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

[K9Enzo]

^^ rsbm

Actually, the prosecution gave up the dog handler as their witness in advance (the prosecution confessed the motion prohibiting Spence from being qualified as an expert witness).

After learning the prosecution would not be using the dog handler, the defense pounced and wants to call the dog handler as a witness (not as expert) and the Court granted this to the defense. And we saw a preview of how the defense will use him -- Iris taking his words out of context and asserting SM's scent was in the woods where the bike was recovered ...

ETA: The defense preview as described by LS recap video.

It’s a clever witness flip by the Defense. It sounds like some weakness were exposed during his testimony (report, no report, but wasn’t asked, I didn’t write it, those weren’t my exact words, frustration on the stand). IMO

 

[fcavanaugh]

BBM
On another forum a poster indicated it was indeed possible - they mentioned :
Rule 4.1 - Interlocutory Appeals in Criminal Cases [Effective until July 1, 2022]
Ianal so maybe someone else will weigh in - it just seemed your question was overlooked so I thought I’d jump in IMO

Thank you @waldojabba, good to know and much appreciated!
Now, off to read…

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[jakat]

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?

Yes, she'll be up for an Academy Award next year for Most Dramatic in a real life murder story about a so-called man who hunted his wife down the way he hunted down chipmunks, squirrels, turkeys, deer, elk, bears and mountain lions with a tranquilizer gun.
JMO

 

[Diddian]

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

Agreed. And that call after supper on a Sunday night was on MOTHER'S DAY. So, the K9 handler may have interrupted his own celebration plans with his wife and children to look for SM. After all, not all husband's have the attitude that the occasion doesn't merit their attention "because it's not husband's day."

Can I just say that it has ALWAYS bothered me that SM was left alone on Mother's Day weekend. She may have selflessly encouraged everyone to do their own thing, but even so it just seems to this observer like her whole family was perfectly satisfied with SM occupying bottom rung, even on the weekend when so many are putting their mother's on a pedestal for a day in recognition of all their mom/wife does for them and their family and even after SM had survived cancer yet again.

ETA: And BM knew his own mother considered Mother's Day important enough that he called her early that day to express his Mother's Day wishes. SM didn't warrant a call until much later. But we all know THAT was just part of the performance for LE.

 

[jakat]

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

 

[Trebor5591]

This is how I see it. It is my merely opinions and speculations based upon facts of this case.
In Suzanne's last proof of life photo, she was not drunk from wine or beer. She was intoxicated from the unconditional love she was receiving from JL.
.

IMO, the less the prosecution mentions the fact that the victim, a married woman with children, was having an affair with a married man (who had a wife and children) the better off the prosecution will be. No one deserves to die because they are cheating, but that fact will be part of the equation the jury will consider, and the less it is brought into evidence, the better off the prosecution will be, if they want a conviction. MOO

 

[Skigh]

Surely

IMO, the less the prosecution mentions the fact that the victim, a married woman with children, was having an affair with a married man (who had a wife and children) the better off the prosecution will be. No one deserves to die because they are cheating, but that fact will be part of the equation the jury will consider, and the less it is brought into evidence, the better off the prosecution will be, if they want a conviction. MOO

Absolutely incredible that you feel that way. We are living in 2022 not 1922.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

IMO, the less the prosecution mentions the fact that the victim, a married woman with children, was having an affair with a married man (who had a wife and children) the better off the prosecution will be. No one deserves to die because they are cheating, but that fact will be part of the equation the jury will consider, and the less it is brought into evidence, the better off the prosecution will be, if they want a conviction. MOO

Personally I sincerely hope a jury will bring a verdict based on evidence relevant to Suzanne being murdered rather than what I would consider to be a judgemental victim-blaming opinion.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

It’s a clever witness flip by the Defense. It sounds like some weakness were exposed during his testimony (report, no report, but wasn’t asked, I didn’t write it, those weren’t my exact words, frustration on the stand). IMO

But on cross, won’t the prosecutor simply ask the handler if the K9 ever alerted to Suzanne’s scent? The handler then says, “No, the dog never alerted to the scent of Suzanne.” How is that a help to the defense?

 

[Aloe]

Agreed. And that call after supper on a Sunday night was on MOTHER'S DAY. So, the K9 handler may have interrupted his own celebration plans with his wife and children to look for SM. After all, not all husband's have the attitude that the occasion doesn't merit their attention "because it's not husband's day."

Can I just say that it has ALWAYS bothered me that SM was left alone on Mother's Day weekend. She may have selflessly encouraged everyone to do their own thing, but even so it just seems to this observer like her whole family was perfectly satisfied with SM occupying bottom rung, even on the weekend when so many are putting their mother's on a pedestal for a day in recognition of all their mom/wife does for them and their family and even after SM had survived cancer yet again.

ETA: And BM knew his own mother considered Mother's Day important enough that he called her early that day to express his Mother's Day wishes. SM didn't warrant a call until much later. But we all know THAT was just part of the performance for LE.

.

BBM Yes. That call. It has a gnawing affect (for me). IMO

 

[MrsWatson]

IMO, the less the prosecution mentions the fact that the victim, a married woman with children, was having an affair with a married man (who had a wife and children) the better off the prosecution will be. No one deserves to die because they are cheating, but that fact will be part of the equation the jury will consider, and the less it is brought into evidence, the better off the prosecution will be, if they want a conviction. MOO

The jury will also consider that an affair can be a big motive for murder of one's spouse: If I can't have her, no one will.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

The jury will also consider that an affair can be a big motive for murder of one's spouse: If I can't have her, no one will.

Not of course that Barry knew about the affair. He just liked a game of Cherchez le Jeff down by the river at night.

 

[Skigh]

Not of course that Barry knew about the affair. He just liked a game of Cherchez le Jeff down by the river at night.

Is that a more adult version of his cherchez le mort turkey at lunch time?

 

[waldojabba]

But on cross, won’t the prosecutor simply ask the handler if the K9 ever alerted to Suzanne’s scent? The handler then says, “No, the dog never alerted to the scent of Suzanne.” How is that a help to the defense?

My assumption would be, the presumption is that Iris will totally try and totally discredit the
handlers expertise and diminish his credibility She will try and present him as as just a poser with a untrained dog that has no standing.

 

[Seattle1]

But on cross, won’t the prosecutor simply ask the handler if the K9 ever alerted to Suzanne’s scent? The handler then says, “No, the dog never alerted to the scent of Suzanne.” How is that a help to the defense?

From the time that CCSO received the call that SM allegedly went out on a bike ride and never returned home, CCSO rallied the troops where officers worked all through the night in search of SM.

One of the calls by CCSO was to the Dept of Corrections dog handler, Spence, who joined the search with his canine on Sunday evening. This would be Spence's first and only search conducted for SM.

The benefit to the defense is that even after the prosecution began the hearing by confessing to the defense motion to block Spense as an expert witness for the prosecution, Judge Lama allowed Spence to be questioned at the hearing on Wednesday where defense Attorney Iris E. got the witness to describe how the dog seemed to be following a scent downhill until the dog reached a log.

According to reporter LS (YT recap), the defense got Spence to confirm the strength and length of the dog pull as similar to canine behavior detecting an air scent (not to be confused with an actual alert).

What followed was Spence trying to correct the defense that the dog did NOT alert-- but by that time, the defense had him on record describing canine behavior beneficial to BM not staging the bike.

What I took from this was the trial preview where the defense calls Spense as a witness and asks him to read from his transcript... In other words, anything to suggest their client did NOT stage the bike. MOO

Spence said when the search began near where Suzanne Morphew’s mountain bike had been found off the roadway, the dog was given a scent from a piece of her clothing. He said the dog seemed to be following a scent downhill until he reached a log. Spence said he took the dog to the edge of the river but nothing was found. He said if there had been a scent the dog would not have stopped and would have gone into the water. Spence said the dog also failed to find any scent of the woman on the other side of the river.

It soon became apparent from Spence’s remarks that his testimony might prove more valuable to defense attorneys than to prosecutors.

That’s because the prosecution would be trying to show that Barry Morphew may have staged the mountain bike accident when his wife disappeared.

But the fact that the DOC dog initially found Suzanne Morphew’s scent that led towards the river could be valuable in defense of the case.

In the end Judge Lama said that while Spence would not be endorsed as a witness for the prosecution he would allow defense attorneys to call Spence during the trial.

More expert testimony blocked from Morphew trial

 

[waldojabba]

Surely



Absolutely incredible that you feel that way. We are living in 2022 not 1922.[

DBM

 

[charminglane]

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

Please, can we name something Skippy and Jif?

 

[Skigh]

My assumption would be, the presumption is that Iris will totally try and totally discredit the
handlers expertise and diminish his credibility She will try and present him as as just a poser with a untrained dog that has no standing.

Iris continually trying to discredit witnesses could well backfire on her. The jury could resent her belittling people doing jobs they hold in high regard.

 

[waldojabba]

My hope is the the jury will not be culturely primitive and intellectually backward

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

My assumption would be, the presumption is that Iris will totally try and totally discredit the
handlers expertise and diminish his credibility She will try and present him as as just a poser with a untrained dog that has no standing.

Yep, Iris will try to do that every witness who isn’t complimentary of Barry and his story. That strategy could backfire. We have a man, likely a Buena Vista resident, who works for DOC, left his home at night, on a Sunday, on a holiday, to drive to Salida to help find Suzanne.