Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #110

[Love Never Fails]

I'm good. Thanks. Partial DNA is not the issue. This is the difference between making a forensic argument and complying with legal disclosure requirements.
jmo

Trying to help. Sorry.

 

[10ofRods]

No I have not (or if I have, for example if she was one of the guests in the link I posted earlier, I was and am unaware of her name), so maybe that is where my confusion lies. My link had Joseph Scott Morgan as a guest. To me he is credible and knows more about DNA than any of us imo.

I think he should have been convicted. I am (personally) repulsed by IE's actions, but none of that matters. The chips fell where they did as I understand it, so my only point is that any new prosecution cannot ignore those Brady/Giglio violations. We can be as righteous as we want but at the end of the day it serves no purpose. It doesn't make the problem that we've been told we have to clean up and deal with, miraculously disappear and go away.

jmo

Actually, while Mr. Morgan is a forensic expert, there are plenty of people who know more about DNA than he does. He has a master's in forensic sciences (plural) and is not a genetic specialist. His specialty is broader than that (medicolegal issues surrounding death). He does not hold a doctorate in genetics or any other field, and his focus is purely applied.

Here's what he lists as his specialties:

• Estimation of time since death
• Injury assessment on the scenes of deaths
• Mass fatality investigations
• Training curricula and development for state coroner systems
• Notification of next of kin methodologies
• Impact of notification of next of kin on practitioners
• Forensic practice in rural settings

He's a medical examiner type (I think he teaches it at the college level). He's used to outsourcing DNA and is not an expert in DNA. Knowing how the human genome works and what each SNP does is a full time specialty requiring years of post-doctoral work, IMO. That's not his background. He's a very good communicator and he does not (usually) contradict genetic science, but to say he's an expert in DNA is a bit OTT. He's a death investigator, not a geneticist (forensic or otherwise). He's written one book that I can find (and it's not about genetics).

Forensic gene analysis is usually done by teams of people, all with a background in biology and genetics. Human genetics, preferably (since I've seen specialists in the canine genome up on the stand trying to riff on human genetics, and it's really sort of cringe-worthy). Dr Kobilinksy's name (John Jay College Forensic DNA specialist - which I believe to be one of the top forensic programs in the nation and JJ College is consistently ranked as at or near the top of Criminology programs) comes to mind. But, in polls of academics about who they think are the best forensic geneticists, there are handful of other names that may represent even more recent expertise. Konilinsky's work on expanding the study of genetics into crime analysis is, still, some of the most recognized and awarded. His background is in science, not criminology.

All DNA experts have their background first and foremost...in biological science.

IMO.

 

[Cindizzi]

Can anyone help me out

I recall IE claimed the missing mileage was not the left turn but a trip to a store which doesn’t match the telematics record for Saturday

Does anyone remember where she claimed that?

Yes, the Spa supply store. These are from day 3 of the 4 day preliminary hearing. I can’t find the exact one where Grusing said on the stand that the store owners/employees were wrong about the time they and BM say he was there.

 

[Seattle1]

Something else that is bothering me is the night before. Friday night he wanted her to go to that job site. It's the same one that was in question with the neighbor hearing noise and then LE spending all that time digging right? She went but met him there correct? I might be remembering wrong, but I thought that was the story. She went and met him in her car. They then went to the pizza place to pick up food and Suzanne sent that photo to her daughters. Seems odd to me on the surface.. but what if she was documenting that HE was with her. Did she have a bad feeling about something and she sent that photo so they would know their dad was with her at that time if something happened to her?

One of the most frightening traits of a narcissist is their ability to instantly revert from Jekyll to Hyde, before the victim can dry their tears -- hence the term 'crazy makers.' It was an intense week for SM when BM suddenly switched gears to behave "civily" including suggesting SM come see the beach/river house property under construction, drive by the Salida real estate properties SM found online, and get Moonlight Pizza for dinner.

IMO, I believe SM collected BM at the river house job, leaving BM's truck on site, because the Bobcat trailer was connected to his truck. After pizza, SM dropped BM off back at the river job. MG reported BM worked here until late on Friday.

True or not, didn't BM also call MG early Saturday morning telling her he was going to be late to collect her for work because there had been an early volunteer fire call out? I think BM was up to no good on Friday night -- planning for SM demise on Saturday afternoon. Poor SM, he'd disarmed her on Friday night and she'd let her guard down. MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Actually, while Mr. Morgan is a forensic expert, there are plenty of people who know more about DNA than he does. He has a master's in forensic sciences (plural) and is not a genetic specialist. His specialty is broader than that (medicolegal issues surrounding death). He does not hold a doctorate in genetics or any other field, and his focus is purely applied.

Here's what he lists as his specialties:

• Estimation of time since death
• Injury assessment on the scenes of deaths
• Mass fatality investigations
• Training curricula and development for state coroner systems
• Notification of next of kin methodologies
• Impact of notification of next of kin on practitioners
• Forensic practice in rural settings

He's a medical examiner type (I think he teaches it at the college level). He's used to outsourcing DNA and is not an expert in DNA. Knowing how the human genome works and what each SNP does is a full time specialty requiring years of post-doctoral work, IMO. That's not his background. He's a very good communicator and he does not (usually) contradict genetic science, but to say he's an expert in DNA is a bit OTT. He's a death investigator, not a geneticist (forensic or otherwise). He's written one book that I can find (and it's not about genetics).

Forensic gene analysis is usually done by teams of people, all with a background in biology and genetics. Human genetics, preferably (since I've seen specialists in the canine genome up on the stand trying to riff on human genetics, and it's really sort of cringe-worthy). Dr Kobilinksy's name (John Jay College Forensic DNA specialist - which I believe to be one of the top forensic programs in the nation and JJ College is consistently ranked as at or near the top of Criminology programs) comes to mind. But, in polls of academics about who they think are the best forensic geneticists, there are handful of other names that may represent even more recent expertise. Konilinsky's work on expanding the study of genetics into crime analysis is, still, some of the most recognized and awarded. His background is in science, not criminology.

All DNA experts have their background first and foremost...in biological science.

IMO.

Respectfully @10ofRods, you know I find you to be a valuable insight and respect your opinions always. But, I can't even read this anymore because it is not about DNA expertise or analysis, or JSM's credentials. I can't keep saying this. I've been saying it for 6 pages and it's not resonating. There are members who are taking this far too personally as if I am acting as Morphew's defense counsel when I am attempting to do the opposite. I am attempting to illustrate that the problems that caused the withdrawal must be fixed so this does not happen again.

jmo

 

[10ofRods]

Answer: yes.

Lol

jmo

[snipped by me]

ORDER RE: [D-17] DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING; [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17C] SUPPLEMENT; AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT

"Rule 16(I)(a)(2) requires the prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defense “any material or information within his or her possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce the punishment therefor.” See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 88, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Specifically, the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, meaning evidence that is material. “[E]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different... Exculpatory evidence includes evidence which bears on the credibility of a witness the prosecution intends to call at trial. People v. Dist. Ct. of Colorado's Seventeenth Jud. Dist., 793 P.2d 163, 166 (Colo. 1990)(citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154–55, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)).

...
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in the Court’s discretion, the Court concludes as follows:

1. The Court finds a continuing pattern by the People of an inability and failure to comply with its Rule 16 obligations as well as the Court’s case management orders;
2. The Court finds the People’s actions amount to negligent, and arguably, reckless disregard for their Rule 16 obligations and duty to abide by court orders;....

... 5. The Court finds the following as it relates to a request for sanctions:

...

1. Megan Duge, Andrew McDermott, Kevin Hoyland (excluded the witnesses as expert witnesses);
2. James Stevens, Kenneth Hicks, Alex Walker, Andy Rohrich, Jonathan Grusing, Derek Graham, Ken Harris (not permitted to provide expert testimony; free to provide lay opinions); and
3. Caitlin Rogers (may provide expert testimony, but restricted to the four corners of her current report);

on top of the previous exclusion of

... another proffered expert witness (Mr. Doug Spence) albeit based upon the stipulation of the People;

...[The] March 10 and 30, 2022, [exclusions], 11 out of 16 of the People’s endorsed expert witnesses.13 See [P-44] generally. Three additional experts were excluded on other grounds.14 The Court finds the exclusion of these witnesses amounts to a significant sanction, but one that was warranted based upon the record;

***
... The People argued, at one point, to this Court that the information withheld pertained to an ongoing investigation and it was not discoverable information. The Court wholeheartedly disagrees with this sentiment. Rule 16 is titled “Discovery and Procedure before Trial.” This title embraces the sentiment that discovery in a pending case includes ongoing investigations, testing, etc. If the ongoing investigation produces information, reports, etc. that “tends to negate the guilt of the accused,” it must be disclosed.

It is even more serious in situations, such as this case, where the Defendant was held on a no bond hold pending the PEPG and Preliminary Hearing. Defendant was held on a no bond hold from May through September 2021.7 In this case, information from the numerous meetings between law enforcement and the District Attorneys with CBI DNA analysts concerning the CODIS matches should have been reduced to writing and disclosed to the defense. The prosecution cannot circumvent an obligation to disclose exculpatory information by deliberately avoiding

6 Certainly, relevant and exculpatory information was not produced in a timely fashion, however, the People ultimately did disclose it and the defense is now in possession of it prior to trial.
7 Defendant currently is out on bond and has been now since September 2021.

Page 13 of 20

taking notes or reducing statements to writing. People v. Anderson, 837 P.2d 293, 299 (Colo. App. 1992). Even law enforcement witnesses conceded this information may be material or have exculpatory value. See e.g. Tr., at 103:25-105:10(Feb. 24, 2022)(Commander Alex Walker agreeing that an unknown male DNA profile linking to potential leads with unsolved sexual assault cases would be favorable to the defense).

The CODIS matches were discoverable materials. Also, any steps taken to rule out the possible source of the foreign male DNA (i.e., who was swabbed, who has been ruled out as a source) is exculpatory information to the accused in a pending criminal prosecution and, therefore, must be turned over. The Court finds that the meetings regarding DNA discussed exculpatory information and information favorable to the accused during the pendency of a criminal prosecution. Therefore, it was incumbent upon law enforcement to reduce said information to writing and disclose it to the defense. The Court finds that the People’s failure to disclose the unknown foreign male DNA and investigative steps being taken in the summer of 2021 prior to, during, and after the PEPG and Preliminary Hearing, constitutes a violation of Rule 16 and the Court’s orders.

Lastly, it is unclear to the Court how much information the affiant had when he submitted the probable cause affidavit or whether CBI failed to disclose certain evidence to the affiant who then unwittingly omitted material information. The affidavit states it “was edited and reviewed by SA Kenneth Harris and CBI Agents Joseph Cahill and Derek Graham.” Aff., at 2. While Mr. Cahill testified under oath at the preliminary hearing that he had only reviewed 19 pages of the affidavit, at another hearing, he was impeached by the defense with an e-mail he sent to the affiant where he stated he reviewed the affidavit in its “entirety” and noted the affidavit “lacks detail and specificity”, in particular, “regarding allegations, suspicions, evidence of other possible involved people, and the investigative steps and results.” See Ex. 23, 2 (Feb. 8, 2022).

But even so, there is no requirement that an affiant include all information in discovery in support of an arrest warrant, and the defense is not challenging the validity of the warrant itself, i.e., arguing it lacked probable cause. Rather, the defense contends that the foregoing omissions should have been disclosed through the discovery process shortly after Mr. Morphew’s arrest, and that the prosecution’s failure to do so constitutes a discovery violation. The Court agrees.

I would have summarized that by simply saying Rule 16 violations. There were multiple invocations of Brady/Giglio by the defense (including against two specific officers, earlier in the case and a claim that their personnel records were being withheld). I still don't see how getting rid of the experts was the proper sanction for Rule 16 violations. The key finding was that certain "exculpatory evidence" was withheld. While I do not believe the errant DNA was "exculpatory," obviously it was discoverable and should have been given fully to the defense (let them figure it out, IOW).

That would be true of any piece of evidence. Odd that it mentions "CODIS matches" when in fact, the matches were really not to CODIS individuals but to an unknown offender who is not yet in CODIS with an identity. An unidentified person's DNA is not really a CODIS hit - but even the Judge seems a bit confused. It was up to the prosecution to un-confuse him, which Stanley decidedly did not do (I don't think she understood much or any of it, herself).

Seems to me the Judge also invoked some other, more specific standards. The impeachment of Cahill is huge.

I agree with the court that the discovery violations were real. I do not agree with the sanction chosen by the court. Overly broad.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

The confusion keeps perpetuating. That's what happens when forensic analysis is used to make a legal argument. It's not about the end result. It's about the disclosure. Get the evidence IN first (or, argue that it's not discoverable or admissible), but in either event, disclose it properly, and THEN make the forensic argument. Since this can't seem to penetrate I am done getting attacked for trying to bang this nail.

jmo

What confusion? Now I'm confused. If you have been saying "State should have turned over X evidence," you have no argument with me. However, I'm confused as to what forensic argument was even being made at that point in the proceedings.

What's interesting, of course, is that I'm guessing there was even more stranger male DNA all over the Puma Path property and in Barry's vehicles. A whole range of local denizens would have been "disclosed" had the forensic analysis continued to look into every nook and cranny (why just Suzanne's Range Rover? Why not all the vehicles? ) Heck, DNA persists in the laundry - why not test the laundry DNA? (Answer: it would have been overwhelmingly Morphew DNA - as expected, thereby adding little of evidentiary value).

The evidence can't be adjudicated (brought into trial) until it is presented in the first place, that's for sure. I can easily see why the State didn't want to keep adding more and more DNA profiles to the case - but they ought to have disclosed what they already had. I sure would like to know why they apparently only swabbed Suzanne's RR; if they did all the vehicles at the house, I am unaware of it).

Anyone remember any DNA evidence from any of Barry's own vehicles?

 

[Jurisprudence]

What confusion? Now I'm confused. If you have been saying "State should have turned over X evidence," you have no argument with me. However, I'm confused as to what forensic argument was even being made at that point in the proceedings.

The confusion that seems to be perpetuating is that the DNA would have yielded them no strategic or factual advantage because it would have been dismissed out of hand or capable of being easily slammed down, and therefore the DNA problem is not a problem at all and this never should have happened. (This is the end result of a forensic DNA analysis)

vs

But, it did happen. And, we can't unring the bell. So, now that we are on notice, let's do it right - whether we agree with the court's ruling that it's right or wrong notwithstanding, let's fill these gaps highlighted in the court's order, leave the defense with nothing to come back with, and get the conviction we should have gotten the first time.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I would have summarized that by simply saying...

[snipped by me]

You don't summarize Lolol I fully expected you to want the text thru CODIS. Too late for me to snip it.

 

[Seattle1]

[snipped by me]

ORDER RE: [D-17] DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING; [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17C] SUPPLEMENT; AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT

"Rule 16(I)(a)(2) requires the prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defense “any material or information within his or her possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce the punishment therefor.” See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 88, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Specifically, the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, meaning evidence that is material. “[E]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different... Exculpatory evidence includes evidence which bears on the credibility of a witness the prosecution intends to call at trial. People v. Dist. Ct. of Colorado's Seventeenth Jud. Dist., 793 P.2d 163, 166 (Colo. 1990)(citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154–55, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)).

...
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in the Court’s discretion, the Court concludes as follows:

1. The Court finds a continuing pattern by the People of an inability and failure to comply with its Rule 16 obligations as well as the Court’s case management orders;
2. The Court finds the People’s actions amount to negligent, and arguably, reckless disregard for their Rule 16 obligations and duty to abide by court orders;....

... 5. The Court finds the following as it relates to a request for sanctions:

...

1. Megan Duge, Andrew McDermott, Kevin Hoyland (excluded the witnesses as expert witnesses);
2. James Stevens, Kenneth Hicks, Alex Walker, Andy Rohrich, Jonathan Grusing, Derek Graham, Ken Harris (not permitted to provide expert testimony; free to provide lay opinions); and
3. Caitlin Rogers (may provide expert testimony, but restricted to the four corners of her current report);

on top of the previous exclusion of

... another proffered expert witness (Mr. Doug Spence) albeit based upon the stipulation of the People;

...[The] March 10 and 30, 2022, [exclusions], 11 out of 16 of the People’s endorsed expert witnesses.13 See [P-44] generally. Three additional experts were excluded on other grounds.14 The Court finds the exclusion of these witnesses amounts to a significant sanction, but one that was warranted based upon the record;

***
... The People argued, at one point, to this Court that the information withheld pertained to an ongoing investigation and it was not discoverable information. The Court wholeheartedly disagrees with this sentiment. Rule 16 is titled “Discovery and Procedure before Trial.” This title embraces the sentiment that discovery in a pending case includes ongoing investigations, testing, etc. If the ongoing investigation produces information, reports, etc. that “tends to negate the guilt of the accused,” it must be disclosed.

It is even more serious in situations, such as this case, where the Defendant was held on a no bond hold pending the PEPG and Preliminary Hearing. Defendant was held on a no bond hold from May through September 2021.7 In this case, information from the numerous meetings between law enforcement and the District Attorneys with CBI DNA analysts concerning the CODIS matches should have been reduced to writing and disclosed to the defense. The prosecution cannot circumvent an obligation to disclose exculpatory information by deliberately avoiding

6 Certainly, relevant and exculpatory information was not produced in a timely fashion, however, the People ultimately did disclose it and the defense is now in possession of it prior to trial.
7 Defendant currently is out on bond and has been now since September 2021.

Page 13 of 20

taking notes or reducing statements to writing. People v. Anderson, 837 P.2d 293, 299 (Colo. App. 1992). Even law enforcement witnesses conceded this information may be material or have exculpatory value. See e.g. Tr., at 103:25-105:10(Feb. 24, 2022)(Commander Alex Walker agreeing that an unknown male DNA profile linking to potential leads with unsolved sexual assault cases would be favorable to the defense).

The CODIS matches were discoverable materials. Also, any steps taken to rule out the possible source of the foreign male DNA (i.e., who was swabbed, who has been ruled out as a source) is exculpatory information to the accused in a pending criminal prosecution and, therefore, must be turned over. The Court finds that the meetings regarding DNA discussed exculpatory information and information favorable to the accused during the pendency of a criminal prosecution. Therefore, it was incumbent upon law enforcement to reduce said information to writing and disclose it to the defense. The Court finds that the People’s failure to disclose the unknown foreign male DNA and investigative steps being taken in the summer of 2021 prior to, during, and after the PEPG and Preliminary Hearing, constitutes a violation of Rule 16 and the Court’s orders.

Lastly, it is unclear to the Court how much information the affiant had when he submitted the probable cause affidavit or whether CBI failed to disclose certain evidence to the affiant who then unwittingly omitted material information. The affidavit states it “was edited and reviewed by SA Kenneth Harris and CBI Agents Joseph Cahill and Derek Graham.” Aff., at 2. While Mr. Cahill testified under oath at the preliminary hearing that he had only reviewed 19 pages of the affidavit, at another hearing, he was impeached by the defense with an e-mail he sent to the affiant where he stated he reviewed the affidavit in its “entirety” and noted the affidavit “lacks detail and specificity”, in particular, “regarding allegations, suspicions, evidence of other possible involved people, and the investigative steps and results.” See Ex. 23, 2 (Feb. 8, 2022).

But even so, there is no requirement that an affiant include all information in discovery in support of an arrest warrant, and the defense is not challenging the validity of the warrant itself, i.e., arguing it lacked probable cause. Rather, the defense contends that the foregoing omissions should have been disclosed through the discovery process shortly after Mr. Morphew’s arrest, and that the prosecution’s failure to do so constitutes a discovery violation. The Court agrees.

Respectfully, I believe many of OPs questions and/or issues with replies here might be better served if OP also references all of the State's responses to the defense Motions for sanctions -- including how the Court did not give consideration to the State's response in its Order for Sanctions. (OP would know this if either the response or the Order referenced).

But I get it, the State's responses don't make the headlines, are not necessarily easily located, and unlike the defense Motions, are not being parroted as absolute truth by crime shows guests. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Yes, the Spa supply store. These are from day 3 of the 4 day preliminary hearing. I can’t find the exact one where Grusing said on the stand that the store owners/employees were wrong about the time they and BM say he was there.

View attachment 452304View attachment 452305View attachment 452306View attachment 452307

You're the best @Cindizzi and our very own rock star of the archives! Thank you.

 

[10ofRods]

Respectfully @10ofRods, you know I find you to be a valuable insight and respect your opinions always. But, I can't even read this anymore because it is not about DNA expertise or analysis. I can't keep saying this. I've been saying it for 6 pages and it's not resonating. There are members who are taking this far too personally as if I am acting as Morphew's defense counsel when I am attempting to do the opposite. I am attempting to illustrate that the problems that caused the withdrawal must be fixed so this does not happen again.

jmo

Gotcha. I have to say that your point has become unclear as you are indeed having to respond to several different people.

And my point is that once we go down DNA rabbit holes, the amount of "discoverable" evidence may indeed overwhelm many local courts. I'm not sure how to keep that from happening. But one way would have been for equal investigative time to have been spent on the Broomfield hotel and the Puma Path objects (not just Suzanne's car). If Barry still had his owner's manual, I am betting some more stranger DNA would have been found.

I also suspect that guilty murderers will indeed get off, because of this feature of DNA (not only is it everywhere, but science is getting better at detecting it and analyzing it...everywhere).

I'm very sorry you're feeling cornered and upset - but I do think it's hard to keep the dialogue clear over many pages. I do not disagree at all about the fact that the DNA evidence (once it was collected) ought to have been produced for the Defense (it really backfired to try and keep it out, for sure).

I don't see any way to keep it from happening again - as all investigations have the imperfections of this one. Suzanne's DNA found on Barry's body (at any point in time) is equally lacking in forensic value as the Glove Box DNA - but hers was never sought (to my knowledge) at Broomfield, in Barry's truck, or elsewhere. That's because everyone knew it would be there, in any case. So only the "stranger" DNA got mentioned - which is the main source of the problem.

IMO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

It was during the preliminary where IE argued that BM was shopping at the spa/stove store with early close hours on Saturday, and where investigators couldn't find a store receipt or evidence BM was there before or after closing hours.

Yes and the store owners affirmed he had been there which was a conundrum as prosecution would have had to accuse them of lying. It may or may not have a place in a new trial if the timeline changes.

 

[kittythehare]

bolded and underlined by me

Many thanks to @10ofRods for continuing to try to educate us all on how the science of DNA works.

Iris doesn’t want to be educated on DNA because her MO is spin and shriek misinformation until someone believes it.

Unfortunately for the previous prosecution of SUZANNE’s murder, committed by her husband IMO, a judge allowed himself to be blinded by the spinning and shrieking of Iris.

Shame on him.

Nothing about the DNA was “obscured” by the prosecution as alleged in the post above.

Iris just chooses not to comprehend what she is being told, as that isn’t at all helpful to her defense of BM.

She then decides that “partial matches“ are “matches,” or Cahill misrepresents them as such, and away we go.

Shriek and spin. Shriek and spin.

If I understand correctly, the DNA found in the glovebox is not, and never will be, a “match” to the rape cases in those other states. That rapist was not anywhere near SUZANNE’s car.

Part of problem is the verbiage used to describe the DNA found, and what the testing showed regarding that DNA.

And part of the problem is Iris and how she has chosen to defend murderous husbands—with obfuscation and and obscuring the truth of what she reads.

Or is she actually not able to comprehend what she reads? Hence the shrieking and spinning? IMO, maybe.

Cahill, not being a DNA expert, was absolutely NOT the person who should have been answering DNA questions. And he should NOT have been allowed to do so after it was discovered he and defense lawyer Iris had a conversation the night prior.

Let’s put that little gem in the same box of questionable antics as BM’s girlfriend SD hiring a lawyer with a tie to Judge Murphy and forcing him to recuse himself from overseeing SUZANNE’s murder case.

Wow, wasn’t that a coincidence. Not, IMO.

MOO. IMO. Thanks for letting me vent a bit.

You do it with style and thanks for venting.

 

[SteelCity91]

FWIW I think Barry destroyed Suzanne's phone and threw it in the creek, expecting it to be found, in an exceptionally useless state.

Went swimming later in search of the same.

JMO

Are you saying you think he threw it in the creek right behind their house?

 

[10ofRods]

The confusion that seems to be perpetuating is that the DNA would have yielded them no strategic or factual advantage because it would have been dismissed out of hand or capable of being easily slammed down, and therefore the DNA problem is not a problem at all and this never should have happened. (This is the end result of a forensic DNA analysis)

vs

But, it did happen. And, we can't unring the bell. So, now that we are on notice, let's do it right - whether we agree with the court's ruling that it's right or wrong notwithstanding, let's fill these gaps highlighted in the court's order, leave the defense with nothing to come back with, and get the conviction we should have gotten the first time.

jmo

I am getting you now. To put it in my language, whatever DNA was collected must be disclosed. Then each side hires its experts. What the State needs is a true DNA expert who can demolish the Glove Box DNA. What the Defense needs is at least one juror who has trouble paying attention to scientific explanations.

Then, a good crime scene reconstruction person (for that, the man from Georgia would be fine). Is there any reason to suspect that Suzanne's RR was in any way involved in this crime? Is the DNA on the bike (thrown into a ravine by someone - it's been clear it didn't roll down there since Day 2 or so) the same as in the Glovebox (no, is the answer - and show that to the jury - there are many aspects of DNA that can easily be shown in nifty color diagrams). It's not a complex system. So I think the State needs two different kinds of experts, if not three. And if possible, not all FBI guys/CODIS people. Explaining CODIS to a jury (when there has been no direct hit to any of the identified DNA in CODIS - meaning that the glovebox guy is just a COUSIN of that unknown person) is language that the jury can understand.

But at some point, both sides are just going to have to cast their fate upon the winds and let the jury have the case.

The judge should have done the same. OTOH, maybe he knows some things I don't (such as that Stanley and crew were running in the wrong direction, strategy-wise).

[snipped by me]

You don't summarize Lolol I fully expected you to want the text thru CODIS. Too late for me to snip it.

Well, compared to my academic writing, I am definitely "summarizing." Thanks to the high intelligence and reading ability of the average WSer, I can definitely get closer to what I'd consider a "summary" of a huge mass of information (forensic DNA) in fairly short posts. I know most of my posts are long - but not nearly as long as the literature on which many of these posts are based.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that on this go-round, the defense will get all the evidence - but will then have to contend with all the digital evidence and leave this glovebox thing to trial. The glovebox thing isn't going away. And I still wonder who decided to test just that one glovebox and why. Why are there no telemetrics from Suzanne's RR? Maybe there is - buried in there somewhere. When did she last drive it and when was it parked where it was found? If Glovebox is going to convince the jury that SODDI, there still has to be a timeline. Barry's timeline has Suzanne still sleeping when her phone travels, IIRC.

At some point, any judge worth their salt is going to put the kabash to unlimited amounts of random evidence being thrown at the jury. But, since the Glovebox is now international news, I think it will come up again at the next trial, sadly.

How I wish that CO could see its way clear to appointing a special prosecutor. I don't even know how that gets done.

 

[Megnut]

Are you saying you think he threw it in the creek right behind their house?

JMOO he overbroke it, then overthrew it in the location of the bike, landing in the water.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

What confusion? Now I'm confused. If you have been saying "State should have turned over X evidence," you have no argument with me. However, I'm confused as to what forensic argument was even being made at that point in the proceedings.

What's interesting, of course, is that I'm guessing there was even more stranger male DNA all over the Puma Path property and in Barry's vehicles. A whole range of local denizens would have been "disclosed" had the forensic analysis continued to look into every nook and cranny (why just Suzanne's Range Rover? Why not all the vehicles? ) Heck, DNA persists in the laundry - why not test the laundry DNA? (Answer: it would have been overwhelmingly Morphew DNA - as expected, thereby adding little of evidentiary value).

The evidence can't be adjudicated (brought into trial) until it is presented in the first place, that's for sure. I can easily see why the State didn't want to keep adding more and more DNA profiles to the case - but they ought to have disclosed what they already had. I sure would like to know why they apparently only swabbed Suzanne's RR; if they did all the vehicles at the house, I am unaware of it).

Anyone remember any DNA evidence from any of Barry's own vehicles?

IMO, during the preliminary, the state responded to the defense's (strategic) examination of witness Joseph Cahill and partial profile DNA by instead focusing on where BM's DNA was found (bike, helmet, RR). Remember, the defense only called two witnesses, Cahill and the Deputy Sheriff who they accused of planting the cap inside the dryer.

In a Motions hearing subsequent to the PH and release of BM on bail, where witnesses were to be called to support the defense DNA allegations, I don't think it was any mistake that IE ran out the clock during the hearing but not before Judge Murphy repeatedly questioned IE why they were there or the purpose of the witnesses!

What followed before the hearing could be continued in Judge Murphy's courtroom was another defense Motion causing Murphy to recuse himself.

At this point, IE had already begun to fuel the SA DNA flames and soon after, sometime mid November October 2021, BM's new Civil defense team put all 26+ defendants on notice of BM's intent to sue for violation of his civil rights.

And the rest is history: IE continued the defense Motion hearing for sanctions in the house of Lama-- where, unfortunately, the Court could not hear beyond IE's misrepresented DNA evidence. MOO* (all linked* late in the prior thread).

 

[justtrish]

Oh Iris is educated on that DNA. She is banking on nobody else being educated on it. She is just using that as a way to get her client out of a murder conviction.

 

[waldojabba]

JMOO he overbroke it, then overthrew it in the location of the bike, landing in the water.

JMO

We saw Barry soaking wet coming from the river ( with Mom Shirley sitting shotgun in his waiting truck) in Tyson Draper’s video early on I believe. Many then speculated he was looking for the phone or maybe even perhaps looking for her diamond ring. JMO.