Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w prejudice* #104

[BeckyF]

Mess up the case? I was simply stating it's bad police work to touch the bike- allow BM to touch the bike. The scene should have been secured after bike was found- and SM was not located. BM, on police cam, drives right through the area in his truck- the scene must be preserved for any crime- whether murder or a car accident. It's basic. Bad police work. Escorting BM through the house - bad police work. I never stated this caused the case to fail- that was obviously LS missteps.

I don’t see the need to continue to bash the police or Agent Grusing over 2 years later since whatever mistakes were made had no bearing on the outcome, as you stated. What’s the point? Just FYI WS is LE friendly.

 

[mrjitty]

BBM - how so? If you mean by taking to task the man who had an affair with his wife, how is that bullying? Trying to understand your thought processes here.

I think BM would have handled it with his usually subtlety

 

[mrjitty]

I would imagine that if the prosecution refile, they will have all their ducks in a row and will engage a different range of experts, with CV's and reports at the ready.

Agreed

But obviously the defence will argue that the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to refile to skirt the sanctions (judge shopping).

Whereas the prosecution will argue the dismissal was in good faith, and the purpose of the sanctions now spent.

Either way - i think you will end up arguing about the appropriateness of the sanctions, in the original proceedings, and in the new proceedings, on appeal.

 

[MountainDad]

I don’t see the need to continue to bash the police or Agent Grusing over 2 years later since whatever mistakes were made had no bearing on the outcome, as you stated. What’s the point? Just FYI WS is LE friendly.

The point is we will never know if evidence was lost or tainted ( tire tracks/footprints/DNA) that could have been the needed missing link, because the bike scene was not properly contained according to basic LE procedures. LE friendly? Does that mean no accountability? I love LE. My dad and brother are dedicated LE.

 

[Nikynoo]

I think BM would have handled it with his usually subtlety

OK, so, bull in a china shop scenario ?

 

[Curiousobserver]

The point is we will never know if evidence was lost or tainted ( tire tracks/footprints/DNA) that could have been the needed missing link, because the bike scene was not properly contained according to basic LE procedures. LE friendly? Does that mean no accountability? I love LE. My dad and brother are dedicated LE.

Agree that LE could have secured this better, however I don't think it had any important consequence. Its likely that his DNA would be on the bike under normal circumstances. And being a popular bike trail there we likely footprints all over, including the likely perp's.

 

[BeckyF]

DBM

 

[BeckyF]

Agree that LE could have secured this better, however I don't think it had any important consequence. Its likely that his DNA would be on the bike under normal circumstances. And being a popular bike trail there we likely footprints all over, including the likely perp's.

Exactly, no important consequence.

 

[Diddian]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I think even a man as foolish as BM measures risk vs. reward. He could personally profit from killing SM and because she was his wife, the risk was much lower - she was alone with him without anyone else aware of her movements and in a place (their shared home) where his prints and DNA would be expected; not so with JL.

 

[mrjitty]

OK, so, bull in a china shop scenario ?

A killer murderer scenario?

I dunno, the guy seems pretty dangerous to me.

 

[GOBliaison]

Uhh....ok.

I would listen earnestly to any rationalization of how it came to pass that MM1 was dispatched/permitted by dad to head outside to 'meet the press".
Anyone?
Anyone?

 

[Cindizzi]

The People’s response to the Defense Motion for Return of Property:

https://ia601401.us.archive.org/9/items/peoples-fu-to-barryeytan-d-104/people_D-104.pdf

 

[Cindizzi]

Uhh....ok.

I would listen earnestly to any rationalization of how it came to pass that MM1 was dispatched/permitted by dad to head outside to 'meet the press".
Anyone?
Anyone?

 

[California Dreamin’]

The People’s response to the Defense Motion for Return of Property:

https://ia601401.us.archive.org/9/items/peoples-fu-to-barryeytan-d-104/people_D-104.pdf

Although I am not a legal eagle, this is exactly what I expected from the prosecutors. Nicely done!!
Thanks @Cindizzi for posting!!

 

[Seattle1]

Both the County jurisdiction and the case number represent the dismissed murder case. IMO, if this was about BM's probation affecting his loss of gun privileges (hunting), the hearing would be heard in Chaffee County.

The hearing is not defined on the docket so my best guess is there might be some evidence seized that BM wants to retrieve. For example, I recall earlier complaints about electronics seized from the residence (cellular phones, ipads, computers, etc) but when asked to specifically identify them, the defense did not follow through. JMO

^^BBM
And just as I recalled, the defense again failed to support why BM should receive the seized property itemized in the defense motion.

The People’s response to the Defense Motion for Return of Property:

https://ia601401.us.archive.org/9/items/peoples-fu-to-barryeytan-d-104/people_D-104.pdf

Thank you @Cindizzi for linking the Peoples response!

 

[HongKongPhooey]

^^BBM
And just as I recalled, the defense again failed to support why BM should receive the seized property itemized in the defense motion.

View attachment 366349


Thank you @Cindizzi for linking the Peoples response!

I found #11 interesting too.

If I’m reading it correctly, it says defense never stated what their theory is re how Suzanne was murdered and it has been the prosecution putting it out there that their theory is that Suzanne was tranq-ed. So anybody who has criticised that theory has been misled by the prosecution’s spin possibly.

Obviously the evidence itself potentially lends itself to that interpretation, but I do find it interesting defense are saying here they never stated it as such.

 

[mrjitty]

The People’s response to the Defense Motion for Return of Property:

https://ia601401.us.archive.org/9/items/peoples-fu-to-barryeytan-d-104/people_D-104.pdf

Thanks for linking!

 

[mrjitty]

I found #11 interesting too.

If I’m reading it correctly, it says defense never stated what their theory is re how Suzanne was murdered and it has been the prosecution putting it out there that their theory is that Suzanne was tranq-ed. So anybody who has criticised that theory has been misled by the prosecution’s spin possibly.

Obviously the evidence itself potentially lends itself to that interpretation, but I do find it interesting defense are saying here they never stated it as such.

Other way round.

IE falsely and illogically asserts that prosecution advanced both

1. No theory;
2. The tranq theory

Prosecution states they have advanced no such theory, and nor do they have to. Further prosecution is not required to say how the evidence will be used in a future trial.

Prosecution makes a point I noted a few days ago. If SMs skeleton is found with a bullet hole in the skull, that changes everything and will make this motion look very silly.

 

[mrjitty]

^^BBM
And just as I recalled, the defense again failed to support why BM should receive the seized property itemized in the defense motion.

View attachment 366349


Thank you @Cindizzi for linking the Peoples response!

This is indeed very interesting

As noted the other day, so long as PC existed, the property was legally seized. We know also know the prosecution holds PC sufficient to charge and go to trial.

As a general legal principle it does seem potentially odd that you can never get your stuff back so long as the investigation continues?

But in any case, in this case, hard to see how BM should succeed.

 

[Nikynoo]

This is indeed very interesting

As noted the other day, so long as PC existed, the property was legally seized. We know also know the prosecution holds PC sufficient to charge and go to trial.

As a general legal principle it does seem potentially odd that you can never get your stuff back so long as the investigation continues?

But in any case, in this case, hard to see how BM should succeed.

Interesting that LE can keep property indefinately - is that what the prosecution is saying? Is the prosecution saying that ALL of the property is linked or may be linked to the crime? From a legal perpective, I find it interesting that the state can do this - should the state not be put to proof that it needs to keep the evidence, not the defendant to prove that he/she needs the property returned?