Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #93

[Cindizzi]

I just snipped a little bit of what the Judge said today.
There is much more


Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com



"It's a unique case," said Judge Ramsey Lama from the bench during the motions hearing Thursday morning.

Lama spent nearly half an hour detailing to the courtroom filled with lawyers, Barry's daughters, and journalists his method for determining whether or not to grant the prosecution's motion to allow the information to be admissible during the trial.

"The court does not find that the people have met their burden under Spoto. (People v. Spoto, 1990) The motion is denied," Lama said shortly after noon.

Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I just snipped a little bit of what the Judge said today.
There is much more


Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com



"It's a unique case," said Judge Ramsey Lama from the bench during the motions hearing Thursday morning.

Lama spent nearly half an hour detailing to the courtroom filled with lawyers, Barry's daughters, and journalists his method for determining whether or not to grant the prosecution's motion to allow the information to be admissible during the trial.

"The court does not find that the people have met their burden under Spoto. (People v. Spoto, 1990) The motion is denied," Lama said shortly after noon.

Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.

Interesting wording in the last paragraph.

 

[justtrish]

I don't think that exists. This man was lucky he could conduct a google search.

I've always thought that was a dumb, baseless rumor. I've seen nothing that indicates otherwise (AA or prelim).

Wasn't it stated he did purchase a VPN? Are those used to "hide" activity you don't want others to know about? I could be remembering wrong. I don't know much about tech stuff and still not sure a understand exactly what/how a VPN works, but thought this was what was explained.

 

[waldojabba]

I just snipped a little bit of what the Judge said today.
There is much more


Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com



"It's a unique case," said Judge Ramsey Lama from the bench during the motions hearing Thursday morning.

Lama spent nearly half an hour detailing to the courtroom filled with lawyers, Barry's daughters, and journalists his method for determining whether or not to grant the prosecution's motion to allow the information to be admissible during the trial.

"The court does not find that the people have met their burden under Spoto. (People v. Spoto, 1990) The motion is denied," Lama said shortly after noon.

Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.

From the article
“Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.” Begs the question … can it be admitted if presented in a different way?

 

[justtrish]

From the article
“Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.” Begs the question … can it be admitted if presented in a different way?

IF Sheila had direct info on when those statements were made. I think she still had valuable info like him returning early and not pulling in the driveway. Scaring them enough to need to call police. Any text messages she has with dates/times that allude to abuse. It seems the judge had issue with her not knowing exactly when statements were made. Maybe if she had a way to confirm/verify when that would help.

Suzanne also texted her sister about the abuse just days before. I think the judge understands there was abuse, but needs to have more solid and specific data instead of her friend of 30 years recalling she said that, but not when.

 

[BDAJAG]

Registering my over/under here. Waiting on the defense to maneuver for a major delay.

I'm of the camp that Barry's greatest odds for freedom are on this side of trial.

JMO

...substitute "chance/opportunity" for "odds", @Megnut, and we are totally conjoined!

IMHO :
'B-Day', replete w/some border-bound coyotes, has been a finished, funded OP Order for a good long while. Just waiting for the "right" weather...

 

[katydid23]

I personally think the dog alerts mentioned in the AA are a dead end for the prosecution. There was no biological evidence recovered to test to say what they actually alerted on and to whom or what it belonged to. Some dogs are no longer trained on residual or trace odors, but larger sources to avoid both false positives/false alerts. This kind of stuff gets shredded in court and is usually never enough to make an arrest alone on.

The defense would most likely bring in a SME to scour over the training logs of these dogs, as an example. A certification is not enough and does not speak to the reliability of the dog. They could say is it true that cadaverine is found in decaying plant matter? Has this ever been part of your training, are you knowledgeable about this? Has your dog ever gave a trained final response to compost? Do these dogs that were part of the blind searches train together? Prove they each didn't follow the saliva or butt sit of the previous dog. There are very skilled dog handlers that are ethical that will testify for the defense.

My point, with no actual evidence recovered prove it belonged to a deceased human. IMO

I agree with you. That's essentially what happened in the Mark Redwine trial.

He was found Guilty, thank goodness. But the evidence they offered about the dogs alerting on his vehicle and clothing was HEAVILY refuted by the defense team. I felt sorry for how aggressively the K9 handlers were confronted during cross.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Speaking of pervy, was BM’s “dark web” activity/sites visited ever disclosed in the AA?

I don't think we've ever seen anything in documents about dark web LOL. Who knows maybe Barry had some knowledge about Tor browser but I highly doubt it. That sounds more like one of those rumors that seem to be pervasive in this case. Again, if it came up in a document somewhere someone correct me.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I just snipped a little bit of what the Judge said today.
There is much more


Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com



"It's a unique case," said Judge Ramsey Lama from the bench during the motions hearing Thursday morning.

Lama spent nearly half an hour detailing to the courtroom filled with lawyers, Barry's daughters, and journalists his method for determining whether or not to grant the prosecution's motion to allow the information to be admissible during the trial.

"The court does not find that the people have met their burden under Spoto. (People v. Spoto, 1990) The motion is denied," Lama said shortly after noon.

Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.

So according to this article, the judge also denied Barry’s own words to Agent Grusing that he clipped Suzanne’s nose and that it bled. I am perplexed by the judge’s decision.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

From the article
“Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.” Begs the question … can it be admitted if presented in a different way?

That’s how I would interpret it, if I were prosecuting.

 

[Kingsley]

Wasn't it stated he did purchase a VPN? Are those used to "hide" activity you don't want others to know about? I could be remembering wrong. I don't know much about tech stuff and still not sure a understand exactly what/how a VPN works, but thought this was what was explained.

A VPN at the IP layer requires VPN at both ends -- say from an employee's laptop to company server. TLS is similar VPN-like technology and secures sessions when you connect with a web site (you get the lock symbol on your browser when using). In either case, your activities are "exposed" at either endpoint (logs, etc). When you use these, if someone intercepts your Internet traffic in transit that it would be indecipherable.
fwiw.

 

[Love Never Fails]

From the article
“Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.” Begs the question … can it be admitted if presented in a different way?

It also begs the question, why isn’t the prosecution doing a better job of presenting their side of the arguments to the judge?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Interesting wording in the last paragraph.

From the article: Defense attorneys said that in the more than 3,000 text messages between Suzanne and Oliver, Suzanne never mentioned the alleged acts of domestic abuse, even though they were best friends.

So was there or was there not text messages about abuse between Suzanne and SO?

 

[K9Enzo]

I agree with you. That's essentially what happened in the Mark Redwine trial.

He was found Guilty, thank goodness. But the evidence they offered about the dogs alerting on his vehicle and clothing was HEAVILY refuted by the defense team. I felt sorry for how aggressively the K9 handlers were confronted during cross.

Yes, and the handler of HRD Molly was outstanding. Good handler and dog. IMO

 

[HongKongPhooey]

From the article: Defense attorneys said that in the more than 3,000 text messages between Suzanne and Oliver, Suzanne never mentioned the alleged acts of domestic abuse, even though they were best friends.

So was there or was there not text messages about abuse between Suzanne and SO?

Sadly I don’t have time right now to go look as it is late here, however my point is the wording leaves a door open for evidence to be admitted a different way. That’s how I read it anyway.

 

[Cindizzi]

I don't think we've ever seen anything in documents about dark web LOL. Who knows maybe Barry had some knowledge about Tor browser but I highly doubt it. That sounds more like one of those rumors that seem to be pervasive in this case. Again, if it came up in a document somewhere someone correct me.

its never come up anywhere except by a certain YouTube channel named PE. They apparently had run out of “ facts “ to discuss.
JMO

 

[Skigh]

Sadly I don’t have time right now to go look as it is late here, however my point is the wording leaves a door open for evidence to be admitted a different way. That’s how I read it anyway.

That is how I read it too.

 

[sk716]

Not surprised but I do think the law is a bit of an *advertiser censored* in this situation.

Murders the victim so she is silenced. Then her statements as to why she was not safe from physical violence ruled hearsay

Don't fall into the clickbait trap.

These Tweets are all worded as if this is some huge win for the defense.

It's not.

It's literally a ruling that hearsay cannot be admitted. SO doesn't have texts to back up any accusations of physical abuse. If SO didn't see it with her own eyes (In the modern world, texts fall under this heading. Verbalizing is slander and hard to prove. Libel is print and hard evidence of slanderous statements.), then it's hearsay in the eyes of the Court.

SO has way more stuff to testify about. Like Barry's obsessive phone calls to her and her husband while Suzanne was in the bathroom without her phone.

Once was Thanksgiving 2018, while the Morphew’s were still trying to sell their house in Indiana. While Suzanne was at the Oliver’s house, she

Page 48 of 129

had stepped away from her cell phone to use the restroom, and Barry tried calling her several times within a few minutes, then tried calling Sheila, then tried calling Darin. He was persistent and obsessive about knowing where she was, at least when she was with Sheila. The other time was June/July 2019, when Suzanne returned to Indiana to visit Sheila, and then went to Michigan to visit her dad. Barry called Sheila saying he couldn’t get in touch with Suzanne. Suzanne told Sheila this was odd, because Barry never bothered to call Suzanne any other times. He was just very persistent in checking up on Suzanne when she was with Sheila. (54 This June 2019 visit to Michigan was consistent with Suzanne meeting JL and Barry suspecting she was having an affair, thus his calls to SO.)
​

Or the time she was visiting Colorado and Barry stalked them around the outside of the house.

PH - SA Harris: Yeah. Barry was away hunting in New Mexico or Arizona, and Sheila and Suzanne and Macy I believe – I don’t know if Mallory was there — were at the house they saw headlights come up – their neighborhood is fairly secluded. So they saw headlights coming up to the house.
They turned off short of the Morphew’s driveway and then they thought they saw somebody walking in and coming through the driveway and up into the woods like they were looking into the house. So they were trying to determine what was going on they called Pete Cushman, one of the neighbors. He went out and looked around, didn’t find anything. Then they still thought they saw something so they ended up calling 9-1-1. And Suzanne spoke with the 9-1-1 dispatcher and during the course of the 9-1-1 call they figured out that it was – the headlights come back on and it comes into the driveway, and it was Barry in his truck coming into the neighborhood.​

I expect to hear a bit about how excited Suzanne was about SO's daughters wedding and how she wouldn't have missed it for anything.

And then, the texts. The texts are rough for Barry. SO responds pretty well to Suzanne's complaints about Barry (I'm the kind of best friend that calls him names and offers to go kick his a$$.) so she never comes off as being anti-Barry.

The defense doesn't want SO anywhere near the stand. Barry doesn't want SO anywhere near his daughters.

This is not a win for the defense.

MMB gets to testify that Suzanne texted that Barry physically abused her. That's admissible.

 

[Seattle1]

I think the key word here is 'in' ....not allowed within the Courtroom or in the Justice Center

a. No photography, or audio, or video recording of any kind is permitted within the courtroom or in the Justice Center.

b. NO LIVE REPORTING OF ANY KIND is permitted from the courtroom or in the Justice Center.

MOO

Except I think they identified "the Justice Center" to include the entire property including the car park.

"C. This ORDER applies to the entire Fremont County Justice Center and county property surrounding the Justice Center. The Justice Center property is defined as the building and public parking area."

ETA: Add link
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user... Order for Motions and Pre-trial Hearings.pdf

 

[Diddian]

I just snipped a little bit of what the Judge said today.
There is much more


Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com



"It's a unique case," said Judge Ramsey Lama from the bench during the motions hearing Thursday morning.

Lama spent nearly half an hour detailing to the courtroom filled with lawyers, Barry's daughters, and journalists his method for determining whether or not to grant the prosecution's motion to allow the information to be admissible during the trial.

"The court does not find that the people have met their burden under Spoto. (People v. Spoto, 1990) The motion is denied," Lama said shortly after noon.

Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.

Regarding information that is "relevant and raises great suspicion," but that would be used "for a prohibited purpose"...

@MassGuy: In the Colorado trial of Harold Henthorn for the murder of his second wife (a case in which Grusing was brought in to assist the original investigators), the court admitted some unusual evidence involving past odd "accidents" involving Henthorn and wive's #1 and #2. That evidence demonstrated a pattern of HH arranging odd accidents that would seriously injure his wives in remote areas, where emergency help would take a long time to arrive, increasing the likelihood the women would not survive. As the beneficiary on significant life insurance policies carried on the wives, HH collected over $400,000 on wife #1 and was attempting to collect over $4 million on wife #2.

(ETA: The murder of the first wife had never been investigated as a murder, even though several people [some anonymously] reported concerns to officials, incl. the coroner/medical examiner [cannot remember which], who ultimately decided to state that "homicide could not be excluded" for her death certificate.)

Could this judge be using this case to "rein in" Grusing on this technique of discerning such patterns to bring the past events in?