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

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 :rolleyes:" 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 :oops:...
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":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
I will strive to improve cogency, if you will :D!

The individuals who were not "voluntarily" dismissed after MTDs were filed are all indemnified by the state and the county, so "deep pockets" remain technically on the hook as long as the higher courts have not ruled to uphold the dismissal. And so long as Morphew can file a new complaint, he can get them back on the hook after the first case is dismissed. There's no need to speculate about ulterior agendas. Money will do, as always.

Speculation differs as to whether Morphew would commit suicide rather than face arrest a second time for Suzanne's murder. Yours is as good as anyone's.

Defense attorneys are definitely a mixed blessing. Sometimes it feels like you just can't live with 'em. But when you think about it, you can't live without 'em, either.
 
Keep checking in to see if he’s been arrested. He will never commit suicide…he’s way too narcissistic. He will believe all the way to the end that he will walk out of there free. A more egotistical 🤬🤬🤬 I have never seen.
 
Keep checking in to see if he’s been arrested. He will never commit suicide…he’s way too narcissistic. He will believe all the way to the end that he will walk out of there free. A more egotistical 🤬🤬🤬 I have never seen.

Respectfully begging your clarification, but by "there" is meant:

(1) After his trial, by reason of acquittal, for example?
or​
(2) After his arrest, notwithstanding the prospect of pre-trial confinement?
 
Respectfully begging your clarification, but by "there" is meant:

(1) After his trial, by reason of acquittal, for example?
or​
(2) After his arrest, notwithstanding the prospect of pre-trial confinement?

LOL…sorry for not clarifying. By ‘there’ I meant any scenario that involved a trial where he believes that even as the end of the trial is looming he will leave the building free when in fact he will not.
 
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.
Yes.
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,’
Saying "that's what I recall " is very close to a yes answer though. He is basically admitting that he turned left if he says that, imo.

or ‘That was my explanation at the time,’

Saying 'That was my explanation at the time' could be problematic, imo because it is admitting that his answers are inconsistent.

And the other side can ask for more clarification. 'What do you mean 'at that time?' Has it changed?'
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

I think it is still potentially problematic. I don't think those crafty answers would be fool proof.
 
Yes.

Saying "that's what I recall " is very close to a yes answer though. He is basically admitting that he turned left if he says that, imo.



Saying 'That was my explanation at the time' could be problematic, imo because it is admitting that his answers are inconsistent.

And the other side can ask for more clarification. 'What do you mean 'at that time?' Has it changed?'


I think it is still potentially problematic. I don't think those crafty answers would be fool proof.

The thing is a civil trial is ultimately decided on balance of probabilities where Barry carries the burden and Barry's case is that he was tricked in unconstitutional ways using fabricated evidence.

He has first hand knowledge, so he is going to need to say he didn't run around chasing chipmunks, and he didn't turn left, in order for Iris to pretend that it was all 'static drift'.

If he gives an answer that allows for those statements to be true - then that part of the claim must logically fail. I think there is no clever wording that gets you round that which won't be bad at any subsequent criminal trial.
 
Happy Heavenly Birthday Suzanne, you will never be forgotten. xo

1745989025375.webp



#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE
 
Couldn't help but think of Suzanne as Mothers Day approaches. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they could rearrest that self righteous, lying piece of manure BM on or before then? That would certainly be Divine Intervention/Karma to me.

Hanging in for BM's arrest...it's coming.

jmo
 
Couldn't help but think of Suzanne as Mothers Day approaches. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they could rearrest that self righteous, lying piece of manure BM on or before then? That would certainly be Divine Intervention/Karma to me.

Hanging in for BM's arrest...it's coming.

jmo
I wonder if the girls spend Mother's Day with their Dad? :(
 
Death Investigator and host of the podcast Body Bags, Joseph Scott Morgan, joins Websleuths.com for Ask Me Anything on Wednesday, May 7th at 8 PM Eastern.
Websleuths members, post your questions at the link below, and then join us live on Wednesday as Joseph Scott Morgan answers your questions on Websleuths.
Post questions at this link Joseph Scott Morgan, Death Investigator, Ask Me Anything May 7th @8:00 PM Eastern
Josepth Scott Morgan host of Body Bags
Morgan-Joe-Scott.webp
 
For legal nerds:

I noticed the SCOTUS is hearing two cases this term that claim official immunity doctrines prevent people from recovering their losses from obvious wrongs. They ask the Court to carve out exceptions.

The cases are Barnes v. Felix and Martin v United States. The outcomes will tell us whether the SCOTUS is willing to consider relaxation of its immunity doctrines.

These cases are factually and legally different from Morphew's civil claims. It seems unlikely that they will open directly an opportunity for Morphew successfully to argue his case to overturn the dismissal order. But you never know. Sometimes it seems Murphy's Law applies everywhere, including the US legal system.
 
Last edited:
Can someone please explain to me why he hasn’t been arrested yet? Especially since the autopsy report showed animal tranquilizer in her body, I’m truly baffled. Everyone knows he’s guilty. Why no arrest?
Probably because things aren’t as clear behind the scenes as everyone assumes. The tranq is suspicious, but if the evidence tying it to BM was as solid as people think, he’d be in prison. Something isn’t lining up or this would be over. I don’t think this case is being actively worked on like people think. Sorry, no pep talk from me. imo
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
119
Guests online
4,246
Total visitors
4,365

Forum statistics

Threads
622,998
Messages
18,460,168
Members
240,235
Latest member
Benlonum
Back
Top