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

[mrjitty]

As someone said earlier about the other complaint I think, it just looks like a desperate, preemptive shot against an anticipated new prosecution. This lawsuit will go nowhere. It's absurd, it should not even make it to trial. If it does, I will personally be protesting outside everyday, I will be the unhinged screaming person seen on the twitters.

JMO!

I might have to take a mental health break for this case.

The mendacity of these people is disturbing.

 

[Seattle1]

Respectfully, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act capping the judgment award and/or settlement by Officers and Agents at a mere $25,000 completely misrepresents the true liability weighing on the heads and shoulders of any Officer, Agent, etc. ever named in a civil complaint pursuant to the Act.

Clearly, this doesn't take into account the unspoken costs and damages each plaintiff defendant begins racking up from the moment they are served. And even if a plaintiff defendant is dismissed from the suit-- they've already lost thousands just responding to the complaint -- let alone defending themselves.

I've not read the subject federal complaint by BM and/or seen it shared by any MSM or network yet so can't speak to whether or not the Act is even cited in BM's suit.

Regardless, it would be remiss to leave the reply implying the maximum liability is only a small, inconsequential $25,000, without clarification. MOO

ETA^^

Trust all know my head said 'defendant,' while my fingers were not having it and retaliating over civil rules and procedure -- civil law - yuck.

 

[mrjitty]

Barry Morphew files lawsuit against prosecution, investigators alleging damages

A Colorado man once charged in the disappearance of his wife has filed a lawsuit against the prosecution and several others, alleging his civil rights were violated when he was prosecuted for a crime his attorney says he did not commit.

www.kktv.com

Federal Complaint by BM - Pdf:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23795628/morphew-lawsuit.pdf

So i was annoyed but when you start reading it, this is laughable

What is interesting is for the purposes of this actual filing, IE had to include the supposed "exculpatory' email from CAST expert Hoyland. As you'll see (p40) it is pretty far from exculpatory

I would be cautious in jumping right to the conclusion

So they asked BM and he confirmed the data was correct!

It's hard to understand why this email would be included in the AA as claimed by IE. As we know, IE had the opportunity to make these arguments at the prelim which is how the system works.

And again

Defendants authoring the Arrest Affidavit also knew that there were no truck telematics indicating the truck was in that area between May9 and May10.

Of course what is suspicious is that it was BM who said the Truck was in that area - thus confirming the location info from his phone and the big suspicious point is why there are no telematics to confirm it?

So yeah - this is nonsense.

I get why she might want to sue over the discovery violations but it is hard to see how anyone was mislead at the prelim, because she made all these arguments.

So then we get this

238.Defendants FBI Agents Grusing and Harris lied to Barry about the alleged phone location data during the numerous interrogations with him.

But as we know, they asked him about the missing mileage - and it was BM who said he drive down that way in some detail.

So yes. IE is lying as usual.

I wonder what the point is - be so annoying she can settle out of court and claim victory?

I hope the FBI resource up on this - as it really is a dangerous precedent what is alleged here against Grusing who conducted a skilled interogation.

 

[mrjitty]

So if anyone has the energy there is just so much revealed here, but the problem is because IE lies constantly, you have to really dig in

For instance she claims the missing mileage is the trip to the spa company 'confirmed by witnesses'

How this silly defence version is somehow a huge injustice is not obvious. The defence had the telematics and the phone data and the defendant for the prelim. What stopped them from making this argument?

Why is it the fault of the FBI that Barry didn't tell them he went to the Spa but instead said he made the left turn?

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN REMINDER:

Thread is not about Linda Stanley.

Unless your post is directly related to the Morphew case, it is off topic.

 

[kittythehare]

Suzanne Morphew case: Husband who was accused of murder files lawsuit against FBI, sheriff, investigators

The husband of Suzanne Morphew is asking for $15 million saying he was wrongfully charged in his wife's disappearance and presumed death.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[FromGermany1]

he couldn't come up with a version that is possibly consistent with innocence

I do like this ^^!

 

[kittythehare]

I might have to take a mental health break for this case.

The mendacity of these people is disturbing.

I'm furious too.
Makes a mockery of the entire justice system.

 

[kittythehare]

As someone said earlier about the other complaint I think, it just looks like a desperate, preemptive shot against an anticipated new prosecution. This lawsuit will go nowhere. It's absurd, it should not even make it to trial. If it does, I will personally be protesting outside everyday, I will be the unhinged screaming person seen on the twitters.

JMO!

I might take a plane and join you..

 

[Seattle1]

So i was annoyed but when you start reading it, this is laughable

What is interesting is for the purposes of this actual filing, IE had to include the supposed "exculpatory' email from CAST expert Hoyland. As you'll see (p40) it is pretty far from exculpatory



So they asked BM and he confirmed the data was correct!

It's hard to understand why this email would be included in the AA as claimed by IE. As we know, IE had the opportunity to make these arguments at the prelim which is how the system works.

And again



Of course what is suspicious is that it was BM who said the Truck was in that area - thus confirming the location info from his phone and the big suspicious point is why there are no telematics to confirm it?

So yeah - this is nonsense.

I get why she might want to sue over the discovery violations but it is hard to see how anyone was mislead at the prelim, because she made all these arguments.

So then we get this



But as we know, they asked him about the missing mileage - and it was BM who said he drive down that way in some detail.

So yes. IE is lying as usual.

I wonder what the point is - be so annoying she can settle out of court and claim victory?

I hope the FBI resource up on this - as it really is a dangerous precedent what is alleged here against Grusing who conducted a skilled interogation.

I couldn't read much past pg 60 -- so disturbing to witness the whining about the longest AA in Chaffee County history, and then cite all that was omitted from the AA a la conspiracy theory!

Perhaps they best get the transcripts from the 3-days of the preliminary hearing testimony because they'll certainly find a witness who presented that specific information!

 

[mrjitty]

I couldn't read much past pg 60 -- so disturbing to witness the whining about the longest AA in Chaffee County history, and then cite all that was omitted from the AA a la conspiracy theory!

Perhaps they best get the transcripts from the 3-days of the preliminary hearing testimony because they'll certainly find a witness who presented that specific information!

I know right?

Since when does the AA include the defence case?

I think this is messaging rather than a real lawsuit.

 

[mrjitty]

What I find interesting is this gives a decent look at what the defence case was going to be

• SM was sneaky and engaged in secretive activities that BM did not know about - what else might she have got up to?
• Libler erased data and obstructed the investigation
• SM was alive well into the early hours as shown by her phone activity
• No left turn - Barry went to the spa company
• the Range Rover is somehow involved in the crime shown by the mysterious sex offender

So basically poor BM was tricked into lots of lies or his words were misrepresented by the prosecution which sought to railroad him. I think the defence was mostly going to be that SM went off somewhere secret

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I know right?

Since when does the AA include the defence case?

I think this is messaging rather than a real lawsuit.

I agree it read like a sneak preview of what the trial would have been if there had been one. I still would have loved to hear or read transcripts of the entire conversations with Barry pre arrest. One thing jumped out—not sure how relevant but it is revealed that JL receipt for the day SM went missing was a receipt utilizing his wife’s credit card. And the assertion that the 18 miles is 15 and confirmed by the store owners that Barry stopped that fateful afternoon. I think their interview was in the AA if I recall.

 

[mrjitty]

As @Seattle1 notes, what is crazy here is the claim that all the supposedly "exculpatory' evidence had to be included in the AA - e.g. the results of every dog search that didn't find anything is supposedly exculpatory and would have to be included.

That is absurd - that is all the material that gets included in discovery.

Otherwise we are saying that the AA must include the defence case.

Also the fact that a k9 search did not find cadaver odour in BMs truck is not exculpatory. It is simply nothing. A fact like this could possibly be used by the defence to support an alternate theory, but it was not the prosecution case that SM's body was in the truck. So how could it be exculpatory when BM was never accused of that?

Sigh

 

[kittythehare]

As @Seattle1 notes, what is crazy here is the claim that all the supposedly "exculpatory' evidence had to be included in the AA - e.g. the results of every dog search that didn't find anything is supposedly exculpatory and would have to be included.

That is absurd - that is all the material that gets included in discovery.

Otherwise we are saying that the AA must include the defence case.

Also the fact that a k9 search did not find cadaver odour in BMs truck is not exculpatory. It is simply nothing. A fact like this could possibly be used by the defence to support an alternate theory, but it was not the prosecution case that SM's body was in the truck. So how could it be exculpatory when BM was never accused of that?

Sigh

He could easily have sedated her and beaten her and not actually killed her until he brought her to the kill site, burial site.

 

[MrsWatson]

It's notable that BM is putting all this effort into a lawsuit about his arrest but what effort has he made to assist finding his missing wife? If he thinks SODDI, where's his effort towards that?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Bit surprised money hungry Bazza going down this road.

Gunna cost a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ on a chance that odds are not positive.
But his legal team aren't gunna point that out now are they

My guess is he is not paying and these lawyers are taking it based on potential payouts if they win the civil case. But who knows.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

As @Seattle1 notes, what is crazy here is the claim that all the supposedly "exculpatory' evidence had to be included in the AA - e.g. the results of every dog search that didn't find anything is supposedly exculpatory and would have to be included.

That is absurd - that is all the material that gets included in discovery.

Otherwise we are saying that the AA must include the defence case.

Also the fact that a k9 search did not find cadaver odour in BMs truck is not exculpatory. It is simply nothing. A fact like this could possibly be used by the defence to support an alternate theory, but it was not the prosecution case that SM's body was in the truck. So how could it be exculpatory when BM was never accused of that?

Sigh

The only takeaway I got from those multiple pages was that the civil team was setting an argument that a judge might not have signed the original arrest warrant had the AA been more evidence based and less speculative and hearsay... and Morphew would not have been held without bond for 5 months unable to work, etc. or whatever amount of time it was. In the civil case should it go to trial the most damaging for the claim that Morphew should not have been arrested and sat in jail until the prelim will be the entire CBI team that asked Speeze to wait to arrest in my opinion...I think a jury won't "like that" in this day and age and political climate.

 

[mrjitty]

Something I forgot about was that IMO, IE was quite mad that she didn't get to litigate the trial minus the expert evidence, because then she could demolish the weakened prosecution case and it would be her signature achievement.

The dismissal robbed her of that

This seems mostly like an attempt to litigate the case she never got to argue.

Most of the things she is mad about, are the very facts at issue at the trial. e.g. prosecution says taking the tools to reception was staging, the defence says it is not. Did Barry go to the Spa company? Defence says yes. Data says no. Barry never said that either. Who is correct? That is why we have jury trials!

 

[mrjitty]

The only takeaway I got from those multiple pages was that the civil team was setting an argument that a judge might not have signed the original arrest warrant had the AA been more evidence based and less speculative and hearsay... and Morphew would not have been held without bond for 5 months unable to work, etc. or whatever amount of time it was.

RSBM

Even if that argument could be made, and the judge were somehow hoodwinked, we then had a defended hearing where the judge found a case to answer, which is a higher standard than arrest. So logically the standard for arrest was in fact met, and more - according to a judge who heard the case.

IE is just making the same arguments that didn't work in the prelim. Her case might have been enough to get BM off in a full trial, but it is a pretty far cry from not meeting the standard for arrest