Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #101

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another question I've seen mentioned is if the case could be brought in federal court. If they find her on federal land and can prove that she was tranquilized and killed at the burial site could they file in federal court?
I just watched Wild Crime with Jonny Grusing in it where they detail the investigation into Harold Henthorn, who murdered his 2nd wife at Rocky Mountain National Park. In it, they explained that if authorities don't know where someone has been killed and the body is found on federal lands, the feds take the case. They don't need to have evidence that she was killed on federal land for the feds to take the case.

However, if they have evidence that she was killed somewhere else (not on federal land) and then dumped on federal land, the local LE would take the case. It's based on where they believe the murder took place. If they don't know that, they decide who takes the case based upon where the body is found.

I highly recommend the 4 episodes. it is somewhat deja vu with the Morphew case. Henthorn met both of his wives on Christian dating sites and the women were reportedly very caring, loving women. He was incredibly controlling, to the point where he wouldn't let his 2nd wife speak to her family unless he was also on the phone. He forced both wives to move to Colorado from another state. He brought them both to isolated locations where each wife would die in a bizarre accident (18 years apart).

He was never charged in his first wife's death. Originally, it was ruled an accident. But when the 2nd wife died, authorities received many anonymous letters telling them about the odd death of his first wife and that they should look into it. They did, and found a boatload of circumstantial evidence that was allowed at the trial for the murder of the 2nd wife, which really helped with the guilty verdict.

I don't think Judge L would've allowed that evidence IMO. I do hope for a different judge if this case gets refiled.
 
I find the Profiling Evil episode sad.
LS is laughing and confident.
8 months later she will have 14 of 16 of her expert witness barred from testifying because of either playing loose with discovery deadlines as a tactic, or just lack of preparation.
It is Suzanne who lost here. So I hope the idea that police know where she is, is true and not an 11th hour attempt to get BM to go look.
ITA. From that first press conference she was all about the limelight instead of doing the work that needed to be done.
 
Really good question.

Here's an attorney's summary of the Federal murder statute. Based on this, it would take more than her remains being found on U.S. property to give U.S. courts jurisdiction over a murder charge.

We have recently seen the U.S. Attorney bring charges against the killers of Ahmaud Arbery under the civil rights section of the criminal code. Does anyone think we might have a factual basis to charge SM's murder as a hate crime? Or, as an act of discrimination against her as a woman?

Maybe, if LS asked the U.S. to look into it, they could find something.

If it could be proven she was murdered at her dump site I wonder if that would be considered? I guess maybe it depends on what that dump site is.. in a mine, did he dig a hole before hand to bury her later?
 
I just watched Wild Crime with Jonny Grusing in it where they detail the investigation into Harold Henthorn, who murdered his 2nd wife at Rocky Mountain National Park. In it, they explained that if authorities don't know where someone has been killed and the body is found on federal lands, the feds take the case. They don't need to have evidence that she was killed on federal land for the feds to take the case.

However, if they have evidence that she was killed somewhere else (not on federal land) and then dumped on federal land, the local LE would take the case. It's based on where they believe the murder took place. If they don't know that, they decide who takes the case based upon where the body is found.

I highly recommend the 4 episodes. it is somewhat deja vu with the Morphew case. Henthorn met both of his wives on Christian dating sites and the women were reportedly very caring, loving women. He was incredibly controlling, to the point where he wouldn't let his 2nd wife speak to her family unless he was also on the phone. He forced both wives to move to Colorado from another state. He brought them both to isolated locations where each wife would die in a bizarre accident (18 years apart).

He was never charged in his first wife's death. Originally, it was ruled an accident. But when the 2nd wife died, authorities received many anonymous letters telling them about the odd death of his first wife and that they should look into it. They did, and found a boatload of circumstantial evidence that was allowed at the trial for the murder of the 2nd wife, which really helped with the guilty verdict.

I don't think Judge L would've allowed that evidence IMO. I do hope for a different judge if this case gets refiled.
I'll look for that! Thank you for the recommendation. I have listened to podcasts on that crime!

I am curious since there was no crime scene at the house, then they really can't say for sure where she was killed. The fact a tranq dart is even a possibility would make me believe it's just as possible he killed her after he got her to the dump site. I mean no cadaver hits at the house, no blood, no evidence of a struggle (expect the door frame) I think the argument could be made that it's just as possible it was on federal land because that land is all around the house. Trying to find a good map to share that shows exactly where federal land is.
 
I have just one final post on review of the PE Youtube podcasts on which Linda Stanley appeared. On May 3, she appeared as co-host with Mike King. There were two consecutive guests. First was Arizona Majority Whip, Leo Biasiucci (AZ-5). Second was Paul Michael Glaser (actor who played Starsky in Starsky & Hutch).

First segment approx. 24:23 minutes involved discussion about Biasiucci's legislation relating to child trafficking and sexual offenders against children. LS mentioned that cases involving mandatory lifetime sentencing will tend to go to trial rather than plea because the defendant has nothing to lose when facing lifetime mandatory sentence. Also, that the legislation is certain to face a court challenge because defense attorneys will consider the mandatory lifetime sentence "cruel and unusual." Brief discussion about recidivism with these offenders and that the longer they stay in, the safer kids will be. Biasiucci invited Stanley to urge legislators in her state to consider such legislation.

Second segment, approx. 10 minutes involved discussion about LS's first months in office. Now fully staffed. Introducing greater transparency. Someone now manning phones daily from 7:30 to 5:30 to answer citizens' calls. And in first six weeks in office, arrested a guy on a 39-year-old cold case.

MK briefly introduced that case (arrest of Phillips) - two women who worked in town near ski resort were both murdered and there were weird "signature" elements (orange sock placed on both victims). MK asked, "What can you tell me" and "Can you share anything". LS answered, "No, and "No."

MK mentioned Schelling/Lucas case and LS briefly discussed issues in no-body, purely circumstantial cases. Defense will say missing person voluntarily left and prosecution has to prove a negative, which is difficult. Defense only has to create reasonable doubt in one juror. Must challenge with evidence that this person would not have done that.

MK brought up "elephant in the room" question about Morphew case, with SM's recent birthdate and the approaching anniversary of her disappearance. Asked, "can you give us any insight into the amount of work going on? And if you want to tip your hand, now is the time to do it."

To which LS responded, "There is a lot of work going on in the case and that is all I am going to tell you."

Third and final segment, from approx. 35:00 to 1:27:00+ (end of program), MK revealed LS's crush on Starsky character in Starsky and Hutch and asked her to show some of her memorabilia. Then, MK surprised LS by introducing her via livestream to Paul Michael Glaser, who played the character of Starsky. Remainder of discussion among MK, LS, and Glaser was about Glaser's portrayal of that character, other acting work, funny stories related to the show, Glaser's writings and his art and then repartee among the three present.

One final story Glaser presented (after MK invited him to join him for fishing at his cabin) was about a friend who owned a dude ranch where kids would get a chance to fish in a pond. He said the brother of this friend was a wildcatter who'd work on the ranch during summer months, throwing chum on the pond.

Chumming the pond. I think that is what the defense attorneys in this case did to LS. They threw falsehoods about LS's appearance on social media into court proceedings like they were tossing chum into a fish-populated pond. Without verifying whether there was any substance to the claims (and memories being faulty for those that might have watched the appearances), many gobbled the morsels up and regurgitated them and others gobbled those and it continued until the morsels seemed pervasive. But there was never anything to them. It was like throwing sawdust in.

ETA: Link to podcast #38, the episode co-hosted by Linda Stanley, and in which Paul Michael Glaser appears:

@Diddian -- big thanks for your reviews of DA Stanley's prior media appearances, and the links.

As you know, people believe what they want to believe -- even if the facts are put before their eyes and ears.

The experience has been the same with the defense motions -- where many would rather cling to the media clickbait without ever reading the People's responses to the defense allegations!

I'd also like to take this opportunity to also give a shout-out to Fox21's reporter Lauren Scharf, on this case from the beginning, and who never hesitated to respond to my DM's about what happened in court (from her vantage in the front row).

LS reporting on the dog handler's (Doug Spence & Roscoe) recent testimony compared to April 5, 2022, Defense Motion [D-62] (and the Court's interpretation) and their coined term "Doug Spence Special" is one example that I'll never forget. :eek:

MOO
 
ITA. From that first press conference she was all about the limelight instead of doing the work that needed to be done.

Really? Is OP referring to the 14-minute presser on May 5, 2021, where LS spoke beginning at about the 4-minute mark to 7-minute mark or about 3 minutes?

For factual clarity, perhaps OP should utilize the transcription option for the YT presser.

 
If it could be proven she was murdered at her dump site I wonder if that would be considered? I guess maybe it depends on what that dump site is.. in a mine, did he dig a hole before hand to bury her later?
I hate to say this or think about it: she may not have been deceased when he buried her.
I trust they will have the best forensic team in the state there when she is found. Moo
 
Do we know if the protection orders in this case still stand? The Ritter's, Jeff, MG, etc? Are they still in place?

Colorado provides for both mandatory protection orders for criminal cases as well as civil restraining orders.

Courts issue mandatory protection orders whenever someone has been accused of committing a crime in Colorado, pursuant to CRS 18-1-1001 which focuses on conduct that harasses victims or tampers with witnesses.

The mandatory protection order lasts until the final disposition of your case. A final disposition includes:

  • A jury verdict of guilty or not guilty,
  • A finalized plea deal, or
  • The prosecutor dropping all the charges against you.
A dismissal of some of the charges, however, does not count. It is not a final disposition of your case.

If one wanted to push a technicality, I suppose one could argue that since BM's gun charge is still pending (where the charge was not yet severed from the case when the mandatory orders were written), there's not been a final disposition yet and therefore the mandatory protection orders remain in place.

Nonetheless, having witnessed a citizen attempting to get a civil restraining order against BM's girlfriend SD, I think it might be easier to get the Court to agree to extend the mandatory protection order issued for the victims/witnesses than it would be for the parties to obtain civil restraining orders. MOO

Mandatory Protection Orders In Colorado Criminal Law Cases
 
I have just one final post on review of the PE Youtube podcasts on which Linda Stanley appeared. On May 3, she appeared as co-host with Mike King. There were two consecutive guests. First was Arizona Majority Whip, Leo Biasiucci (AZ-5). Second was Paul Michael Glaser (actor who played Starsky in Starsky & Hutch).

First segment approx. 24:23 minutes involved discussion about Biasiucci's legislation relating to child trafficking and sexual offenders against children. LS mentioned that cases involving mandatory lifetime sentencing will tend to go to trial rather than plea because the defendant has nothing to lose when facing lifetime mandatory sentence. Also, that the legislation is certain to face a court challenge because defense attorneys will consider the mandatory lifetime sentence "cruel and unusual." Brief discussion about recidivism with these offenders and that the longer they stay in, the safer kids will be. Biasiucci invited Stanley to urge legislators in her state to consider such legislation.

Second segment, approx. 10 minutes involved discussion about LS's first months in office. Now fully staffed. Introducing greater transparency. Someone now manning phones daily from 7:30 to 5:30 to answer citizens' calls. And in first six weeks in office, arrested a guy on a 39-year-old cold case.

MK briefly introduced that case (arrest of Phillips) - two women who worked in town near ski resort were both murdered and there were weird "signature" elements (orange sock placed on both victims). MK asked, "What can you tell me" and "Can you share anything". LS answered, "No, and "No."

MK mentioned Schelling/Lucas case and LS briefly discussed issues in no-body, purely circumstantial cases. Defense will say missing person voluntarily left and prosecution has to prove a negative, which is difficult. Defense only has to create reasonable doubt in one juror. Must challenge with evidence that this person would not have done that.

MK brought up "elephant in the room" question about Morphew case, with SM's recent birthdate and the approaching anniversary of her disappearance. Asked, "can you give us any insight into the amount of work going on? And if you want to tip your hand, now is the time to do it."

To which LS responded, "There is a lot of work going on in the case and that is all I am going to tell you."

Third and final segment, from approx. 35:00 to 1:27:00+ (end of program), MK revealed LS's crush on Starsky character in Starsky and Hutch and asked her to show some of her memorabilia. Then, MK surprised LS by introducing her via livestream to Paul Michael Glaser, who played the character of Starsky. Remainder of discussion among MK, LS, and Glaser was about Glaser's portrayal of that character, other acting work, funny stories related to the show, Glaser's writings and his art and then repartee among the three present.

One final story Glaser presented (after MK invited him to join him for fishing at his cabin) was about a friend who owned a dude ranch where kids would get a chance to fish in a pond. He said the brother of this friend was a wildcatter who'd work on the ranch during summer months, throwing chum on the pond.

Chumming the pond. I think that is what the defense attorneys in this case did to LS. They threw falsehoods about LS's appearance on social media into court proceedings like they were tossing chum into a fish-populated pond. Without verifying whether there was any substance to the claims (and memories being faulty for those that might have watched the appearances), many gobbled the morsels up and regurgitated them and others gobbled those and it continued until the morsels seemed pervasive. But there was never anything to them. It was like throwing sawdust in.

ETA: Link to podcast #38, the episode co-hosted by Linda Stanley, and in which Paul Michael Glaser appears:
Thank you so much for your work summarizing the podcast and also for supplying the links! Great analysis about the chum, too, definitely spot on. Moo EBM
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for your work summarizing the podcast and and also for supplying the links! Great analysis about the chum, too, definitely spot on. Moo

"They threw falsehoods about LS's appearance on social media into court."

Can you tell me the exact lies about the DA that E&N complained of to the court?
 
"They threw falsehoods about LS's appearance on social media into court."

Can you tell me the exact lies about the DA that E&N complained of to the court?
No, I don’t keep files on the case and wouldn’t be able to provide you a link. I believe what the OP in my quoted post was saying is that the defense accused LS of talking about the case on social media. Moo
The OP in my quoted post, @Diddian, just did a very diligent summarization of the podcasts In which LS was interviewed and provide links to them. I believe @Seattle may have posted quotes of the defense attorney’s accusations and also quotes of Judge Lama regarding the issue up thread. I hope this helps. Moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
221
Guests online
771
Total visitors
992

Forum statistics

Threads
626,754
Messages
18,532,944
Members
241,119
Latest member
SteveH
Back
Top