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

[Momofthreeboys]

Take note the entire Arrest Affidavit (AA) from BM's Colorado criminal case, dismissed without prejudice, is identified as "Exhibit A" in BM's Civil Suit filed in Federal Court (total pages 314).

If you read the docs, you should not be lost (on the unknown DNA evidence) -- unless you choose to ignore the facts by the prosecution previously admitted as evidence.

As provided in my quoted post, you can continue to be lost but don't blame it on the prosecution. This is horse and water. It's your choice.



Link to the docs:

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

https://www.kktv.com/2023/05/02/barry-morphew-files-lawsuit-against-chaffee-county-officials-cbi-fbi-alleging-damages/?fbclid=IwAR21kZLtMeLuKqg6d6Fgcp-hfuenzHflzOASEaDqMQunQS6GzmOOw4VFCGo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lh768nl4deza2xayst Federal Complaint by BM - Pdf...

www.websleuths.com

I was asking what the discussion was related to. The potential in a future case…a non issue now that we have seen the disclosure or its value in the civil trial. It doesn’t matter but just a little lost in the “why” of the current discussion. No biggie. I am curious separate from the civil claim on late discovery if dna even plays a role in the civil case.

 

[MassGuy]

Take note the entire Arrest Affidavit (AA) from BM's Colorado criminal case, dismissed without prejudice, is identified as "Exhibit A" in BM's Civil Suit filed in Federal Court (total pages 314).

If you read the docs, you should not be lost (on the unknown DNA evidence) -- unless you choose to ignore the facts by the prosecution previously admitted as evidence.

As provided in my quoted post, you can continue to be lost but don't blame it on the prosecution. This is horse and water. It's your choice.



Link to the docs:

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

https://www.kktv.com/2023/05/02/barry-morphew-files-lawsuit-against-chaffee-county-officials-cbi-fbi-alleging-damages/?fbclid=IwAR21kZLtMeLuKqg6d6Fgcp-hfuenzHflzOASEaDqMQunQS6GzmOOw4VFCGo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lh768nl4deza2xayst Federal Complaint by BM - Pdf...

www.websleuths.com

It comes down to this. IE is flat out lying; knows it, and suckers are buying into this “partial match” nonsense. If anyone believes it helps Barry even a little bit, I hope they have never contributed to the gene pool, and never will.

It’s embarrassing.

 

[Seattle1]

I was asking what the discussion was related to. The potential in a future case…a non issue now that we have seen the disclosure or its value in the civil trial. It doesn’t matter but just a little lost in the “why” of the current discussion. No biggie. I am curious separate from the civil claim on late discovery if dna even plays a role in the civil case.

If OP has to ask if dna even plays a role in the civil case, you clearly haven't read the claim! Link to the docs already provided. SMH

ETA: I can only speak to Win OS but there are several applications for document read-aloud.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

If OP has to ask if dna even plays a role in the civil case, you clearly haven't read the claim! Link to the docs already provided. SMH

ETA: I can only speak to Win OS but there are several applications for document read-aloud.

I don’t think it will play a role in the civil case with the exception of the civil argument about late disclosure. I think there is only one or two items that “might” make it to a trial out of all the claims. I am sorry that I am not expressing myself in a clear manner. So I was curious why people were discussing the lack of merit of the DNA. I think the only viable factor is the late disclosure.

 

[MassGuy]

Um, guys: “here’s jonny!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657053267954745347

 

[DFWNF]

Um, guys: “here’s jonny!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657053267954745347

Thank you, I just wish I could figure out how to watch it, I am a technology dinosaur.

 

[MassGuy]

Thank you, I just wish I could figure out how to watch it, I am a technology dinosaur.

ABC! Jonny hasn’t appeared yet. You have time.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Take note the entire Arrest Affidavit (AA) from BM's Colorado criminal case, dismissed without prejudice, is identified as "Exhibit A" in BM's Civil Suit filed in Federal Court (total pages 314).

If you read the docs, you should not be lost (on the unknown DNA evidence) -- unless you choose to ignore the facts by the prosecution previously admitted as evidence.

As provided in my quoted post, you can continue to be lost but don't blame it on the prosecution. This is horse and water. It's your choice.



Link to the docs:

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

https://www.kktv.com/2023/05/02/barry-morphew-files-lawsuit-against-chaffee-county-officials-cbi-fbi-alleging-damages/?fbclid=IwAR21kZLtMeLuKqg6d6Fgcp-hfuenzHflzOASEaDqMQunQS6GzmOOw4VFCGo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lh768nl4deza2xayst Federal Complaint by BM - Pdf...

www.websleuths.com

Oh I didn't notice that you had posted this already. I just posted a link to exhibit by itself in the media thread.

In case anybody else has missed it, Barry's complaint included as an attachment the original unredacted arrest affidavit with color images.

This is a link to the complaint and the affidavit together.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23795992/barry-morphew-lawsuit.pdf

And here's a link to the unredacted affidavit by itself.

AA Color Unredacted : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Barry Morphews Unredacted Arrest Affidavit in color.

archive.org

 

[10ofRods]

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

Respectfully, your summaries are often easier to read and somehow elucidate more than what I read in sources. You have a delicate and nuanced way of using legal terminology and explaining at the same time.

And I think your perceptive analysis of how people are persuaded (sometimes) by their like/dislike of who is speaking (rather than the facts of a case) is excellent.

 

[kittythehare]

Suzanne Morphew's nephew is speaking out for the first time, calling on the public to ask Gov. Jared Polis to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the missing woman's case.

“Auntie Suzanne deserves justice, and my family desperately wants to end the legal limbo,” said Chris Moorman, 36, in a phone call from Indianapolis.

Moorman said that, while he holds no malice toward the current prosecutorial team, "the investigations by the Colorado Supreme Court and the lawsuit filed by Barry Morphew have created an atmosphere wherein justice for Suzanne is not the priority."

The Office of Attorney Regulation has discipline authority over attorneys, including district attorneys."

Nephew of Suzanne Morphew tired of 'legal limbo,' asks Jared Polis to get involved

Suzanne Morphew's nephew is speaking out for the first time, calling on the public to ask Gov. Jared Polis to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the missing woman's case.

denvergazette.com

 

[mrjitty]

I was asking what the discussion was related to. The potential in a future case…a non issue now that we have seen the disclosure or its value in the civil trial. It doesn’t matter but just a little lost in the “why” of the current discussion. No biggie. I am curious separate from the civil claim on late discovery if dna even plays a role in the civil case.

IE"s schtick is broadly that in the AA, the prosecution manufactured evidence against BM, misrepresented his statements, and omitted exculpatory evidence.

Therefore it will presumably matter at the civil trial, whether or not the DNA can be viewed as exculpatory evidence that should have been in the AA

 

[mrjitty]

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

Thanks @Seattle1

That is why i suspect this law suit my be more a messaging piece than an actual legal action.

In the end none of this would have happened if Cahill had simply given his evidence properly. That has nothing to do with the case 'not being ready'. It has to do with him dropping the ball on the goal line in an inexplicable fashion.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

They want to badly to show how flawed the states case is and how messed up the investigators are, but they can't look at their own client and see how deceitful his actions were. How wrong his behavior was, how much he lied? Oh no it's poor Barry we better sue everyone because of how wronged he was.

And he still isn't looking for his wife or using the media spotlight to beg for people to look for her or for LE to focus on the "real killer" and go look for him. I think it's very clear why that isn't happening. Sad.

BIB

Cahill could just have given his evidence properly.

 

[mrjitty]

It comes down to this. IE is flat out lying; knows it, and suckers are buying into this “partial match” nonsense. If anyone believes it helps Barry even a little bit, I hope they have never contributed to the gene pool, and never will.

It’s embarrassing.

In my jurisdiction this kind of lying about colleagues is not allowed. It calls the profession into disrepute.

 

[Seattle1]

In my jurisdiction this kind of lying about colleagues is not allowed. It calls the profession into disrepute.

And it should not be allowed or tolerated in this jurisdiction either!

The L Stauch murder trial in the 4th Judicial District was a reminder of the disparity in the professional courtesy missing from this case. And although we observed some serious discovery violations (Rule 16) in the Stauch case, neither party lost focus of what the trial was about and carried on with an attitude of no harm no foul. IMO, the parties seemed to follow the tone set early by the presiding Judge Werner, and in the end, they were complimented on this by the Court.

 

[mrjitty]

It comes down to this. IE is flat out lying; knows it, and suckers are buying into this “partial match” nonsense. If anyone believes it helps Barry even a little bit, I hope they have never contributed to the gene pool, and never will.

It’s embarrassing.

I suspect it is a bit like the Knox strategy, which was to establish a narrative in the media about what the evidence is. I don't mean to comment on that old case, but rather that you can create a CW (conventional wisdom) on facts where the detail is not particularly accessible. In Knox it was foreign language that made primary sources hard to cover. Whereas in the Morphew case its a local case, so larger media will carry IE's narrative about the case with little reference to the detail of the prosecution.

I still believe IE's goal is not so much this case but to create her own legend of clearing an innocent man against an evil DA trying to fit him up. (The defence counsel in McStay tried this same move only for it to blow up in their faces).

This is why IE says stuff like "there is no evidence against her client" or "the DA hid the evidence that cleared her client" because low info media consumers will hear this and believe it.

This is how you get a big national case in the future

 

[arielilane]

Remembrance in Poncha Springs today in caseof missing 49-yr-old. Nephew of #SuzanneMorphew tired of 'legal limbo,' asks Jared Polis to get involved

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657367973190049793

https://twitter.com/CarolAMcKinley

Nephew of Suzanne Morphew tired of 'legal limbo,' asks Jared Polis to get involved

Suzanne Morphew's nephew is speaking out for the first time, calling on the public to ask Gov. Jared Polis to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the missing woman's case.

denvergazette.com

Suzanne Morphew's nephew is speaking out for the first time, calling on the public to ask Gov. Jared Polis to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the missing woman's case.

“Auntie Suzanne deserves justice, and my family desperately wants to end the legal limbo,” said Chris Moorman, 36, in a phone call from Indianapolis.

Attorneys for Barry Morphew — Suzanne's husband — filed a complaint with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel last month, asking for prosecutors to face punishment up to and including disbarment. He was at one time arrested on suspicion of murder in the case.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I am not sure “legal limbo” is the right term. It headed to trial and the prosecutor asked for a dismal. They can try again. Sounds more to me that no one is talking to the family that understands the complexity. I feel sorry for them because they are in “limbo” I agree with.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I am not sure “legal limbo” is the right term. It headed to trial and the prosecutor asked for a dismal. They can try again. Sounds more to me that no one is talking to the family.

If Suzanne's family member uses the term "legal limbo" it's likely because that's exactly how it feels for them.
I know it would sure feel like that to me, if she were my family member.

 

[Seattle1]

From the Den Gazzette link

Moorman said that, while he holds no malice toward the current prosecutorial team, "the investigations by the Colorado Supreme Court and the lawsuit filed by Barry Morphew have created an atmosphere wherein justice for Suzanne is not the priority."

Melissa Dworkin, a spokesperson for the Governor's office, said Polis is monitoring the case, but added, "The governor does not have any legal authority to remove or discipline a District Attorney for procedural violations in court. The Office of Attorney Regulation has discipline authority over attorneys, including district attorneys."

[..]

Moorman believes his aunt was murdered. So do prosecutors. But in April 2022 — after nearly two years of investigation and court hearings — district attorneys admitted that without a body, they did not have enough evidence to bring the case across the finish line.

Huh? Moorman didn't ask to the Gov to discipline anyone -- he just wants BM prosecuted!