Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #109

[fcavanaugh]

I’m going to try this again. (Hit post in error previously before I was done editing lol)

I have read some of the recent DNA discussion. This was discussed to death and explained in great detail by many astute posters in some of the earlier threads and even I, a person not well versed on the science/how all this DNA stuff works, took a deep dive and did a ton of research on the topic many moons ago when it was first being discussed. Through my own research and from many of the smart posters here and the many links provided,
I learned why the DNA in this case is not relevant/does not exonerate BM.

IE/team BM wanted everyone to believe the partial (limited genetic material) DNA found on the glovebox was that of a sex offender. The reality is that it was not the actual sex offenders DNA, rather, from someone likely related to the SO.
IE knows this and knew what she was doing by misrepresenting the DNA trying to mislead the public, and the court with her rambling on about Sex Offender DNA found on the glovebox. Unfortunately many people believed/fell for it, even Judge Murphy fell for it! This made IE/team BM very happy as was their plan. Further, the DNA found on the bike and in random areas around the house was not the same DNA that was found on the glovebox. IE knows this but she intentionally left that detail out to confuse and muddy the waters as she knows most people do not know a lot about how DNA works. All the DIFFERENT DNA found in multiple areas that obviously lots of people touched at some point in time i.e., glovebox dna- mechanic, car detailer; bike dna- Suzanne’s bike mechanic, other workers in bike shop, house dna- visitors to the home, daughter’s friends, workers that had been in the home. The DNA found in multiple places *might* have meant something if it was the same DNA located in all those places i.e., glovebox DNA was the same DNA found on the bike, the helmet, in the house etc. It’s called corroborating evidence. And in this case, not only is there not same/corroborating DNA found in all those places, there is not one shred of any other kind of corroborating evidence pointing to someone else having abducted/killed Suzanne.

Yet there are mounds and mounds of corroborating evidence pointing right at BM. And for over 3 years no one has been able to provide a theory for someone else having done the deed that also explains all the evidence against BM. LE can’t go around chasing after/investigating every piece of random DNA found in most peoples vehicles, on their possessions, in and around their homes. It is frustrating that so many, including a Judge, were bamboozled/hoodwinked by IE’s blustering and imo intentional misrepresentation of the DNA. The DNA in this case is a red herring and it does not exonerate BM by any stretch of the imagination.

The BM/SM digital evidence alone is beyond damning to BM, and you’d have to believe some unknown person that abducted and killed Suzanne managed to frame BM and forced him to tell lie after lie, concoct a fake alibi, blame mountain lion, chipmunks, elk, turkeys and deer, not search for his wife or attend any of her vigils, say “I don’t recall” almost 100 times to investigators when trapped/cornered like the slithery, slimy rat that he is.

If you believe BM’s narrative aka misdirection that Suzanne was abducted the next day from a bike ride, you’d have to believe she didn’t use her phone or open messages from Saturday afternoon within minutes of BM arriving home through to Sunday morning on Mother’s Day of all days before heading out on the “bike ride”.

But we know there was no bike ride and Suzanne’s phone last pinged at 4:23 Sunday morning just before he destroyed/dumped it somewhere right before hightailing it outta dodge to head to Broomfield for the fake Sunday job/fake alibi.

So we are to believe Suzanne, a woman with established pattern of being very active on her phone and various social media apps etc, never once used her phone again or communicated with anyone from Saturday afternoon up to when she was abducted Sunday morning??? No, I do not believe that for a second.

IE and BM are masters of misdirection, 2 peas in a pod, twin flames if you will (insert vomit emoji). IE hoping the masses would fall for irrelevant DNA, (LE did eventually investigate the glove box DNA and ruled it out) and unfortunately many, many people did at first and still some to this day fall for it. I truly believe BM has a fan club not so much here but in other places I’ve ventured onto to read about this case who no matter what- LE could have video of him literally dumping the bike-
these people still won’t believe he did it. Boggles the mind, truly.

IMO Barry Morphew is guilty AF and the 2nd time around, (and I believe there will be a second time, eventually), it’s going to take a highly skilled, experienced, meticulous and methodical trial prosecutor the likes of Matt Murphy (former Orange County Senior DDA) to bring the dirtbag (pardon the pun) down and put him where he belongs- behind bars for LWOP.

IMHOO

#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE

 

[kittythehare]

A trial by ambush is what happens when one side or another in a trial is caught by surprise by some unexpected or unknown factor. Usually, it is a piece of evidence or a witness that has been concealed from the opposing side in a court case, so as to ensure that there is little to no chance of coming up with an adequate defense.

Sanctions for late expert witness reports were truly when I lost all respect for Lama. What we had here was technically an incomplete report where a revised page of inconsequential data was filed one day late (not late per Statute), and where seeking and imposing a penalty defied the true purpose of "discovery" i.e., to prevent surprise information, and/or trial by ambush. MOO, having actually read the State's response to the defense Motions for sanctions where Lama's Order simply accepted IE's misrepresentation of the facts.

More recently, I provided the example of an expert witness report in the Letecia Stauch trial that was not produced until 3 days before they were called as a witness--yet allowed to testify sans sanctions. Governed by the very same Colorado Rule 16, no sanctions were imposed which can be attributed to the Court and professionals on each side who failed to claim injury to a party. MOO

Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16​

In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause .​

Accepted and re-presented them word for word in copy paste fashion.

 

[AugustWest]

Found Deceased - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #109

I disagree that it's evidence. We simply do not know. There may well be very good reasons for 'expert' reports being late. Which 'expert' reports specifically are you referring to? The argument is all spelled out in the civil case. It can be picked apart just like the prosecution AA gets...

www.websleuths.com

It's not simple at all, actually.

I respect Seattle's opinion, I just don't agree in this instance. IMO, the judge had the grounds to rule the way he did regardless of extraneous facts.

The portion pertaining to remedy allows the judge these options:

(g) Failure to Comply; Sanctions.
If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

I wrote my analysis down, which I feel follows logically from Rule 16. Where did I go wrong?

 

[osu]

Ran across this short video that was originally posted over 2 years ago.

Lauren Scharf describes her conversation with George Davis. How he first heard that Suzanne was missing, he then called Barry, he was the first civilian on-scene where her bike was found, he said it wasn’t a mountain lion attack and told Lauren about the subsequent searches in the following weeks.

 

[k-mac]

I respect Seattle's opinion, I just don't agree in this instance. IMO, the judge had the grounds to rule the way he did regardless of extraneous facts.

The portion pertaining to remedy allows the judge these options:

(g) Failure to Comply; Sanctions.
If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

I wrote my analysis down, which I feel follows logically from Rule 16. Where did I go wrong?

You didn't go wrong!
We very much appreciate your posts,
it has triggered some wonderful insightful conversations for debate

 

[k-mac]

Ran across this short video earlier that was originally posted over 2 years ago.

Lauren Scharf describes her conversation with George Davis. How he first heard that Suzanne was missing, he then called Barry, he was the first civilian on-scene where her bike was found, said it wasn’t a mountain lion and talks of the subsequent searches in following weeks.

Looking at that beautiful rugged mountainous terrain in the footage...BM was feelin all smug while the search centred around the alps.

Vast sand dunes and sage brush prairies to dispose her was genius. (ahem!)

 

[JosieMae]

Wonder if Barry hates Fridays?

I get a deep sense of satisfaction knowing that BM is the hunted one now.

Jumping every time he hears the phone ring, a knock on the door, a siren.

Now he knows how it feels to be in the crosshairs.

 

[kittythehare]

I respect Seattle's opinion, I just don't agree in this instance. IMO, the judge had the grounds to rule the way he did regardless of extraneous facts.

The portion pertaining to remedy allows the judge these options:

(g) Failure to Comply; Sanctions.
If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

I wrote my analysis down, which I feel follows logically from Rule 16. Where did I go wrong?

He jeopardised the entire trial with these sanctions.
Who does his grail serve?
Is the law serving itself or justice?

You see there is a pattern here..and not merely a pattern of prosecutorial failings...


Kathleen Turner, her old sparring partner, when LS did actually appeal..

13 Investigates spoke with former 4th Judicial District Attorney Dan May when Stanley filed her appeal. He said judges are supposed to impose the least restrictive sanctions possible to make sure both parties receive the necessary evidence for a fair preliminary hearing and subsequent trial.

“To get to the level that you are now dismissing charges, changing charges, now you're affecting the outcome of the case,” he said. “You shouldn't be doing that unless there's something really extraordinary that you just can't level the playing field at this point.”

The CDAC also said Judge Turner imposed sanctions without finding any “willful misconduct” regarding the evidence violations or that the violations affected the trial.

Former DA May thought the sanctions were extreme given the case was still in the early stages.

“That's probably what the Supreme Court is looking at now is, ‘Wow, that's a really extraordinary sanction this early in the proceedings,’” May said. “‘Is that appropriate in this case or has the judge abused their discretion?’”


This is the question.
Has the judge in the Morphew case abused his discretion?

Colorado DA Council backs 11th Judicial DA in appeal of first-degree murder sanctions

Colorado DA Council backs 11th Judicial DA in appeal of first-degree murder sanctions

krdo.com

 

[susiQ]

Not at all impossible if he used a vehicle without GPS (of which I believe he at least had one). There's a blank spot in the timeline where almost anything could have happened - maybe some of our timeline experts will weigh in, but I don't think that's a dumb question at all.

I think it's possible,

There's huge gaps in the timeline for the AA and also some of it is poorly worded (imo). But from what I gather -

His phone is basically on airplane most of the day after 2:30pm. It comes out of it at 10pm. ~

But then it says something like from 10-432am~ it shuts off maybe? This is the weird wording (imo): because sentence after says his display turns on at 3:56am.

View attachment 451955

Thank you both for weighing in. I agree @GoJacks that the wording is off. If his phone was powered on at 4:32 am on the 10th how was it unlocked at 3:56 am? It needs to be on to be “unlocked,” right?

 

[JosieMae]

Respectfully snipped by me

Absolutely 100% agree, Suzanne has been penalised and silenced over and over during the last 3.5 years.
Robbed of her voice for too long alive, robbed of her voice in her murder.

It's about time she was listened to, she had a lot to say.

moo

And her words were burned in the fireplace by her cruel killer. But I've always believed that there is much more to come from SM. And one day she'll be allowed to speak.

Tick Tock.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Ohhhh boy! Thanks for the eye opener @Seattle1 . They do have their issues. Personally, I just couldn’t lay the blame of the failure of the first trial at LS’s feet. I feel Judge Lama was much more to blame for what happened. IMHO.

I will hope and pray that the two districts can work together for a successful prosecution of BM. If they fail, it’s not for lack of evidence and hard work already done by LE. If they fail, I may lose my mind!!

I definitely feel Lama deferred to the Defense's side more than appropriate or warranted. To me it was blatant.

MOO

 

[susiQ]

I’m going to try this again. (Hit post in error previously before I was done editing lol)

I have read some of the recent DNA discussion. This was discussed to death and explained in great detail by many astute posters in some of the earlier threads and even I, a person not well versed on the science/how all this DNA stuff works, took a deep dive and did a ton of research on the topic many moons ago when it was first being discussed. Through my own research and from many of the smart posters here and the many links provided,
I learned why the DNA in this case is not relevant/does not exonerate BM.

IE/team BM wanted everyone to believe the partial (limited genetic material) DNA found on the glovebox was that of a sex offender. The reality is that it was not the actual sex offenders DNA, rather, from someone likely related to the SO.
IE knows this and knew what she was doing by misrepresenting the DNA trying to mislead the public, and the court with her rambling on about Sex Offender DNA found on the glovebox. Unfortunately many people believed/fell for it, even Judge Murphy fell for it! This made IE/team BM very happy as was their plan. Further, the DNA found on the bike and in random areas around the house was not the same DNA that was found on the glovebox. IE knows this but she intentionally left that detail out to confuse and muddy the waters as she knows most people do not know a lot about how DNA works. All the DIFFERENT DNA found in multiple areas that obviously lots of people touched at some point in time i.e., glovebox dna- mechanic, car detailer; bike dna- Suzanne’s bike mechanic, other workers in bike shop, house dna- visitors to the home, daughter’s friends, workers that had been in the home. The DNA found in multiple places *might* have meant something if it was the same DNA located in all those places i.e., glovebox DNA was the same DNA found on the bike, the helmet, in the house etc. It’s called corroborating evidence. And in this case, not only is there not same/corroborating DNA found in all those places, there is not one shred of any other kind of corroborating evidence pointing to someone else having abducted/killed Suzanne.

Yet there are mounds and mounds of corroborating evidence pointing right at BM. And for over 3 years no one has been able to provide a theory for someone else having done the deed that also explains all the evidence against BM. LE can’t go around chasing after/investigating every piece of random DNA found in most peoples vehicles, on their possessions, in and around their homes. It is frustrating that so many, including a Judge, were bamboozled/hoodwinked by IE’s blustering and imo intentional misrepresentation of the DNA. The DNA in this case is a red herring and it does not exonerate BM by any stretch of the imagination.

The BM/SM digital evidence alone is beyond damning to BM, and you’d have to believe some unknown person that abducted and killed Suzanne managed to frame BM and forced him to tell lie after lie, concoct a fake alibi, blame mountain lion, chipmunks, elk, turkeys and deer, not search for his wife or attend any of her vigils, say “I don’t recall” almost 100 times to investigators when trapped/cornered like the slithery, slimy rat that he is.

If you believe BM’s narrative aka misdirection that Suzanne was abducted the next day from a bike ride, you’d have to believe she didn’t use her phone or open messages from Saturday afternoon within minutes of BM arriving home through to Sunday morning on Mother’s Day of all days before heading out on the “bike ride”.

But we know there was no bike ride and Suzanne’s phone last pinged at 4:23 Sunday morning just before he destroyed/dumped it somewhere right before hightailing it outta dodge to head to Broomfield for the fake Sunday job/fake alibi.

So we are to believe Suzanne, a woman with established pattern of being very active on her phone and various social media apps etc, never once used her phone again or communicated with anyone from Saturday afternoon up to when she was abducted Sunday morning??? No, I do not believe that for a second.

IE and BM are masters of misdirection, 2 peas in a pod, twin flames if you will (insert vomit emoji). IE hoping the masses would fall for irrelevant DNA, (LE did eventually investigate the glove box DNA and ruled it out) and unfortunately many, many people did at first and still some to this day fall for it. I truly believe BM has a fan club not so much here but in other places I’ve ventured onto to read about this case who no matter what- LE could have video of him literally dumping the bike-
these people still won’t believe he did it. Boggles the mind, truly.

IMO Barry Morphew is guilty AF and the 2nd time around, (and I believe there will be a second time, eventually), it’s going to take a highly skilled, experienced, meticulous and methodical trial prosecutor the likes of Matt Murphy (former Orange County Senior DDA) to bring the dirtbag (pardon the pun) down and put him where he belongs- behind bars for LWOP.

IMHOO

#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE

OM Goodness! I was so disappointed I had missed the first one (my internet went down), but this!!! I’d like to print it out and mail it to the next DA for his/her opening statement! Maybe sans “the slithery, slimy rat that he is.” Hmmm….maybe leave out the ”dirtbag” too, lol!!! All good here though. We don’t have to hold back! I loved every word

 

[AugustWest]

He jeopardised the entire trial with these sanctions.
Who does his grail serve?
Is the law serving itself or justice?

You see there is a pattern here..and not merely a pattern of prosecutorial failings...


Kathleen Turner, her old sparring partner, when LS did actually appeal..

13 Investigates spoke with former 4th Judicial District Attorney Dan May when Stanley filed her appeal. He said judges are supposed to impose the least restrictive sanctions possible to make sure both parties receive the necessary evidence for a fair preliminary hearing and subsequent trial.

“To get to the level that you are now dismissing charges, changing charges, now you're affecting the outcome of the case,” he said. “You shouldn't be doing that unless there's something really extraordinary that you just can't level the playing field at this point.”

The CDAC also said Judge Turner imposed sanctions without finding any “willful misconduct” regarding the evidence violations or that the violations affected the trial.

Former DA May thought the sanctions were extreme given the case was still in the early stages.

“That's probably what the Supreme Court is looking at now is, ‘Wow, that's a really extraordinary sanction this early in the proceedings,’” May said. “‘Is that appropriate in this case or has the judge abused their discretion?’”


This is the question.
Has the judge in the Morphew case abused his discretion?

Colorado DA Council backs 11th Judicial DA in appeal of first-degree murder sanctions

Colorado DA Council backs 11th Judicial DA in appeal of first-degree murder sanctions

krdo.com

Kitty, I'll try to answer your questions!

1) The same can be said of the D.A. It could be argued that the district attorney jeopardized the trial by failing to follow the rules of procedure.

2) I understand "serving the grail" in the gospel sense (we are called to be people who live for others). A judge serves the people who he/she is elected by.

3) What exactly is 'justice?" Justice doesn't seem as such when due process is lacking, IMO.

As far as 4th District D.A. Dan May's comments, he is entitled to an opinion, and reasonable minds can disagree. 11th District D.A. Lama apparently didn't share that mindset, thus the discovery sanctions. Lama first allowed a "continuance" pursuant to Rule 16, then sanctioned and "prohibit(ed) the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, again pursuant to Rule 16. This rule is longstanding, included in federal and state laws.

In my experience, to not allow untimely disclosures in discovery is a pretty standard remedy.

Ultimately none of this matters, and I'm really not trying to be disagreeable. I am convinced he will be retried and convicted. I just would find it much more satisfying to see criminal defendants get their comeuppance in a clean and completely fair fight.

P.S. You folks from across the pond and your aversion to the letter "z"

 

[Kemug]

Yup. Barry had the motive, means, and opportunity. All his lies about his alibi, which are not in dispute, show consciousness of guilt. You’re lucky to get one lie that proves that in a murder case, and here we have countless. Everything points to one man, and nothing points to anyone else.

Yup, I just don't see how anyone can get past his telling the Ritters (on the phone) that he was working at that famous wall with his workers when he was actually at the motel - and this before  Suzanne was even known to be missing.

 

[Boxer]

Can you kindly specify where you believe their 'unreadiness' is evidenced?

Unprepared expert witnesses. Missing deadlines.

 

[Seattle1]

I respect Seattle's opinion, I just don't agree in this instance. IMO, the judge had the grounds to rule the way he did regardless of extraneous facts.

The portion pertaining to remedy allows the judge these options:

(g) Failure to Comply; Sanctions.
If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

I wrote my analysis down, which I feel follows logically from Rule 16. Where did I go wrong?

OP makes a valid point-- one that is currently before the higher court for a decision on another case re. failure to Comply; Sanctions, minus bad faith or willful conduct.

As explained by Dan May about the brief by the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC) filed in the Colorado Supreme Court supporting Linda Stanley, the agency never denies that Stanley’s office struggled with discovery violations, but said the sanctions were excessive and “unprecedented.”

“Given the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the truth-seeking that this Court recognized to be the ‘paramount interest at stake’ in ‘the criminal justice context,’ the ‘pattern of neglect’ on discovery issues found by the Court cannot justify the drastic sanction imposed here,” the CDAC said in its brief.

Dan May previously opined on this case (People v Morphew) that he believed the Court (Lama) sanctions, tantamount to dismissal, also required consideration of willfulness, fault or bad faith, as well as the availability of lesser sanctions.

IMO, similar to Judge Turner above, Lama abused his discretion when he failed to undertake such considerations -- resulting in punishment that did not fit the crime. One doesn't impose the death penalty for failing to follow a Motions imposed calendar-- or a Statutory discovery calendar for that matter!

Colorado DA Council backs 11th Judicial DA in appeal of first-degree murder sanctions | KRDO

ETA:

To be clear, on its face, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16, does not require a court to impose any particular sanction in the case of a discovery violation. Instead, the rule leaves the choice of a sanction, if any, to the sound discretion of the district trial court.

“n fashioning a sanction, the court should impose the least severe
sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the discovery rules” (id. at P.16), which “‘is
to give a defendant the necessary time to prepare a full and adequate defense.’”

Raynor v. State, 201 Md. App. 209, 228 (2011) (quoting Ross v. State, 78 Md. App. 275, 286
(1989)), aff’d, 440 Md. 71 (2014); accord State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439, 459
(2017).

“‘[T]he sanction of dismissal should be used sparingly, if at all[.]’” State v.
Graham, 233 Md. App. at 459 (quoting Thompson v. State, 395 Md. 240, 261 (2006)).

State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Graham, 233 Md. App. 439, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Kemug]

If BM had a special friend who came in to clean house, special friend isn't a very good cleaner. Missed the bullet, missed the bike shorts, missed the brown smears, missed the dryer sheath. He should probably fire her.

She didn't wash the coffee cup, or clean out the ashes from the grate either.

 

[Kemug]

MOO
3 of the 4 11th district sheriffs supported the other candidate as professional and competent to support their offices, but she was a Democrat appointed by the governor for the early departure of the previous DA.
Chafee County is heavily Republican so they voted a better match to their politics.
In my opinion the voters ignored some substantial red flags to do so.

As an Aussie, I really cannot understand this US obsession with putting politics into everything. I don't know all 26 million Australians (now there's a surprise!), but I've yet to hear of even one who votes for law, local council, etc vacancies on the basis of their politics (their own or the nominees'). We vote for the person whom we think is best for the job. It just seems so odd to me to do otherwise.

 

[kittythehare]

Kitty, I'll try to answer your questions!

1) The same can be said of the D.A. It could be argued that the district attorney jeopardized the trial by failing to follow the rules of procedure.

2) I understand "serving the grail" in the gospel sense (we are called to be people who live for others). A judge serves the people who he/she is elected by.

3) What exactly is 'justice?" Justice doesn't seem as such when due process is lacking, IMO.

As far as 4th District D.A. Dan May's comments, he is entitled to an opinion, and reasonable minds can disagree. 11th District D.A. Lama apparently didn't share that mindset, thus the discovery sanctions. Lama first allowed a "continuance" pursuant to Rule 16, then sanctioned and "prohibit(ed) the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, again pursuant to Rule 16. This rule is longstanding, included in federal and state laws.

In my experience, to not allow untimely disclosures in discovery is a pretty standard remedy.

Ultimately none of this matters, and I'm really not trying to be disagreeable. I am convinced he will be retried and convicted. I just would find it much more satisfying to see criminal defendants get their comeuppance in a clean and completely fair fight.

P.S. You folks from across the pond and your aversion to the letter "z"

I cite Dan May because most of us know and respect him and his opinion is a qualified opinion.
The 'Grail' is a reference to Arthur and the knights.

The story of Parsifal is an old story that dates back to around 1130 AD. Many writers have referred to it as the “hero’s journey” [2, 4, 5], and it traces our path through the chapters of our career. The journey requires a period of Soul Searching (which is really about reconnecting to the call), and it finally leads to Enlightenment and Transformation. This journey is universal to each of us, and to our profession. We are in the time of reconnecting to the call. It is a time when we redefine our pursuit. It is a time of magnificent opportunity [6]. Man’s quest for the Grail* is about the journey of every person who searches to find what he or she is truly meant to be, and how their life has meaning. That is why we search for it so passionately. In the story, you may recognize yourself, or at least some pieces of yourself, in Parsifal. So, please, open your hearts and your imagination and most of all, remember that most wonderful of stories: the story that is you. . .

https://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/article/S0003-4975(07)00702-3/pdf

Did the end justify the means?
I don't believe it did which is why I agree with dan May's opinion.

Lama, IMHO, overstepped.

He is responsible because he is the authority in the court.
He also did it by taking the defense action without questioning it or even analysing it deeply.
And iMO he did the victim, Suzanne, and all women victims of DV a grave disservice.

He knew perfectly well the case could not continue.
It was petty and small minded.

But here we are.
It matters because there is a victim here, there are many victims, in fact.
And he had other options.
He just looks silly now, and retired..

Can't do a thing about the z if I'm using a GB English keyboard.
I do like it personally and I wouldn't eliminate it even if I did not, cos I'm no Lama...

 

[kittythehare]

Unprepared expert witnesses. Missing deadlines.

question was for OP.. thanks though, am up to speed.