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

[BeckyF]

Lauren Scharf recently had a youtube roundtable on this case. If you are interested in a good explanation on the dna this video will give you an education. But the short answer is that the dna has no bearing on the case.

I just watched it today. She had such a great panel. Well worth watching.

 

[BeckyF]

Lauren Scharf recently had a youtube roundtable on this case. If you are interested in a good explanation on the dna this video will give you an education. But the short answer is that the dna has no bearing on the case.

I just watched it today. She had such a great panel. Well worth watching.

 

[BeckyF]

DBM - duplicate

 

[jakat]

Yes, after the distructive decisions, following Defence all the way.
Good riddance.
Pity this didn't come sooner.
Is this to avoid further actions against the drastic work by the judge?
Am I being too harsh, worrying BM is free........?

Good riddance is right. He probably got a good scolding and was forced out.

Harsh? No. What's to stop Bary from darting (killing) other people now that he's roaming the countryside?

 

[Cindizzi]

Anyone watching CBS 48 Hours?

I only caught like the last 20 minutes of it. Will try and watch it in it’s entirety tomorrow when I’m more awake.
I was a bit unhappy with the first part they aired a couple months ago. But tonight seemed to show more of the other side of the evidence.
JMO

 

[MassGuy]

I only caught like the last 20 minutes of it. Will try and watch it in it’s entirety tomorrow when I’m more awake.
I was a bit unhappy with the first part they aired a couple months ago. But tonight seemed to show more of the other side of the evidence.
JMO

So they re did the entire episode, or what you saw at least?

 

[mrjitty]

^^rsbm

Honest question: did OP actually read the prosecution's response (i.e., request for reconsideration of the sanctions) and subsequent responses by the parties?

Parties are allowed to respond to allegations for a reason. For example, just because IE declares it doesn't make it true. And same with Judge Lama believing the defense, and making a decision before reading a pending motion.

Personally, I think Judge Lama had much support from the District to resign as soon as possible.

BIB - do you have a link to this?

I was busy at the time and never read it in full.

 

[Seattle1]

IE also wasted a lot of the Court’s time by not addressing what the hearings were scheduled for. Imo

Motions Hearing Covers 1 Out Of Many In The Murder Case Against Barry Morphew
SALIDA, Colo. (CBS4) – It was a long day of mainly confusion during motions hearing for the murder case against Barry Morphew. He awaits trial for the disappearance and murder of his wife, Suzanne.

Barry’s defense team filed numerous motions ahead of next year’s trial date in an effort to have the case thrown out.


On Tuesday, a number of those motions were expected to be addressed by Judge Patrick Murphy, but discussions from prosecutors on relevancy of some of the arguments presented, followed by long-winded explanations from the defense, ate up more time than the judge anticipated.


Judge Murphy said the motions hearing would have to continue another day.

The judge wanted to address the motion regarding discovery violations, violations of a court order to limit pre-trial publicity, a second case involving a lawsuit filed by Barry Morphew’s attorneys against nearly everyone involved in the investigation, in addition to other items, but was only found time to address one motion.

“I’d like to have something productive come out of this hearing,” Murphy told the court at one point.


The judge, going just past his 5 p.m. cut off time Tuesday, asked the defense for a specific list of missing items and ordered both sides to meet for clarification on the issues that need to be addressed.

Murphy was briefly able to comment on the issue of pre-trial publicity. While the defense alleges the prosecution crossed a line, the judge said it would have to wait for Dec. 14 at 1 p.m.

Agree that IE absolutely wasted much Court time, especially making or repeating allegations but Judge Murphy was very schooled at either shutting her down or calling her bluff.

This is from the carried over 11/9 motions hearing held on 12/14/21. At this hearing, Judge Murphy had to school IE that the defense was being unreasonable regarding the prosecution's time to respond.

It was also classic IE where she accused the prosecution of destroying evidence when the fact is that Judge Murphy previously ruled that the prosecution was not required to document every conversation (defense motion request too broad), and since IE didn't like the Court's Order, she attempted to a shakedown (to get her way) by alleging the prosecution had destroyed evidence. And when Murphy put it to her to name the deficiency from the options he provided, she couldn't and resorted to her catch-all whenever caught misleading the Court -- "The prosecution is violating the constitution."

From thread #99:

^^rsbm

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

 

[Seattle1]

Classic Murphy -- thorough, not short-cutting, and certainly not going to cut and paste from the defense motion:

Morphew Pretrial Hearing Wraps Up, Awaiting Trial Decision - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

8/25/2021
[...]

“I’d rather make the decision correctly, rather than expeditiously. The evidence, either way, is the same,” said Murphy. “I’m going to have to put quite a bit of effort into laying out that evidence so it’s clear in my head. I’m not doing it today.” He paused slightly and added — “I’m not a robot.”

[..]

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[Seattle1]

BIB - do you have a link to this?

I was busy at the time and never read it in full.

From my notes, there are 3 motions including:

April 1, 2022 People's Motion to partially reconsider 3/10 Court Order striking witnesses (18 pgs); April 5, 2022 Defense response to People's request for reconsideration
(17 pgs); and April 7, 2022 People's response to the defense (12 pgs).

Also, there are no pdfs on the public court site for the motions noted above and they were only available on select MSM that obtained them directly from the Court but not a direct pdf link to download.

Let me see if I can find identify which MSM may still have them for viewing via your internet browser.

ETA: link - 9News 4/11/22

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[GatorFL]

This is what I'm challenging.

Just because Iris said it, and just because the judge regurgitated it, IMO doesn't make it true.

Only truth makes it true.

Iris convinced the first judge that the Prosecution withheld DNA that was exculpatory. They did not and it was not.

Iris convinced the second judge that a dog picked up Suzanne's scent by the bike and followed it. Not true, not exculpatory.

IMO furthermore, neither interfered with Barry's right to a fair trial.

Never mind that the Prosecution no longer intended to call the handler as a witness. Paring down the 500. Pre-game decision not to call -- and all the handler would offer if called is that the dog never located Suzanne's scent -- no hidden evidence! That's bad for Barry! It doesn't exonerate him! It implicates him!

But Iris got the judge to smell the imaginary log.

Iris invented a livestream breach. Never happened. But the judge believed it, all but boxing out the public's right to be there and the media's ability to report on it.

Iris invented breaches by the DA. calling her remarks outrageous, prejudicial-- but 1. the DA made her remarks before any gag orders or admonitions and 2. she didn't say anything prejudicial! She indicated the fact that the defendant wasn't answering questions and sought an attorney. Fact. Beyond that, she wouldn't discuss particulars of the case. As we'd expect.

Iris is a magician.

JMO

The judges in this case were the arbiters of the truth regarding the various motions. Are you telling me that TWO judges made terrible rulings against the State when they had all of the information at their fingertips? You're talking about judicial misconduct. There was only misconduct from one side in this case, and it was from Linda Stanley's office because Iris Eytan was just doing her job.

MOO

 

[jakat]

Watch 48 Hours Season 34 Episode 39: The Suzanne Morphew Case: Nothing Is What It Seems - Full show on CBS

 

[Niner]

snipped...

BM has a status conference on May 26 for case D82021CR85 ( Forgery , Mail Fraud and Attempting to Influence A Public Servant) .
Will Judge Lama preside on this case?

I did not know that the "attempting to influence a public servant" was added to the fraud charges? Do you have something (link) where that is?

snipped...
I recall the forgery case remains in Chaffee County. I don't recall a motion for this case to have a venue change but little has been reported on this case.

Yes, the 5/26 court hearing is in Chaffee County per court site. Per my notes it was never moved to Fremont County.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Maybe he came to see his sanctions as too severe.
In the end Barry M. got justice, not to have evidence aganst him hidden, at the expense of justice for Suzanne M.

Barry’s justice will eventually be dished out by a far higher power than the court of law.

Yesterday was Suzanne’s “heavenly” birthday.
I hope she spent it having a word with the judge.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Agree that IE absolutely wasted much Court time, especially making or repeating allegations but Judge Murphy was very schooled at either shutting her down or calling her bluff.

This is from the carried over 11/9 motions hearing held on 12/14/21. At this hearing, Judge Murphy had to school IE that the defense was being unreasonable regarding the prosecution's time to respond.

It was also classic IE where she accused the prosecution of destroying evidence when the fact is that Judge Murphy previously ruled that the prosecution was not required to document every conversation (defense motion request too broad), and since IE didn't like the Court's Order, she attempted to a shakedown (to get her way) by alleging the prosecution had destroyed evidence. And when Murphy put it to her to name the deficiency from the options he provided, she couldn't and resorted to her catch-all whenever caught misleading the Court -- "The prosecution is violating the constitution."

From thread #99:

Perhaps Judge M should have warned her she was heading for a contempt of court citation if she continued to disrespect the court.

The next judge will need to be very sharp and very willing to call her bluff on this behavior on the record in a way that makes it clear she cannot continually seek subversion of justice by ignoring the judge's clear instructions.

You have pointed out one of the main ongoing faults in this case, which is the defense going rogue at every opportunity.

The prosecution deserved some form of sanction for missing deadlines but they never disrespected either judge the way IE did.

Her behavior in court and lies to the media are aggregious and need to be addressed in a professional forum for sanctions.

She veers from vigorous defense into contempt for the rule of law. It's disgusting.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

From my notes, there are 3 motions including:

April 1, 2022 People's Motion to partially reconsider 3/10 Court Order striking witnesses (18 pgs); April 5, 2022 Defense response to People's request for reconsideration
(17 pgs); and April 7, 2022 People's response to the defense (12 pgs).

Also, there are no pdfs on the public court site for the motions noted above and they were only available on select MSM that obtained them directly from the Court but not a direct pdf link to download.

Let me see if I can find identify which MSM may still have them for viewing via your internet browser.

ETA: link - 9News 4/11/22

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

Ooops, I forgot to also note and link Judge Lama's 20 pg Court Order for Discovery Violations and Sanctions dated April 8, 2022, issued WITHOUT considering the People's motion for reconsideration and defense response to the motions in my quoted post (see Court Order footnote #8, pg 14/20).

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/ORDER RE_ DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT [D-17-C] SUPPLEMENT AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT.pdf

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The judges in this case were the arbiters of the truth regarding the various motions. Are you telling me that TWO judges made terrible rulings against the State when they had all of the information at their fingertips? You're talking about judicial misconduct. There was only misconduct from one side in this case, and it was from Linda Stanley's office because Iris Eytan was just doing her job.

MOO

I agree with this. Yes Murphy told IE at one point in many many hours of court time to get to the point but that in no way illustrates any misconduct. Both judges managed the courtroom well within the law. The entire case was textbook stuff.

 

[Kemug]

I did not know that the "attempting to influence a public servant" was added to the fraud charges? Do you have something (link) where that is?

I'd forgotten about this! Does this refer to BM trying to bribe someone, and do we know who it was?

 

[Kemug]

I'm Late to the Lauren YouTube show, but, what a great panel that joined her and I'm still watching it but had to jump in here and say, I think Linda from It's a crime has been reading about the zoo here on WS. Lol
But seriously, it was a great show, IMO

Wow, our zoo is famous! I must immediately go and let them all know!

 

[Niner]

I'd forgotten about this! Does this refer to BM trying to bribe someone, and do we know who it was?

Somewhere on here is a list... can't point you to it - but I bet someone here will post it for you!