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

[Skigh]

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

The defence will be trying their very best to try and find jurors who they think possess those credentials.

I think they could be easily fooled!

 

[waldojabba]

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

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

I think in Lauren’s live there was further discussion about the “air” scent. The handler described that the scent for the shirt could have easily traveled with a breeze in the air leading the dog to the creek. That the dog was merely searching. I think there was then talk about air currents that night etc

IMO It seems the handler on cross with the prosecution may be strong enough to push back on the D’s narrative. In my mind how are you going to quantify a random air current to a normal person on the jury without their eyes glazing over.

The handler also works within the prison system and I understand many in Canon City are employed by the prisons also.
IMO Could be a delicate balance for the D !

 

[Seattle1]

I think in Lauren’s live there was further discussion about the “air” scent. The handler described that the scent for the shirt could have easily traveled with a breeze in the air leading the dog to the creek. That the dog was merely searching. I think there was then talk about air currents that night etc

IMO It seems the handler on cross with the prosecution may be strong enough to push back on the D’s narrative. In my mind how are you going to quantify a random air current to a normal person on the jury without their eyes glazing over.

The handler also works within the prison system and I understand many in Canon City are employed by the prisons also.
IMO Could be a delicate balance for the D !

I absolutely agree!

My point being that had Judge Lama not allowed Spence to be questioned /testify after the prosecution confessed the defense motion not to use Spence (the dog handler), we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[MrsWatson]

The dog handler could backfire spectacularly on the defense, especially if they come across as trying to bully the guy. I think the most notable thing about his report is that there wasn't anything to report. If there had been, it would have been presented at the prelim because the dog handler and LE would obviously know if the dog had a hit.

 

[susiQ]

The defence will be trying their very best to try and find jurors who they think possess those credentials.

I think they could be easily fooled!

But……the prosecution will be looking for the exact opposite! How I wish we could sit in and watch the process. Better yet, I wish we could pick them !

 

[Momofthreeboys]

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.

If defense uses him as a witness they wouldn’t do that and I thought it was said prosecution was no longer going to use him as a witness?

 

[susiQ]

If defense uses him as a witness they wouldn’t do that and I thought it was said prosecution was no longer going to use him as a witness?

The prosecution did say that, but the judge granted that the defence may use him if they so choose.

The defence may not “do that” to him again if they use him, but I don’t think it would be a good idea. Spence will not have forgotten how they tried to manipulate his words and perhaps it left a foul taste in his mouth. It would be best if IE left it alone. IMHO.

 

[nodamselindistress]

This whole issue is quite frustrating, we are relying on reporters' interpretations of the witness (Mr Spence) reactions to IE, we can't know for sure exactly what happened other than he is not qualified as an expert.

Sounds to me like this is this new direction the defense is going to take, the dog picked up SMs scent, she disappeared after the bike ride....it is IMHO their best hope. Way better than the SODDI CODIS DNA stuff they were spouting earlier.

 

[Seattle1]

I've recently made some posts referring to BM using an Rx dart to incapacitate SM.

For clarification purposes, I think it was a mistake to use the term dart since I think it implies BM used a dart gun to fire the tranquilizer at SM.

I believe the correct description should be Rx needle sheath since that was the actual evidence found inside of the dryer. I think the same would easily fit inside BM's pocket (or even the bedsheet).

Lastly, I never believed a dart gun was involved here and if SM was injected with an anesthetic, it was by BM jabbing SM, and not by the firing of a dart gun.

I apologize for any miscommunication in my earlier posts.

 

[Seattle1]

dbm

 

[Seattle1]

If defense uses him as a witness they wouldn’t do that and I thought it was said prosecution was no longer going to use him as a witness?

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

^^rsbm

 

[justtrish]

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

Well this sure clears up a lot.

 

[Seattle1]

The handler is sending his report/paragraph to the P who will hand it over to the D within the week

^^rsbm

Thanks, @wldojabba for this important nugget!

I assumed that the report would not be admissible since the very failure of the prosecution to make an inquiry for the report and share it with the defense is the reason why the Court granted the defense motion to deny Mr. Spense as a prosecution expert witness! (Rule 16 Discovery violation).

 

[al66pine]

SM. Left Alone Most of Mo-Day?

... 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,...

@Diddian Thx for your post, w thoughts about (possibly selfish fam members?) leaving a Mom alone on that day.

Many here expressed that, esp'ly early on. As the gen'ly assumed/perceived Morphews-as-a-Perfect Family idea faded, a few posters noted that some Moms would prefer to have a day of solitude instead of traditional MD rituals.

Was SM looking forward to stretches of time online w Jeff L that specific weekend? I imagine a woman in SM's position may have felt relieved, anticipating that BM would not barge in unexpectedly to interrupt her communications w Jeff.

Personally IDK, just thinking aloud. my2ct.

 

[justtrish]

Personally, I think the tranquilizer gun theory is so bizarre, so unbelievable, that it makes the prosecution look like they don't know what they are doing, and so they are desperately clutching at straws.

I did an internet search and was unable to find a single murder where the victim was first tranquilized with a tranquilizer gun. Not a single one.

If Barry was experienced with using a tranquillizer gun, he would know that a darted subject can take up to 5-10 minutes before the drugs take effect. Also, the drugs used, probably Azaperone, are controlled substances and would require a prescription to procure.

So I agree with you, if they want a conviction, I suggest they drop the tranquilizer gun theory.

I did my best to come up with a scenario where he used a Tranquilizer gun and here it is: He comes home, she is sunning herself in the back yard, texting the guy she is having an affair with. He shoots her with the tranquilizer gun, she drops her phone and bolts upstairs and locks herself in her bedroom. He follows and forces entry, cracking the door frame.....But this doesn't work, because she would use her bedroom phone to call for help, assuming she had a bedroom landline. So this is not really realistic, and I think the prosecution should drop the tranquilizer gun theory, if they want a conviction.

I think this is unique though because Barry does own and use tranquillizer darts for deer. Most people probably don't own these or use them, heck before this case I didn't even know a person could own and use tranquillizers for things. Maybe Barry had this tranquillizer in his garage on the work bench ready in case deer strolled through and in his fit of rage did grab it being something close and handy and ready to go?

The way the phone bounced around, I have thought he may have ran around back and she went in through that door and locked it, he ran back around the house and through the garage to get into the house and grabbed it on the way. He gets to her door and busts it in. I don't know if she would have had time to call for help.

 

[BDAJAG]

Or maybe he made the connection but is pushing the prosecution into a defensive posture? I'm afraid there are too many defense attorneys in this case. One being the judge. Maybe the prelim leaning in favor of the DA's case as a matter of law is now creating a complicated prosecution due to the evidence being very good but highly circumstantial?

Both sides searching for a single smoking gun but having none seems to make the judge extremely cautious. IANAL but undermining a case by excluding experts (who are obviously subject to cross) seems like a denial of justice. Everyone involved has known from the start it is a circumstantial case.

To now want it become a different kind of case and be unable to make logical inferences with witness expertise is a miscarriage of justice in the eyes of at least one layperson (me).

JMO

<vr C bm for focus ^supra.^>

Re.
"...a single smoking gun..."
I know it's redundant, but <imo> there exist two such whiffers:

• (1) the engagement compressed carbon 'iceberg', and
• (2) the vow-forsaken wedding band.

Either or both I am convinced remain in the accused's possession/control; he knows these are 'killers' if either are successfully traced.
[Aside: Pretty sure E&N have concerns in this regard. But if I correctly recall my ethics readings on the dilemmas arising for counsel where the client incontrovertibly discloses his guilt , I'm also pretty sure they'd quickly cut him off if he tried to bring up the subject. But then again, IANAPL ]

IMO, this accused did not dispose of Suzanne with these rings remaining on her person.
The diamond, she likely removed before showering, and it would have been in plain view for quick snatching;
the band, perhaps not so, but - show of hands re. Barry's grisliness quotient / potential? - not removed in situ while still in the house.

Sooo... now what,, if anything?...

IMO, the prosecution HAS to brass matters out out ASAP:

• seeking search warrants-out-the-gazebo, relating to everything/everyone our accused has even been near since being set at liberty, as well as ...
• immediately seeking a continuance, [or even dismissal if w/o prejudice], ..." as the prospect of new evidence {ring(s)-related} is considered certain, but will, your Honor, take time to educe/adduce.*.."
• {CUE: Defense in opposition screams"Speedy Bloody Trial!!"<dum-dum-dum-dumb / dum-dum-dumb!>
• (1) Their client remains free, and
• (2) they've shown not a jot of concern thus far about moving ahead briskly. In fact, au contraire, totalement!}

Now,...
... should Lama, J. find fault with this*, then that whispering of wings that just brushed your ear was nothing more than my throwing my arms into the air..

​

 

[BDAJAG]

Post of the Day?
@abams sbm Thx for your post making my day.
"...with the power of duct tape" it could work.

Borrowing a phrase from Homer Simpson -
"Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"
- and using a bit of literary license:
"Duct tape, is there anything it can't do?"

Duh-oh!
​

 

[justtrish]

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.

A man who also was looking for an alive Suzanne that "wrecked her bike". I would think ANY possible tracking the dog did would have been followed up on and thoroughly explored. Nobody is going to leave home on Mother's Day to go search for a missing woman to then decide not to tell anyone the dog followed her scent to the river and disappeared. This was a few hours in and likely only the first officer on the scene and maybe the few other people could have been side eyeing Barry.. the rest showing up to search and offer their resources are looking for Suzanne who they think wandered off after maybe getting hurt during a bike wreck. There was no conspiracy then to create this other story. That would be what they are suggesting for this man to come search with his dog and then not tell anyone the dog found her scent. Makes no sense.

 

[PaulaDC]

Speaking of medication, I wonder what happened to the prescription SM picked up prior to her death. Iirc it too is missing along with the phone, charger, towel and journal, right? I can understand him getting rid of the other stuff (possibly used the charger to strangle her) but why ditch the medication? I wonder what the medication was? Was it a narcotic? You can sell that stuff! And, he did know a lot of “meth heads.”But if not, why bother getting rid of it?

Maybe there was more to the arguments than we know. It usually takes a user to blame another for using. It could have started out innocent and he just needed a few....then a few more. It's so very odd isn't it. moo

 

[Seattle1]

SM. Left Alone Most of Mo-Day?
@Diddian Thx for your post, w thoughts about (possibly selfish fam members?) leaving a Mom alone on that day.

Many here expressed that, esp'ly early on. As the gen'ly assumed/perceived Morphews-as-a-Perfect Family idea faded, a few posters noted that some Moms would prefer to have a day of solitude instead of traditional MD rituals.

Was SM looking forward to stretches of time online w Jeff L that specific weekend? I imagine a woman in SM's position may have felt relieved, anticipating that BM would not barge in unexpectedly to interrupt her communications w Jeff. Personally IDK, just thinking aloud. my2ct.

I think it was when Judge Murphy chose to speak on this subject that I accepted that he was probably speaking for the majority here (including the jurors) when he offered that he found it odd that BM would choose to travel on Sunday to a location he was prohibited from working at, essentially spend the day in his hotel room, all while SM was left home alone on Mother's Day.

IMO, regardless of having a secret lover, I think SM already enjoyed a considerable amount of solitude and/or privacy in Maysville. Given her hours of solitude every week, it doesn't follow that SM would also want to sacrifice the one day out of the year set aside to celebrate Mothers for a day of private time.

Based on JL's texts, it seemed to me that he also expected SM to be engaged with her own family on Sunday. As a married father of six children, I don't think he expected any privacy hours on Mother's Day himself.

I also don't think SM would ever give up an opportunity to spend time with her daughters, and also believe she truly expected them to be home by Sunday.

(Whether or not they intended to arrive home before midnight is another question). MOO