Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #61 *ARREST*

[Deleted member 222031]

<modsnip> I'm rather perturbed that the judge is not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and bending more toward the state's rights than the defendant's or staying neutral.

What say you?

 

[tmar]

Thank you so much, @swedeheart, for the transcript!

That was a very insightful interview.



I agree, I think BM felt far superior to his work crew and possibly never let them forget it, like he was doing them a favor, letting them work for him.

IMO

I am pleased, these guys are now laughing that Mr. Importance, BM, who bad mouthed them, is arrested and sitting in a 'cage'.
They are smarter than him, as roaming about, not in a cage.
Now who is the idiot?

 

[tmar]

If anyone has bobcat knowledge, what’s a plate? Also, on the wall-would a bobcat be required to do the work? Would the inspector have to be scheduled ahead of time to review the wall work? Did an inspector show up at all?

It appears BM does not have high ethics, so I would think, he had not contacted an inspector for this work.
We have seen how dodgy he is, and we'll find more about his dishonesty in the AA.

 

[MsBetsy]

They even released Letecia Stauch AA she has a bio daughter herself and a step daughter it was not pleasant to read but was still released <modsnip>

I don't think it's just the daughters the judge is concerned about. He mentioned other victims as well as witnesses and the need to ensure they are not harassed or intimidated. There are two families to be considered and they seem to be divided at this time.

The AA for Letecia was primarily filled with her own accounts (or stories) and the physical evidence against her. In this case there are many more witnesses involved.

The judge seems to be equally concerned about the accused rights to a fair trial. I don't think he wants to take any chances or give the defense any reason to claim Barry's constitutional rights were violated.

IMO

 

[MsBetsy]

<modsnip>I'm rather perturbed that the judge is not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and bending more toward the state's rights than the defendant's or staying neutral.

What say you?

Immediate family (includes siblings and step-siblings) are also considered victims under the Victim's Rights Act. The prosecution and the court have a responsibility "to assure victims and witnesses are not harassed, intimidated or abused." (page 5)

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you for the timeline and succinct explanation of the order. I find the court's reasoning untenable. As if redacting is so onerous it jeopardizes ongoing discovery, etc.? Both the defense & prosecution should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Also, how does this judge have the power to "gut" the AA? Would that not invalidate the arrest warrant or am I not getting what you mean by "gut"?

Post was a reply to OP that stated the judge might "gut it."

Correct, the judge does not have the power to redact (gut) the AA without participation from both the defense and the state (and cited as much in the Court's Order).

Clearly, the judge believes the AA's volume is a burden (of the state's own creation) and reminds us that the state's position has always been to defer to the Court for the ultimate determination to limit the public access to AA until after the Preliminary Hearing.

 

[SouthAussie]

<modsnip> I'm rather perturbed that the judge is not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and bending more toward the state's rights than the defendant's or staying neutral.

What say you?

I have been looking at the Crime Victim Rights Act. Thought I better look as it has been referred to a few times now by others. This might be useful, as the judge obviously must take all things into consideration and not (potentially) feed the fire.

Once the AA is released, will the media be hounding these people? Calling and asking for interviews. Stopping by their homes and places of work. Sitting across the street with their long range lenses to take photos.

Retaliation against a witness or victim, in violation of section 18-8-706
Intimidating a witness or a victim, in violation of section 18-8-704
Aggravated intimidation of a witness or a victim, in violation of section 18-8-705
Tampering with a witness or victim, in violation of section 18-8-707

http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/dcj/DCJ External Website/OVP/CRS 24-4.1-302 Definitions.pdf
Crime Victim Rights Act (VRA) | Division of Criminal Justice

 

[Skigh]

I find the difference between different country's justice systems really interesting ,particularly between the U.K and U.S.A.
In England,as soon as someone is arrested we get no more information about the case until the trial.

I wonder if the Morman's have supported keeping the AA sealed in order to protect the girls and in the hope they will make contact with them so they can offer them support.

 

[K9Enzo]

Thank you for the timeline and succinct explanation of the order. I find the court's reasoning untenable. As if redacting is so onerous it jeopardizes ongoing discovery, etc.? Both the defense & prosecution should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Also, how does this judge have the power to "gut" the AA? Would that not invalidate the arrest warrant or am I not getting what you mean by "gut"?

Seattle1 was responding to my quote. I used the word “gut”. It was my interpretation of page 3. IMO

A significant portion of the information in the Affidavit was not relevant to the courts finding of probable cause and possibly not admissible at trial under the Colorado Rules of Evidence.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...pJoXJe5grS5JTOGv-1kcEz7JPCzJ7IoZ7mtpe_PuAO4-k

 

[DizzyB]

The wording of the ruling is what bothered me. I’m okay with the AA not being released-I certainly want to read it but I do not see any great benefit to its release. It felt like the Judge went out of his way to criticize the AA, stating it was the longest ever, he never saw anything like it, and that there was much that did not go to probable cause-which is the point of the AA. It felt like an admonishment. It worried me, and made me feel that the prosecution had better get its act together and work toward a succinct presentation of the evidence-no bells and whistles, at the hearing so the Cat is bound over for trial.

 

[Boxer]

<modsnip> I'm rather perturbed that the judge is not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and bending more toward the state's rights than the defendant's or staying neutral.

What say you?

MOO bending to the defense.

 

[Skigh]

The wording of the ruling is what bothered me. I’m okay with the AA not being released-I certainly want to read it but I do not see any great benefit to its release. It felt like the Judge went out of his way to criticize the AA, stating it was the longest ever, he never saw anything like it, and that there was much that did not go to probable cause-which is the point of the AA. It felt like an admonishment. It worried me, and made me feel that the prosecution had better get its act together and work toward a succinct presentation of the evidence-no bells and whistles, at the hearing so the Cat is bound over for trial.

At the moment I think we are worrying needlessly. I feel that there is very good evidence,including biological,to incriminate BM.

I think the judge is well aware that BM's fancy lawyers will be looking at the smallest of things to proclaim an unfair trial or get him off on a technicality. The judge must be well aware of their previous cases and the way they work.

 

[K9Enzo]

Is it any judges position to ensure a prosecution gets a guilty verdict? That can’t be right. IMO

 

[Error505]

Catching up and trying to formulate my thoughts in a coherent manner May need 2 pots of coffee. What a “curve ball” none of us seem to expect.

I do find this “quote tweet” interesting. This new rule seems to be part of the basis of the judge’s decision to not unseal the AA, imho. (But I’m no attorney) (I bolded parts for emphasis)

“Quote Tweet” of Lauren Scharf tweet By CO Freedom of Information Coalition

“One of the first judicial orders under new Rule of Criminal Procedure 55.1, which sets procedural and substantive standards for when a Colorado trial judge may suppress or seal judicial records in criminal cases. The new rule went into effect May 10.”
https://twitter.com/cofoic/status/1400943203042295809?s=21
Tweet by LS
“Judge files 6 page order to keep the arrest affidavit of #BarryMorphew sealed until September.”https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1400931625995624450?s=21Judge files order keeping arrest affidavit for Barry Morphew sealed | FOX21 News Colorado
LINK TO New RULE
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes/Public Hearings/55_1 Marked + Clean.pdf
EBM to add MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Well I found another video of LS reporting with snippets of JP in it, mostly about the hotel room. Maybe we are mis-remembering that JP talked to BM about the job on Saturday? Maybe it was just that he “saw” him.
Remember how the Daily Mail reported “ BM ordered JP to Broomfield on Sunday” ? Lol More confused than ever now. Might have to look with fresh eyes in the morning. Good to see you, OC !

After hearing LS interview with JP, are any of us genuinely surprised at how much the DM got wrong? I mean, it took crowdsourcing here to figure out he said shovels, and not shelves.
Not gonna lie, I'm looking forward to the text transcript of this interview when it's available.
That's going to be enjoyable to read.

jmo

 

[Error505]

Is it any judges position to ensure a prosecution gets a guilty verdict? That can’t be right. IMO

In my opinion, the judge is trying to ensure a “fair trial”, which I can’t fault him for. MOO

 

[Error505]

At the moment I think we are worrying needlessly. I feel that there is very good evidence,including biological,to incriminate BM.

I think the judge is well aware that BM's fancy lawyers will be looking at the smallest of things to proclaim an unfair trial or get him off on a technicality. The judge must be well aware of their previous cases and the way they work.

Agree! I’m not really concerned about the latest ruling, although I’m as curious as the next about reading it. I think the AA is chalked full of damning circumstantial and physical evidence against BM.

I’ve always considered the daughters victims, in more ways than one. Victims of their mother’s death, but also victims of BM’s gaslighting and narcissism their entire lives. I won’t change my opinion on their victimhood because I want the AA released. So, I definitely side with the judge in referring to MM1 and MM2 as victims.

Is it possible the daughters unknowingly provided circumstantial evidence against their dad, sure! They were witnesses to a 20+ year marriage. And exactly who arranged their “camping trip?” We don’t know yet. But it could have been their dad who suggested and insisted they leave town at that particular time when most of the US was in the throws of COVID lockdown with schools, restaurants, churches basically closed. #Premeditation? Just some of my thoughts this morning while digesting the ruling. MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Anyone who willingly spoke with LE have the potential for having their private lives exposed and dug into if information that will never make it to trial. So their credibility is also at stake as the judge pointed out by referencing the credibility of witnesses. So all those people also could become innocent victims of what appears to have been an overly rambling AA should all that data be opened up to public and media scrutiny. In my opinion a “miss” on the prosecutors side. Perhaps they were not confident that the arrest warrant was going to get signed. I don’t know and now with it being sealed they have the opportunity to tighten up their case. But they won’t have the assistance of media to test the theories.

 

[Error505]

The wording of the ruling is what bothered me. I’m okay with the AA not being released-I certainly want to read it but I do not see any great benefit to its release. It felt like the Judge went out of his way to criticize the AA, stating it was the longest ever, he never saw anything like it, and that there was much that did not go to probable cause-which is the point of the AA. It felt like an admonishment. It worried me, and made me feel that the prosecution had better get its act together and work toward a succinct presentation of the evidence-no bells and whistles, at the hearing so the Cat is bound over for trial.

Whichever LE wrote the AA could have compiled it based on an abundance of caution because it’s a “no body case” (wanting the judge to approve it to get the perp behind bars!) and threw in everything except the kitchen sink. I would be surprised if many working on this case have much experience with no body cases.

As far as what may not be admissible at trial, there could be witness’ statements painting BM in a very negative light which won’t be admitted bc they maybe considered heresay. I say this because of this portion of the ruling.
“A significant portion of the information in the Affidavit was not relevant to the courts finding of probable cause and possibly not admissible at trial under the Colorado Rules of Evidence.”
EBM

 

[NuttMegg]

<modsnip>I'm rather perturbed that the judge is not focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and bending more toward the state's rights than the defendant's or staying neutral.

What say you?

Catching up here, but I was going to post almost the same. The ONE VICTIM SUZANNE MORPHEW is dead. Murdered. Had her life snuffed out. She doesn't have 5 or 6 decades of life waiting out there for her to enjoy.

This basically pushes the REAL VICTIM's rights off to some mine shaft somewhere, let's forget about her quickly, we wouldn't want secondary victims to be blindsided by allegations against the person accused of murder.

This is just my opinion.....I think the defense threw them to the wolves, under the bus, however you want to put it. With Barry's apparent approval. Given a pie chart depicting the public good will towards the secondary victims, to my mind a big pie slice was taken out by Barry, like 25 to 50%. IMO. Hope the key lime pie was tasty, Barry, while your kids bear the brunt.

The VICTIM was murdered.