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

[Seattle1]

Yes, the Defense team did mislead and the judge repeated their falsehoods in his order (which he indicated were from his "notes" rather than the court transcript which the judge indicated was not yet available).

^^rsbm

From thread #99:

At the Dec 14, 2021 Motions hearing, carried over from Nov 9 Motions hearing that ran over longer than anticipated, Judge Murphy recognized that the prosecution was being imposed upon unfairly by the defense.

Another deja vu where Judge Murphy reminds the defense that during a motions hearing alleging discovery violations, Rule 16 governs in his courtroom, and not the US Constitution.

I recall Judge Murphy having to advise Iris of the very same during her initial appearance with BM before the Chaffee County District Court (it's her go-to response whenever she doesn't want to admit she's testing the waters or using the court's time to indulge in some fishing:

Judge Murphy denied the defense request to sequester the witnesses and pointed out that the new prosecution teams deserve time to get up to speed. “It sounds like their testimony MIGHT weave together, but mostly it’s separate actions. Also, as Mr. Hobart said at the beginning, he and Mr. Weiner are relative newcomers to this case.”

Prosecutor Hobart pointed out that “the restraining order is for any communications, this court has ordered and the rules state you don’t need to write anything down unless it relates to the restraining order….this is such a different turn from their other motions.”

“Ms. Eaton I’m curious about your response,” said Murphy. “Your motion was filed three months ago, and it was NOT heard for the reasons discussed in this motion. It doesn’t contain what you spoke of earlier – it’s a different issue. This is a surprise.”

[..]

“The certificate said we gave discovery to defense … I object,” responded the prosecution. “We never perpetrated a fraud upon this court.”

“So your point is that discovery was produced late, or not complete, or the new material wasn’t highlighted .. .is that what we are addressing in today’s hearing?” asked Murphy, trying to clarify the concern.

“No, it’s their violation of the constitution,” she responded.

Morphew Murder Trial Hearings Continue Dec. 14 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

 

[WingsOverTX]

^^rsbm

From thread #99:

At the Dec 14, 2021 Motions hearing, carried over from Nov 9 Motions hearing that ran over longer than anticipated, Judge Murphy recognized that the prosecution was being imposed upon unfairly by the defense.

Another deja vu where Judge Murphy reminds the defense that during a motions hearing alleging discovery violations, Rule 16 governs in his courtroom, and not the US Constitution.

I recall Judge Murphy having to advise Iris of the very same during her initial appearance with BM before the Chaffee County District Court (it's her go-to response whenever she doesn't want to admit she's testing the waters or using the court's time to indulge in some fishing:

Judge Murphy denied the defense request to sequester the witnesses and pointed out that the new prosecution teams deserve time to get up to speed. “It sounds like their testimony MIGHT weave together, but mostly it’s separate actions. Also, as Mr. Hobart said at the beginning, he and Mr. Weiner are relative newcomers to this case.”

Prosecutor Hobart pointed out that “the restraining order is for any communications, this court has ordered and the rules state you don’t need to write anything down unless it relates to the restraining order….this is such a different turn from their other motions.”

“Ms. Eaton I’m curious about your response,” said Murphy. “Your motion was filed three months ago, and it was NOT heard for the reasons discussed in this motion. It doesn’t contain what you spoke of earlier – it’s a different issue. This is a surprise.”

[..]

“The certificate said we gave discovery to defense … I object,” responded the prosecution. “We never perpetrated a fraud upon this court.”

“So your point is that discovery was produced late, or not complete, or the new material wasn’t highlighted .. .is that what we are addressing in today’s hearing?” asked Murphy, trying to clarify the concern.

“No, it’s their violation of the constitution,” she responded.

Morphew Murder Trial Hearings Continue Dec. 14 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

I'm not following.

Are you offering proof that the defense was spinning any time they could? I would think that is well established at this juncture.

Or are you making some other point, legal or otherwise? Please excuse my ignorance. I want to understand.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

I'm not following.

Are you offering proof that the defense was spinning any time they could? I would think that is well established at this juncture.

Or are you making some other point, legal or otherwise? Please excuse my ignorance. I want to understand.

JMO

To be clear, OP provided how the defense team misled Judge Lama and my quoted post provides how the defense attempted to spin (spinning anytime they could) but Judge Murphy was obviously better equipped at stopping it than his replacement, Judge Lama.

 

[Megnut]

If Barry created a line from bike to helmet to something that may have gone unfound, IMO that is (as others, like @OldCop, have suggested) a big red arrow pointing away from the direction he went.

There's no reason to drive an additional six miles just to turn around (at Garfield) --

I think Barry may have turned left to pitch the helmet and then he went 6 miles, not to turn around, but to do something else.

4:30 am. Too early to see much of anything, including rackless bull elk), no truck functional events, at least of which we're aware... I'm assuming window events aren't recorded or we'd have heard about one in relation to the helmet. My theory -- he drove to a ridge of some sort and threw Suzanne's phone over the edge.

And when LE said they'd found an item, he didn't know which they'd found, the helmet, the bike or any other item he may have laid out.

He turned her phone off IMO just prior to leaving PP wih it. Possibly it pinged for the last time off a new tower because Barry had removed it from the house (inside) and turned it off in the driveway (outside) before heading up the mountain.

Mountain lions don't drag their prey up mountains but murderers maybe do.

Her phone may still be out there. It was dark. If he throws like he bats, it may well have stopped short, hung up on something, a ledge, a branch, 6 miles from PP.

JMO

Bbm

Quoting myself to correct a misspeak -- not her bike, her phone.

I notice in one article it was misreported that the helmet was found 8 miles from the bike. I wonder if Barry was under the impression LE recovered an item 8 miles from the bike, perhaps a rough estimate to where he knew her phone to be.

Because I think he genuinely didn't know what -- that is, which item -- LE recovered. He only knew what he left and where he left it.

That call on Suzanne's phone, early on Mother's Day morning -- I wonder if Barry wasn't deleting messages on her phone, accidentally initiating an outgoing call.

Perhaps he staged her phone in such a way that, if it were found, it would only show the calls and texts Barry wanted it to show and in a location that would point away from him because his left turn was never to be discovered. He was pretending he was still at home, awakened by both his alarm and no alarm, getting ready for his day while careful not to disturb the lump he claimed was still sleeping.

All problematic but Suzanne's phone was on the move --

JMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think the defense did a bait and switch. Deliberately deceptive.

Detail: a dog was brought out on 5/10. Dog was given a scent item and dog nosed around, alerting to nothing.

Defense pounced on this, as an opportunity to obfuscate. Probably officers, untrained as handlers, who watched the dog that day were optismistic, misinterpreting the dog's movements for tracking. But the dog actually found no scent to follow. And yet, the defense made a lot of noise in the courtroom (just as they did regarding the dead-in-the-water Codis hits), convincing the judge that the prosection was willfully withholding exculpatory discovery! I think the defense created the discovery violation! Because IMO there wasn't one!

In fact, it was a surprise to everyone that there was any kind of written report about that event, a report which underscores that there's nothing there helpful to the defendant!

The judge bought it. Referred to his notes, not the transcript. He was misled.

Neither the dog and handler nor the Codis hits were hushed by the Prosecution -- they were dead ends!! Well aware, the defense stirred them up and pretended they were something else!! This is not a search for truth! That is a willful distortion of the truth, meant to pollute the courtroom water.

I think if we laid out all the defense's arguments and motions we'd see a pattern of violations of the truth.

I am horrified at the statements made by the defense in court and out of court -- things that are patently and provably false.

That, to me, is outrageous. And a serious miscarriage of justice.

JMO

This all lays at the feet of the judge. To willfully accept anything the defense says and to sanction the prosecution so harshly was a great miscarriage of justice. I have to wonder why he is allowed to get away with it. If this case ever comes to court again, I pray there will be an honorable and decent judge who bases his decisions on his own knowledge of the case and that he isn't spoon-fed by the defense.

 

[Seattle1]

Another instance of Judge L ruling with the Defense is in the Order granting change of venue. Like he didn’t research, he just cut and pasted Defense statements regarding Stanley like this one on page 5.

It says that Stanley violated a pre trial publicity order in her press conference remarks.

The press conference was just 6 hours after the arrest so there were no orders in place yet!

And she was answering a reporter question.
Reporter: Is Barry answering your questions and has he told you where Suzanne’s body is?
Stanley: Once in custody, Mr. M asked for an attorney and all questioning ended.

I can’t defend other things the DA did ( like going on podcasts) but IE was spinning the truth about the PC.
JMO
EBM to correct page number- page 5 not page 8

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/ORDER RE_ [D-34] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING PRIOR TO VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BECAUSEMR.pdf

Thanks, @Cindizzi for one more reminder of the defenses' sneak attack motion that was eagerly bought (again) by Judge Lama-- after the issue was appropriately settled by Judge Murphy.

When the defense alleged DA Stanley and Sheriff Speeze violated the pretrial publicity Order, Judge Murphy reminded the defense that the Court could enforce its own Orders, and thank you very much.

...“the court can enforce its own orders, it doesn’t always have to go through contempt. Then we have the issue of who prosecutes or hears the contempt – it’s a wheel within a wheel...."

But this courtesy reminder did not stop the defense from repeating the errors of her ways when IE repeated the motion with a brand new Judge Lama (i.e., misrepresented statement by DA Stanley that was actually a direct response to a reporter's specific question).

We all know what happened here. Judge Lama parrotted the defense's motion -- used the very same sentence in his response.

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

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thanks, @Cindizzi for one more reminder of the defenses' sneak attack motion that was eagerly bought (again) by Judge Lama-- after the issue was appropriately settled by Judge Murphy.

When the defense alleged DA Stanley and Sheriff Speeze violated the pretrial publicity Order, Judge Murphy reminded the defense that the Court could enforce its own Orders, and thank you very much.

...“the court can enforce its own orders, it doesn’t always have to go through contempt. Then we have the issue of who prosecutes or hears the contempt – it’s a wheel within a wheel...."

But this courtesy reminder did not stop the defense from repeating the errors of her ways when IE repeated the motion with a brand new Judge Lama (i.e., misrepresented statement by DA Stanley that was actually a direct response to a reporter's specific question).

We all know what happened here. Judge Lama parrotted the defense's motion -- used the very same sentence in his response.

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

I appreciate you and Cindizzi for staying on top of the quotes from orders of Judge L where defense was parrotted. Its important for future reference. I also wonder if Dan May knows this and the reason why he wondered why prosecution didn't appeal to the Supreme Court.

ETA: Of course Dan May knows! He is super sharp. I suppose Linda Stanley didn't give him a call. Maybe she should have.

 

[OldCop]

If Barry created a line from bike to helmet to something that may have gone unfound, IMO that is (as others, like @OldCop, have suggested) a big red arrow pointing away from the direction he went.

There's no reason to drive an additional six miles just to turn around (at Garfield) --

I think Barry may have turned left to pitch the helmet and then he went 6 miles, not to turn around, but to do something else.

4:30 am. Too early to see much of anything, including rackless bull elk), no truck functional events, at least of which we're aware... I'm assuming window events aren't recorded or we'd have heard about one in relation to the helmet. My theory -- he drove to a ridge of some sort and threw Suzanne's phone over the edge.

And when LE said they'd found an item, he didn't know which they'd found, the helmet, the bike or any other item he may have laid out.

He turned her phone off IMO just prior to leaving PP wih it. Possibly it pinged for the last time off a new tower because Barry had removed it from the house (inside) and turned it off in the driveway (outside) before heading up the mountain.

Mountain lions don't drag their prey up mountains but murderers maybe do.

Her phone may still be out there. It was dark. If he throws like he bats, it may well have stopped short, hung up on something, a ledge, a branch, 6 miles from PP.

JMO

I agree, @Megnut. I believe that BM dumped SM’s phone as part of his breadcrumb trail. BM asks SA Grusing several times if they have her phone. He said he assumed they had it. I think he was frustrated that it was not found. I think he used her phone for the FB friend requests and possibly some other planted evidence. I think it was dumped further up on 50 west closer to where he turned around with the expectation it would be found.
The bike and helmet were not out in plain view because BM needed to be in Broomfield before the alarm was raised and the search begun. However, they were not so well hidden that they wouldn’t be found because they were needed for the abduction narrative. The phone may have been left the same way but because it was a lot smaller it wasn’t found on the day they closed Hwy 50 to search.
The helmet was found on the strip of land between CR226 and Hwy 50. 226 can be accessed from 50 west or from 225 just a few yards from where the bike was dumped. I am attaching 2 maps, one a close up of the elk/bike/helmet locations and the second one showing the road all the way to Garfield. It is possible that he dumped the bike then cruised west on Hwy 50 looking for a spot to dump the helmet. He could have driven as far as Garfield then turned around heading back east. On his way back, he would pass the entrance to 226. He could have cut down there, dumped the helmet, then continued on until he was back at 225 near the intersection of 50.

 

[Derph]

Thought this might be interesting for folks. These guys take ultra slow motion video of all kinds of stuff. This episode they explain tranquilizer darts.

 

[Seattle1]

I appreciate you and Cindizzi for staying on top of the quotes from orders of Judge L where defense was parrotted. Its important for future reference. I also wonder if Dan May knows this and the reason why he wondered why prosecution didn't appeal to the Supreme Court.

ETA: Of course Dan May knows! He is super sharp. I suppose Linda Stanley didn't give him a call. Maybe she should have.

I've watched many pre-trials and trials over the years and have never seen a prosecution cut off at the knees (by the Court) as witnessed here.

After some time to take in the entire picture, on the face of filing a petition to have all or some of the lower court's sanctions reversed, I think I can see where DA Stanely would not want her prosecutors to be further slammed and/or shamed-- only to have to return to the trial court to face the same defense team, now hell-bent at going for dismissal when the prosecution rested. Take note this decision would be Judge Lama's call.

If this happened (Judge Lama agreed that the prosecution did not meet its burden), jurors would be dismissed without any deliberation, and it would be over. BM could never be retried for SM's murder (i.e., double jeopardy).

IMO, I think like many of us here, the prosecution also lost confidence in Judge Lama (i.e., the calls left to his discretion).

In other words, I think the prosecution as much as told the public that they would rather put their money on the future where time could only be an advantage for the prosecution.

In light of what we've seen unfold since March 10 (witnesses barred by Court order from testifying), how can one disagree with DA Stanley's action to request dismissal without prejudice?

ETA: Probably fair to say that former lead prosecutor Jeff Lindsey who resigned from the case last October, was also Dan May's right-hand guy for nearly 20 years in El Paso County.

https://kdvr.com/news/lead-prosecutor-in-barry-morphew-murder-case-resigns/

More Barry Morphew Trial Drama as Defense Set to Sue Prosecutors - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

 

[al66pine]

Expert Wit.s in New Case? Clean Slate or Still Muzzled?

Assuming case is refiled--
Will this order barring these specified persons from giving their opinion testimony as experts apply only to them?
Or will this order also bar other, different persons from giving their opinion testimony as experts?
{{ETA: Is the order itself avail online? A link, pls. anyone?}}

Crim. procedure & evd. rules incent prosecutor & defense to put (certain required) cards on the table pre-trial, esp'ly re expert witnesses, so parties have time ---
1. To investigate witnesses' pedigree: education, degrees, academic publications, prior testimony in other cases, etc. Also to unmask untruths about the wit.
Ex.: C.V. shows Ivy League PhD in __ field, but the only verifiable education ended w assoc. two year degree in unrelated field at community college. (Happens, well, very rarely. But when it does, yikes. Liar, exposed on the stand.)
2. To review and analyze the expert's written reports re case. See if/how to "poke holes" in it in cross exam, without having to engage an expert for own case.
3. If not able to "poke holes" then time to engage an expert to analyze, draw different conclusions from the opposing expert's report.
4. yadda, yadda.

Hypo. Prosecutor files case, misses statutory discovery deadlines & CMOs re expert witnesses, qualifications & reports.
Prosecutor's delays, failure to produce info to def. in a timely fashion, places defense at a severe disadvantage.
Then after judge rules the st's experts may not testify/give opinions as expert wit.s, prosecutor seeks to dismiss case w'out prejudice. Judge grants. (Starting to sound familiar?)

Time passes. Prosecutor refiles and lists same persons as experts, provides same reports, etc., complying w discovery rules in a timely fashion.
In this subsequent case, there's no procedural disadvantage to defense, who now has same amount of time to prepare re expert wit.s, as defense would have had in initial filing, if prosecutor had not delayed, had not been sanctioned.
Does it matter whether defendant has same counsel as before or has new counsel? Either way, defense has same amt of time.

my2ct, but IANaJ and I don't play one on TV either.

 

[mom2chloe]

Bbm

Quoting myself to correct a misspeak -- not her bike, her phone.

I notice in one article it was misreported that the helmet was found 8 miles from the bike. I wonder if Barry was under the impression LE recovered an item 8 miles from the bike, perhaps a rough estimate to where he knew her phone to be.

Because I think he genuinely didn't know what -- that is, which item -- LE recovered. He only knew what he left and where he left it.

That call on Suzanne's phone, early on Mother's Day morning -- I wonder if Barry wasn't deleting messages on her phone, accidentally initiating an outgoing call.

Perhaps he staged her phone in such a way that, if it were found, it would only show the calls and texts Barry wanted it to show and in a location that would point away from him because his left turn was never to be discovered. He was pretending he was still at home, awakened by both his alarm and no alarm, getting ready for his day while careful not to disturb the lump he claimed was still sleeping.

All problematic but Suzanne's phone was on the move --

JMO

It would certainly be interesting to know who that one final phone call was made to which might help us discern whether it was intentional or accidental. I have previously suggested it was to Barry’s benefit to keep her alive in order to access her phone he likely needed her thumbprint. Hoping we learn someday and not soon enough.
Ebm to delete a word

 

[Boxer]

Defense tactics are well known.

Prosecution submitted an AA that rankled the court from the beginning, according to Murphy had too much material that would not be admissible at trial.

 

[mom2chloe]

This all lays at the feet of the judge. To willfully accept anything the defense says and to sanction the prosecution so harshly was a great miscarriage of justice. I have to wonder why he is allowed to get away with it. If this case ever comes to court again, I pray there will be an honorable and decent judge who bases his decisions on his own knowledge of the case and that he isn't spoon-fed by the defense.

I take serious issue with the fact that Judge L was accepting everything Defense said as truth when we know he didn’t have a damn transcript in front of him but relied on his notes. Maybe he is an awesomely accurate and concise note taker but if he can’t manage to get a transcript printed and his eyes on it prior to and during a hearing how can he justly penalize the DA for being somewhat late and lacking? Makes zero sense to me and I will never understand. Whether Covid related or otherwise I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that because the DA was late the Judge disregarded all the experts needed to testify and tossed them aside.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Thought this might be interesting for folks. These guys take ultra slow motion video of all kinds of stuff. This episode they explain tranquilizer darts.

Thanks that was really interesting.

 

[girlhasnoname]

It would certainly be interesting to know who that one final phone call was made to which might help us discern whether it was intentional or accidental. I have previously suggested it was to Barry’s benefit to keep her alive in order to access her phone he likely needed her thumbprint. Hoping we learn someday and not soon enough.
Ebm to delete a word

Didn't Suzanne's phone make an outgoing call early Sun? I wonder if this might have been done accidentally by BARE handling her phone? I agree he tossed her phone around the bike, helmet area thinking it would make sense that is where it would be found if she were actually 'abducted'.

As @OldCop stated earlier, he was mighty obsessed with finding out what the 'item' was found that LE wouldn't confirm. He asked several times about it in his interrogations.

ETA: Yes I found this regarding the early Sun morning outgoing call from Suzannes phone:
At 2:53 a.m. May 10, there is an outgoing call on Suzanne’s phone.

At 3:25 a.m. May 10, Morphew’s truck doors were opened and closed. The phone moved toward the location where the bike was found, according to Grusing.

At 4:31 a.m. May 10, Morphew’s phone went back into airplane mode. His phone came back online and he traveled toward Broomfield. Agent Grusing pointed out that GPS can still be tracked when a phone is on airplane mode.

 

[Seattle1]

Defense tactics are well known.

Prosecution submitted an AA that rankled the court from the beginning, according to Murphy had too much material that would not be admissible at trial.

Huh? Can OP be more specific about anything from the AA that was unexpectedly not admitted as evidence and that gutted this case?

I can only think of the texts used to support DV which were not admitted as a point of law when the prosecution could not boost this evidence over the threshold. But this didn't gut the case, and the decision was not challenged. MOO

 

[Love Never Fails]

While the thread isn’t busy, I just wanted to thank so many who made this case worth following and provided facts, quotes, news articles, and opinions ions that gave us much needed information. Thee are so many of you. If I forget anyone it’s not intentional. Many thanks to @Megnut, @Seattle1, @Murphy1950 , @Cindizzi, @OldCop, @MassGuy ,@susiQ, @10’s of Rods, @Diddian and @WingsOverTX.

Ok so I know I left out a lot of you unintentionally. Didn’t mean to. Thanks everyone!

 

[TIGER0822]

I think lucky might be a better word than smart. One reason I keep coming back to her being tranquilized is because there was no evidence at the house. I do not think he was good enough to clean up completely a crime scene. I think the murder was either not messy at all (strangulation) and/or he took her sedated, but not dead to another location where he killed her and then he had nothing to clean up. He seemed to know enough since he used airplane mode, he tried to erase truck data, he didn't use her phone after 430am.. I wonder if her phone is with her because he seemed so concerned about LE having her phone.. if they had her phone and he buried it with her, then he would know they had her.

He thought he was smart though. He thought he could talk his way out of this by talking to LE so many times. He thought they were buddies, he was upset when LE betrayed him and he was arrested. He really did think he was out smarting police.

I think he did use the skills he had from his job and from his hunting hobby to commit this crime in the way he did because he knows about digging, burying things, moving dirt, making an area look like it hadn't been touched, etc.. he knew about hunting, killing, cleaning up after processing his kill.. he likely used all those things he knew from past experiences, but I don't think I'd call him smart. This is a man that said all he needed was sex and for Suzanne to just be the way she used to be and it would be fine.

BM admitted that he discarded tranq material. The weapon he likely used was most likely was discarded on one of his five trash runs. Focusing on another weapon is hurting their case. MOO

 

[TIGER0822]

Brilliant post!

I agree with sanctioning the defense. They deliberately misled the court.