it prejudicial for the Court to see a demo video of the product in use-- exactly as intended. (And wouldn't BM enjoy that)!

IMO, BM already opened the door for the jurors to learn what happens to a deer when he shot it with BAM!

I'm appalled that Judge Lama has opined that it would simply be too speculative to allow the prosecution to proceed only on a theory that a tranquilizer was used on Suzanne Morphew, and denied the Vet from giving evidence. MOO

BAM Deer Tranquilizer

Zoo: Keeper Accidentally Shot With Tranquilizer Was NOT In Gorilla Suit

ETA: It seems to me Judge Lama thinks the theory where BM used a BAM dart on SM is too speculative because the BAM was inside the garage and not the house??

 

[Skigh]

I think I'll call them Fang1 and Fang2. And the ducks are Huey, Dewey and Louie. Nice little chaps.

Could you prepare a space for 3 grinning Cheshire cats? I suggest an isolated spot so no one has to keep looking at them,especially the older one .

Could you also have a word with the other zoo keepers about tranquilizer guns ?

 

[mrjitty]

IMO, just reading the manufacturer's description above is sufficient to infer the possible reaction by a petite woman already taking certain other Rx.

And better yet -- I don't think it prejudicial for the Court to see a demo video of the product in use-- exactly as intended. (And wouldn't BM enjoy that)!

RSBM

I am assuming that info will be admissible, in terms of public domain info, about evidence recovered on site?

IMO, BM already opened the door for the jurors to learn what happens to a deer when he shot it with BAM!

I'm appalled that Judge Lama has opined that it would simply be too speculative to allow the prosecution to proceed only on a theory that a tranquilizer was used on Suzanne Morphew, and denied the Vet from giving evidence. MOO

BAM Deer Tranquilizer

Zoo: Keeper Accidentally Shot With Tranquilizer Was NOT In Gorilla Suit

ETA: It seems to me Judge Lama thinks the theory where BM used a BAM dart on SM is too speculative because the BAM was inside the garage and not the house??

As usual, it would be great to have the actual ruling and reasoning but I kind of understand the decision, if, as seems to me, the Judge is saying the witness cannot speculate on the use of such a dart on a human.

But I don't think the prosecution case needs this?

Surely the prosecution case is that he has murdered her and disposed of the body (only reasonable inference), and he did that precisely so we wouldn't know what happened.

But he did leave clues - and those clues help prove his guilt. i.e the dart cap, disposing of the tranq stuff, running around with a gun at the critical moment, allowing for a used cap to be found in the house ....

At least that is how I would argue it.

All that said, I don't see why the expert can't testify about human use, as surely the potential impacts are obvious and basic science?

 

[Pink2017]

Quite the teaser! Please do tell...

Tell us please?

 

[Kemug]

Could you prepare a space for 3 grinning Cheshire cats? I suggest an isolated spot so no one has to keep looking at them,especially the older one .
Could you also have a word with the other zoo keepers about tranquilizer guns ?

Done! Plus a couple of the other zoo keepers (I used to be the only one, but had to employ others as our zoo grew) - where was I? - oh yes, a couple of them are very keen to try out a tranq gun on the older (tom) cat. And who am I to deny them some fun?

 

[abams]

I have a real problem with the logic they're using here to disqualify an expert (if they are citing no scientific studies as the basis).

ETA: It seems to me Judge Lama thinks the theory where BM used a BAM dart on SM is too speculative because the BAM was inside the garage and not the house??

rsbm. It seems a logical decision imo. I don't think it has to do with the location of BM, though. No body so no autopsy, we have no conclusive evidence of a manner or cause of death in this case. And the only evidence of a tranq dart possibly being used is a cap/sheath, found in the dryer's lint capture, on which 2 DNA mixtures were found and BM's was excluded. Having an expert (and one with no expertise on humans at that) testify on the potential effects on a human is pretty speculative as such.

An aside, but I have no idea why they're running with the tranquilizer theory, jmo but it seems pretty weak in comparison with all the possible other means. At first the prosecution alleged a dart could be fired from the dangerous weapon, then admitted in court it couldn't, and according to reporters at this week's hearings, apparently now they're saying oh but with the power of duct tape is how you could make it all work.

edit: location of BAM or BM lol. Misread the post I was responding to

 

[HongKongPhooey]

rsbm. It seems a logical decision imo. I don't think it has to do with the location of BM, though. No body so no autopsy, we have no conclusive evidence of a manner or cause of death in this case. And the only evidence of a tranq dart possibly being used is a cap/sheath, found in the dryer's lint capture, on which 2 DNA mixtures were found and BM's was excluded. Having an expert (and one with no expertise on humans at that) testify on the potential effects on a human is pretty speculative as such.

An aside, but I have no idea why they're running with the tranquilizer theory, jmo but it seems pretty weak in comparison with all the possible other means. At first the prosecution alleged a dart could be fired from the dangerous weapon, then admitted in court it couldn't, and according to reporters at this week's hearings, apparently now they're saying oh but with the power of duct tape is how you could make it all work.

The tranquilliser has to be relevant due to a bizarre set of coincidences around it:

The sheath was found in the dryer
Barry had apparently washed and dried a pair of shorts identical to ones he was wearing
Barry admitted using tranquilliser on deer to remove their antlers (out of season)
Barry admitted disposing of something related to the tranquilliser the day after Suzanne disappears

Then we have the weird gun stuff, the random bullet..

JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

rsbm. It seems a logical decision imo. I don't think it has to do with the location of BM, though. No body so no autopsy, we have no conclusive evidence of a manner or cause of death in this case. And the only evidence of a tranq dart possibly being used is a cap/sheath, found in the dryer's lint capture, on which 2 DNA mixtures were found and BM's was excluded. Having an expert (and one with no expertise on humans at that) testify on the potential effects on a human is pretty speculative as such.

An aside, but I have no idea why they're running with the tranquilizer theory, jmo but it seems pretty weak in comparison with all the possible other means. At first the prosecution alleged a dart could be fired from the dangerous weapon, then admitted in court it couldn't, and according to reporters at this week's hearings, apparently now they're saying oh but with the power of duct tape is how you could make it all work.

edit: location of BAM or BM lol. Misread the post I was responding to

Didn’t they not find the drugs? The theory being that he tossed any remaining on the way to Broomfield? I thought the judge mentioned they can state what they found but since they found no drugs it would be speculation to have a vet talk about the drugs as well as the vet not being an expert on the drugs’ affect on humans. So I “heard” he was saying it was up to jurors to derive inferences from the allowed facts. So I agree with the judge on the vet. The underlying facts remain, they found a needle sheath, found unused supplies, the gun etc.

 

[DizzyB]

I can already hear IE pounding away in the courtroom-you can confirm that you are NOT an expert and you are unqualified to offer expert testimony regarding this, correct? Is IE usually the one cross examining or is it case by case, witness by witness?

 

[nodamselindistress]

Sounds like this new Deputy DA is just what the prosecution has been missing, gives me hope!

 

[fcavanaugh]

New attorney for the prosecution seems to be quite fiery. Lauren said he was very active and engaged, and complimented by the judge (he argued well, even though things didn't always go their way).

Prosecution met with the k-9 handler days before the hearing, and he still didn't mention the report. This thing was like a paragraph long, and there is another report submitted by a deputy that is already in evidence.

The dog didn't find any meaningful scent of Suzanne. The defense was trying to make it seem like the dog was actually on to something, but Spence was firm that there was no scent found and the dog did not commit to anything.

He was becoming frustrated with the defense and how they were characterizing what he was saying.

Barry was chuckling at some point during this.

RBBM
Chuckling during Wednesday’s court hearing?! Grinning every time he walks into court?! Joking and laughing with daughters’ in court during a break at an earlier hearing?! Meanwhile his wife and daughters’ Mother, whom he is accused of murdering, is crying out from her clandestine grave (that he put her in imo) to be found and brought home to her family for a proper burial. Unreal. The arrogance, disrespect and absolute gall of this man-child know no bounds. Personally I think he’s enjoying the control of knowing where SM is, and hurting her family members.
He’s absolutely grotesque.

On another note, glad to hear the new attorney is fiery, a much needed and definite plus for the prosecution team. Can’t wait to see them (hopefully/fingers crossed) bring BM down at trial.

Lastly, question for you or any of our WS legal eagles, can the prosecution challenge the Judge’s rulings on some of these motions to disqualify experts, etc. to a higher court i.e., the Colorado Supreme Court?
TIA.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[coastal]

Done! Plus a couple of the other zoo keepers (I used to be the only one, but had to employ others as our zoo grew) - where was I? - oh yes, a couple of them are very keen to try out a tranq gun on the older (tom) cat. And who am I to deny them some fun?

Also, Kemug, since Dr. (DVM Lisa) Wolfe won't be testifying at BM's murder trial, why not ask her to join the zoo? You could give her a nice title and a corner office (instead of a cage) and a sign-on-bonus tranq gun, pre-loaded for Bear...

MOO, and FYI:

Paper co-authored by Dr. Wolfe:

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/CWD/PDF/ResearchArticles/Feas_of_testcull.pdf

 

[K9Enzo]

In my opinion only, attorneys often don’t know what they don’t know when it comes to K9 handlers and their documentation that includes the reliability of their dog and field reports. It would have been so easy for the handler to say to the prosecution “Ma’am/Sir, I have my dogs maintenance logs, certs, vet records, training, field reports, etc. for you to review and I can speak to all of it.

 

[Kemug]

Also, Kemug, since Dr. (DVM Lisa) Wolfe won't be testifying at BM's murder trial, why not ask her to join the zoo? You could give her a nice title and a corner office (instead of a cage) and a sign-on-bonus tranq gun, pre-loaded for Bear...

RSBM
What a brilliant idea! We often need a vet, especially now that one of our zookeepers has been regularly shooting at the male Cheshire cat. Poor old Tom has been wounded heaps of times, in fact he has even stopped grinning, which is a relief.

 

[K9Enzo]

According to LS she observed BM and daughters smirking when the K9 handler was being questioned by Defense. I have a feeling that this handler is lackadaisical about record keeping and not court strong, which is a HUGE rub of mine, however, he was out there at the request of LE searching for YOUR mom who no one knew if she was severely injured waiting for a rescue or god knows what. He probably got a call after supper on a Sunday night and he responded with urgency. That observation from LS made me a bit cranky. IMO

 

[susiQ]

No man who has lost his wife of so many years would have any inclination to chuckle inside the courtroom where he is being tried for murder.

No man who professes his innocence walks into the same courtroom with his arm Candy in tow, aware of all of the lies he told that a good portion of the public knows about.

So true. Me thinks IE and DN have misread how the public will perceive this and overplayed their hand. So staged and choreographed. The whole thing comes off as perverse, on a number of levels I might add. You nailed it with the “Candy in tow.” We have all come to understand the dysfunction of this family unit and the one causing it all is still there grinning like the Cheshire Cat. As angry as this production makes me, I do have some empathy for the girls as putting on a show is all they know. I hope there’s some money left over for them so they can get the counselling they’ll need to break free of the dysfunction. JMHO

 

[susiQ]

According to LS she observed BM and daughters smirking when the K9 handler was being questioned by Defense. I have a feeling that this handler is lackadaisical about record keeping and not court strong, which is a HUGE rub of mine, however, he was out there at the request of LE searching for YOUR mom who no one knew if she was severely injured waiting for a rescue or god knows what. He probably got a call after supper on a Sunday night and he responded with urgency. That observation from LS made me a bit cranky. IMO

Yes, Bare may have been smirking at the K9 handler’s relaxed approach to begin with, but in the end, the joke was on Bare and his defence. IE’s lame attempt at trying to get on the record that Roscoe was “alerting” was a major fail! Spence made very clear that his dog was NOT alerting, he was searching for Suzanne’s scent and he couldn’t find it. Her attempt at twisting his words also annoyed him enough that LS picked up on it. Looks good on IE for even thinking this tactic would benefit her case. JMO

 

[NervousNellie]

In my opinion only, attorneys often don’t know what they don’t know when it comes to K9 handlers and their documentation that includes the reliability of their dog and field reports. It would have been so easy for the handler to say to the prosecution “Ma’am/Sir, I have my dogs maintenance logs, certs, vet records, training, field reports, etc. for you to review and I can speak to all of it.

BBM
Yes! When I first read that the dog handler said he didn't turn in a report because no one asked for it I was so confused. Surely it's his responsibility to report on his findings without having to be asked!

 

[waldojabba]

Regarding the Prosecution never reeiving the dog handler's report:

AFAIK/IMO from Lauren’s live last night ( posted up thread)
Roscoe is the dog and the handler is Mr Spence.
Mr Spence works for the DOC and uses the dog to track prisoners. He hires out his tracking services on the side
Roscoe is a trailing dog not a cadaver dog

Handler and dog were at Puma Path May 10th around 9pm
Mr Spence was testifying from memory.
He wrote a “report” that is one paragraph on his personal computer , also from memory, as he does not take notes at the scene
Roscoe was given Suzanne’s shirt to sniff. Bottomline: at no time did the dog find Suzanne’s scent
Iris pressed Mr Spence to say otherwise but the handler was unequivocal that the dog was just searching and not alerting

The new DA Grant met with Mr Spence sometime before the hearing to go over the deputy’s report concerning the dog search. Grant even suggested to Mr Spence, that
it would be a heck of a lot easier if Mr Spence had a report of his own vs using the deputies report. Mr Spence never said he had a report the whole time Grant was discussing the deputy's report with him. It seems Iris/defense also called the handler on the phone March 25th. I think D asked him if he had a report and he said yes.
It also seemed that D asked him if he gave it to the P and he said no they never asked him for it. For some reason I was not clear about, it seems the handler ended the conversation with D by hanging up on them.

I guess the handler does not work with LE frequently and had no idea he was supposed to gave them a report. Grant, from his meeting with the handler and their conversation assumed if there was a report the handler would have spoken up to him.

SO IMO I am glad to know that this was not the huge prosecution CF it seemed to be from the initial tweets
The handler is sending his report/paragraph to the P who will hand it over to the D within the week

 

[Megnut]

I know it wasn't LE Day or Everyone's Day, but just think how many people stepped up on Mother's Day to look for Suzanne. How many people stepped away from their own Mother's Days to be there... for whom Mother's Day will never be the same.

I'm not sure there can ever be justice for Suzanne.

But I sure hope justice is swift when it finally shows up for the man who murdered her.

JMO