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

[Momofthreeboys]

In other words, that vast conspiracy that the defence set about creating pre-trial amounts to nothing.

The RR sat there. No out of state sex offender was in there.

that portion of the judges ruling related to the car data - not the DNA in the vehicle from page 17: The Court finds, as it relates to the Range Rover data, that while the People have been “dilatory” in providing the data to the defense, the Court does not find said material is exculpatory (i.e., Brady material) at this juncture.

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder if defense will call any that prosecution does not? I would guess they absolutely will be calling Doug Spence now that we know the dog did scent near the bike scene.

^^bbm

This is not true and it's been linked numerous times.

For your convenience, be advised as follows:

He [Doug Spence] 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.

More expert testimony blocked from Morphew trial

The judge also ruled that Doug Spence, a K9 handler will not take the stand in the trial either. The K9 from the Department of Corrections was used on May 10 when Suzanne was reported missing to sniff out the area where Suzanne’s bike was found. The K9 did not pick up on a scent near County Road 225 and Highway 50. This was the only day this dog was used in the investigation.

Multiple witnesses won’t be able to testify as experts in Morphew murder trial | FOX21 News Colorado

 

[waldojabba]

We know what Spence testified to. He did not say what you are saying he said.

I believe Spence was referring to the “air scent” from the SM’s clothing that got carried down to the river. This is what the dog was following. Sounds like it’s being taken out of context. Shocker

 

[MassGuy]

I believe Spence was referring to the “air scent” from the SM’s clothing that got carried down to the river. This is what the dog was following. Sounds like it’s being taken out of context. Shocker

The same people who will point to this situation has proof of the bike ride, will conveniently ignore the multiple cadaver dog hits on Barry's bobcat.

For the record, I'm ignoring the dog stuff, as it is unsupported by other evidence.

The bike ride narrative is destroyed by Suzanne's cell phone (and multiple other things), while the cadaver dog hits are unsupported by the bobcat sim data.

 

[Nikynoo]

The same people who will point to this situation has proof of the bike ride, will conveniently ignore the multiple cadaver dog hits on Barry's bobcat.

For the record, I'm ignoring the dog stuff, as it is unsupported by other evidence.

But is it not supported by the bodycams of attending LE?

 

[MassGuy]

But is it not supported by the bodycams of attending LE?

Any dog evidence is not only unsupported by other evidence, it is directly refuted by it.

 

[Diddian]

<modsnip - quoted post removed due to no link>
No, court transcripts have not been made available and that has been a problem. Also, hearings are not presented live via webcam or any kind of feed, so there is no "in the moment" reporting occurring.

Journalists attend the hearings, are not permitted electronics while there*, cannot leave to update their reporting of events inside and reenter, and must report later, from their handwritten notes.

It's like relying upon news by pony express when better technologies for keeping the public informed are readily available and reasonable people are left wondering why.

So, did the judge rely upon assertions by the defense in their motion for that finding of fact rather than upon the court transcript? I don't know, but Lauren Scharf attended the hearings and she reported contrary to the judge's Finding of Fact.

Multiple witnesses won’t be able to testify as experts in Morphew murder trial | FOX21 News Colorado

The judge also ruled that Doug Spence, a K9 handler will not take the stand in the trial either. The K9 from the Department of Corrections was used on May 10 when Suzanne was reported missing to sniff out the area where Suzanne’s bike was found. The K9 did not pick up on a scent near County Road 225 and Highway 50. This was the only day this dog was used in the investigation.​

*The Court's disallowance of electronics occurred after a member of the defense team reported that someone was using their electronic device to stream live from the courtroom. When that assertion was later found to be false, the disallowance of electronics was nevertheless continued.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

In other words, that vast conspiracy that the defence set about creating pre-trial amounts to nothing.

The RR sat there. No out of state sex offender was in there.

that portion of the judges ruling related to the car data - not the DNA in the vehicle from page 17: The Court finds, as it relates to the Range Rover data, that while the People have been “dilatory” in providing the data to the defense, the Court does not find said material is exculpatory (i.e., Brady material) at this juncture.

The court referred to Suzanne's bike and car as the 'crime scene' in that document, insight to Judge Lama's thoughts maybe?

Can defense use that as a motion to request recusal on grounds of bias or something like that?
Apologies if the question is stupid, just seems like something Iris would do if possible

moo

I'm thinking that since it's never been disproved then it stands as a potential crime scene. There's no real reason in my mind for defense to do anything else except get prepared for trial.

^^bbm

This is not true and it's been linked numerous times.

For your convenience, be advised as follows:

He [Doug Spence] 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.

More expert testimony blocked from Morphew trial

The judge also ruled that Doug Spence, a K9 handler will not take the stand in the trial either. The K9 from the Department of Corrections was used on May 10 when Suzanne was reported missing to sniff out the area where Suzanne’s bike was found. The K9 did not pick up on a scent near County Road 225 and Highway 50. This was the only day this dog was used in the investigation.

Multiple witnesses won’t be able to testify as experts in Morphew murder trial | FOX21 News Colorado

I have to disagree and I interpreted it differently....it was even mentioned again in today's ruling Page 16: Contrary to the People’s written response asserting that Rosco never picked up the scent of Mrs. Morphew, Doug Spence testified that Rosco did get “on scent” near the south Arkansas River. Rosco pulled him down stream, but lost Mrs. Morphew’s scent at a log. The Court admitted body camera evidence corroborating his testimony.11 Indeed, the defense played body camera footage of other officers describing Rosco picking up a scent, but then losing it. Mr. Spence was shown the video and agreed with the statements made as being consistent with his findings. And why I wondered if defense would call the dog trainer.

 

[Seattle1]

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·

 

[Seattle1]

Carol McKinley@CarolAMcKinley

BREAKING: Judge Ramsey Lama in murder case of Barry Morphew says trial will go on - defense asked for dismissal. Judge says no BUT says prosecution had a pattern of discovery violations which were "reckless" although the violations weren't "willful"-they didn't do this on purpose

11:54 AM · Apr 8, 2022

Carol McKinley@CarolAMcKinley

Prosecution asked the judge to reconsider his ruling. As it stands now, 14 of 16 expert witnesses have been excluded including cellphone, DNA and telematix, which software which tracks vehicle movement.

2:06 PM · Apr 8, 2022·

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The same people who will point to this situation has proof of the bike ride, will conveniently ignore the multiple cadaver dog hits on Barry's bobcat.

For the record, I'm ignoring the dog stuff, as it is unsupported by other evidence.

The bike ride narrative is destroyed by Suzanne's cell phone (and multiple other things), while the cadaver dog hits are unsupported by the bobcat sim data.

There has been no further information on the cadaver dog “hits” unfortunately so not much to discuss although I do have to wonder why the handler from the bike scene search and not the cadaver dog bobcat and trailer.

 

[tmar]

Oh gawd

Please summarize, as I am unable to see......

 

[Seattle1]

I have to disagree and I interpreted it differently....it was even mentioned again in today's ruling Page 16: Contrary to the People’s written response asserting that Rosco never picked up the scent of Mrs. Morphew, Doug Spence testified that Rosco did get “on scent” near the south Arkansas River. Rosco pulled him down stream, but lost Mrs. Morphew’s scent at a log.

^^rsbm

IMO, this caption stated in the Court Order is nothing more than Judge Lama once again parroting the defense's motion.

Lama clearly demonstrates that he can not distinguish the difference between an air scent that occurs when a dog first smells the target cloth and how the dog stops when the air scent has been absorbed with nothing to renew the target (i.e., resulting in a positive hit).

ETA:

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 ["a scent" not SM's 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 [i.e., SM] on the other side of the river.

More expert testimony blocked from Morphew trial

It doesn't follow that so many reporters in the courtroom -- including LS YT recap clearly understood the witness and only the defense and Lama heard the defense version.

 

[MassGuy]

A bit off topic, but important here. She probably got sick of the trolls and abuse.

A bit of personal news:

This is my last week at @KKTV11News.

I've accepted a job at @CSFDPIO as a Fire and Life Safety Educator and I couldn't be happier to stay in this community and help even more.

Thank you all for everything

https://twitter.com/ashley_franco13/status/1512550095119532033?s=21&t=xjCrZx4HSiUY47UCO1Cacw

 

[Diddian]

Here is the YouTube video of Lauren Scharf going through her notes to provide reporting from the day of the hearing when the dog handler appeared to give testimony.

Discussion related to Doug Spence starts at around 26:00. At about 30:00, LS begins relating Spence's testimony. At about 37:00, as IE begins questioning Spence, LS mentions having noticed BM and his daughters displaying reactions. IE mischaracterizes what Spence testified to and Spence corrects her. He says that Rosco did not pick up on scent and did not commit either way; never alerted to finding a scent of SM.

 

[Lyanna]

2 Judges feel Barry should go on trial, although prosecution have taken a hit with most of their experts not being allowed to testify as experts, surely the fact that both Murphy ( I liked him) and Lama ( am undecided at present) felt there was still enough to go to trial is a positive? (or am I wrong?)

 

[Warwick7]

What's up with the timing of these Twitter exchanges?

I don't have Twitter, please share everybody!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

2 Judges feel Barry should go on trial, although prosecution have taken a hit with most of their experts not being allowed to testify as experts, surely the fact that both Murphy ( I liked him) and Lama ( am undecided at present) felt there was still enough to go to trial is a positive? (or am I wrong?)

I am fine that it appears headed to trial. It is still in my opinion any one’s guess if it is good for one side or another. It is over if Barry is acquitted, it will be appealed if he is found guilty and if the jury can’t come to a unanimous decision prosecution can have a “do-over.”

 

[Cindizzi]

^^rsbm

IMO, this caption stated in the Court Order is nothing more than Judge Lama once again parroting the defense's motion.

Lama clearly demonstrates that he can not distinguish the difference between an air scent that occurs when a dog first smells the target cloth and how the dog stops when the air scent has been absorbed with nothing to renew the target (i.e., resulting in a positive hit).

ETA:

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 ["a scent" not SM's 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 [i.e., SM] on the other side of the river.

More expert testimony blocked from Morphew trial

It doesn't follow that so many reporters in the courtroom -- including LS YT recap clearly understood the witness and only the defense and Lama heard the defense version.

Just noticed on Page 15 regarding the March 30 hearing where Spence testified, there is a footnote #10 saying the Judge did not have the Court transcript when he wrote today’s Order— just relied on his notes.
SMH

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...-17-C] SUPPLEMENT AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT.pdf

 

[Seattle1]

2 Judges feel Barry should go on trial, although prosecution have taken a hit with most of their experts not being allowed to testify as experts, surely the fact that both Murphy ( I liked him) and Lama ( am undecided at present) felt there was still enough to go to trial is a positive? (or am I wrong?)

No, I don't think you are wrong.

Today's Court Order actually cites an interesting case where a higher Court ruled that the District Court's order sanctioning the prosecution [i.e., such as taking away 14/16 expert witnesses] was the equivalent of a dismissal!

I'm wondering if the prosecution might take an approach similar to the prosecution in the case cited below.

Court Order [D17] -- Pg 5 of/20:

In the absence of willful misconduct, dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is usually beyond the discretion of the trial court. People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 298 (Colo. App. 2004).

From the citation above, I looked it up and offer the following for consideration:

In the PEOPLE v DALEY:

The trial court found that the prosecution had violated Crim. P. 16 by its careless handling of the evidence. The court determined that the clothing might have led to exculpatory evidence because the paint transfer analysis could have shown that defendant's vehicle was not involved in the accident. The court found no bad faith by the CSP or the prosecution.

Defense motion for dismissal denied:

The court determined that dismissal of the case as a sanction would not be granted because that remedy was "far too severe . . . because there is no bad faith." Instead, it imposed the following sanctions.

Prosecution response:

The prosecution filed a petition under C.A.R. 21, seeking review of the order for sanctions. However, the supreme court denied the petition.

What happened at trial:

When the case was called for trial, the prosecution informed the trial court that, as a result of the sanctions, it had insufficient witnesses and evidence to proceed to trial.

Defendant then moved to dismiss because the speedy trial time would expire if trial did not begin that day. The trial court granted the motion, stating, "I find the People will not present evidence at trial, and the motion to dismiss is granted."

App Court's Decision:

The order imposing sanctions equivalent to dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to reinstate the information and schedule trial consistent with defendant's speedy trial rights as set forth in this opinion.

The trial court must also reconsider whether, given the date of the new trial, defendant can have the clothing tested, thus eliminating the need for sanctions, and if she cannot conduct the tests, what curative sanctions are appropriate.

People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295 | Casetext Search + Citator