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

[Boxer]

I just watched a bit of Iris Eytan at work, in a Dateline episode about Tom Fallis. In my opinion, he got off, and he can thank his attorneys.

Agree. No one would call their parents and say "something bad happened" if they observed a suicide, they would say
" _____ killed herself."


MOO the Fallis case was basically thrown by the responding detectives. No swabs, interviews or evidence collected.
This is different, the police doing everything in their power to investigate.

 

[Trackergd]

Is it possible that the 'inflammatory information' that might be used to harass the girls could also be part of the 'significant portion of information in the Affidavit that was not relevant to the Court’s finding of probable cause and possibly not admissible at trial' ?

Because if it is - and it is something pretty horrible but unrelated - it might not even see the light of day, and the girls will never know what it is.

Perhaps this inflammatory information might be subject to some private submissions in judges chambers or closed court, to determine admissibility, before the matter is brought to public court.

Inflammatory information that could be used to harass the two daughters. I had to read that a couple of times. Thankfully the daughters are off limits for speculation.

 

[DizzyB]

Can we talk about hypothetical witnesses? If a family member telephones/texts their father and says that they have been trying to reach Mom, and and Barry tells them to wait a while because she is on a bike ride, and perhaps later tells them to call the neighbor, can they be forced to testify to those details? I assume the prosecution would handle them with kid gloves because you don’t want a jury hating the way the prosecution does their job, right? Evidence that points to Barry steering the ship from the get-go is useful, but I don’t know how far they can go when the witnesses think their father is a wonderful guy.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I am willing to bet this is not the first time BM has bamboozled (my dad's term) their girls. Those girls are between a rock and a hard place, and might have been so for a long time. They have lost their mom. In addition, their father might be responsible for her death. In that case they have lost both parents.

Certainly, at some point the AA will be released, albeit severely redacted. As the trial nears, more case details will come out. Their girls will be heartbroken if it comes out today or months from now....

I just hope and pray they have good counseling, support and good legal counsel to help them understand and process the contents of the AA. If that means we don't see the AA soon (and I don't think we will), that's fine with me. As long as BM eventually meets his justice.

I can't help but believe, BM has a long history of bamboozling many people and I think a lot of it will come into play at his trial.

JMO, MOO

Just a MOO, the ENTIRE AA will eventually be released, without redactions.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Can we talk about hypothetical witnesses? If a family member telephones/texts their father and says that they have been trying to reach Mom, and and Barry tells them to wait a while because she is on a bike ride, and perhaps later tells them to call the neighbor, can they be forced to testify to those details? I assume the prosecution would handle them with kid gloves because you don’t want a jury hating the way the prosecution does their job, right? Evidence that points to Barry steering the ship from the get-go is useful, but I don’t know how far they can go when the witnesses think their father is a wonderful guy.

More likely he would say she might be on a bike ride try later than she "is" on a bike ride. He was in Broomfield allegedly. But I'm sure of the significance of the time he arrived in Broomfield until he left Broomfield. What time he left Maysville and what time he arrived in Broomfield are more important. Personally I think there will be zero left in any public documents that even hint at any characterization of bad behavior through any interview related to or by these girls will even be released or part of the trial. I personally don't think their daughters are relevant to the charge. The judge saw something in the document that sent off warning signals. This is about what Barry allegedly did and not about their daughters. I think their role is non-existent or extremely minor despite the public's fascination with them. In general "bad character" is not admissible even for Barry except in very narrow circumstances where it doesn't cause unfair prejudice. A person might be the world's biggest jerk, but that does not mean they are a murderer. Motive, opportunity, plan related might be admissible.

 

[Skigh]

Inflammatory information that could be used to harass the two daughters. I had to read that a couple of times. Thankfully the daughters are off limits for speculation.

Who are these people who might possibly harass the daughters?

I would have thought people would be feeling extremely compassionate towards the girls.

 

[MsBetsy]

Who are these people who might possibly harass the daughters?

I would have thought people would be feeling extremely compassionate towards the girls.

Maybe Barry, for one.

Also, if the girls have been defending him all this time, the media and members of the community may not be so compassionate towards them when all details come out. Reporters will probably be following them around, hounding them for pictures and interviews, as well as all the other witnesses involved in the case.

 

[jondaba]

In assessing the validity of the judge’s actions in sealing the AA, a review of the legislative history of Rule 55 might be helpful. It seems to me that the initial purpose of Rule 55 and similar statutes is to protect the citizenry from wrongful oppression by the government i.e. the government is required to disclose its reasons for arresting people - citizens cannot just be held in jail on trumped up charges!
Rule 55 type laws did not so much protect the people’s right to know about crime so much as the people’s right to know what the govt was up to - arresting certain people. For what? Political views? Business competitors? family feuds? Racism?
Here, however, everybody knows the goals of the governments in arresting in Barry Morphew. No one is saying that Morphew is a victim of govt oppression or political intrigue.
In reality, suppressing the AA here is a free gift to the person arrested and his family. Delayed opprobrium, comforting to the daughters he betrayed, more time to think up defenses, etc. Perhaps before electronic media and Websleuthers,
It might have been possible to keep the details of a crime hidden from the public until revealed in the courtroom, but not today.
So the question is: is Rule 55 intended as a safeguard against govt oppression or is it a shelter for criminals and their counsels and the damages their crimes have wrought on their loved ones?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

In assessing the validity of the judge’s actions in sealing the AA, a review of the legislative history of Rule 55 might be helpful. It seems to me that the initial purpose of Rule 55 and similar statutes is to protect the citizenry from wrongful oppression by the government i.e. the government is required to disclose its reasons for arresting people - citizens cannot just be held in jail on trumped up charges!
Rule 55 type laws did not so much protect the people’s right to know about crime so much as the people’s right to know what the govt was up to - arresting certain people. For what? Political views? Business competitors? family feuds? Racism?
Here, however, everybody knows the goals of the governments in arresting in Barry Morphew. No one is saying that Morphew is a victim of govt oppression or political intrigue.
In reality, suppressing the AA here is a free gift to the person arrested and his family. Delayed opprobrium, comforting to the daughters he betrayed, more time to think up defenses, etc. Perhaps before electronic media and Websleuthers,
It might have been possible to keep the details of a crime hidden from the public until revealed in the courtroom, but not today.
So the question is: is Rule 55 intended as a safeguard against govt oppression or is it a shelter for criminals and their counsels and the damages their crimes have wrought on their loved ones?

IMO Both. But, theoretically arrested people have access to the court in a reasonable amount of time and if there is not probable cause the case is dismissed. These are existing protections. Does the public need to know the details of the arrest between the time the alleged criminal either gets bail or goes through a probable cause or grand jury? In my mind the public does NOT need to know the details. I think it collides head on with personal privacy laws and it is fine to leave those decision to the courts. I'm less concerned about government oppression than I am impacting people's presumption of innocence.

 

[CGray123]

Can we talk about hypothetical witnesses? If a family member telephones/texts their father and says that they have been trying to reach Mom, and and Barry tells them to wait a while because she is on a bike ride, and perhaps later tells them to call the neighbor, can they be forced to testify to those details? I assume the prosecution would handle them with kid gloves because you don’t want a jury hating the way the prosecution does their job, right? Evidence that points to Barry steering the ship from the get-go is useful, but I don’t know how far they can go when the witnesses think their father is a wonderful guy.

There appears to be very little support for a Parent-Child Evidentiary Privilege, if that's what you are asking.

So, IMO there is little BM can do to prevent his daughters from testifying. However, unless they heard their father threaten their mother just before she disappeared, saw him abuse her in that time frame, or have other damning evidence of a potential motive or proclivity, the prosecution may not call them as witnesses - especially if they are opposed to his arrest and prosecution. The prosecutor doesn't need them to testify that they called SM on Mothers' Day and couldn't reach her. The prosecutor can introduce that fact through other witnesses if they want to, IMO.

In the unlikely event BM wants to introduce his good character through the daughters (e.g., "we never saw any evidence of abusive, controlling, or threatening behavior" and "our father was everything a Christian man could be: kind, gentle, generous, forgiving, devoted, self-sacrificing, and loving in every way..."), he could ask them to testify to such observations and give examples.

We have no information what they can say as witnesses, but it's fair to say from observing their behavior at the advisement hearing that they still love and support their father.

 

[CGray123]

In assessing the validity of the judge’s actions in sealing the AA, a review of the legislative history of Rule 55 might be helpful. It seems to me that the initial purpose of Rule 55 and similar statutes is to protect the citizenry from wrongful oppression by the government i.e. the government is required to disclose its reasons for arresting people - citizens cannot just be held in jail on trumped up charges!
Rule 55 type laws did not so much protect the people’s right to know about crime so much as the people’s right to know what the govt was up to - arresting certain people. For what? Political views? Business competitors? family feuds? Racism?
Here, however, everybody knows the goals of the governments in arresting in Barry Morphew. No one is saying that Morphew is a victim of govt oppression or political intrigue.
In reality, suppressing the AA here is a free gift to the person arrested and his family. Delayed opprobrium, comforting to the daughters he betrayed, more time to think up defenses, etc. Perhaps before electronic media and Websleuthers,
It might have been possible to keep the details of a crime hidden from the public until revealed in the courtroom, but not today.
So the question is: is Rule 55 intended as a safeguard against govt oppression or is it a shelter for criminals and their counsels and the damages their crimes have wrought on their loved ones?

MOO, it is important to remember that even after an arrest and even after being bound over after a preliminary hearing, BM is presumed to be innocent of the charges. He is entitled to a fair process and a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury. These are bedrock principles of our jurisprudence that help to protect all of us against arbitrary incarceration by corrupt officials, like we see all over the world in authoritarian societies.

CRCP Rule 55.1 was adopted because the Denver Post article identified the potential for less precise rules to allow cases to disappear from public view as a practical matter, which subverts our right to attend and observe the proceedings.

If we consider the procedural protections against wrongful conviction that our ancestors fought and died to create and uphold for us to be mere "shelter for criminals" we are one step from vigilante justice IMO.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

In assessing the validity of the judge’s actions in sealing the AA, a review of the legislative history of Rule 55 might be helpful. It seems to me that the initial purpose of Rule 55 and similar statutes is to protect the citizenry from wrongful oppression by the government i.e. the government is required to disclose its reasons for arresting people - citizens cannot just be held in jail on trumped up charges!
Rule 55 type laws did not so much protect the people’s right to know about crime so much as the people’s right to know what the govt was up to - arresting certain people. For what? Political views? Business competitors? family feuds? Racism?
Here, however, everybody knows the goals of the governments in arresting in Barry Morphew. No one is saying that Morphew is a victim of govt oppression or political intrigue.
In reality, suppressing the AA here is a free gift to the person arrested and his family. Delayed opprobrium, comforting to the daughters he betrayed, more time to think up defenses, etc. Perhaps before electronic media and Websleuthers,
It might have been possible to keep the details of a crime hidden from the public until revealed in the courtroom, but not today.
So the question is: is Rule 55 intended as a safeguard against govt oppression or is it a shelter for criminals and their counsels and the damages their crimes have wrought on their loved ones?[

In assessing the validity of the judge’s actions in sealing the AA, a review of the legislative history of Rule 55 might be helpful. It seems to me that the initial purpose of Rule 55 and similar statutes is to protect the citizenry from wrongful oppression by the government i.e. the government is required to disclose its reasons for arresting people - citizens cannot just be held in jail on trumped up charges!
Rule 55 type laws did not so much protect the people’s right to know about crime so much as the people’s right to know what the govt was up to - arresting certain people. For what? Political views? Business competitors? family feuds? Racism?
Here, however, everybody knows the goals of the governments in arresting in Barry Morphew. No one is saying that Morphew is a victim of govt oppression or political intrigue.
In reality, suppressing the AA here is a free gift to the person arrested and his family. Delayed opprobrium, comforting to the daughters he betrayed, more time to think up defenses, etc. Perhaps before electronic media and Websleuthers,
It might have been possible to keep the details of a crime hidden from the public until revealed in the courtroom, but not today.
So the question is: is Rule 55 intended as a safeguard against govt oppression or is it a shelter for criminals and their counsels and the damages their crimes have wrought on their loved ones?

@jondaba - Do you have a source/s to support your contention BBM above?

My understanding of CO Rule 55.1 is that it is/does neither of the things you have suggested. We don't live under a system of government that promotes oppression, in my opinion. That would be Communist Russia.

The goal in opening up court records is not to reveal nefarious intent or prevent unlawful action by either side - defense or prosecution.

The question here is related to the 1st & 4th amendments and weighing the rights of all parties. Essentially in CO, the weight was always placed heavily toward keeping proceedings secret by a misguided judiciary that felt only doing that would offer protection to all parties - in their interpretation, the less the public knows, the better. Rule 55.1 demands that disclosure be thoroughly weighed not just defaulted to the judge's perception (I would say bias) of harm. It puts the burden on the judiciary to prove nondisclosure upholds the principle of "right to know" rather than on the media & public to try to force disclosure & bring the court's actions - whose precedents impact us all - into the sunlight.

Below is a link to a discussion of the Rule before it was finalized. Reading Judge Murphy's order, it is clear to me that in trying to balance interests of the parties that he failed to place the weight of the matters before him toward disclosure (as the Rule demands). His reasoning violates both the letter and spirit of Rule 55.1, as the media Response makes clear.

BTW, the last time I looked at the docket the media Response, which was filed June 17, was still not in the public record!

Colorado Supreme Court holds public hearing on proposed rule for sealing and suppressing criminal court records | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

 

[Momofthreeboys]

@jondaba - Do you have a source/s to support your contention BBM above?

My understanding of CO Rule 55.1 is that it is/does neither of the things you have suggested. We don't live under a system of government that promotes oppression, in my opinion. That would be Communist Russia.

The goal in opening up court records is not to reveal nefarious intent or prevent unlawful action by either side - defense or prosecution.

The question here is related to the 1st & 4th amendments and weighing the rights of all parties. Essentially in CO, the weight was always placed heavily toward keeping proceedings secret by a misguided judiciary that felt only doing that would offer protection to all parties - in their interpretation, the less the public knows, the better. Rule 55.1 demands that disclosure be thoroughly weighed not just defaulted to the judge's perception (I would say bias) of harm. It puts the burden on the judiciary to prove nondisclosure upholds the principle of "right to know" rather than on the media & public to try to force disclosure & bring the court's actions - whose precedents impact us all - into the sunlight.

Below is a link to a discussion of the Rule before it was finalized. Reading Judge Murphy's order, it is clear to me that in trying to balance interests of the parties that he failed to place the weight of the matters before him toward disclosure (as the Rule demands). His reasoning violates both the letter and spirit of Rule 55.1, as the media Response makes clear.

BTW, the last time I looked at the docket the media Response, which was filed June 17, was still not in the public record!

Colorado Supreme Court holds public hearing on proposed rule for sealing and suppressing criminal court records | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

I'm curious what specific part of the judge's motion and reasoning do you think did not comply with Rule 55.1? I think that the public that is curious is well aware that Barry has been charged, is in jail without bond currently, is not a threat to society and that the judicial system is not being oppressive and that the avadavat contains much information not essential legally to the case. He set a date that it would be released (I'm assuming redacted by then). I guess I fail to see where his motion is non-compliant other than media's "desire" to "know more". Of course the media is not going to like his decision...that isn't how media makes their money. I will be curious what the judge rules.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I'm curious what specific part of the judge's motion and reasoning do you think did not comply with Rule 55.1? I think that the public that is curious is well aware that Barry has been charged, is in jail without bond currently, is not a threat to society and that the judicial system is not being oppressive and that the avadavat contains much information not essential legally to the case. He set a date that it would be released (I'm assuming redacted by then). I guess I fail to see where his motion is non-compliant other than media's "desire" to "know more". Of course the media is not going to like his decision...that isn't how media makes their money. I will be curious what the judge rules.

Here are the media refutations of the judge's decisions, as summarized in the Media Response by the media consortium's lawyer.

I would say it is clear the judge erred in the weight given to disclosure. His conclusions are faulty (especially the one about redacting being way too burdensome!)

I. THE LENGTH AND DETAILS CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE NOT LEGITIMATE GROUNDS TO DENY THE PUBLIC’S PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT TO INSPECT IT

II. THE DEFENDANT’S OWN “INVESTIGATION” IS NOT A “SUBSTANTIAL GOVERNMENT INTEREST” THAT WARRANTS DENIAL OF THE PUBLIC’S PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT TO INSPECT JUDICIAL RECORDS

III. THERE ARE MULTIPLE ADEQUATE AND LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF THE MINOR VICTIMS

IV. THE DUTY TO RELEASE REDACTED VERSIONS OF JUDICIAL RECORDS, AS SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY C.R.C.P. 55.1, IS DESERVING OF AS MUCH WEIGHT AS OTHER TASKS THE PARTIES ARE PERFORMING IN THIS LITIGATION

BBM for emphasis

 

[CGray123]

Not behind a paywall for me .. but there are many articles out there about it. Here are a few. Maybe you can view one or more of these.

PERRY: Denver Post reveals a Colorado court scandal that should be job one for voters to fix this fall - Sentinel Colorado
Denver Post Investigation Reveals Thousands Of Suppressed Colorado Court Cases
Denver Post Shines Light on Suppressed Court Documents

Thanks for these links. This is an important story that brought public attention to a real problem and led directly to the adoption of CRCP 55.1. I agree with the CFOIC that this rule is a significant step forward in addressing the issue.

But it's important to be clear about what the issue was. Using then-existing discretion, Colorado judges suppressed information about cases not arbitrarily, but for specific reasons according to the article:

"According to interviews and analysis of cases that were later opened to the public, the reasons behind a suppression order are varied: Prosecutors don’t want to alarm other members of a drug ring as they’re being rounded up; the case involves a juvenile defendant; or law enforcement says a criminal investigation is ongoing. Civil cases have been suppressed as well, typically — though not all — to shield victims of abuse or sexual assaults from publicity."
...
"'Already in many cases, specifically gang and some domestic violence cases, the concern over an individual’s own safety is so strong that if you can’t provide some other assurance, even in the short-term, I think we’ll lose out on cooperation from a lot of key witnesses,” Brauchler said. “But the public should maintain the ability to scrutinize what we do, why we do it and how we go about that.'"

The article does not describe a consistent statewide pattern of abuse, but rather, lack of consistent statewide procedures and standards for suppressing and opening access to cases appears to have been a major factor, according to the article:

"'The Post’s analysis found that the number of suppressed cases varies dramatically from county to county. Prosecutors in La Plata County, where Durango is the county seat, have suppressed 366 felony cases over the past five years, the most by any jurisdiction, records show. But those cases were nearly always unsuppressed once a defendant was arrested and brought to court, the longest taking two years, The Post found.

'It’s not uncommon to suppress a case until the defendant is arrested and the warrant served,” said Christian Champagne, district attorney for Colorado’s Sixth Judicial District that includes La Plata, Archuleta and San Juan counties. “Ours is an area where people come through and leave for long stretches of time.'"

The 2nd Judicial District (Denver City & County) had no suppressed cases: the 18th Judicial District (just south of Denver) had the most statewide.

It's also important to use the accurate number of cases that have remained suppressed.

"Since 2013, there have been 6,707 cases suppressed by judges in Colorado, and the bulk of them were criminal cases, The Post found — misdemeanors first, then felonies, followed by civil court matters. A judge’s suppression order was lifted in 3,631 of them, meaning the public can now access the cases, sometimes soon after a defendant was arrested or parties to a civil lawsuit were served with court papers, records show."

In sum, Colorado did not have a statewide standard regulating access to court proceedings and records, and although the Post did not accuse any official of abuse of the discretion allowed, the article shows the existence of a need for such standards. We'll have to wait for cases to be decided to see how the more limited discretion allowed by Rule 55.1 will be applied.

 

[CGray123]

Here are the media refutations of the judge's decisions, as summarized in the Media Response by the media consortium's lawyer.

I would say it is clear the judge erred in the weight given to disclosure. His conclusions are faulty (especially the one about redacting being way too burdensome!)

I. THE LENGTH AND DETAILS CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE NOT LEGITIMATE GROUNDS TO DENY THE PUBLIC’S PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT TO INSPECT IT

II. THE DEFENDANT’S OWN “INVESTIGATION” IS NOT A “SUBSTANTIAL GOVERNMENT INTEREST” THAT WARRANTS DENIAL OF THE PUBLIC’S PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT TO INSPECT JUDICIAL RECORDS

III. THERE ARE MULTIPLE ADEQUATE AND LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF THE MINOR VICTIMS

IV. THE DUTY TO RELEASE REDACTED VERSIONS OF JUDICIAL RECORDS, AS SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY C.R.C.P. 55.1, IS DESERVING OF AS MUCH WEIGHT AS OTHER TASKS THE PARTIES ARE PERFORMING IN THIS LITIGATION

BBM for emphasis

These are, of course, legal arguments presented to the court about a new rule that is open to interpretation.

Having read the brief, IMO the cases cited offer great quotes but the facts of the cases are distinctly different from the Morphew case.

As the CFOIC has acknowledged, appeals of the decisions of trial courts will be based on the established standard: abuse of discretion. Judge Murphy's decision will not be easy to overturn under this standard.

To me, the critical information for the outcome is that portion of the decision that's blacked out: the nature and extent of irrelevant and inadmissible evidence contained in the AA. JMO, of course.

 

[10ofRods]

Maybe Barry, for one.

Also, if the girls have been defending him all this time, the media and members of the community may not be so compassionate towards them when all details come out. Reporters will probably be following them around, hounding them for pictures and interviews, as well as all the other witnesses involved in the case.

Well, Barry is one of the people who has full access to the AA, so it makes no sense to bar it from our view merely because Barry might harass his own daughters. He's been told not to and would have his ability to speak to them revoked if he did.

If reporters wanted to follow the daughters around (what are there, like 2 local stations with about 1 reporter each on this case?) they would do so, regardless - but AFAIK, Lauren and the other young woman have been quite respectful about privacy of the daughters.

But you're right - if there's anything in the AA that paints the daughters in the wrong colors, I guess the community could turn on them (I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible). Personally, I think it's going to be hard to locate either daughter from now on, except if they decide to attend the hearings and the trial.

Anyway, the way I read that order, it was for the psychological protection of the daughters because the information would be too much for them to process (but I don't get how it will be okay for them in September - by which time, all bandaids will have been ripped off).

 

[10ofRods]

@10ofRods, what it appears to me is that what the girls may not be able to cope with now, they might be able to in September is that in the period between, experts assigned by the court/LE/family will be preparing them to deal with the details so the shock will be blunted to a degree.

Sure - but as far as we know there have been no "experts assigned to them by the court" nor does the court have the ability to remand them to consult with such "experts." You mean psychotherapists and psychiatrists, right? I can't think of a single case in US criminal history where the Court arranged for pre-trial mental health care for the children of a victim of murder. But there could be some, and there are some legal eagles here, so maybe I'll learn something today.

The Court is not going to reach out to the daughters about their mental health, IMO, that would be over-reach of the Court system. So that leaves LE (they are not the right people to be in that role, imo!) and the family.

So of the three groups you mention, it is the family and only the family who can help prepare the daughters. An there's only one family member who has seen the AA.

That's Barry. In some sense, I think the Judge is putting the onus on Barry to do the right thing and protect his daughters from the inevitable by preparing them for it - he's the only one who isn't legally barred from doing so. The Judge specifically stated that absolutely no one in the legal/justice system may disclose the AA - so LE can't do that. The Court can't do that either - but the Judge's own order. I don't think either the Court or LE can so much as hint at what's in that AA without violating the Judge's strict order. "Parties to the case" may discuss it (that's Barry).

The defense attorneys aren't supposed to discuss it with anyone but other counsel, the courts and "parties to the case." However, they can investigate on their own (but ought not to disclose that investigation except to the court and they surely cannot mention what's in the AA during that investigation - but they can follow some bread crumbs).

 

[Scootie98]

I don’t think the excuse of assisted suicide is feasible for trial. It sounds like a good defense, on paper, but if there is physical evidence (blood, bone, tissue) that Suzanne is no longer living, he’d have to explain why he needed to use violence to assist her with suicide. I can’t see them using any defense for which Barry will have to testify. He may be able to convince his daughters and he may think that he can convince a jury but his attorneys are surely too experienced to ever let him testify. Arrogance never plays well.

we don't have any idea what creative, outlandish scenario the defense will cook up. My doubts about assisted suicide are that it doesnt jive with the supposed facebook friending.....why commit suicide if you are looking for companionship? But, the defense could then claim that this is an example of how "unstable" SM might have been. The defense is going to look for the lowest common denominator on a jury....Whatever their angle will be...they aren't talking to 12 jurors....they are talking to the weakest 1 or 2 who they believe can hang in there for the duration.

 

[Scootie98]

BM, Helping?
@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.

assisted suicide isn't the most outlandish angle BM could produce....not by a long shot. I think the mountain lion takes the cake....among others....Since it was actually a bobcat, not a mountain lion that likely carried SM off to parts unknown.