Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #105

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #601
  • #602
Consider me highly skeptical that the prosecution actually disclosed real expert reports but just didn't remember that it had. And then only realized it a month after being sanctioned for not disclosing them. Why not just say all of this on Feb. 14th or Feb 28th?

To me, the Apr. 7th motion (1 full month after the order excluding their experts and only 3 weeks before the trial date) reads as if they didn't have their expert reports ready, missed the deadline and then spent a month going back through previously disclosed discovery desperately looking for anything vaguely resembling expert opinion that they could then claim met the expert report requirements. An expert report is supposed to summarize all of the the expert's conclusion and what they're going to testify to at trial. Raw data or emails discussing raw data aren't the same thing at all. I've worked with experts to prepare expert reports before. The idea that you would have prepared an expert report and not remember that you had is just wildly implausible to me.

I can't see the appendices to that motion, so it's impossible for me to judge how much what they're referencing resembles an actual export report. But if they actually did disclose expert reports, why in the world wouldn't they identify them earlier and why wouldn't they appeal the sanctions?

I understand your argument, and I agree at the end of the day this was a big failure by the prosecution - I am trying to get at what are the actual reasons for the failure.

Like @Seattle1 I believe they are in fact not the ones commonly alleged in this thread, if you actually read the detail of the motions.

For instance, it is routinely claimed here that all this work should have been completed before BM was arrested. It took almost exactly one year to arrest BM, and it is clear that in the case of 3 critical experts - telematics, digital, cell data, that work was in fact completed before he was arrested.

The evidence did not change in the 8 months since the prelim. There was no other data. So why would there be any new report? The final motion makes this clear. The defence accepts it had the data and the report. Same on telematics. The defence even filed some of the data at the prelim. Same on the data extraction for calls and texts. It was all discovered for the prelim. There is no new report.

So how can those 3 experts have been sanctioned?

On balance I think two things are true

1. The prosecution was clearly disorganised and in violation - see the range rover telematics for example

2. The defence pulled a fast one. e.g Having told the judge they didn't have the 3 key experts discoveries, they then later conceded (after 10 March hearing) that they did have them, but should have received new discoveries. But why should they?

What concerns me, is the Judge simply decided to go along with point 2. But the failure is that all the work that went into the April 7 motion, should have been done for the 10 March hearing

I presume the reason that did not happen is simply resourcing, bureaucratic failure etc. They did not rally the troops until the case was in crisis, and they didn't anticipate the crisis, probably because they usually get away with it.
 
Last edited:
  • #603
Here are the quotes:





Thanks for this - sounds like total bureaucratic failure
 
  • #604
Back to Suzanne's possible location.


Page 4.
Why did bM dispose of the tranquiliser solution on his way to Broomfield if he did not expect her body to be found quickly and containing traces of said tranquiliser?

Does anybody recall name of tranquiliser, I want to check half life to try guessing at how long he expected it to remain in her body?


It woz a bull elk all the while..!

Bull elk probably killed the mountain lion too.. Exonerate the bull elk.

Full in case anybody feels like going through it again with a view to guessing at where he may have disposed of her body..
(I'm only on Page 5)

P. 122-123. Tranquilizer research

"BAM" Butorphanol tartrate, Azaperone tartrate, Metetomidine hydrochloride

Telazol

Xylazine
 
Last edited:
  • #605
P. 122 "BAM" Butorphanol tartrate, Azaperone tartrate, Metetomidine hydrochloride


he BAM combination is preferably initially formed as lyophilized powder of the pharmaceutically active ingredients, and then reconstituted before injection as an injectable liquid in the environment of the animal

Mortality resulting from hyperthermia or respiratory depression is usually not an acceptable outcome from any medical or scientific study or examination. Since the animal must be released into the natural environment after completion of the examination or procedure, the animal is likely to be unable to move in response to flight-invoked stimulus or be unable to naturally protect itself if the animal remains partially sedated. Under such circumstances the animal is placed at an unacceptable risk of death or injury from its natural predators or from encountering natural environmental hazards such as cliffs and bodies of water.

Horrifying way to die... really disturbing.

Next question
Can hunters acquire this drug without licence in his state?
If not how did he obtain it?

If he 'lost the bottle en route to B.field , why did he lose it?


Did he just administer a massive dose and throw/drive her somewhere while paralysed?
Is that how she died?

He was quick to blame the mountain lion, as a hunter it's likely he would have known where all the predatory animals hung out..
I'm not sure this is a useful exercise, unlikely her skeleton will retain traces but it does indicate pre-planning.

We need to figure out how he acquired the BAM..
 
  • #606


he BAM combination is preferably initially formed as lyophilized powder of the pharmaceutically active ingredients, and then reconstituted before injection as an injectable liquid in the environment of the animal

Mortality resulting from hyperthermia or respiratory depression is usually not an acceptable outcome from any medical or scientific study or examination. Since the animal must be released into the natural environment after completion of the examination or procedure, the animal is likely to be unable to move in response to flight-invoked stimulus or be unable to naturally protect itself if the animal remains partially sedated. Under such circumstances the animal is placed at an unacceptable risk of death or injury from its natural predators or from encountering natural environmental hazards such as cliffs and bodies of water.

Horrifying way to die... really disturbing.

Next question
Can hunters acquire this drug without licence in his state?
If not how did he obtain it?

If he 'lost the bottle en route to B.field , why did he lose it?


Did he just administer a massive dose and throw/drive her somewhere while paralysed?
Is that how she died?

He was quick to blame the mountain lion, as a hunter it's likely he would have known where all the predatory animals hung out..
I'm not sure this is a useful exercise, unlikely her skeleton will retain traces but it does indicate pre-planning.

We need to figure out how he acquired the BAM..
P. 121

Barry said he brought the tranquilizers from Indiana (where he had them presumably for his deer farm, along with the appropriate chemical to wake the animals).
 
  • #607
BAM is a Class IV
 
  • #608
IMO Barry admits he had the tranquilizers, brought them to PP and ("coukd have been") admits he got rid of them on Mother's Day.

Cleaning house, I guess.

Why?

Why would he do that, that day of all days?

This isn't just a theory. It's a confession.

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #609
P. 121

Barry said he brought the tranquilizers from Indiana (where he had them presumably for his deer farm, along with the appropriate chemical to wake the animals).
Did they check for a vet's prescription at the time, I wonder?
A script for BAM is only valid for 6 months..
 
  • #610
Did they check for a vet's prescription at the time, I wonder?
A script for BAM is only valid for 6 months..
P. 119

He kept them from Indiana, on his workbench. Said he loaded tranqs as recently as April, 2020 (remember the two deer he claimed to tranq, from the breezeway, for their antlers).

I wonder if you have to be licensed in CO to use outdated tranquilizers from Indiana.

But then there's always idintknowicouldnt.

JMO
 
  • #611
I wonder whatever happened to the second syringe sheath.

Jmo
 
  • #612
I wonder whatever happened to the second syringe sheath.

Jmo
One of the rubbish bags?

If he used one of his vehicles and she was still alive when he brought her to wherever he brought her, a hole, I'm thinking , there would have been no cadaver scent.
If he actually killed her prior to dropping her wherever or if he shot her with a dart after dropping her in the hole?
How does that work?
Hole being mine shaft or something similar. With vehicular access?
BUT he was red and flustered when he met forewoman suggesting recent physical activity?

Could he then truthfully say he didn't kill her, she was alive when he last saw her?
Just paralysed from anaesthetic?
 
  • #613
One of the rubbish bags?

If he used one of his vehicles and she was still alive when he brought her to wherever he brought her, a hole, I'm thinking , there would have been no cadaver scent.
If he actually killed her prior to dropping her wherever or if he shot her with a dart after dropping her in the hole?
How does that work?
Hole being mine shaft or something similar. With vehicular access?
BUT he was red and flustered when he met forewoman suggesting recent physical activity?

Could he then truthfully say he didn't kill her, she was alive when he last saw her?
Just paralysed from anaesthetic?
Help me. What forewoman?
 
  • #614
Help me. What forewoman?
Sorry, name gone.. the lady that worked for him, he showed up at her house, the lady who was left without the tools necessary to complete the job.
ETA gottit. Sorry.
MG
 
Last edited:
  • #615
Sorry, name gone.. the lady that worked for him, he showed up at her house, the lady who was left without the tools necessary to complete the job.
MG

She saw him Saturday morning.

Not Sunday.

JMO
 
  • #616
  • #617
If Suzanne can be found, perhaps it's possible that, on her tiny frame, sans animal fat and deerskin, a dart might hit bone.

And THAT might be discoverable, even years later.

JMO
 
  • #618
refresher
 
  • #619
I still think a scuffle occurred near or on Suzanne's side of the bed. Resulting in the unspent cartridge landing on the floor and accounting for her missing phone and charger and IMO evidenced by the gouges on Barry's arms.

In the minutes before the sedative took full hold, I think Suzanne took desperate measures to lock Barry out of the house (necessitating him doing the chipmunk run) and I believe she made it to their bedroom where she was able to lock the door (which Barry breached with force) in order to call 911. We know she kept her charger by her bedside. We know she'd used her phone all morning and early afternoon communicating with JL. So, it seems reasonable -- even likely -- that her phone would need charging, in particular if she intended to take her afternoon bike ride (which I believe she did, in fact, intend to do). Perhaps she hung up her bikini, showered, dressed (or was wearing nothing but the brown towel), left her phone charging, stripped the upstairs bed linens and was in the laundry room when Barry arrived home. (I don't know that Suzanne expected to see Barry at all. I think she may have believed he'd gone to Denver for his "big [snow] job". Breakfast in bed, didn't happen. Veggie soup, didn't happen. Hike, didn't happen. Steak-on-a-plate, didn't happen.)

So Suzanne locks herself in the bedroom and goes for her phone, just as a raging BM barrels through the door and wrestles her phone from her, pulling the cord from the wall.

Push-up king would have no trouble IMO holding a small doe steady until his BAM did what he intended for it to do.

The evidence tells the story.

JMO
 
  • #620
"Shady" means "of doubtful honesty" IIRC. Were any of Lama's decisions (including his decision - not Murphy's - to grant a change of venue) - dishonest? How?

Was Lindsey's decision to accept appointment as Chief Deputy DA in the 10th Judicial District after taking the BM prosecution through the preliminary hearing dishonest? How?

Was Murphy's decision to recuse himself dishonest? How?

I disagree with many of Lama's decisions, but IMO they were honest mistakes, made within the scope of his discretion and grounded in facts and law as he saw and articulated them.

I share your frustration, but I will not so easily let it poison my thinking with cynicism.

All MOO
Lol at judges getting a pass because they are hoodwinked or taken advantage of. They made absolutely terrible decisions, that let a murderer walk. The DNA was not a match. He is a judge. It is his courtroom. He said the DNA mattered in his conclusion to grant bail and change of venue. The DNA was not related, and for whatever reason (shady or incompetence ) Murphy made the DNA non match a match. Weird that a judge on a murder trial doesn't understand DNA evidence-like a pilot not able to read an altimeter. Why does he get a pass? He got the wool pulled over ? LS isn't granted that leniency in her inabililty to do her job. Maybe LS just got hoodwinked. Lama is shady as the north side of Longs Peak. His judgements should have went in the trash with BM trash runs. Lindsey pulled the rug out on LS with the timing.

I am cynical and believe BM walked because of shady and nefarious actors. You forgot to mention Cahill, the lead investigator for the cbi who spoke with the defense attorney before testifying at the PH. He completely threw the case. That's shady
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
2,500
Total visitors
2,634

Forum statistics

Threads
632,208
Messages
18,623,537
Members
243,057
Latest member
persimmonpi3
Back
Top