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

[mrjitty]

He can’t allege he was duped in to his statement if it was true can he?

Just to develop this - Iris claims for instance that the push pin was fabricated and that Barry was tricked into admitting the left turn based off unreliable location data

If Barry admits he did turn left AND was running around his house, that means the location data was accurate as Grusing put it to him

Under no circumstances can Barry admit this.

 

[K9Enzo]

Just to develop this - Iris claims for instance that the push pin was fabricated and that Barry was tricked into admitting the left turn based off unreliable location data

If Barry admits he did turn left AND was running around his house, that means the location data was accurate as Grusing put it to him

Under no circumstances can Barry admit this.

IMO It doesn't matter just because Barry nodded along in an interview --it matters how that data was used to build the case. Barry already admitted to turning left and moving around -those aren’t secrets. The issue isn’t whether those things happened, it’s how investigators framed the data. The civil suit challenges how the evidence was used, not the existence of the movements themselves. That’s how I understand it, and I’ll admit it’s tough for me to separate the criminal case from the civil one.

 

[mrjitty]

IMO It doesn't matter just because Barry nodded along in an interview --it matters how that data was used to build the case. Barry already admitted to turning left and moving around -those aren’t secrets. The issue isn’t whether those things happened, it’s how investigators framed the data. The civil suit challenges how the evidence was used, not the existence of the movements themselves. That’s how I understand it, and I’ll admit it’s tough for me to separate the criminal case from the civil one.

Iris does challenge the movements. She says the data was fabricated. If BM confirms the data was correctly presented to him, and he did in fact turn left and run around chasing chipmunks then that claim collapses. And that is also disastrous because it would be admissible against him in the criminal case. So he would have to say he didn't turn left or chase chipmunks - but then he is creating yet another version which would be admissible against him. So all he can do is plead the 5th.

 

[Nikynoo]

IMO It doesn't matter just because Barry nodded along in an interview --it matters how that data was used to build the case. Barry already admitted to turning left and moving around -those aren’t secrets. The issue isn’t whether those things happened, it’s how investigators framed the data. The civil suit challenges how the evidence was used, not the existence of the movements themselves. That’s how I understand it, and I’ll admit it’s tough for me to separate the criminal case from the civil one.

BBM, I agree.

 

[mrjitty]

From page 41 of the lawsuit re the left turn BM alleges:

231. The Arrest Affidavit included false and misleading statements about GPS phone location data allegedly showing where Barry drove his truck in the early morning hours of May 10, 2020.
232. In the Arrest Affidavit, Defendants stated that Barry’s truck drove nearby where Suzanne’s bicycle helmet was later discovered
233. Defendants’ theory was that Barry intentionally discarded Suzanne’s helmet in that location in order to “stage” an abduction.
234. Defendants authoring the Arrest Affidavit knew that the GPS phone locator detail was unreliable because of the “static drift” phenomenon.
235. Defendants authoring the Arrest Affidavit also knew that there were no truck telematics indicating the truck was in that area between May 9 and May 10.

Maybe I am missing something, but in my opinion, the statements about the GPS phone location cannot be false and misleading if BM himself says that the phone location was in fact correct. Ditto the pushpin cannot be 'fabricated' if BM himself says the locations were correct.

IE's allegation is that BM was tricked in to lying via this 'fabricated/false' data and then these false statements were authored into the Arrest Affifdavit and omitting critical exculpatory evidence. But there clearly cannot be any exculpatory evidence if Barry himself confirms the accuracy of the data.

So Barry would have to say he lied.

I kind of get your argument but i just don't see how you can say the use of the data breached BMs rights while at the same time BM himself says the data insights are correct. And BM obviously cannot answer questions about that because any answer except the 5th is bad for his criminal trial.

 

[Nikynoo]

That DA Kelly will engage (probably has engaged) experts not associated with the Stanley prosecution is a very astute observation, and I agree. I also agree that over time, memories can fade, witnesses can vanish, evidence can be lost or degraded. I assume DA Kelly, the Moffat County Sheriff, the CBI, and the FBI are all taking what ever steps can be taken to prevent that since they still claim the investigation is open. But I cannot know that for a fact, and humans are fallible even at their best.

DA Kelly will no doubt be careful to avoid the mistakes of the past, but I doubt that she is waiting for evidence that leaves no doubt as to guilt. That is an impossible burden and beyond her professional responsibility. If she believes in good faith that the assembled evidence can establish Morphew's guilt in a jury's collective mind, she will file. I have reasoned that it is in the interest of such a prosecution to wait for the end of Morphew's civil case, but I could be wrong about that.

I am curious as to how in your jurisdiction a lawyer can bring a case in the name of the represented party without the party's consent. That would be unethical in Colorado. F&B undertook to represent Morphew in these claims when they filed the Notice of Claim with the state in October 2021. We don't know what the engagement terms are, but it would be typical for an attorney to require a substantial retainer to cover their initial fees of case preparation and the anticipated costs that they cannot ethically finance for the client. It's possible that a third party investor paid these with the expectation that any judgment or settlement would be shared, but the case is so speculative I don't see that happening.

It's possible that Morphew delegated authority to make decisions for him at the outset, but he has the authority to revoke such a delegation at any time and has not done so.

What are the rules about this in your part of the world?

The finding of Suzannes body would lead to new evidence (e.g. the BAM) and hopefully other evidence) that would possibly make the case stronger (though it has been 18 months since Suzanne's body has been found, so perhaps not).

In respect to BBM, you couldn't bring a case in someones name without their consent. I do not believe that BM funded this civil case. I also believe that BM couldn't really not take part in it (whether guilty or not - though think that he may have been more vocal about the case if he was innocent, but who knows?). Is it possible that the deal with his legal team is that, if they are successful, he just recovers what he has paid them and the firm keep the rest? How are the law firms funded for these types of cases? The ordinary public do not have the funds to make these kinds of cases, so I am curious as to how they are funded.

I do not practice criminal law, so am in no way an expert. In the UK, we do have the ability to bring a Malicious Prosecution if the police have acted in bad faith and there has been an abuse of process. Proceedings also need to be completed with the defendant being found 'not guilty' for a claim to be considered. So, in BMs case, the case was dropped before trial started, so he wouldn't be able to make a claim for malicious prosecution (if the same circumstances were in the UK). This all falls under the law of Tort, so there is also a reasonableness test to overcome (e.g. were the police/CPS reasonable in bringing such a prosecution). That claim does need to be made by the claimant, but I suspect many such cases are on a no win no fee basis and the damages recovered are quite small, however, successful claimants also recover the majority of their legal costs in the UK (unlike the USA).

 

[Nikynoo]

From page 41 of the lawsuit re the left turn BM alleges:

231. The Arrest Affidavit included false and misleading statements about GPS phone location data allegedly showing where Barry drove his truck in the early morning hours of May 10, 2020.
232. In the Arrest Affidavit, Defendants stated that Barry’s truck drove nearby where Suzanne’s bicycle helmet was later discovered
233. Defendants’ theory was that Barry intentionally discarded Suzanne’s helmet in that location in order to “stage” an abduction.
234. Defendants authoring the Arrest Affidavit knew that the GPS phone locator detail was unreliable because of the “static drift” phenomenon.
235. Defendants authoring the Arrest Affidavit also knew that there were no truck telematics indicating the truck was in that area between May 9 and May 10.

Maybe I am missing something, but in my opinion, the statements about the GPS phone location cannot be false and misleading if BM himself says that the phone location was in fact correct. Ditto the pushpin cannot be 'fabricated' if BM himself says the locations were correct.

IE's allegation is that BM was tricked in to lying via this 'fabricated/false' data and then these false statements were authored into the Arrest Affifdavit and omitting critical exculpatory evidence. But there clearly cannot be any exculpatory evidence if Barry himself confirms the accuracy of the data.

So Barry would have to say he lied.

I kind of get your argument but i just don't see how you can say the use of the data breached BMs rights while at the same time BM himself says the data insights are correct. And BM obviously cannot answer questions about that because any answer except the 5th is bad for his criminal trial.

231 - was the information false and did the D's know it was false?
232 - same as above
233 - what supports this theory? (I guess 231 and 232?)
234 - is this common knowledge? I would say that it is for the Complainant to prove this point (e.g. that the D's knew or should have known.

As you know, the point of depositions is so that each side can 'fine tune' their cases before trial and to frame how to question a witness on the stand (we don't have such a process in the UK) but I have been deposed on a couple of (civil) cases that we have brought in the US. So, in answer to your points above, BM would be asked (i speculate here), if he turned left, what he saw etc. They would all be (I think) direct questions. And that is if he is even deposed. The civil case is all about what the D's did, not what BM did, and whether what they did was reasonable or whether it was an abuse of power.
MOO.

 

[mrjitty]

231 - was the information false and did the D's know it was false?
232 - same as above
233 - what supports this theory? (I guess 231 and 232?)
234 - is this common knowledge? I would say that it is for the Complainant to prove this point (e.g. that the D's knew or should have known.

As you know, the point of depositions is so that each side can 'fine tune' their cases before trial and to frame how to question a witness on the stand (we don't have such a process in the UK) but I have been deposed on a couple of (civil) cases that we have brought in the US. So, in answer to your points above, BM would be asked (i speculate here), if he turned left, what he saw etc. They would all be (I think) direct questions. And that is if he is even deposed. The civil case is all about what the D's did, not what BM did, and whether what they did was reasonable or whether it was an abuse of power.
MOO.

OK so on the left turn, how does BM answer the question in a way that supports his civil claim without creating bad evidence for any future criminal trial?

I am at a loss as to how he can answer.

A key underlying point is that the leftward location data is actual data that exists, whereas IEs claims about static drift are merely speculative. As things stand her own client has said there was no static drift, and thus no exculpatory evidence. Grusing simply asked BM to explain the data as it presented, and did not offer alternative explanation.

IE's civil and criminal cases require the view that BM did not in fact turn left. Or at least she lives in the grey area between those alternatives where BM was tricked and lied to.

I do understand your point, I just don't see what actual answer BM can give, as both yes and no will be bad testimony

IMO

 

[K9Enzo]

OK so on the left turn, how does BM answer the question in a way that supports his civil claim without creating bad evidence for any future criminal trial?

I am at a loss as to how he can answer.

A key underlying point is that the leftward location data is actual data that exists, whereas IEs claims about static drift are merely speculative. As things stand her own client has said there was no static drift, and thus no exculpatory evidence. Grusing simply asked BM to explain the data as it presented, and did not offer alternative explanation.

IE's civil and criminal cases require the view that BM did not in fact turn left. Or at least she lives in the grey area between those alternatives where BM was tricked and lied to.

I do understand your point, I just don't see what actual answer BM can give, as both yes and no will be bad testimony

IMO

Sooo... I don’t think BM needs to deny the turn to support his civil case. The issue isn’t the existence of the turn - it’s how LE used incomplete or unreliable data to support a larger theory that lacked evidence. The lawsuit says the affidavit misrepresented what the data meant, not that there was no movement at all. Ol' BM can say -- ‘I turned left, but their interpretation of why I did so, and what it supposedly proves, was misleading.’ Also that left turn led to zero recovered evidence -no physical connection to SM, no signs of a crime. That doesn’t create bad testimony, because it’s entirely possible to confirm a movement but reject the conclusion drawn from it. I don's see it as a contradiction - it's context. IMO

 

[mrjitty]

Sooo... I don’t think BM needs to deny the turn to support his civil case. The issue isn’t the existence of the turn - it’s how LE used incomplete or unreliable data to support a larger theory that lacked evidence. The lawsuit says the affidavit misrepresented what the data meant, not that there was no movement at all. Ol' BM can say -- ‘I turned left, but their interpretation of why I did so, and what it supposedly proves, was misleading.’ Also that left turn led to zero recovered evidence -no physical connection to SM, no signs of a crime. That doesn’t create bad testimony, because it’s entirely possible to confirm a movement but reject the conclusion drawn from it. I don's see it as a contradiction - it's context. IMO

Ok but if he says "I turned left" then suddenly the prosecution have that confirmation for the criminal trial and IE would not be able to claim it was static drift in the criminal trial.

So under no circumstances can he say that.

I get your legal point, but I think you are ignoring that Barry actually has to answer the question

 

[K9Enzo]

Ok but if he says "I turned left" then suddenly the prosecution have that confirmation for the criminal trial and IE would not be able to claim it was static drift in the criminal trial.

So under no circumstances can he say that.

I get your legal point, but I think you are ignoring that Barry actually has to answer the question

You always make good points, and I get it -anything BM says now could be used against him in a criminal case if charges are refiled. But I don’t think he has to give a clean yes-or-no answer either. He’d likely be coached to respond with , ‘That’s what I recall,’ or ‘That was my explanation at the time,’ which gives context without fully validating the data or contradicting the civil claims. It’s a tightrope for sure for his legal team to balance on. IMO

 

[Tragg]

231 - was the information false and did the D's know it was false?
232 - same as above
233 - what supports this theory? (I guess 231 and 232?)
234 - is this common knowledge? I would say that it is for the Complainant to prove this point (e.g. that the D's knew or should have known.

As you know, the point of depositions is so that each side can 'fine tune' their cases before trial and to frame how to question a witness on the stand (we don't have such a process in the UK) but I have been deposed on a couple of (civil) cases that we have brought in the US. So, in answer to your points above, BM would be asked (i speculate here), if he turned left, what he saw etc. They would all be (I think) direct questions. And that is if he is even deposed. The civil case is all about what the D's did, not what BM did, and whether what they did was reasonable or whether it was an abuse of power.
MOO.

In the US, each party is entitled to depose the other about the evidence behind the allegations of the complaint. The scope of inquiry allowed is very broad, and any disputes are resolved by the court. It's conceivable that Morphew would request an order restricting questions about his conflict with Suzanne, his previous answers in the investigation, his alibi project, his trash runs, etc. but I don't see how a judge could grant it: the basis of the complaint is that these bad facts are all based on evidence that is false or unreliable. Defendants would have a right to inquire as to the facts that underlie those claims. An adverse party is allowed to ask leading questions, to the interrogator would take him through his previous answers and his allegations before asking more open questions and drilling down on vague or inconsistent answers.

Under US civil discovery procedures, it is often the case that new information is uncovered during discovery, and DA Kelly could have new lines of investigation revealed by BM's testimony under oath.

In addition to an opportunity to evaluate witnesses and fine tune questions, a paramount objective of these formal processes is to lock the witnesses in to a very specific story while under oath. DA Kelly would consider such testimony very valuable if the civil case moves forward. The defendants would be able to improve on the investigative interviews, which can have the potential for ambiguity and misunderstanding that criminal defense counsel might be able to exploit. I can't imagine that she'd pass that prospect up!

 

[Tragg]

I appreciate the open discussion you've brought to this thread. I’m curious what you think about Linda Stanley’s role in all this -do you think her public interviews, the sanctions, and the discovery issues actually help whatever's left of BM's civil case?

First I have to say that the original civil case is done. It's not in the ER, it's brain dead and on life support.

Yes, it's possible Morphew could file a new complaint. Although there is a two year statute of limitations under Colorado law, I recently learned that for Federal law claims, Federal law governs the decision as to when the statute began to run. Federal law holds that the statute for Morphew's claims began to run when Judge Lama ordered that the criminal case dismissed in April 2023. So, unless it's tolled (suspended) while his original complaint is pending, the limitations period would expire this month.

But it's difficult to imagine that Morphew could file a complaint that would be less vulnerable to the immunity defense than the first one. If that's possible, the adjudicated bad acts of Linda Stanley and her assistants could be used against them in a trial.

To me, it's all very convoluted - in a fascinating way.

 

[K9Enzo]

LS wasn’t just a mess in the Morphew case - she was a walking ethics violation across multiple prosecutions. She made prejudicial public statements that got murder charges thrown out in another case, launched a baseless investigation into a sitting judge, and was disbarred for repeated misconduct. This wasn’t just a misstep. It was a pattern of reckless, unprofessional behavior that tanked serious cases and she lost the trust of the public. Good riddance to her. Imo only

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908561024401223895

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908561024401223895

Full screen

 

[Knox]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0C7LLbhnac3SqLzR7bL188iNNPBbxUmHXXKGM3mFVT9zU1FfBcE13YC1bwZuNZjdql&id=100057634556082

 

[GOBliaison]

In the US, each party is entitled to depose the other about the evidence behind the allegations of the complaint. The scope of inquiry allowed is very broad, and any disputes are resolved by the court. It's conceivable that Morphew would request an order restricting questions about his conflict with Suzanne, his previous answers in the investigation, his alibi project, his trash runs, etc. but I don't see how a judge could grant it: the basis of the complaint is that these bad facts are all based on evidence that is false or unreliable. Defendants would have a right to inquire as to the facts that underlie those claims. An adverse party is allowed to ask leading questions, to the interrogator would take him through his previous answers and his allegations before asking more open questions and drilling down on vague or inconsistent answers.

Under US civil discovery procedures, it is often the case that new information is uncovered during discovery, and DA Kelly could have new lines of investigation revealed by BM's testimony under oath.

In addition to an opportunity to evaluate witnesses and fine tune questions, a paramount objective of these formal processes is to lock the witnesses in to a very specific story while under oath. DA Kelly would consider such testimony very valuable if the civil case moves forward. The defendants would be able to improve on the investigative interviews, which can have the potential for ambiguity and misunderstanding that criminal defense counsel might be able to exploit. I can't imagine that she'd pass that prospect up!

<modsnip>

​

In civil cases, is it not "Complainant" vs."Respondent" ;
While in criminal, "The State"/"Prosecution" vs. "Defendant"


Now as to the raison dêtre for our harpster's theatre in the round-about, which has in several recent posts been speculated about...

IIRC did we not generally agree that, once those particular respondents to which attached derivative sovereign/official duty immunity [my label] were out of the target asset reservoir, those remaining likely would not possess holdings legally subject to judicial damages awards?

Soo...What should, "Negatrons on the deep pockets out there, Iris.", tell us about what the blazes is truly afoot?

Realistically, please.
​

_______________________________________________________________________

​

I reason:
IE knows that BM will remain free so long as he "behaves";
IE could well believe/ accept that, if forewarned, BM will not allow his arrest;
IE's logical conclusion is that her preeminent responsibility continues to be to oppose progress.
IE reasons that there is no eventuality that could irremediably harm her practice/mission.

 

[Tragg]

<modsnip>

​

In civil cases, is it not "Complainant" vs."Respondent" ;
While in criminal, "The State"/"Prosecution" vs. "Defendant"


Now as to the raison dêtre for our harpster's theatre in the round-about, which has in several recent posts been speculated about...

IIRC did we not generally agree that, once those particular respondents to which attached derivative sovereign/official duty immunity [my label] were out of the target asset reservoir, those remaining likely would not possess holdings legally subject to judicial damages awards?

Soo...What should, "Negatrons on the deep pockets out there, Iris.", tell us about what the blazes is truly afoot?

Realistically, please.
​

_______________________________________________________________________

​

I reason:
IE knows that BM will remain free so long as he "behaves";
IE could well believe/ accept that, if forewarned, BM will not allow his arrest;
IE's logical conclusion is that her preeminent responsibility continues to be to oppose progress.
IE reasons that there is no eventuality that could irremediably harm her practice/mission.

In Morphew v Chafee County et al, Judge Domenico referred Morphew as the "plaintiff", and the public entities, officials and employees as the "defendants". This is the nomenclature in the US District Court for Colorado, and in most civil proceedings in Colorado state courts. In many administrative adjudication proceedings, the complaining party is the "complainant" and the subject is the "respondent". In the appeal phase of a process, the "plaintiff" at the initial level could be the "petitioner" or the "appellant". So the title depends on the forum and the stage of the process.

Eytan is no longer representing Morphew in any legal proceeding. Somehow she appeared in the 10th Circuit proceedings but she withdrew after the court clerk asked her to register or withdraw. She is not admitted to any Federal appellate court, anywhere.

The case has not been decided by the 10th Circuit, so in a legal sense the defendants are not off the hook.

It seems beyond dispute that Barry Morphew will remain free if he is not convicted of another crime, or arrested for the murder of his wife.

It's hard to see how Morphew could prevent his arrest.

If "progress" is arrest and prosecution of people without due process, then Eytan will doubtless remain opposed.

Eytan is recognized by her peers as one of the best criminal defense attorneys in Colorado, and has earned many honors and awards for her work and accomplishments. So I tend to agree that she will continue her career no matter what the outcome of this case may be.

Nothing to see here, IMO.

 

[GOBliaison]

In Morphew v Chafee County et al, Judge Domenico referred Morphew as the "plaintiff", and the public entities, officials and employees as the "defendants". This is the nomenclature in the US District Court for Colorado, and in most civil proceedings in Colorado state courts. In many administrative adjudication proceedings, the complaining party is the "complainant" and the subject is the "respondent". In the appeal phase of a process, the "plaintiff" at the initial level could be the "petitioner" or the "appellant". So the title depends on the forum and the stage of the process.

So thennn...for example, if back-referencing...​

To keep the players, positions, roles, rulings, determinations, etc. accurately "aligned", the immediate participants should...what? Use in present writings page-cluttering "clarifying " footnotes? Or interstitial tangled webs of parenthetical "refreshers"?
What, imo, would really jog the cogency needle positively would be at least the occasional presence of my favorites, to wit:
- "...hereafter, Jones, et al.", and
- "...heretofore, Jones, et al."...
Alas.
______________________________________
Uhoh ...
Just recalled that my First Year Legal Writing was citicized by its Third Year Moot Court reviewer as stylistically unnecessarily complex and ponderous. {Gee. And I thought it should be!}
But I still got a "P" !
_______________________________________

The case has not been decided by the 10th Circuit, so in a legal sense the defendants are not off the hook.

But, continuing with this metaphor, are not the "BIG" ones off? Post #958 above refers.
I'll be surprised if the "SMALL" ones still "on the hook" hold assets reachable in a Federal civil money damages award, inasmuch as [I thought] said civilly adjudged's residence, transport, annuities/pensions/life insurance, livelihood-related capital, etc, for example, were exempt from levy, forfeit, attachment, seizure, et al. to satisfy civil monetary damages awards.
Would I be correct in applying this to Barry's remaining "unimmunized" defendants?

Lastly, and hence, my earlier, "No deep pockets out there... so what is truly afoot?".
________________________________________

It's hard to see how Morphew could prevent his arrest.

I earnestly believe - and have expressed my viewpoint and rationale several times over these intervening years - that Barry Morphew will never allow himself to be taken into custody to be brought before any peers, read: "mortals", to be judged. His god would not countenance such a thing; further it would be Barry's "sacred" duty to prev ... Ok: Would "avert" be more apropos?
To clarify, then, I believe that Barry Morphew will avert his arrest. For His justice is his god's justice. imo. I have no dread whatsoever in good time reading:
" ...the coroner at the scene, while stating there was no evidence there and then of foul play, added that he had recovered and given to the police as evidence, a sealed envelope from the deceased's clothing, apparently with contents, which had written upon it:
"To my beloved daughters".

[Coming to pass, such contents should never be disclosed.]
___________________________________________________

If "progress" is arrest and prosecution of people without due process, then Eytan will doubtless remain opposed.

Eytan is recognized by her peers as one of the best criminal defense attorneys in Colorado, and has earned many honors and awards for her work and accomplishments. So I tend to agree that she will continue her career no matter what the outcome of this case may be.

Nothing to see here, IMO.

With respect, there may prove to be too much to see. IMO