Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #106

[waldojabba]

I respectfully draw Everyone's attention to Page 66, Section D. I've never seen anything quite like it before.

https://kdvr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2023/04/2023-03-29-Morphew-OARC-RFI.pdf



It's news to me that there was an actual map of chipmunk shootings. Does it cover every single square foot of the property? Were there actual chipmunk bodies verifying Barry's actions?

SMH.

JMVHO.

I saw that lol. Does she also call that "egregious" - "deeply troubling" etc.. So much hyperoble in that doc that she wants people to take literally. She must love the uneducated. When she points the finger at the prosecution, three more fingers point back at her. JUST IMO

 

[waldojabba]

BIB

Presuming this is directed at me.

I am upset that IE has intentional misrepresentations and untruths in her complaint.

I have no problem if she wants to complain about discovery violations. But that is not what is going on here.

You only need to look at page 77 re the dismissal without prejudice for confirmation as to how IE lies. She made those arguments in Court and lost. So now she tries to re-litigate them in a complaint. But the prosecution did not promise to find the body. She then claims these were 'false statements' pointing towards the defendant's innocence.

Just laughable and sad stuff.

Honestly I think the DA should make a complaint to the law society about this unethical conduct. The point is clearly to personally intimidate prosecutors in future cases.

BIngo @mrjitty
I am one hundred percent in agreement with you
From above:
" Honestly I think the DA should make a complaint to the law society about this unethical conduct. The point is clearly to personally intimidate prosecutors in future cases"

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BIngo @mrjitty
I am one hundred percent in agreement with you
From above:
" Honestly I think the DA should make a complaint to the law society about this unethical conduct. The point is clearly to personally intimidate prosecutors in future cases"

I don’t think that intimidate is the right word but yes politically she wants prosecutors held to their legal obligations statewide. Not liking her personal style doesn’t mean the message has no value. Typically prosecutors don’t launch a case until they are ready. There are current cases where the family and public are pressuring for a prosecution. The onus is on the prosecutors…to be prepared to prosecute and to do it in an ethical and legal manner. In my opinion people can disagree with some of her arguments and backup the for me it is hard to disagree with the higher over-riding message.

 

[MyBelle]

Snipped for brevity. The religion was strong in her, and the control - in him. IMHO, BM would be controlling his family, finances, everything - even if staunch atheist. But his conservative, parochial views probably further contributed to the family dynamic. P.S. SM’s parents were from the same religious background, but her father sounded like a totally different man than BM.

My very personal suspicion, but I think that SM’s outlook on life was mostly affected by her getting cancer at such a young age. This is why her marriage with BM imploded so late; given how different they were, they should have divorced much sooner. But maybe she felt she was given a life, and a family, for a reason, and stayed with that family, no matter what?

I think BM knew SM wanted a divorce and therein was the problem: filing for divorce requires full financial documentation and disclosure. That was his motive for her murder. He was having serious financial difficulty. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

It is exculpatory because it is true. Being in a mountainous rural region will produce the affect of a stationary phone moving all over the place. So the theory put forth by the prosecution is connected to exculpatory data that says “maybe not” regardless of what Barry might have said in conversations. I am not a lawyer but back when the trial was proceeding I wondered how much of Barry’s casual conversations with LE would end up suppressed.

Do you have proof that BM's phone was stationary? Unless you do, your theory is bogus. The defendant offered that he was in motion shooting chipmunks and later voluntarily surrendered the "chipmunk gun" which I believe resulted in another charge for an illegal weapon. The evidence suppression hearings were said and done. MOO

Add source:

 

[Seattle1]

I don’t think that intimidate is the right word but yes politically she wants prosecutors held to their legal obligations statewide. Not liking her personal style doesn’t mean the message has no value. Typically prosecutors don’t launch a case until they are ready. There are current cases where the family and public are pressuring for a prosecution. The onus is on the prosecutors…to be prepared to prosecute and to do it in an ethical and legal manner. In my opinion people can disagree with some of her arguments and backup the for me it is hard to disagree with the higher over-riding message.

To be clear, the prosecution never said they were not ready to arrest and prosecute BM!

What exactly do you think the prosecution was waiting for? The body? Convicting a defendant of murder does not require the body.

After Judge Murphy found probable cause and bound BM over for trial, I recall IE wasted another hearing trying that argument and failed miserably.

“This is the inference put forward by the DA’s office and I must give preference to this. Second, there is no recovered body. Third, Colorado courts have rejected the corpus delicti argument in favor of probable cause … in that case … the court said the confession itself was the reliable evidence … so the body didn’t have to be shown.”

Probable Cause Established

 

[GatorFL]

To be clear, the prosecution never said they were not ready to arrest and prosecute BM!

What exactly do you think the prosecution was waiting for? The body? Convicting a defendant of murder does not require the body.

After Judge Murphy found probable cause and bound BM over for trial, I recall IE wasted another hearing trying that argument and failed miserably.

The investigators said it was too soon though. And they were right.

 

[Seattle1]

Laura Saxton founded Colorado Missing Person’s Day in 2016 in honor of her daughter Kelsie Schelling. Kelsie was reported missing in Pueblo on February 4th, 2013, and she hasn’t been seen or heard from since.

“I haven't seen her for ten years, and I haven't heard for voice for ten years, I haven’t heard her laugh or been able to hug her for ten years.” said Saxton. “I don't know how I survived that long, because it's just so unbelievable and so painful.”

[...]

“If we were able to bring her remains home and give here a proper burial, I think that would help me to a certain degree, have some peace that way, but not having her back and not knowing where she is, is just torture,” said Saxton.

After more than 9 yrs missing, Kelsie's killer was convicted in March 2022. Her remains are still not recovered.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Do you have proof that BM's phone was stationary? Unless you do, your theory is bogus. The defendant offered that he was in motion shooting chipmunks and later voluntarily surrendered the "chipmunk gun" which I believe resulted in another charge for an illegal weapon. The evidence suppression hearings were said and done. MOO

Add source:

View attachment 416839

The citation from the CAST expert regarding drift is in IE’s complaint.

 

[mrjitty]

It is exculpatory because it is true. Being in a mountainous rural region will produce the affect of a stationary phone moving all over the place. So the theory put forth by the prosecution is connected to exculpatory data that says “maybe not” regardless of what Barry might have said in conversations. I am not a lawyer but back when the trial was proceeding I wondered how much of Barry’s casual conversations with LE would end up suppressed.

This is not correct.

The data is not exculpatory. The GPS data shows the phone moving. That is incontrovertible.

The FBI expert drew the conclusion that the phone was moving, but only with low confidence.

That is also not "exculpatory".

IE can of course challenge the conclusion of the witness at trial. But the problem is her client said that FBI analyst was correct.

So you have corroborating evidence that the phone was moving, against iEs speculation that there was some other explanation. Note also that the speculation that the phone was really stationary, is not evidence. It is a theory for which IE would need to provide expert evidence. e.g comparison of many other previous days to see if the phone jumped around.

 

[mrjitty]

The citation from the CAST expert regarding drift is in IE’s complaint.

There is no specific citation - why does she not include the specific quote from the CAST Expert?

Again this is the problem - in that same section she doesn't include the specific admission BM made about running around, instead changing the words. So why should we believe she paraphrased the CAST expert accurately?

'Confidence' is a statistical approach to assessing conclusions. In other words, the conclusion that the phone was moving is only assessed with low confidence. But BM himself confirmed the phone was moving.

None of this is exculpatory.

IE could of course make these arguments at trial.

 

[mrjitty]

Do you have proof that BM's phone was stationary? Unless you do, your theory is bogus. The defendant offered that he was in motion shooting chipmunks and later voluntarily surrendered the "chipmunk gun" which I believe resulted in another charge for an illegal weapon. The evidence suppression hearings were said and done. MOO

Add source:

View attachment 416839

good point about the chipmunk gun - a 3rd data point and physical piece of evidence that Barry was indeed running around

As you've noted before, IE has a habit of claiming something based on a source, but when you check back, it does not say what she said. In this case she has misrepresented BMs admissions quite badly - and given you would expect his exact words to be quoted - one can only assume this was done intentionally to mislead.

For this reason i certainly don't trust the other stuff we cannot check.

 

[mrjitty]

I don’t think that intimidate is the right word but yes politically she wants prosecutors held to their legal obligations statewide.

RSBM

I wonder when IE will hold herself to the same standards by not filing misleading documents?

 

[Seattle1]

The citation from the CAST expert regarding drift is in IE’s complaint.

We had this during the preliminary. Doesn't support exculpatory evidence.

 

[Seattle1]

good point about the chipmunk gun - a 3rd data point and physical piece of evidence that Barry was indeed running around

As you've noted before, IE has a habit of claiming something based on a source, but when you check back, it does not say what she said. In this case she has misrepresented BMs admissions quite badly - and given you would expect his exact words to be quoted - one can only assume this was done intentionally to mislead.

For this reason i certainly don't trust the other stuff we cannot check.

Nobody can ever claim IE a fool! IMO, if the source exists, she probably intentionally excludes this type of information to avoid generating any discoverable evidence.

I shared this bit about a couple of defense expert witnesses in the earlier thread from the Murdaugh trial:

Today, in the Murdaguh trial, the defense called two handsomely paid expert witnesses-- a pathologist and a forensic expert before resting their case.

The interesting part was neither of the experts produced reports. At one point, the defense attorney attempted to admit a diagram out of a textbook as an Exhibit (an Exhibit which should have been produced by the expert witness), but after referencing SC regulations, quickly withdrew his request. (i.e., most likely copyright violation)!

IMO, the Murdaugh defense intentionally did not request reports from their experts to avoid reciprocal discovery. In the Morphew case, one of the sanctions was over a single revised page from an experts report provided a day late, and if I recall correctly, it was something very benign like an address change but Lama was already on record stating not having the experts complete report would be the equivalent of trial by ambush.

I couldn't help but think after all heck E & N put the prosecution through with the sanctions over the state's experts and their reports, I could see Iris doing the very same here with her own witnesses -- paying them big dollars but not requesting any report so she would have nothing to share with the prosecution before the defense resting. MOO

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

Cody Lambert arrested and charged with Aggravated Robbery. 22-Year-Old Salida Resident Arrested on Armed Robbery Charges https://www.cityofsalida.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/police_department/page/20069/press_release_armed_robbery_feb._2023.pdf

www.websleuths.com

 

[mrjitty]

Nobody can ever claim IE a fool! IMO, if the source exists, she probably intentionally excludes this type of information to avoid generating any discoverable evidence.

I shared this bit about a couple of defense expert witnesses in the earlier thread from the Murdaugh trial:

Today, in the Murdaguh trial, the defense called two handsomely paid expert witnesses-- a pathologist and a forensic expert before resting their case.

The interesting part was neither of the experts produced reports. At one point, the defense attorney attempted to admit a diagram out of a textbook as an Exhibit (an Exhibit which should have been produced by the expert witness), but after referencing SC regulations, quickly withdrew his request. (i.e., most likely copyright violation)!

IMO, the Murdaugh defense intentionally did not request reports from their experts to avoid reciprocal discovery. In the Morphew case, one of the sanctions was over a single revised page from an experts report provided a day late, and if I recall correctly, it was something very benign like an address change but Lama was already on record stating not having the experts complete report would be the equivalent of trial by ambush.

I couldn't help but think after all heck E & N put the prosecution through with the sanctions over the state's experts and their reports, I could see Iris doing the very same here with her own witnesses -- paying them big dollars but not requesting any report so she would have nothing to share with the prosecution before the defense resting. MOO

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

Cody Lambert arrested and charged with Aggravated Robbery. 22-Year-Old Salida Resident Arrested on Armed Robbery Charges https://www.cityofsalida.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/police_department/page/20069/press_release_armed_robbery_feb._2023.pdf

www.websleuths.com

Yes good point

I note she repeats her trick here about data as well. In other words she receives a device image but then claims she should get some further version of the data she already has - this point was made in the final prosecution motion for relief.

It's seems she has actually had the cell discovery since the prelim

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

RSBM

I wonder when IE will hold herself to the same standards by not filing misleading documents?

Yes, there's a distinction between mounting a vigorous defense and engaging in bad faith abuse of the system.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes good point

I note she repeats her trick here about data as well. In other words she receives a device image but then claims she should get some further version of the data she already has - this point was made in the final prosecution motion for relief.

It's seems she has actually had the cell discovery since the prelim

I was just reading an old article that said the Court refused to admit some evidence and that's one reason the Prosecutor decided to drop the case. Did the Judge give a reason for excluding that evidence?

I've found the Motion.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/2022-04-19%2008-49-34%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Without%20Prejudice.pdf

 

[Seattle1]

Yes good point

I note she repeats her trick here about data as well. In other words she receives a device image but then claims she should get some further version of the data she already has - this point was made in the final prosecution motion for relief.

It's seems she has actually had the cell discovery since the prelim

Exactly! I recall during the preliminary, I think it was Grusing testifying from a report produced by the FBI's phone forensic personnel using Cellbrite Standard (one of the best-known and widely used mobile device forensics tools for data extraction and analysis), and IE was determined to question Grusing using her own exhibit-- created by her expert using the equivalent of the software on steroids where many independent developers write applications that can be used in conjunction with the standard data extraction software. In other words, this was confirmation that IE had the data and was trying to manipulate good data to say what she wanted.

Grusing didn't flinch during the cross and was gracious -- citing something similar to how he drove his son's straight 4-engine from Denver and arrived timely for court-- adding how he didn't think there was a supercharger post in Salida for a Tesla. Grusing made his point!

Also, when Judge Murphy ruled to unseal and release the AA following the preliminary hearing, the defense also tried to get Judge Murphy to substitute a defense-prepared summary of the arrest affidavit and keep the original AA sealed! But I recall Murphy didn't even let Eytan finish! MOO

@LaurenScharfTV

NOW TO THE AFFIDAVIT: Dru Nielsen said that the AA reads like a tabloid. They wrote this affidavit to try this case in the media and try and taint a jury pool. They don't want the AA to be released.

6:17 PM · Sep 17, 2021

@LaurenScharfTV

The court has redacted information from the arrest affidavit. "I am not going to redact the affidavit further," Judge Murphy said. "The meat of this case has been disclosed. The Arrest Affidavit will be released online under cases of interest."

6:26 PM · Sep 17, 2021

 

[Seattle1]

I was just reading an old article that said the Court refused to admit some evidence and that's one reason the Prosecutor decided to drop the case. Did the Judge give a reason for excluding that evidence?

I've found the Motion.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/2022-04-19%2008-49-34%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Without%20Prejudice.pdf

The heart of the issue for dismissing the case was not excluding evidence but banning the majority of the prosecution's expert witnesses as a sanction for alleged discovery violations.

However, what we know for fact is that Judge Lama accepted the defense's allegations of discovery violations as fact, and made his decision without considering the prosecution's response to the defense motion. This fact was buried in a footnote of the Court's Order! MOO