Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #62 *ARREST*

[Deleted member 222031]

I have looked through the response, because I thought it was worth the attempt to understand what they are getting at - other than wanting the AA released now instead of waiting a couple of months.

They don't reference any cases where temporary suppression of an AA in CO has been overruled. Or not that I can see.

People V Thompson reference is about the length of a grand jury indictment - 64 pages - that was then released (so how can 130 pages be too long to analyse for redaction)
People V Holmes reference is about suppression for law enforcement reasons, not defense reasons (so if law enforcement don't oppose why should the judge)
Then again another People V Holmes reference saying there are others ways to protect victims than redacting their info

And then it cites one case in each of New York State, Illinois, and the Phillipines where 'important immediate access' was found. (Access to what, I don't know, because I haven't looked for the actual cases - and it doesn't say in their response.)

Then they argue Rule 55.1 - which CGray123 has given an opinion (of the judge's interpretation) in an above post.
.

@CGray123 and I respectfully disagree. Just like the media and the judge do! It is a question of weight given to the rights of each party. Whether their primary interest is salacious or not, the media is all that stands between darkness and light for the public. Should we citizens remain in ignorance because knowing may serve the media's financial interest? I think not. Unless our system of justice recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to appeal/seek info from the courts, we are stuck relying on the media. I believe this has served the public well. But I am open to a better system. I do not believe cloaking the courts in darkness - which is the historical precedent in CO - is at all acceptable. MOO

 

[jondaba]

SM Struggling, Asking BM???
@jondaba bbm sbm Possible that BM told the dau's this? Yes. But is that how SM disappeared? If struggling w so much pain that SM wanted to end her life, wouldn't she consider acting alone, for ex, by staging an accidental drug overdose? Then her actions would not leave BM w both religious consequences in the afterlife & legal repercussions on earth?

OTOH, involving BM to assist ---
W religious beliefs factored in, this scenario entails:
1. Both SM & BM agreeing to end her life.
2. Both SM & BM agreeing he will conceal the death as mere absence.
3. Both SM & BM taking actions to end her life.
4. BM taking actions to conceal her remains.
5. BM lying to dau's, SM's & BM's fam, church congregation, friends, neighbors, et al.
6. Leaving ^ fam & others bewildered, w no funeral services, no burial, & no closure.
^^^Numerous sins/transgressions. Religious consequences in the afterlife?^^^

W legal consequences factored in, this scenario entails:
1.- 6. All the above, plus ---
7. BM lying to LE.
8. BM risking CO manslaughter* charge and prison sentence.
9. Dau's (potentially) being left w no parent for some time.
^^^Potential imprisonment for BM.^^^

Even ignoring the illogic of assisting-suicide-at-SM's-request argument, many of BM's stmts & actions undermine that theory. If BM offers it as a "defense" to the state's M-1 case, I doubt the W/S jury here or Chaffee Co. jury IRL would be swayed to a not-guilty verdict.

I could be wrong, my 2ct.
_____________________________________
* Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-104. Manslaughter
"(1) A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:
... (b) Such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide....
(2) Manslaughter is a class 4 felony."
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-104 | FindLaw

To be clear: I DON’T say it was assisted suicide. I don’t think that. I ONLY say maybe BM told the daughters it was.

 

[jondaba]

BBM. I respectfully disagree. The argument of the Media would make the presumption of openness absolute, upending another strong (and Constitutional - therefore legally superior) legal principle - the right to a fair trial.

The rule is not, in fact, absolute: it provides that the judge has discretion to withhold the AA for a time he may specify if he makes certain findings, viz.:

Rule 55.1 (6) When Request Granted. The court shall not grant any request to limit public access to a court record or to any part of a court record, or enter an order on its own motion limiting such public access, unless it issues a written order in which it:

(I) specifically identifies one or more substantial interests served by making the court record inaccessible to the public or by allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public;

(II) finds that no less restrictive means than making the record inaccessible to the public or allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public exists to achieve or protect any substantial interests identified; and

(III) concludes that any substantial interests identified override the presumptive public access to the court record or to an un-redacted copy of it.

The court made the three required findings. We may disagree, but his findings and conclusion are not ridiculous. In fact, the Judge's decision will be upheld unless the appellate court finds that he abused it, if past precedent is followed.

The press has always sought to undemine the right to a fair process, in favor of mob rule led by wealthy publishers, IMO. "The public's right to know" is just a smokescreen.

Each of the "less restrictive means" offered by the press runs afoul of substantial legal issues.

Delaying the trial conflicts with the defendant's right to a speedy trial - within six months of a plea of not guilty. It also may undermine the prosecution's case, as witnesses memories fade and witnesses themselves die or disappear.

Moving the trial elsewhere puts a double burden on the citizens of Chaffee County. It deprives them of an opportunity to judge the guilt or innocence of a community member accused of murdering another community member. It also imposes additional costs on a county whose LE is not flush with money. Finally, in this case, there is no jurisdiction in Colorado where the media is not following this case - where would they move the venue?

I will debate each and every other argument by the Media here, but I am not a lawyer and I am sure the defense team will make much better legal arguments.

Held up against the press's right to make money by publishing a salacious and gruesome story which may or may not prove true in all respects, I come down in favor of Judge Murphy's narrowly tailored order, which relies mostly on protecting the right to a fair process - a substantial interest if I ever saw one.

I look forward to seeing a carefully redacted arrest affidavit when the order restricting access expires. Respecting the rights of the accused that I would want myself if I were wrongfully arrested, I can wait.

Sleuthers Take Heart and stay cool!! The judge is just being careful to not give Les Gals Legals any possible grounds to get BM acquitted. The judge doesnt want to provide any grounds to move the trial out of Chaffee County to some other judge.
Why make the daughters a bloody public spectacle?
Stay calm. Unless BM cops a plea to 25 to 30, which is fine, all the gory horriffic detail will come out soon enough.

 

[al66pine]

BM, Helping?

To be clear: I DON’T say it was assisted suicide. I don’t think that. I ONLY say maybe BM told the daughters it was.

@jondaba Thanks for your response. I did understand the post correctly, to mean you wondered if BM told his dau's "SM's pain was so great that she asked for his help in ending her life." As I said, yes, possible BM said something to that effect to the dau's.

But my post said, if he said that, it seems like a flimsy argument from religious & legal pt of view, and many of his actions after SM's disappearance were inconsistent w that premise.

And as @10ofRods posted, seems during the previous week, SM had been gallivanting around (as my late Mother would say) and had not severely curtailed activities.

Again, thx for your post w clarification, in case anyone else misunderstood. my2ct.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

@CGray123 and I respectfully disagree. Just like the media and the judge do! It is a question of weight given to the rights of each party. Whether their primary interest is salacious or not, the media is all that stands between darkness and light for the public. Should we citizens remain in ignorance because knowing may serve the media's financial interest? I think not. Unless our system of justice recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to appeal/seek info from the courts, we are stuck relying on the media. I believe this has served the public well. But I am open to a better system. I do not believe cloaking the courts in darkness - which is the historical precedent in CO - is at all acceptable. MOO

I agree. Our justice system is based on transparency. We don’t throw people in jail without the public’s knowledge. That’s the stuff of banana republics and authoritarian regimes. Information must be publicly provided in order to show lawfulness and competence on the part of law enforcement. Police, CBI and FBI are paid salaries by taxing citizens. Many in law enforcement and the justice system are elected officials: DAs, sheriffs, and judges. For this reason, the people are the only entity with the power to hold them accountable.

 

[MsBetsy]

To be clear: I DON’T say it was assisted suicide. I don’t think that. I ONLY say maybe BM told the daughters it was.

I don't think it's likely he told them he assisted in her suicide, since Suzanne's daughters were the ones who accompanied her to all her treatment sessions. They probably would have known her mental and medical condition better than their father. She was due for her last visit just a few days after the murder, so I doubt BM would think they would believe that story. I think he told them what he told everybody else, and pretended he didn't know what happened to her. Imo

 

[waldojabba]

I don't think it's likely he told them he assisted in her suicide, since Suzanne's daughters were the ones who accompanied her to all her treatment sessions. They probably would have known her mental and medical condition better than their father. She was due for her last visit just a few days after the murder, so I doubt BM would think they would believe that story. I think he told them what he told everybody else, and pretended he didn't know what happened to her. Imo

I attended a funeral service at a church for a former Christian colleague who died on the way to the airport after being run off the highway, per witnesses at 4 am. He left a wife and very young children. The message was not to grieve but to rejoice. His mission on earth was complete and he was being called “home” early. It was all part of God’s plan.
At the wake his wife was comforting other non Christians. She was at peace because it was what God wanted and he husband was now with God. She did not question what happened

So I believe Barry told the girls It was Gods plan and it was not for them to question who or why. Her time on earth was complete and God needed to bring her “ home” . Your mother would not want you to be sad. Live the life your mother wanted for you.

 

[Error505]

BBM. I respectfully disagree. The argument of the Media would make the presumption of openness absolute, upending another strong (and Constitutional - therefore legally superior) legal principle - the right to a fair trial.

The rule is not, in fact, absolute: it provides that the judge has discretion to withhold the AA for a time he may specify if he makes certain findings, viz.:

Rule 55.1 (6) When Request Granted. The court shall not grant any request to limit public access to a court record or to any part of a court record, or enter an order on its own motion limiting such public access, unless it issues a written order in which it:

(I) specifically identifies one or more substantial interests served by making the court record inaccessible to the public or by allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public;

(II) finds that no less restrictive means than making the record inaccessible to the public or allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public exists to achieve or protect any substantial interests identified; and

(III) concludes that any substantial interests identified override the presumptive public access to the court record or to an un-redacted copy of it.

The court made the three required findings. We may disagree, but his findings and conclusion are not ridiculous. In fact, the Judge's decision will be upheld unless the appellate court finds that he abused it, if past precedent is followed.

The press has always sought to undemine the right to a fair process, in favor of mob rule led by wealthy publishers, IMO. "The public's right to know" is just a smokescreen.

Each of the "less restrictive means" offered by the press runs afoul of substantial legal issues.

Delaying the trial conflicts with the defendant's right to a speedy trial - within six months of a plea of not guilty. It also may undermine the prosecution's case, as witnesses memories fade and witnesses themselves die or disappear.

Moving the trial elsewhere puts a double burden on the citizens of Chaffee County. It deprives them of an opportunity to judge the guilt or innocence of a community member accused of murdering another community member. It also imposes additional costs on a county whose LE is not flush with money. Finally, in this case, there is no jurisdiction in Colorado where the media is not following this case - where would they move the venue?

I will debate each and every other argument by the Media here, but I am not a lawyer and I am sure the defense team will make much better legal arguments.

Held up against the press's right to make money by publishing a salacious and gruesome story which may or may not prove true in all respects, I come down in favor of Judge Murphy's narrowly tailored order, which relies mostly on protecting the right to a fair process - a substantial interest if I ever saw one.

I look forward to seeing a carefully redacted arrest affidavit when the order restricting access expires. Respecting the rights of the accused that I would want myself if I were wrongfully arrested, I can wait.

I agree. Our justice system is based on transparency. We don’t throw people in jail without the public’s knowledge. That’s the stuff of banana republics and authoritarian regimes. Information must be publicly provided in order to show lawfulness and competence on the part of law enforcement. Police, CBI and FBI are paid salaries by taxing citizens. Many in law enforcement and the justice system are elected officials: DAs, sheriffs, and judges. For this reason, the people are the only entity with the power to hold them accountable.

@CGray123. Just like the media and the judge do! It is a question of weight given to the rights of each party. Whether their primary interest is salacious or not, the media is all that stands between darkness and light for the public. Should we citizens remain in ignorance because knowing may serve the media's financial interest? I think not. Unless our system of justice recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to appeal/seek info from the courts, we are stuck relying on the media. I believe this has served the public well. But I am open to a better system. I do not believe cloaking the courts in darkness - which is the historical precedent in CO - is at all acceptable. MOO

I’m in agreement also with @IRBHTX and @rainbowshummingbird @CGray123 Rule 55.1 was not adopted based on foreseeable profits of news/media. A change of venue due to jury pool is totally baseless due to the international coverage this case has garnered because of BM’s inactions and “not give a crap attitude” as a husband. That is what made so many people sit-up and notice. MOO
I’m not an attorney nor have any legal educational background and base this solely on my opinion. The case against BM is the first high profile case in Colorado to “test” Rule 55.1 (took effect May 10, 2021) which is a constitutional protection for the public’s right to inspect judicial records.

BM’s defense team very cleverly used the daughters’ welfare to manipulate the court in keeping the AA sealed and provided the Defense an additional 2 months to begin building their case after all discovery was provided to the Defense without scrutiny from public eyes. There is zero legal basis for the continued sealing of the AA based on the length of the AA. Redaction of the AA would protect potential witnesses. Redactions take time but, the court should never be “too busy” to follow judicial rules and follow standards set by the US Supreme Court for sealing court proceedings.

Prior to Rule 55.1 adoption, Colorado was the only state (or federal) court in the nation to expressly disavow any constitutional protection for the public’s right to monitor the workings of its judicial branch by recognizing a constitutionally-based presumption of public access to judicial records.

“In 2018, Denver Post investigative reporter David Migoya published a series of reports, “Shrouded Justice,” that further embarrassed the state judiciary: Migoya exposed that more than 6,000 criminal case files were entirely sealed from public view, some not even appearing on any public docket, and most without any publicly available order that sealed the case file.”

Here is a short article (very much worth the 1 min read) on the background of the adoption of Rule 55.1 in Colorado and the importance of transparency in case filings not only for public’s right to monitor judicial actions but also for those accused and for those who have been convicted.
MOO #FindSuzanne Happy Father’s Day to all the Dads!
EBM typo queen
Zansberg: Colorado’s new rule governing public access to judicial records in criminal cases ‘a tremendous leap forward’ | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

 

[Error505]

Sleuthers Take Heart and stay cool!! The judge is just being careful to not give Les Gals Legals any possible grounds to get BM acquitted. The judge doesnt want to provide any grounds to move the trial out of Chaffee County to some other judge.
Why make the daughters a bloody public spectacle?
Stay calm. Unless BM cops a plea to 25 to 30, which is fine, all the gory horriffic detail will come out soon enough.

BBM for discussion. Barry Morphew is the sole reason the daughters’ identity is known internationally. No one else bares that responsibility. BM “copping” a plea for 25-30 he could probably be released in 10-15 based on good behavior. That would be a travesty of justice unless he gives up the location of Suzanne’s body and I still think that’s not sufficient punishment for Murder 1. I see no reason why the DA would offer a plea without recovering SM. And, honestly, I see a huge problem with recovering SM. I think BM did something to facilitate the decomposition of SM’s body or made her recovery practically impossible. His arrogance about getting away with her murder is astonishing. There’s some reason he thinks she will never be found. Who murders their wife, then has the audacity to vote via absentee ballot in the victim’s place. Every time I think about what a stupid decision that was, I wonder how many other monumental mistakes he made. What a complete idiot. Smdh IMO

 

[windrower]

I attended a funeral service at a church for a former Christian colleague who died on the way to the airport after being run off the highway, per witnesses at 4 am. He left a wife and very young children. The message was not to grieve but to rejoice. His mission on earth was complete and he was being called “home” early. It was all part of God’s plan.
At the wake his wife was comforting other non Christians. She was at peace because it was what God wanted and he husband was now with God. She did not question what happened

So I believe Barry told the girls It was Gods plan and it was not for them to question who or why. Her time on earth was complete and God needed to bring her “ home” . Your mother would not want you to be sad. Live the life your mother wanted for you.

BM may have used such with the daughters. But again, he would be mis-using Christian elements to further his own agenda.

<modsnip>

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I’m in agreement also with @IRBHTX and @rainbowshummingbird @CGray123 Rule 55.1 was not adopted based on foreseeable profits of news/media. A change of venue due to jury pool is totally baseless due to the international coverage this case has garnered because of BM’s inactions and “not give a crap attitude” as a husband. That is what made so many people sit-up and notice. MOO
I’m not an attorney nor have any legal educational background and base this solely on my opinion. The case against BM is the first high profile case in Colorado to “test” Rule 55.1 (took effect May 10, 2021) which is a constitutional protection for the public’s right to inspect judicial records.

BM’s defense team very cleverly used the daughters’ welfare to manipulate the court in keeping the AA sealed and provided the Defense an additional 2 months to begin building their case after all discovery was provided to the Defense without scrutiny from public eyes. There is zero legal basis for the continued sealing of the AA based on the length of the AA. Redaction of the AA would protect potential witnesses. Redactions take time but, the court should never be “too busy” to follow judicial rules and follow standards set by the US Supreme Court for sealing court proceedings.

Prior to Rule 55.1 adoption, Colorado was the only state (or federal) court in the nation to expressly disavow any constitutional protection for the public’s right to monitor the workings of its judicial branch by recognizing a constitutionally-based presumption of public access to judicial records.

“In 2018, Denver Post investigative reporter David Migoya published a series of reports, “Shrouded Justice,” that further embarrassed the state judiciary: Migoya exposed that more than 6,000 criminal case files were entirely sealed from public view, some not even appearing on any public docket, and most without any publicly available order that sealed the case file.”

Here is a short article (very much worth the 1 min read) on the background of the adoption of Rule 55.1 in Colorado and the importance of transparency in case filings not only for public’s right to monitor judicial actions but also for those accused and for those who have been convicted.
MOO #FindSuzanne Happy Father’s Day to all the Dads!
EBM typo queen
Zansberg: Colorado’s new rule governing public access to judicial records in criminal cases ‘a tremendous leap forward’ | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

Such a great post @Error505! Judges & the court system face a learning curve to follow the new rule. That does not excuse willful misuse of it, as evidenced by Judge Patrick Murphy in this case. Incredible to think it took until 2021 for CO to respect the right of its citizens to what has clearly always been public information! MOO

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Such a great post @Error505! Judges & the court system face a learning curve to follow the new rule. That does not excuse willful misuse of it, as evidenced by Judge Patrick Murphy in this case. Incredible to think it took until 2021 for CO to respect the right of its citizens to what has clearly always been public information! MOO

It indeed will be of interest that this situation, directly after the new law... gets pushed up to "case law" for the future.

MOO

The media will see for longer term what are the strengths and weaknesses for their submission for case law for the future even if doesn't apply to this case.

IIRC, this is the FIRST one to put forth as to consideration in the future as to challenges and make case law.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Yes. I still think the the media and public don’t need any details until someone is bound over for trial. I need to trust that judges aren’t signing arrest warrants willy nilly. If there isn’t enough to bind someone over for trial in general I think it is then no ones business.

 

[Error505]

Such a great post @Error505! Judges & the court system face a learning curve to follow the new rule. That does not excuse willful misuse of it, as evidenced by Judge Patrick Murphy in this case. Incredible to think it took until 2021 for CO to respect the right of its citizens to what has clearly always been public information! MOO

Thank you @IRBHTX It seems CO has been slow on the learning curve re: judicial transparency for a long time. It’s my opinion the door is left wide open for corruption when public scrutiny isn’t allowed. Elected public officials are not above that scrutiny.

 

[Error505]

Yes. I still think the the media and public don’t need any details until someone is bound over for trial. I need to trust that judges aren’t signing arrest warrants willy nilly. If there isn’t enough to bind someone over for trial in general I think it is then no ones business.

I hope I’m not misinterpreting your post, but it seems the US Supreme Court favors transparency. Judges, DAs, & LE are in large part elected officials and deserve scrutiny. Details of arrests are brought to light during a trial, but reasons for arrests and incarcerating people before a finding of guilt should be open to public scrutiny. I don’t trust “Willy & Nilly”, just saying. In the last 5-6 years, we’ve seen some of our highest institutions and organizations have been compromised and dishonest for lack of scrutiny. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. MOO

 

[DeDee]

Yes. I still think the the media and public don’t need any details until someone is bound over for trial. I need to trust that judges aren’t signing arrest warrants willy nilly. If there isn’t enough to bind someone over for trial in general I think it is then no ones business.

The WorldWideWeb is filled with arrest records for people charged with serious felonies. The people have a right to learn who's been arrested for serious crimes and why they're facing those charges.

I do not agree that records should be sealed as so many have been. Case in point is the JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury's decision. Boulder, CO's DA Alex Hunter chose not to indict on the GJs True Bill without the public's knowledge.

It took a very lengthy battle to finally obtain those records. The people would have been outraged at his lack of indictments had they known of them at the time.

Barry is facing a lifetime in prison. The people deserve to learn how he came to be charged with Murder 1. More importantly, as the law allows, Suzanne deserves his culpability in her death to be released to the public.

MHOO and all that jazz

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Allowing the victims several months before the arrest affidavit is publicly released will not appreciably affect their mental health state. Whether they find out now, two months from now, or two years from now; they will be traumatized, similar to many other victims of heinous and violent crimes. IMO.

 

[CGray123]

BBM

I agree with some of the rest of your post, but this seems pretty extreme. There are very good reasons for having a presumption that AA's will be publicly released, and due process is one of those reasons. It's a good thing, IMO, that we don't generally allow the government to arrest people, hold them for a lengthy period of time, and keep the reasons for that arrest secret. It's true that there are fewer due process concerns with sealing an AA when it's the defense that wants it sealed. But even then, a presumption of disclosing the AA helps prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. So I think it's a healthy thing that the judge has to outline his reasons for sealing, the media gets to pushback and appeal, etc.

I don't personally find the sealing too unreasonable or concerning in this case given the extremely abnormal length of the AA and the fact that we'll almost certainly get a preliminary hearing where the prosecution's case is outlined for the public relatively soon. But I also wouldn't find it concerning if the judge's ruling was reversed on appeal and we got to see a redacted version of the AA.

BBM. I admit to a jaundiced view of the press, which in my view has not often served the noble goal of shining light on the truth that @IRBHTX extolls. In the digital age, the pernicious effect of bias and prejudice in the media has grown worse as the public has retreated into information echo chambers, chasing clickbait and listening to cynical manipulators who stoke their negative emotions.

There are a few organization and journalists who have truth-related standards and strive for journalistic excellence, but most media are thoroughly corrupt and untrustworthy. Even the best journalists are subject to pressures and human tendencies that result in articles that undermine Constitutional due process in too many criminal cases.

Using DNA evidence, the Innocence Project has proved nearly 200 people convicted of very serious crimes to be innocent - including many convicted of murder and several sentenced to death. I believe the media was a significant contributor to those wrongful convictions. I am not among those who view the public's right to know as the more important Constitutional right in this circumstance.

In any event, the current issue is not transparency. There is no denial of the public's right to know.

What is at stake here is not whether the AA will be released but when, and whether it will contain statements that are potentially inadmissible as evidence. It seems logical that immediate release would give the defense insufficient time to raise and resolve those questions. Judge Murphy has simply given the parties time to work those issues out - extended due to the extraordinary length of the document. This is a weighty matter of Constitutional due process and not to be lightly dismissed, as some WS posters tend to do.

I am clearly in the minority of current WS posters in these views, but as long as I perceive an over-the top campaign to malign the judge and the court system over its decisions, I feel an obligation to defend them.

 

[Boxer]

BBM. I admit to a jaundiced view of the press, which in my view has not often served the noble goal of shining light on the truth that @IRBHTX extolls. In the digital age, the pernicious effect of bias and prejudice in the media has grown worse as the public has retreated into information echo chambers, chasing clickbait and listening to cynical manipulators who stoke their negative emotions.

There are a few organization and journalists who have truth-related standards and strive for journalistic excellence, but most media are thoroughly corrupt and untrustworthy. Even the best journalists are subject to pressures and human tendencies that result in articles that undermine Constitutional due process in too many criminal cases.

Using DNA evidence, the Innocence Project has proved nearly 200 people convicted of very serious crimes to be innocent - including many convicted of murder and several sentenced to death. I believe the media was a significant contributor to those wrongful convictions. I am not among those who view the public's right to know as the more important Constitutional right in this circumstance.

In any event, the current issue is not transparency. There is no denial of the public's right to know.

What is at stake here is not whether the AA will be released but when, and whether it will contain statements that are potentially inadmissible as evidence. It seems logical that immediate release would give the defense insufficient time to raise and resolve those questions. Judge Murphy has simply given the parties time to work those issues out - extended due to the extraordinary length of the document. This is a weighty matter of Constitutional due process and not to be lightly dismissed, as some WS posters tend to do.

I am clearly in the minority of current WS posters in these views, but as long as I perceive an over-the top campaign to malign the judge and the court system over its decisions, I feel an obligation to defend them.

The press isn't perfect, but MOO it beats a secret judicial power.

 

[10ofRods]

To be clear: I DON’T say it was assisted suicide. I don’t think that. I ONLY say maybe BM told the daughters it was.

I got what you meant - but I will say, as the discussion here on WS unfolds, I keep thinking how one person like Barry (who has probably told different, equally implausible stories to different people) is so crazy-making. He's probably capable of splitting any group of people into warring tribes.

I just keep thinking about that one picture of him (where he's wearing the white and black striped jumpsuit). That's who the real Barry is. He looks hard, manipulative, extremely angry and threatening. Not the jolly guy in the Mexican vacation photos or even the indignant man in the mug shot.

In between those two points of time, he read the AA. We don't know what's in it, but I will bet internet donuts that at least one of the witnesses is a Big Surprise for Barry (e.g., a current girlfriend, a neighbor in Poncha, maybe one of his "good friends.") In fact, I bet there were several such surprises for him.

It's easy for us to get into arguments (that are really non-arguments) as we try to disentangle what the heck this man was saying and doing over the past year.

The only part I'm truly confused about now is the part where the Judge thinks that the girls will be terribly upset and unable to cope if they read the AA - but that, when it is released in September, they'll be okay? Won't the preliminary hearing itself be really difficult for them??

In theory, there's time for Barry to be truthful or something with his daughters - at least warn them of what LE is saying about him. He can deny all of it to them, but is he really going to leave them in the dark until August????