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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #141
Good Catch!
There's a defence exhibit one too, that looks like it's got extra stuff in but i shall say moo as I can't remember. But now it's 83 pages long, am convinced it was originally in the 70 page mark but I'm not 100% so again jmo.
This one is dated 1/28/22
PG 21
Barry's call logs show outgoing calls to Suzanne's phone from 4.50pm to 9.27pm on evening/night of 9th May. This I find odd, considering Barry had said he and Suzanne had a quiet afternoon, evening and night time where they sunbathed, he was shooting chipmunks, they shared a steak obviously off the same plate like you do, had sex and didn't use their phones at all iirc. So, if as Iris says, Barry is innocent - who made those calls?

Frustrated for Suzanne and the Moorman family, but pleased something didn't go Barry's way yesterday when Judge Groome denied the motion.

Moo
 
Last edited:
  • #142
There is no jurisdiction for a line by line hearing

Maybe if they want a more collaborative approach, the defence shouldn't go round implying that the prosecution is corrupt
BAM!
 
  • #143
I missed the virtual hearing but I have the image where the hurricane IE was exhausting Judge Groome and when the Prosecutor asked permission to address the Court, he could hardly contain himself --GLADLY, GLADLY!

Exactement!
:D
Très bien!
 
  • #144
  • #145
There's a defence exhibit one too, that looks like it's got extra stuff in but i shall say moo as I can't remember. But now it's 83 pages long, am convinced it was originally in the 70 page mark but I'm not 100% so again jmo.
This one is dated 1/28/22
PG 21
Barry's call logs show outgoing calls to Suzanne's phone from 4.50pm to 9.27pm on evening/night of 9th May. This I find odd, considering Barry had said he and Suzanne had a quiet afternoon, evening and night time where they sunbathed, he was shooting chipmunks, they shared a steak obviously off the same plate like you do, had sex and didn't use their phones at all iirc. So, if as Iris says, Barry is innocent - who made those calls?

Frustrated for Suzanne and the Moorman family, but pleased something didn't go Barry's way yesterday when Judge Groome denied the motion.

Moo

Do you have the link to where all the exhibits are?

TIA
 
  • #146
Last edited:
  • #147

Colorado Judicial Branch - 3rd one down

Hope that works
Pg 43 there's a GMaps printout of a village called Johnson Village - I don't remember seeing that before
Also a page about Barry Airplane mode activity

Thanks!

Unfortunately already lots of the handy online resources sleuths had created appear to be dead
 
  • #148
I think the issue with the call times is they are UTC and not Colorado time - so the call to SM is in the afternoon before her disappearance
 
  • #149
I think the issue with the call times is they are UTC and not Colorado time - so the call to SM is in the afternoon before her disappearance
Thank you!
 
  • #150
  • #151
LS going Live in about 2 hours.
7:00 p.m. Mountain Time

 
  • #152
  • #153
But sadly true to BM's form and personality
I am pleased BM is requesting IE to carry out these motions.
Hope they all continue to fail.
With these motions, his money is dwindling, upsetting him greatly.
Hee, Hee. :D
:D :D
 
  • #154
I am pleased BM is requesting IE to carry out these motions.
Hope they all continue to fail.
With these motions, his money is dwindling, upsetting him greatly.
Hee, Hee. :D
:D :D

What motions would they be? I checked his court documents & don't see any recent ones.
TIA! :)
 
  • #155
  • #156
What motions would they be? I checked his court documents & don't see any recent ones.
TIA! :)
Not recent. I think OP was referring to the Motions just heard in court requesting the return of his property (91 items) but the Motion was denied by Judge Groome.
 
  • #157
Not recent. I think OP was referring to the Motions just heard in court requesting the return of his property (91 items) but the Motion was denied by Judge Groome.

Oh okay - thanks! :)
 
  • #158
Another thing that was said (by the prosecution lawyer) was that the prosecution does not need to find Suzanne's body in order to re-prosecute the case. I like the sound of that!
Hi Tumbleweed, did Mark Hurlbert say this on the WebEx from Oct 25th? Or is there a written document where he is quoted saying this?
 
  • #159
  • #160
Hi Tumbleweed, did Mark Hurlbert say this on the WebEx from Oct 25th? Or is there a written document where he is quoted saying this?
According to LS's youtube recap of the Motions hearing, after BM's defense attorney IE spoke for about 20 minutes, Prosecutor Hurlbert addressed the court for about 6 minutes where he did say that the State does not need SM's body to prosecute her murder case.

Hurlbert also cited the following 40-year case below that was solved by advancements with DNA that Hulbert told the court can also happen here, and why the state should not release BM's property held in evidence.

At the conclusion of the prosecution's argument, the Judge immediately denied the defense's motion (as if not to give IE an opportunity to interject any further comment, per LS).

Coincidentally, Judge Groome precided over this 40-year case cited by Hulbert and was prosecuted by Linda Stanley.

The convicted defendant, Alan Phillips, arrested last year for the 1982 homicides, will be sentenced on Nov 7.


https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/murder-conviction-alan-lee-phillips/73-187976c6-92e2-42e2-9164-1d25f6cfd58c
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
2,536
Total visitors
2,682

Forum statistics

Threads
632,080
Messages
18,621,791
Members
243,017
Latest member
thaines
Back
Top