Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #115

[Momofthreeboys]

The pertinent definition of what it means to "set up" someone is:

"to trick someone in order to make them do something, or in order to make someone seem guilty of something that they have not done."

IMO, that is the essence of Morphew's civil claims: that the defendants conspired to create an arrest affidavit that was in effect a false narrative, using misrepresentations, omissions of material fact, and outright lies to trick Judge Murphy into believing that probable cause existed for Morphew's arrest.

Although it's true that his complaint's factual allegations supporting this claim are not evidence, attorneys who submit complaints are, by rule, attesting to the court that the allegations are made in good faith on evidence available after a due diligence inquiry. If it turns out otherwise, both attorneys and clients can face serious consequences. In part as a logical consequence, people who quote statements from court documents are immune from claims of defamation.

I respect the stricter rules of other jurisdictions, which better promote public respect for the justice system and those who participate in it. But in most if not all American jurisdictions, Byrialsen would be within bounds to say that she believes Morphew was "set up" by the authorities. Unless we are prepared to change the First Amendment, I don't forsee a change in that legal or professional standard.

In sum, there's a reason no bar complaints have been filed.

Of course, everyone here is entitled to hold, with Shakespeare's Marcellus, that "Something is rotten in the State of Denmarke."

I belief your assumption on their position is correct. Judge Murphy even cautioned the prosecution regarding their arrest affidavit and some of the contents even though he sent it on to prosecution, which I do think was the right thing to do at that time while knowing full well their would be motions if prosecution went own certain paths. I do not believe there have been bar complaints against any of the attorneys in either BMs criminal charge or the on going civil complaint because they have not crossed a legal boundary. Guilty or not the die was cast starting with the AA and the arrest and the hiring of a defense team that sunk their teeth into the case.

 

[mrjitty]

The pertinent definition of what it means to "set up" someone is:

"to trick someone in order to make them do something, or in order to make someone seem guilty of something that they have not done."

IMO, that is the essence of Morphew's civil claims: that the defendants conspired to create an arrest affidavit that was in effect a false narrative, using misrepresentations, omissions of material fact, and outright lies to trick Judge Murphy into believing that probable cause existed for Morphew's arrest.

Although it's true that his complaint's factual allegations supporting this claim are not evidence, attorneys who submit complaints are, by rule, attesting to the court that the allegations are made in good faith on evidence available after a due diligence inquiry. If it turns out otherwise, both attorneys and clients can face serious consequences. In part as a logical consequence, people who quote statements from court documents are immune from claims of defamation.

I respect the stricter rules of other jurisdictions, which better promote public respect for the justice system and those who participate in it. But in most if not all American jurisdictions, Byrialsen would be within bounds to say that she believes Morphew was "set up" by the authorities. Unless we are prepared to change the First Amendment, I don't forsee a change in that legal or professional standard.

In sum, there's a reason no bar complaints have been filed.

Of course, everyone here is entitled to hold, with Shakespeare's Marcellus, that "Something is rotten in the State of Denmarke."

Well sure but my point was JB and IE didn't produce anything in court, even with the strike out phase assumption that their allegations were true, that would establish anything close to 'setting up' the defendant - let alone the level of actively framing him by faking the autopsy results ...

This why she is demonstrably outside of ethical behaviour IMO.

While I agree nothing will happen about it (lol nothing matters), the judge's ruling that the probable cause standard was clearly met was something also apparent to these two attorneys. Anyone who has followed the case knows this and the Judge made the obvious finding. No one was framed, set up etc, and intelligent attorneys surely know by now that he is in fact guilty.

Anyway.

 

[justtrish]

DBM- wrong thread.

 

[bluestsocks]

Well sure but my point was JB and IE didn't produce anything in court, even with the strike out phase assumption that their allegations were true, that would establish anything close to 'setting up' the defendant - let alone the level of actively framing him by faking the autopsy results ...

This why she is demonstrably outside of ethical behaviour IMO.

While I agree nothing will happen about it (lol nothing matters), the judge's ruling that the probable cause standard was clearly met was something also apparent to these two attorneys. Anyone who has followed the case knows this and the Judge made the obvious finding. No one was framed, set up etc, and intelligent attorneys surely know by now that he is in fact guilty.

Anyway.

I suspect where you practice you don’t have to reckon with the First Amendment implications of Rules of Professional Conduct. I’ve noted most other jurisdictions have far more restraints upon defense counsel and prosecutors. For instance, prosecutors in the US get away with Brady violations all the time and don’t get sanctioned, even when withholding key evidence that could lead to exoneration. Similarly, defense counsel absent a gag order can make incredibly broad statements about theories of innocence without much concern and can create shows for their clients. On the whole, I’d prefer the US system be closer to other countries like Canada and Europe where the obligations on all counsel are held to a much higher standard, but it is much easier to do that without a broad and expansive first amendment right.

 

[mrjitty]

I suspect where you practice you don’t have to reckon with the First Amendment implications of Rules of Professional Conduct. I’ve noted most other jurisdictions have far more restraints upon defense counsel and prosecutors. For instance, prosecutors in the US get away with Brady violations all the time and don’t get sanctioned, even when withholding key evidence that could lead to exoneration. Similarly, defense counsel absent a gag order can make incredibly broad statements about theories of innocence without much concern and can create shows for their clients. On the whole, I’d prefer the US system be closer to other countries like Canada and Europe where the obligations on all counsel are held to a much higher standard, but it is much easier to do that without a broad and expansive first amendment right.

Yes i think you are correct.

Where I am from, "free speech" wouldn't be the issue at all, but rather professional rules of conduct, and in particular not to call the profession into disrepute. So accusing fellow practitioners of crimes without evidence, particularly in a way that could erode public trust in institutions, is a big no no.

I think there is also a cultural shift here with the rise of social media. In the UK for example, I still don't get the feeling that KCs are so desperate to win cases that they resort to conspiracies. Why would they? Simply do a good job for your client. And of course pre-trial publicity is heavily restricted.

Whereas in this case, I feel a good part of the public grandstanding has little to do with the case but rather the broader agenda.

MOO

 

[Tragg]

Yes i think you are correct.

Where I am from, "free speech" wouldn't be the issue at all, but rather professional rules of conduct, and in particular not to call the profession into disrepute. So accusing fellow practitioners of crimes without evidence, particularly in a way that could erode public trust in institutions, is a big no no.

I think there is also a cultural shift here with the rise of social media. In the UK for example, I still don't get the feeling that KCs are so desperate to win cases that they resort to conspiracies. Why would they? Simply do a good job for your client. And of course pre-trial publicity is heavily restricted.

Whereas in this case, I feel a good part of the public grandstanding has little to do with the case but rather the broader agenda.

MOO

Thanks for this, and for the discussion more generally. The cultural differences that allow government modulation of public speech where you live might be too high a price to pay for Americans. We may fairly be criticized for all the excesses countenanced under the 1A, but we also see the benefits.

I agree that there has been a broader agenda for Morphew's attorneys, from their perspective: they are seeking to change the law to make it easier for people who have been wronged by law enforcement to recover civil damages and thereby to deter abusive practices. Since appellate courts created the defenses at issue here, they can only go to court to seek those changes.

Sure they are aware that Judge Murphy's finding of probable cause, and the evidence supporting it, makes their chances of winning in the lower courts very slim. Perhaps they hoped that if they threw enough shade on the behavior of law enforcement Domenico might give them latitude to move forward with the case. He gave them a respectful hearing, but rightly and candidly told them they'd have to look to a higher court for a change in the immunity rules.

But Domenico was not entirely hostile to their claims. Here are some quotes:

"The allegations against the Defendants, if true, show an investigation and prosecution that was,
in a number of senses, wrongful. Plaintiff alleges that prosecutors omitted significant evidence, failed to follow up on or answer questions that may have undermined the case against him, and misrepresented material facts. All are wrongful, and all undermine the criminal justice sys-
tem in serious ways. There should be, and are, consequences for that conduct....Besides the implosion of the prosecution of Plaintiff and the need to restart the investigation into Mrs. Morphew’s death, consequences can, and have, included sanctions both in court and through the professional oversight processes.

...

Did the investigators and prosecutors have an obligation to Plaintiff and the state courts to be more careful and candid? Yes. Did they fail to live up to that duty? By all appearances, yes. Do the full facts as alleged here raise some doubt about the theory presented in the affidavit and the certainty that Plaintiff was solely responsible for Mrs. Morphew’s death? Yes.

...

In hindsight, it appears everyone involved now agrees that Mr. Morphew should not have been arrested, at least not at that time. As some defendants pointed out behind the scenes at the time, the investigation wasn’t complete, there were loose ends to tie up, and there were too many questions to answer before a case against Plaintiff could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

...

[The alleged exculpatory] facts explain why proceeding with the arrest and charges at the time the affidavit was filed was at the very least unwise: the uncertainties raised by some of this evidence would have made it very difficult for the prosecution to secure a conviction at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecutors, generally, understand they have an ethical obligation not to bring charges that they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

...

Plaintiff, like anyone accused of a crime, deserves better than what happened here. The People of the State of Colorado, on whose behalf and in whose name the charges against Plaintiff were brought, deserved better. And Suzanne Morphew certainly deserved better.

Perhaps Plaintiff is right that immunity doctrines ought to be revisited and it should be easier to sue those who mishandle prosecutions like this for damages in federal court. But that is a question for another day and another court. This court must apply the law as it is, and that requires the motions to be granted and the Plaintiff’s claims to be dismissed."

Realistically - i.e., setting their hopes aside - these kind words were all they could expect from a trial court judge.

But I am not surprised that they see their client as "set up" in the sense that the unnecessarily and extraordinarily lengthy arrest affidavit, full of character assassination and other inadmissible and salacious evidence, edited to omit exculpatory evidence by prosecutors who have been disciplined for ethics violations, was crafted for the purpose of justifying to the public an arrest that should not have taken place, and also to generate the extensive media coverage and public attention that was found to have prejudiced the jury pool.

This does not trump the finding of probable cause under current law as you say, but they would like the law of immunity to change so that their client can be made whole to the extent civil damages can do that, and so that other prosecutors think carefully before trying such a stunt again. A quixotic quest, maybe, but accepted under the rules.

I am not saying I share their perspective, but I can't say there's no factual basis for it. And it is not refuted by the thin finding of probable cause IMO.

The point is well made that the discovery of remains containing BAM provides compelling evidence that their client is criminally culpable in Suzanne's death, and that this cannot have escaped the attorneys. The desperate claim that investigators planted evidence was probably a reaction to the giant sucking sound of Barry's claims of innocence going down the drain in the public mind. I don't expect they will repeat it in American media.

There are other agendas as well, as WS members have discussed. Morphew can only hope the prosecution holds off filing while his civil case has a pulse.

All MOO.

 

[al66pine]

"giant sucking sound of Barry's claims of innocence going down the drain"

Thanks for this, and for the discussion more generally. The cultural differences that allow government modulation of public speech where you live might be too high a price to pay for Americans. We may fairly be criticized for all the excesses countenanced under the 1A, but we also see the benefits.

I agree that there has been a broader agenda for Morphew's attorneys, from their perspective: they are seeking to change the law to make it easier for people who have been wronged by law enforcement to recover civil damages and thereby to deter abusive practices. Since appellate courts created the defenses at issue here, they can only go to court to seek those changes.

Sure they are aware that Judge Murphy's finding of probable cause, and the evidence supporting it, makes their chances of winning in the lower courts very slim. Perhaps they hoped that if they threw enough shade on the behavior of law enforcement Domenico might give them latitude to move forward with the case. He gave them a respectful hearing, but rightly and candidly told them they'd have to look to a higher court for a change in the immunity rules.

But Domenico was not entirely hostile to their claims. Here are some quotes:

"The allegations against the Defendants, if true, show an investigation and prosecution that was,
in a number of senses, wrongful. Plaintiff alleges that prosecutors omitted significant evidence, failed to follow up on or answer questions that may have undermined the case against him, and misrepresented material facts. All are wrongful, and all undermine the criminal justice sys-
tem in serious ways. There should be, and are, consequences for that conduct....Besides the implosion of the prosecution of Plaintiff and the need to restart the investigation into Mrs. Morphew’s death, consequences can, and have, included sanctions both in court and through the professional oversight processes.

...

Did the investigators and prosecutors have an obligation to Plaintiff and the state courts to be more careful and candid? Yes. Did they fail to live up to that duty? By all appearances, yes. Do the full facts as alleged here raise some doubt about the theory presented in the affidavit and the certainty that Plaintiff was solely responsible for Mrs. Morphew’s death? Yes.

...

In hindsight, it appears everyone involved now agrees that Mr. Morphew should not have been arrested, at least not at that time. As some defendants pointed out behind the scenes at the time, the investigation wasn’t complete, there were loose ends to tie up, and there were too many questions to answer before a case against Plaintiff could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

...

[The alleged exculpatory] facts explain why proceeding with the arrest and charges at the time the affidavit was filed was at the very least unwise: the uncertainties raised by some of this evidence would have made it very difficult for the prosecution to secure a conviction at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecutors, generally, understand they have an ethical obligation not to bring charges that they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

...

Plaintiff, like anyone accused of a crime, deserves better than what happened here. The People of the State of Colorado, on whose behalf and in whose name the charges against Plaintiff were brought, deserved better. And Suzanne Morphew certainly deserved better.

Perhaps Plaintiff is right that immunity doctrines ought to be revisited and it should be easier to sue those who mishandle prosecutions like this for damages in federal court. But that is a question for another day and another court. This court must apply the law as it is, and that requires the motions to be granted and the Plaintiff’s claims to be dismissed."

Realistically - i.e., setting their hopes aside - these kind words were all they could expect from a trial court judge.

But I am not surprised that they see their client as "set up" in the sense that the unnecessarily and extraordinarily lengthy arrest affidavit, full of character assassination and other inadmissible and salacious evidence, edited to omit exculpatory evidence by prosecutors who have been disciplined for ethics violations, was crafted for the purpose of justifying to the public an arrest that should not have taken place, and also to generate the extensive media coverage and public attention that was found to have prejudiced the jury pool.

This does not trump the finding of probable cause under current law as you say, but they would like the law of immunity to change so that their client can be made whole to the extent civil damages can do that, and so that other prosecutors think carefully before trying such a stunt again. A quixotic quest, maybe, but accepted under the rules.

I am not saying I share their perspective, but I can't say there's no factual basis for it. And it is not refuted by the thin finding of probable cause IMO.

The point is well made that the discovery of remains containing BAM provides compelling evidence that their client is criminally culpable in Suzanne's death, and that this cannot have escaped the attorneys. The desperate claim that investigators planted evidence was probably a reaction to the giant sucking sound of Barry's claims of innocence going down the drain in the public mind. I don't expect they will repeat it in American media.

There are other agendas as well, as WS members have discussed. Morphew can only hope the prosecution holds off filing while his civil case has a pulse.

All MOO.

@Tragg Thanks for your analysis above and many of your other posts here. Gotta repeat this ¶.

"The point is well made that the discovery of remains containing BAM provides compelling evidence that their client is criminally culpable in Suzanne's death, and that this cannot have escaped the attorneys. The desperate claim that investigators planted evidence was probably a reaction to the giant sucking sound of Barry's claims of innocence going down the drain in the public mind. I don't expect they will repeat it in American media."

^An astute observation^

 

[minusfour]

The calm before the storm.

I must confess to dropping the ball on Suzanne's case. So many hiccups and distractions that have really nothing to do with her murder. I am now using this time to catch up. I know when Barry is arrested, some of these issues will be raised, and I don't want to be mislead by red herrings then. When he is rearrested, I know. I'm sure he knows too. When will it be? How much longer? In the big picture, I know it doesn't really matter, but sooner rather than later would be fine.

 

[nyvictoria]

IIRC in her correspondnece to her best friend Sheila she also wonderied what her "young self" was thinking when she married him.
HIndsight is 20-20 etc. Barry cared for her during her first bout of cancer when she was young - he was kind and thoughtful - I am sure it seemed like he adored her and thats pretty attractive. The "ugly" I imagine did not rear its head right away. Control can sometimes seem like love if you dont recognize it for what it is.

Bottomline IMO Suzanne grew as a person and Barry well.. he never left the cave.
JMO.

BBM
This is the best description of Barry I’ve ever seen. Perfect.

 

[kkdj]

IIRC in her correspondnece to her best friend Sheila she also wonderied what her "young self" was thinking when she married him.
HIndsight is 20-20 etc. Barry cared for her during her first bout of cancer when she was young - he was kind and thoughtful - I am sure it seemed like he adored her and thats pretty attractive. The "ugly" I imagine did not rear its head right away. Control can sometimes seem like love if you dont recognize it for what it is.

Bottomline IMO Suzanne grew as a person and Barry well.. he never left the cave.
JMO

Great post!
I think this can be normal when people marry young. They don't necessarily grow at the same pace or necessarily together. However, I think Barry saw her as his no matter what. He knew she was embroiled in an affair (his mother mentioned Suzanne was having an affair). IMO Barry wanted this hidden except for his mother, who he confided in.
Barry's ego, jealousy, fear and money led to him murdering his wife. I look forward to him being prosecuted.

 

[kkdj]

The calm before the storm.

I must confess to dropping the ball on Suzanne's case. So many hiccups and distractions that have really nothing to do with her murder. I am now using this time to catch up. I know when Barry is arrested, some of these issues will be raised, and I don't want to be mislead by red herrings then. When he is rearrested, I know. I'm sure he knows too. When will it be? How much longer? In the big picture, I know it doesn't really matter, but sooner rather than later would be fine.

Do we know where he is? I mean, he did like Mexico.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Do we know where he is? I mean, he did like Mexico.

Most likely in the US although he is free to come and go.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Most likely in the US although he is free to come and go.

“Free to come and go”…
Like pouring salt in a gaping wound to know that.

 

[arielilane]

The worst time for a victim is when the victim is attempting to take back their own life and leave their abuser. SM sent a text message to BM “Im done” and days later she's gone.

-- He did an awful job of staging the bike scene.
-- Provided the first chipmunk alibi.
-- A dart gun and materials used to inject tranquilizer into darts (no tranquilizer chemicals were found though) were found on the property.

In September 2023, SM’s remains were found about 40 miles from her home in Maysville, CO.
The autopsy found a cocktail of drugs (animal tranquilizers) used to tranquilize wildlife found in her bone(s).
Sound familiar?

There is no statute of limitations for murder.

One day new charges will be filed against him.

All just a matter of opinion-

 

[kkdj]

Most likely in the US although he is free to come and go.

Could be. But if I were to put myself in his shoes.......you know, her body was discovered and with tranquilizer evidence as he admitted to using on other animals and evidence was found in the dryer, I might love Mexico or other foreign places even a bit more. jmo

 

[HongKongPhooey]

“Free to come and go”…
Like pouring salt in a gaping wound to know that.

I don’t think it can feel like true freedom if you know what must be coming for you though.

 

[FromGermany1]

Could be. But if I were to put myself in his shoes.......you know, her body was discovered and with tranquilizer evidence as he admitted to using on other animals and evidence was found in the dryer, I might love Mexico or other foreign places even a bit more. jmo

Does he have to demonstrate to his girls "Look at me. I will stay here because I'm completely innocent and never ever did something bad to your mother." ??

 

[Kemug]

Does he have to demonstrate to his girls "Look at me. I will stay here because I'm completely innocent and never ever did something bad to your mother." ??

Probably.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I don’t think it can feel like true freedom if you know what must be coming for you though.

He’s a true narcissist though. I’m pretty sure he thinks he has won. He has been free about 4 1/2 years. Much longer than Suzanne was allowed to live.
I just can’t stand the thought that when someone is murdered, Justice goes so slowly.

 

[scapa]

He’s a true narcissist though. I’m pretty sure he thinks he has won. He has been free about 4 1/2 years. Much longer than Suzanne was allowed to live.
I just can’t stand the thought that when someone is murdered, Justice goes so slowly.

Esp when the answers to the non-puzzle are plain and the hubristic murderer is able to arrange flattering (well, not quite; never quite with BM) photoshoots and morning TV spots even as everyone in the room knows full well that hedunnit.

I feel that the point of the dragging-on civil suit, now as before, is purely to frighten off another prosecution, which would inevitably bring another civil suit, etc., so long as SM's funds hold out.

BM is free, I guess. I wonder how sweet or sour that freedom is.