Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #102

[Momofthreeboys]

Hope this is ok to post. It's an excellent interview with Lauren!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

ETA: @DeDee we posted at the same exact time!

A nice mix of facts, speculation and salacious tidbits. It was entertaining. Rarely do I make it through an hour long You Tube video. Thanks for posting.

 

[Megnut]

Hope this is ok to post. It's an excellent interview with Lauren!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

ETA: @DeDee we posted at the same exact time!

Listening now....

A few interesting points --

When Lauren originally looked up the wallsite on Google, Google Maps satellite image showed BARRY'S BOBCAT! Confirmed by MG and operated by CC when the wall was done wrong the first time.

And when Lauren interviewed Barry, back when, he kept directing her to watch the surveillance video from the hotel (she declined saying that was LE's domain, not hers).

Boy, I'd sure like to see all the hotel video and the nearby bank's.

Did he attempt to put on show for the lobby? Exiting the hotel as if off to the site, then returning, aa if work was continuing without him.

If the girls had gotten home much earlier (like IMO he expected), all his "work" was done by noon, perfect for returning to Maysville misafternoon.

And by "work" of course I'm referring to dumpster runs, the only real enterprise he has that day.

I'll bet he was eager to have LE check thr hotel cams.

Might've been a good plan too if not for the business camera.

Oh, Bank.

Bum luck.

JMO

 

[MountainDad]

If Murphy's (and the reporter's) words are taken out of context, I understand how OP might think that. However, I think the hearing on Nov 9 further confirms nobody here including Murphy and/or the defense believed the prelim evidence was a DNA "match" -- given how even IE refers to the evidence as a "partial match."

From reporter Ashley Franco's tweets:

Judge Murphy says he's a bit lost in what the argument is that defense attorneys are trying to get across here. Prosecutors say they're not sure why they're here for this hearing. Defense says they're trying to prove there was withholding of exculpatory evidence.
@KKTV11News

3:25 PM · Nov 9, 2021

Judge says the prosecution didn't really present much evidence during the preliminary hearing to show what the DNA match meant which he says helped him decide that there wasn't enough evidence to continue to keep #BarryMorphew without bond.
@KKTV11News

3:27 PM · Nov 9, 2021

Iris Eytan trying to explain why there are witnesses here to testify about meetings between prosecutors and CBI that defense attorneys were not made aware of. She says Agent Cahill with CBI lied about his knowledge of the DNA evidence in the case.
@KKTV11News
#BarryMorpehw

3:29 PM · Nov 9, 2021·

Eytan says information about an alternate suspect in the case was hidden from them. Prosecutors say this is going down a road leading to nowhere. He now says that maybe defense has it because there's so much evidence. Iris fires back with a hard "no" #BarryMorphew
@KKTV11News

3:32 PM · Nov 9, 2021


Judge says "I'd like to have something productive come out of this hearing." He says we will have to continue this hearing for some other time. He is asking Eytan to focus her questioning on a specific thing because court closes in 15.
@KKTV11News
#BarryMorphew #SuzanneMorphew

3:45 PM · Nov 9, 2021·

Eytan asks Cahill if he wants to change any of his testimony from the day of the prelim. He says no. She's questioning him on the DNA partial match to the unsolved case out of Tempe, Arizona.
@KKTV11News
#BarryMorphew #suzannemorphew

3:48 PM · Nov 9, 2021·

^^bbm for emphasis

That was a frustrating day at the prelim. Almost the whole day was spent talking about this partial DNA match. There is no such thing as a partial DNA match. The media grabbed that headline and it derailed the case, giving BM supporters a talking point for reasonable doubt. Judge Murphy, as stated above, said that DNA provided another scenario where Suzanne could have been a victim of this mysterious traveling sexual assaulted with zero supporting evidence.

 

[Seattle1]

That was a frustrating day at the prelim. Almost the whole day was spent talking about this partial DNA match. There is no such thing as a partial DNA match. The media grabbed that headline and it derailed the case, giving BM supporters a talking point for reasonable doubt. Judge Murphy, as stated above, said that DNA provided another scenario where Suzanne could have been a victim of this mysterious traveling sexual assaulted with zero supporting evidence.

IMO, the prosecution failed by not having a DNA expert present this evidence at the preliminary hearing, instead of relying on Cahill to explain 'partial DNA strand' and industry terminology as to what constitutes a 'lead,' which is not the equivalent of a 'match.'

But in defense of the prosecution, we won't ever know what the DA's office prepared Cahill to testify about and how (or if) it differed from what he actually said at the hearing.

Ultimately, because the Court found the prosecution did not meet its burden, the court was obligated by the Colorado Constitution to set bail.

 

[justtrish]

Listening now....

A few interesting points --

When Lauren originally looked up the wallsite on Google, Google Maps satellite image showed BARRY'S BOBCAT! Confirmed by MG and operated by CC when the wall was done wrong the first time.

And when Lauren interviewed Barry, back when, he kept directing her to watch the surveillance video from the hotel (she declined saying that was LE's domain, not hers).

Boy, I'd sure like to see all the hotel video and the nearby bank's.

Did he attempt to put on show for the lobby? Exiting the hotel as if off to the site, then returning, aa if work was continuing without him.

If the girls had gotten home much earlier (like IMO he expected), all his "work" was done by noon, perfect for returning to Maysville misafternoon.

And by "work" of course I'm referring to dumpster runs, the only real enterprise he has that day.

I'll bet he was eager to have LE check thr hotel cams.

Might've been a good plan too if not for the business camera.

Oh, Bank.

Bum luck.

JMO

Ohhh interesting point I didn't think about before, but makes perfect sense.. if Barry expected someone to miss her BEFORE 5-6pm.. then he wouldn't have gotten much work done anyway and he could have been called back home before it even seems suspicious that he was in the hotel room and not at the job site all day. I am curious what time the wedding was she was going to watch.. maybe Barry figured someone would be calling before 5pm concerned because she was supposed to participate in the wedding and as you said maybe the girls were due back earlier or at least maybe Barry thought they were due back earlier. I really want to know what the original plan was for Mother's Day. We know he intended to be home because he wasn't leaving until that night to drive up to Broomfield. Then, he changed it to 5am. So were the girls going to be back early and they were maybe going to celebrate with Suzanne after all? Then he would leave for Broomfield, which seems normal to get up there the evening before starting work the next day. Then he kills her, has to leave early so he isn't home when the girls arrive home early Sunday.. but wait the girls are delayed and now nobody is worried until nearly 5pm and poor Barry's alibi is blown because he can't be doing work on Sunday anyway and actually he didn't do work, he just laid up in the hotel room, which is just plain odd.

 

[justtrish]

IMO, the prosecution failed by not having a DNA expert present this evidence at the preliminary hearing, instead of relying on Cahill to explain 'partial DNA strand' and industry terminology as to what constitutes a 'lead,' which is not the equivalent of a 'match.'

But in defense of the prosecution, we won't ever know what the DA's office prepared Cahill to testify about and how (or if) it differed from what he actually said at the hearing.

Ultimately, because the Court found the prosecution did not meet its burden, the court was obligated by the Colorado Constitution to set bail.

I'm sure the prosecution didn't figure the defense was going to make up a wild story that the DNA actually matched someone, when Cahill didn't testify that to be true. It's also possible that the prosecution didn't realize Cahill would need to be an expert on this to explain it, but seems the defense wanted to make more of it than it was and Cahill didn't have the ability to answer for some of it.

Would it have been possible at that point for the judge to ask for an expert on DNA to testify to explain it? Maybe this isn't possible, but if I was the judge trying to decide if it should go to trial and something was confusing or the prosecution said X and the defense claimed Y and I myself didn't fully understand it, I'd want an expert that did to clarify things before I made a decision. Maybe this is just something that gets sorted out at the actual trial and the judge wasn't as focused on it.. but then he did give Barry bail based on that so it could have cleared up a whole lot if an expert was there.

Also, do you know if the prosecution has to disclose everything to the defense before the PH or is that just applying to before trial?

 

[justtrish]

Hope this is ok to post. It's an excellent interview with Lauren!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

ETA: @DeDee we posted at the same exact time!

Thanks for sharing! I am listening now and it's good. I love hearing Lauren's first hand account of different interactions she had with Barry and with what she was investigating. I find it interesting that LE was set up down the road from George's house when Barry was staying there.

 

[CGray123]

From reporter Ashley Franco's tweets:

3:25 PM · Nov 9, 2021

Judge says the prosecution didn't really present much evidence during the preliminary hearing to show what the DNA match meant which he says helped him decide that there wasn't enough evidence to continue to keep #BarryMorphew without bond.
@KKTV11News

^^bbm for emphasis

RSBM. I think we end up in the same place by different routes. Whatever words he used, Judge M did not understand the unknown DNA's lack of significance in terms of a plausible alternative suspect. The prosecution didn't have an expert there to explain that it is not exculpatory, even at the sanctions hearing. If I didn't make that point effectively, my bad.

 

[Seattle1]

Hope this is ok to post. It's an excellent interview with Lauren!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

ETA: @DeDee we posted at the same exact time!

Thanks for posting this video @swedeheart.

In the last thread, I opined that BM's charge of attempting to influence a public servant (Charge #5) was tied to BM asking Agent Grusing for immunity (per LS tweets).

At about the 1 hour 05 min mark, LS corrected herself that this charge was not linked to BM requesting immunity but BM witnessing and submitting SM's general election ballot.

I'll report my prior post for removal.

ETA: Done!

 

[Seattle1]

O/T -- from LS youtube, she knew the former jailer Vicky White when LS lived in Florence, AL, and even reported on the convicted criminal Casey White from the same County Detention Center! What a small world!

 

[Charlot123]

Where I fall apart IS on the dna. Unknown DNA was reported to be on the bike, the helmet, the house as well as the car glovebox. I do not recall ever hearing the answer to the question was the unknown/known DNA that was ruled out only on the car glovebox and not the helmet, the bike and in the house? Was the other unknown DNA if it differed from the car glovebox also run through Codis and eliminated? If the same unknown DNA was on the car glovebox AND somewhere else what is the explanation for that. I think before they go to trial they need to have an explanation for any unknown DNA on the helmet at the least.

All these things: the car, the bike, the helmet - were in the garage. Barry may not be interested in discussing if he invited anyone to do garage/housework, but anyone entering through the garage could have touched several things in it. Glovebox would probably indicate people were looking for money, and opened the glovebox just because some people might leave bills there. MOO.

 

[FromGermany1]

++

Listening now....

A few interesting points --

When Lauren originally looked up the wallsite on Google, Google Maps satellite image showed BARRY'S BOBCAT! Confirmed by MG and operated by CC when the wall was done wrong the first time.

And when Lauren interviewed Barry, back when, he kept directing her to watch the surveillance video from the hotel (she declined saying that was LE's domain, not hers).

Boy, I'd sure like to see all the hotel video and the nearby bank's.

Did he attempt to put on show for the lobby? Exiting the hotel as if off to the site, then returning, aa if work was continuing without him.

If the girls had gotten home much earlier (like IMO he expected), all his "work" was done by noon, perfect for returning to Maysville misafternoon.

And by "work" of course I'm referring to dumpster runs, the only real enterprise he has that day.

I'll bet he was eager to have LE check thr hotel cams.

Might've been a good plan too if not for the business camera.

Oh, Bank.

Bum luck.

JMO

I remember vague, that LS interviewed BM and didn't make public all of the interview, because BM found it "too soon" (again , but my own wording ) for part of it. Lauren comforted the readers and promised, to publish it at a later date.

Was it the HIE video, he didn't want the public to be heard of at that time?

 

[mrjitty]

IMO, the prosecution failed by not having a DNA expert present this evidence at the preliminary hearing, instead of relying on Cahill to explain 'partial DNA strand' and industry terminology as to what constitutes a 'lead,' which is not the equivalent of a 'match.'

But in defense of the prosecution, we won't ever know what the DA's office prepared Cahill to testify about and how (or if) it differed from what he actually said at the hearing.

Ultimately, because the Court found the prosecution did not meet its burden, the court was obligated by the Colorado Constitution to set bail.

I agree in hindsight it would have been helpful, but it is also not uncommon that all this technical evidence will be argued by experts at the full trial.

Also - the decision by Judge Murphy only relates to the narrow issue of bail, so at the end of the day who cares.

What worries me much more is that the pre-trial fishing expedition seems to have coloured the trial judge's view that there is some conspiracy to all of this - meaning that he ended up ruling out the very expert evidence from each side that would put this issue to bed.

What disturbs me most about this, is the DNA samples do nothing to actually answer the prosecution evidence against the accused. If the defence was able to illustrate the presence of someone who should not have been there, that is one thing, but merely to be able to prove there is male DNA on the glovebox or on the bike not belonging the accused? That means zero.

 

[mrjitty]

To me, it seems pretty clear from the words Judge M used in explaining his findings, that he misunderstood the significance of what he heard. He described a "match" not a partial match, and he said the match was with "a person who committed other sexual assaults." He seems to have picked up the defense argument without noting Cahill's testimony as well as the reporter did.

Sometimes a Court sets sail for a port in a storm and finds a way to get there.

IMO Judge M clearly articulated the weight of the evidence against the accused. BUT its a no body case, and who knows what the experts at trial will come up with, which might lead to a non guilty verdict.

So let the accused out on bail, by means that fell into Judge Ms lap.

I suspect that may be what was going on here.

 

[mrjitty]

Where I fall apart IS on the dna. Unknown DNA was reported to be on the bike, the helmet, the house as well as the car glovebox. I do not recall ever hearing the answer to the question was the unknown/known DNA that was ruled out only on the car glovebox and not the helmet, the bike and in the house? Was the other unknown DNA if it differed from the car glovebox also run through Codis and eliminated? If the same unknown DNA was on the car glovebox AND somewhere else what is the explanation for that. I think before they go to trial they need to have an explanation for any unknown DNA on the helmet at the least.

BIB - I think there is some confusion in the DNA discussion

In this use case, CODIS is used to try to rule someone IN

LE look for the DNA of a criminal already in the database who should not be present. No one is being eliminated

 

[Love Never Fails]

O/T -- from LS youtube, she knew the former jailer Vicky White when LS lived in Florence, AL, and even reported on the convicted criminal Casey White from the same County Detention Center! What a small world!

Wow. It is a small world. Hard to believe that girl gave up everything for a murderer.

 

[Boxer]

The DA has the responsibility to present their evidence in a comprehensible manner.

 

[Boxer]

To me, it seems pretty clear from the words Judge M used in explaining his findings, that he misunderstood the significance of what he heard. He described a "match" not a partial match, and he said the match was with "a person who committed other sexual assaults." He seems to have picked up the defense argument without noting Cahill's testimony as well as the reporter did.

It's not just Judge M, there are a least a 100 pages here as people slowly unravelled what partial match meant.

 

[CGray123]

I know what the prosecution does is all discoverable by the defense, but what about the defenses actions? Who they speak to, what emails they send, what experts tell them, etc. Does that have to be shared?

A judge should also be required to vet all info independently and just copying the defenses argument in a ruling is not an unbiased look at it, especially when their arguments were wrong. How is that not questioned?

Rule 16, CRCrP has a section (see below) that requires specific disclosures from the defense to the prosecution, but it's circumscribed by the defendant's constitutional rights and by the confidentiality of legal advice and work product privileges. Legal research, and documents that contain attorney opinions, theories, or conclusions, need not be disclosed.

Also, all litigators know that if information is not documented it need not be disclosed, and all litigators take strategic advantage of this principle.

--------
BBM

Part II. Disclosure to Prosecution

(a) The Person of the Accused

(1) Notwithstanding the initiation of judicial proceedings, and subject to constitutional limitations, upon request of the prosecuting attorney, the court may require the accused to give any nontestimonial identification as provided in Rule 41.1(h)(2).

(2) Whenever the personal appearance of the accused is required for the foregoing purposes, reasonable notice of the time and place of such appearance shall be given by the prosecuting attorney to the accused and his or her counsel. Provision may be made for appearance for such purposes in an order admitting the accused to bail or providing for his or her release.

(b) Medical and Scientific Reports.

(1) Subject to constitutional limitations, the trial court may require that the prosecuting attorney be informed of and permitted to inspect and copy or photograph any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons.

(2) Subject to constitutional limitations, and where the interests of justice would be served, the court may order the defense to disclose the underlying facts or data supporting the opinion in that particular case of an expert endorsed as a witness. If a report has not been prepared by that expert to aid in compliance with other discovery obligations of this rule, the court may order the party calling that expert to provide a written summary of the testimony describing the witness's opinions and the bases and reasons therefor, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons. The intent of this section is to allow the prosecution sufficient meaningful information to conduct effective cross-examination under CRE 705.

(c) Nature of Defense.

Subject to constitutional limitations, the defense shall disclose to the prosecution the nature of any defense, other than alibi, which the defense intends to use at trial. The defense shall also disclose the names and addresses of persons whom the defense intends to call as witnesses at trial. At the entry of the not guilty plea, the court shall set a deadline for such disclosure. In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown. Upon receipt of the information required by this subsection (c), the prosecuting attorney shall notify the defense of any additional witnesses which the prosecution intends to call to rebut such defense within a reasonable time after their identity becomes known.

(d) Notice of Alibi.

The defense, if it intends to introduce evidence that the defendant was at a place other than the location of the offense, shall serve upon the prosecuting attorney as soon as practicable but not later than 35 days before trial a statement in writing specifying the place where he or she claims to have been and the names and addresses of the witnesses he or she will call to support the defense of alibi. Upon receiving this statement, the prosecuting attorney shall advise the defense of the names and addresses of any additional witnesses who may be called to refute such alibi as soon as practicable after their names become known. Neither the prosecuting attorney nor the defense shall be permitted at the trial to introduce evidence inconsistent with the specification, unless the court for good cause and upon just terms permits the specification to be amended. If the defense fails to make the specification required by this section, the court shall exclude evidence in his behalf that he or she was at a place other than that specified by the prosecuting attorney unless the court is satisfied upon good cause shown that such evidence should be admitted.

 

[Cindizzi]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies