Yep. More smoke and mirrors from his lady lawyers, implying that the State was hiding something they want to call exculpatory.
@Lyanna Thanks for you post w link.
Barry Morphew seeks $15 million in lawsuit over his arrest, prosecution for missing wife’s murder
Barry Morphew claims in the 185-page complaint that authorities conspired to wrongly arrest him, fabricated evidence, concealed exculpatory evidence and conducted a reckless investigation that led …www.canoncitydailyrecord.com
LS reviews 2- Motions (April 2022) not online at cases of interest:
The notices of 3 matches of "limited genetic data" from Chicago, Tempe, and Phoenix police departments, matches were for unknown DNA in cases from the jurisdictions above, but NOT to specific suspects in those cases.
Since the preliminary hearing, all of the partial CODIS matches were followed up and investigated further (SM's glove box), and each was excluded from being involved in SM's investigation. Exhibits to the prosecution's motions include the police reports of alleged incidents.
The prosecution provided the police reports of the incidents:
Chicago incident was a false report of a 2004 sex assault and that investigation was closed. Chicago partial was in CODIS, and this sample is ruled out from SM's case (DNA on dashboard of SM's vehicle).
Phoenix - 1998, suspect raped his former gf after she joined the Marines. "You're mine and not going anywhere." Rapekit complete, entered in CODIS. Sample DNA was obtained from the known suspect by court Order and excluded from partial in SM's vehicle.
Communication by CBI/CCSO and outside PDs around November 2021 and the defense received all info about follow-up on the DNA.
Maryland - from CBI keyboard search, Agent Graham received notification from Maryland possible hit and this too proved n/a for this case. No association with SM's glovebox.
Tempe - this case was dismissed when PD could not contact the suspect, and the sample was also eliminated from SM's case per the same investigation tools above.
Keyboard search = comparative sampling used to search for other DNA profiles that have similarities. A keyboard search is NOT a match. No arrest can be made from a keyboard search. Keyboard search does result in notifications to agencies -- hence the later by Maryland. A keyboard search is ONLY an investigative tool!
Prosecution seeks to eliminate the CODIS hits/match from evidence due to samples being irrelevant, excluded, and far more prejudicial than probative.
The term "match" by investigators is NOT the equivalent of a layman's definition. No mention of unidentified suspects is to be presented - the defense seeks to invite speculation to confuse jurors.
Prosecution requested to call witnesses multiple times to present evidence in chronological order -- especially BM's statements. Less confusing to jurors and more efficient.
"Door be opened doctrine." Prosecution put the defense on notice of BM capable of harming SM and/or BM claims of a great marriage will open the door to DV.
Prosecution seeks to exclude improper characterization of SM.
Exclude Witnesses: Dr. Scott Minor - opines Rx use by victim.
Exclude Joseph Cahill, on the timing of arrest (personal opinion) where the defense trying to use this as "no probable cause."
Exclude self-serving hearsay (blanket admission).
Exclude five defense experts:
Richard Leo, "Social Psychologist and Criminologist" - police errors that lead to non-probative outcomes in witness and suspect questioning. Failure to comply with Case Management Order (CMO dtd 10/28/21). Failure to disclose opinion (at trial testimony).
John Wilson - Forensic Scientist/Criminalistics.
Failure to comply with CMO. Restating evidence by the prosecution is cumulative and irrelevant.
Dr. Philip Danielson - DNA expert. Submitted 6 pg letter regarding his testimony but this expert also failed to include the opinion that will be expressed in Court. Also violates CMO.
Exclude the technology expert that examined SM's computer. (Sorry, didn't catch the name).
Conclusion: The defense has known since about November 2021 that all partial DNA hits in SM's vehicle were EXCLUDED from this case and there has never been a potential sex offender responsible for SM's disappearance. The latest prosecution motion includes the actual police reports corroborating what the prosecution previously communicated to the defense. IMO, more evidence that Cahill's testimony on the DNA proved to be a splinter that got pushed out of reach.
I'm not sure which I find more unbelievable -- the fact that IE continues to spin this rubbish that SM's vehicle contained non-disclosed DNA from three suspects wanted for sex crimes, or that people actually believe this nonsense.
Didn't we talk about it may have been BM accidentally pocket dialing her phone before he disposed of it? You know on his way out of town in a direction that makes no sense, well, for a pretend job that makes even less sense on Mothers Day and a Sunday when work in not permitted??
Yes there have been a number of theories about Suzanne’s phone activity.
www.facebook.com
LS reviews 2- Motions (April 2022) not online at cases of interest:
The notices of 3 matches of "limited genetic data" from Chicago, Tempe, and Phoenix police departments, matches were for unknown DNA in cases from the jurisdictions above, but NOT to specific suspects in those cases.
Since the preliminary hearing, all of the partial CODIS matches were followed up and investigated further (SM's glove box), and each was excluded from being involved in SM's investigation. Exhibits to the prosecution's motions include the police reports of alleged incidents.
The prosecution provided the police reports of the incidents:
Chicago incident was a false report of a 2004 sex assault and that investigation was closed. Chicago partial was in CODIS, and this sample is ruled out from SM's case (DNA on dashboard of SM's vehicle).
Phoenix - 1998, suspect raped his former gf after she joined the Marines. "You're mine and not going anywhere." Rapekit complete, entered in CODIS. Sample DNA was obtained from the known suspect by court Order and excluded from partial in SM's vehicle.
Communication by CBI/CCSO and outside PDs around November 2021 and the defense received all info about follow-up on the DNA.
Maryland - from CBI keyboard search, Agent Graham received notification from Maryland possible hit and this too proved n/a for this case. No association with SM's glovebox.
Tempe - this case was dismissed when PD could not contact the suspect, and the sample was also eliminated from SM's case per the same investigation tools above.
Keyboard search = comparative sampling used to search for other DNA profiles that have similarities. A keyboard search is NOT a match. No arrest can be made from a keyboard search. Keyboard search does result in notifications to agencies -- hence the later by Maryland. A keyboard search is ONLY an investigative tool!
Prosecution seeks to eliminate the CODIS hits/match from evidence due to samples being irrelevant, excluded, and far more prejudicial than probative.
The term "match" by investigators is NOT the equivalent of a layman's definition. No mention of unidentified suspects is to be presented - the defense seeks to invite speculation to confuse jurors.
Prosecution requested to call witnesses multiple times to present evidence in chronological order -- especially BM's statements. Less confusing to jurors and more efficient.
"Door be opened doctrine." Prosecution put the defense on notice of BM capable of harming SM and/or BM claims of a great marriage will open the door to DV.
Prosecution seeks to exclude improper characterization of SM.
Exclude Witnesses: Dr. Scott Minor - opines Rx use by victim.
Exclude Joseph Cahill, on the timing of arrest (personal opinion) where the defense trying to use this as "no probable cause."
Exclude self-serving hearsay (blanket admission).
Exclude five defense experts:
Richard Leo, "Social Psychologist and Criminologist" - police errors that lead to non-probative outcomes in witness and suspect questioning. Failure to comply with Case Management Order (CMO dtd 10/28/21). Failure to disclose opinion (at trial testimony).
John Wilson - Forensic Scientist/Criminalistics.
Failure to comply with CMO. Restating evidence by the prosecution is cumulative and irrelevant.
Dr. Philip Danielson - DNA expert. Submitted 6 pg letter regarding his testimony but this expert also failed to include the opinion that will be expressed in Court. Also violates CMO.
Exclude the technology expert that examined SM's computer. (Sorry, didn't catch the name).
Conclusion: The defense has known since about November 2021 that all partial DNA hits in SM's vehicle were EXCLUDED from this case and there has never been a potential sex offender responsible for SM's disappearance. The latest prosecution motion includes the actual police reports corroborating what the prosecution previously communicated to the defense. IMO, more evidence that Cahill's testimony on the DNA proved to be a splinter that got pushed out of reach.
I'm not sure which I find more unbelievable -- the fact that IE continues to spin this rubbish that SM's vehicle contained non-disclosed DNA from three suspects wanted for sex crimes, or that people actually believe this nonsense.
I don’t think there is a chance the civil lawyers will win on all counts but a couple of them have possibilities in my opinion. It will be interesting if there is a settlement and again no trial. IE I don’t think is the lead attorney and if it did go to trial her role if any will be interesting.
www.websleuths.com
I'm getting alittle lost - is the DNA discussion about the potential in the civil case or looking forward to how a new criminal case might be structured....of just chat about DNA in general posthumously to the non-trial trialThank you, @10ofRods. I really can't take credit here as I simply summarized what LS provided from her news reporter's ears.
From my perspective, at the time of the Preliminary Hearing (PH), the Arrest Affidavit (AA) had not yet been released, and WS and the public didn't really have solid information regarding the unknown DNA evidence recovered.
Personally, at the conclusion of the PH by Twitter, I did not have a clear understanding of the terms "keyboard search" or "partial match" where match, as used here is meaningless. If one reviews the posts during the PH, I don't think I was alone.
IMO, the testimony by J Cahill did not answer my questions and also did not leave me with any guidance about the unknown DNA from three jurisdictions. It's the primary reason why I've been supportive of Judge Murphy's ruling that the prosecution did not satisfy proof evident pursuant to the Colorado Constitution.
It wasn't until the AA was unsealed and made public by the Court that I think we were truly able to apply science to the true raw data evidence versus the defense's description of the DNA evidence. In other words, I found the defense overpowered the prosecution and/or J Cahill during the testimony on this subject.
Fortunately, the mystery of the unknown DNA recovered was short-lived when on Sept 20, 2021, the documents were unsealed and we could actually apply science to the factual evidence, affirmed in the court documents, and for the first time, clearly understand the unknown DNA was not relevant.
According to the LS's recap, by about November 2021, the defense also had sufficient discovery evidence that the subject unknown DNA recovered here was not only irrelevant but also EXCLUDED.
IMO, this is the only sanctionable offense in this case: a defense attorney knowingly and blatantly lying about unknown DNA evidence that's been excluded.
But as you've succinctly pointed out, most people will not or cannot understand the in's and out's of the partial matches in this case, and will accept IE's word without hesitation. And this includes MSM -- which totally boggles my mind!
I guess if you hate the District Attorney enough, you can believe anything -- including BM. It's certainly not because the proof is not available. MOO
There really should be some type of oversight for things like this. The fact the defense can muddy waters by suggesting the partial matches were in fact some unknown potential murderer is just ridiculous. Seems partial means a tiny bit of shared DNA. Well how scary is that because I have 1000s of relatives on the 23andme matches. They list 4th-6th cousins that share very very little of my DNA, but to somehow make a jump that any of those people could in fact be me is basically what these matches are suggesting. People with no known relation can have partial DNA matches to me. That doesn't mean that person is me.
Nice one.Thank you, @10ofRods. I really can't take credit here as I simply summarized what LS provided from her news reporter's ears.
From my perspective, at the time of the Preliminary Hearing (PH), the Arrest Affidavit (AA) had not yet been released, and WS and the public didn't really have solid information regarding the unknown DNA evidence recovered.
Personally, at the conclusion of the PH by Twitter, I did not have a clear understanding of the terms "keyboard search" or "partial match" where match, as used here is meaningless. If one reviews the posts during the PH, I don't think I was alone.
IMO, the testimony by J Cahill did not answer my questions and also did not leave me with any guidance about the unknown DNA from three jurisdictions. It's the primary reason why I've been supportive of Judge Murphy's ruling that the prosecution did not satisfy proof evident pursuant to the Colorado Constitution.
It wasn't until the AA was unsealed and made public by the Court that I think we were truly able to apply science to the true raw data evidence versus the defense's description of the DNA evidence. In other words, I found the defense overpowered the prosecution and/or J Cahill during the testimony on this subject.
Fortunately, the mystery of the unknown DNA recovered was short-lived when on Sept 20, 2021, the documents were unsealed and we could actually apply science to the factual evidence, affirmed in the court documents, and for the first time, clearly understand the unknown DNA was not relevant.
According to the LS's recap, by about November 2021, the defense also had sufficient discovery evidence that the subject unknown DNA recovered here was not only irrelevant but also EXCLUDED.
IMO, this is the only sanctionable offense in this case: a defense attorney knowingly and blatantly lying about unknown DNA evidence that's been excluded.
But as you've succinctly pointed out, most people will not or cannot understand the in's and out's of the partial matches in this case, and will accept IE's word without hesitation. And this includes MSM -- which totally boggles my mind!
I guess if you hate the District Attorney enough, you can believe anything -- including BM. It's certainly not because the proof is not available. MOO
I'm getting alittle lost - is the DNA discussion about the potential in the civil case or looking forward to how a new criminal case might be structured....of just chat about DNA in general posthumously to the non-trial trial
www.websleuths.com
There is a way to track a conversation back to it's origin, just push up arrow, that gets you to the post that is being replied to. And you can track it back easily.I'm getting alittle lost - is the DNA discussion about the potential in the civil case or looking forward to how a new criminal case might be structured....of just chat about DNA in general posthumously to the non-trial trial
