Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #98

[Mysti88c]

A Chaffee County woman is missing after a neighbor said she went out for a bike ride Sunday and never returned
Chaffee County woman missing since Sunday after neighbor said she went out for bike ride

List of Case Players and Their Relationship to Discussion (Post #440)

————————————-
MEDIA, MAPS & TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*
Detailed timeline of events in the Morphew case:
CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA, MAPS &TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*
Arrest Affidavit
—————————————
Suzanne Morphew Case Archive (developed and maintained by WS member AmandaReckonwith)
—————————————
Hearing Notes (Compliments of @NoSI)
Preliminary:
Day 1


————————————-
Suzanne Morphew FB page
Suzanne Morphew Twitter page


Verified Experts/Professionals/Insiders posting in this thread:

10ofRods is a Verified Anthropologist
Angleterre is a Verified LE from England
riolove77 is a Verified Attorney (prosecutor)
Alethea is a Verified Attorney (defense)
otto is a Verified Expert
Chomsky is a Verified Attorney
angelainwi is a Certified Trauma Counselor
gitana1 is a Verified Attorney
Cassidy is a Verified Attorney
lamlawindy is a Verified Attorney (former Prosecutor, now Defence)
NatureLover (Verified friend of the Moorman family)

Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48 Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56 Thread #57 Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread #62 Thread #63 Thread #64 Thread #65 Thread #66 Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70 Thread #71 Thread #72 Thread #73 Thread #74 Thread #75 Thread #76 Thread #77 Thread #78 Thread #79 Thread #80 Thread #81 Thread #82 Thread #83 Thread #84 Thread #85 Thread #86 Thread #87 Thread #88 Thread #89 Thread #90 Thread #91 Thread #92 Thread #93 Thread #94
Thread #95 Thread #96 Thread #97

 

[Sillybilly]

Please continue discussion here in accordance with The Rules:

Quick rundown of reminders from prior threads:

Rumors are not allowed.

Barry Morphew has been charged with Suzanne's murder and he and his businesses are open to sleuthing.

Do not sleuth or make accusations against anyone who is not an officially named POI/suspect.

If an approved source discusses rumors or family members, it is still NOT allowed to do so at Websleuths. WS has different standards.

Preview your posts to avoid broken quotes.

Lengthy personal anecdotes are off topic. Stay on topic.

Discuss the case and not each other; state your opinion and move one without arguing or bickering.

Random youtube videos or blogs are not allowed unless approval is given by Tricia or Admin.

Approved sources are MSM, LE, Profiling Evil podcast, Lauren Scharf podcast or social media, Investigation Discovery, Crimeonline, Tyson Draper (only the interview with Barry Morphew), public documents.

Do not discuss removed posts or question/challenge moderation on the thread. Doing so is subject to an automatic Time Out.

 

[Tiff23fr]

Mod Reminder - Plunder Court Transcript Episodes

The Transcripts from the Preliminary Hearing being shared by Plunder have been approved. This approval only applies to the Plunder episodes specific to the court transcripts. The transcripts shared across the episodes may not be copied and posted in entirety to WS as a single document or post replicating the documents that the content creator purchased.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN REMINDER:

By Websleuths standards the Morphew daughters are victims. Posts trashing them or demeaning them will be removed and members who post in that regard are subject to a loss of posting privileges.

Read The Rules (TOS) and post accordingly.

Thanks.

 

[Sillybilly]

<modsnip: This post has been removed. It is a violation of the law to broadcast this recording.>

ADMIN NOTE:

Thanks to Seattle1, a reminder that Colorado Court has strict policy that court proceedings including WEBEX cannot be filmed/recorded/rebroadcast or face contempt charges.

 

[Tiff23fr]

Welcome to Thread #98
Please continue here

 

[Seattle1]

I want to clarify that I think Lama has a very narrow view of domestic violence. Many modern people recognize controlling behaviors as abuse, clearly this Judge doesn't, Murphy did.

^^rsbm

Technically, since domestic violence (by definition including controlling behaviors) in Colorado is not a crime itself, unfortunately, I think Judge Lama is correct. When Lama (not Murphy) disallowed the hearsay evidence, the alleged DV was lost. (Although I'm not convinced that Judge Lama would have made this decision prior to the argument by IE).

The state actually takes this definition a little further, noting that domestic violence includes situations in which someone commits a crime against another person [or even a threat], animal, or property with the intent to do any of the following against someone with whom he or she had an intimate relationship:

• Punish
• Intimidate
• Control
• Coerce
• Revenge

What constitutes domestic violence in Colorado? | The Leier Law Office, LLC - 2021/09/28 05:11:44

 

[Seattle1]

Domestic violence itself not a standalone crime; instead, it is a description that can enhance the sentence of anyone convicted of the related act. Someone who has been charged with a crime that involves domestic violence may face incarceration, probation, or both. Additionally, anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence related crime and sentenced to probation will have to complete a treatment program of at least 36 classes.

Other consequences of a conviction could include a loss of employment and a change in parenting time, if the accused has children. Under Colorado and federal law, anyone convicted of a domestic violence related crime is permanently prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

What constitutes domestic violence in Colorado? | The Leier Law Office, LLC - 2021/09/28 05:11:44

 

[mrjitty]

Not surprising the DV expert is excluded when there is such a thin admissible evidential foundation for them to discuss.

 

[Seattle1]

Domestic violence itself not a standalone crime; instead, it is a description that can enhance the sentence of anyone convicted of the related act. Someone who has been charged with a crime that involves domestic violence may face incarceration, probation, or both. Additionally, anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence related crime and sentenced to probation will have to complete a treatment program of at least 36 classes.

Other consequences of a conviction could include a loss of employment and a change in parenting time, if the accused has children. Under Colorado and federal law, anyone convicted of a domestic violence related crime is permanently prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

What constitutes domestic violence in Colorado? | The Leier Law Office, LLC - 2021/09/28 05:11:44

Just imagine if SM had called police on BM during one of their arguments and/or his threats, and upon conviction, he would have PERMANENTLY been prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

He would have killed her -- her death was inevitable!

 

[Megnut]

Just imagine if SM had called police on BM during one of their arguments and/or his threats, and upon conviction, he would have PERMANENTLY been prohibited for owning or possessing a firearm.

He would have killed her -- her death was inevitable!

I wish we had an "I agree" button.

Suzanne was armed with civility. Barry was armed.

Chipmunks didn't stand a chance either.

JMO

 

[MountainDad]

First post for me. Thanks for all the discussion on this case. I have read all 97 threads and have yet to see a defense that fits with the evidence and seems logical. Barry gave so many excuses and lies during his interviews, and that is what will provide justice for Suzanne. I am certain he is guilty

 

[CGray123]

I understand Judge L has already determined that the prosecution's DV expert will not be allowed to testify because the probative value of such evidence as the prosecution has offered is outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect. This rationale is different from the question whether there is sufficient evidence to show that BM inflicted DV on SM, so I am left to wonder why that issue came up yesterday. Did the prosecution try a different legal argument to get the DV expert before the jury? I know Judge L left it open for them to revisit this issue based on new information. Are his comments yesterday about that new effort?

Or, was there a different issue under discussion?

Thanks to @Cindizzi I understand that the hearing set for March 30th is to determine whether experts will be allowed to testify under the Schreck standard, which seems similar to the Daubert standard in Federal courts. Can anyone tell us which experts have been challenged, and by whom? It can't be the DV expert if I understand yesterday's ruling correctly.

I understand the reporters are not lawyers, but the reporting on this hearing left a lot to be desired. MOO.

 

[crhedBngr]

First post for me. Thanks for all the discussion on this case. I have read all 97 threads and have yet to see a defense that fits with the evidence and seems logical. Barry gave so many excuses and lies during his interviews, and that is what will provide justice for Suzanne. I am certain he is guilty

Welcome to Websleuths, @MountainDad !

 

[MassGuy]

First post for me. Thanks for all the discussion on this case. I have read all 97 threads and have yet to see a defense that fits with the evidence and seems logical. Barry gave so many excuses and lies during his interviews, and that is what will provide justice for Suzanne. I am certain he is guilty

Exactly. Both alternate scenarios can be shot down independent of all the evidence against Barry, but when you add in all the damning facts and proven lies, those theories aren't merely implausible, they're outright insane.

 

[justtrish]

First post for me. Thanks for all the discussion on this case. I have read all 97 threads and have yet to see a defense that fits with the evidence and seems logical. Barry gave so many excuses and lies during his interviews, and that is what will provide justice for Suzanne. I am certain he is guilty

Welcome to WS! Many of us feel the same way. No logical explanation for all his lies. No logical explanation for another suspect in this case committing this crime.

 

[Love Never Fails]

First post for me. Thanks for all the discussion on this case. I have read all 97 threads and have yet to see a defense that fits with the evidence and seems logical. Barry gave so many excuses and lies during his interviews, and that is what will provide justice for Suzanne. I am certain he is guilty

Welcome @MountainDad. Glad you are here.

 

[Tumbleweed]

I understand Judge L has already determined that the prosecution's DV expert will not be allowed to testify because the probative value of such evidence as the prosecution has offered is outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect. This rationale is different from the question whether there is sufficient evidence to show that BM inflicted DV on SM, so I am left to wonder why that issue came up yesterday. Did the prosecution try a different legal argument to get the DV expert before the jury? I know Judge L left it open for them to revisit this issue based on new information. Are his comments yesterday about that new effort?

Or, was there a different issue under discussion?

Thanks to @Cindizzi I understand that the hearing set for March 30th is to determine whether experts will be allowed to testify under the Schreck standard, which seems similar to the Daubert standard in Federal courts. Can anyone tell us which experts have been challenged, and by whom? It can't be the DV expert if I understand yesterday's ruling correctly.

I understand the reporters are not lawyers, but the reporting on this hearing left a lot to be desired. MOO.

From the Mountain Mail article: (Judge limits expert witnesses) You can see this without going behind the pay wall.

Cañon City – Prosecutors in the murder trial against Barry Morphew were dealt a setback in Fremont County District Court Thursday. Saying he found a “pattern of neglect” by prosecutors, Judge Ramsey Lama granted defense motions to limit expert testimony.

The judge sanctioned the prosecution for failing to meet their obligations in a timely manner to provide Morphew’s defense attorneys with detailed reports on prosecution witnesses. Morphew is set to stand trial in Cañon City in early May in connection with the disappearance of his wife, Suzanne, who has never been found.

Sooooo, it seems the prosecution still can't get their "stuff" together and as a result there will be no DV expert testimony. Am I reading this right? This is the first trial I have followed. I am assuming the sanctions are a punishment of some sort. Since the prosecution still hasn't given their witness list to the defense team, the judge is punishing the prosecution by ruling that there will be no DV witness testimony?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I understand Judge L has already determined that the prosecution's DV expert will not be allowed to testify because the probative value of such evidence as the prosecution has offered is outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect. This rationale is different from the question whether there is sufficient evidence to show that BM inflicted DV on SM, so I am left to wonder why that issue came up yesterday. Did the prosecution try a different legal argument to get the DV expert before the jury? I know Judge L left it open for them to revisit this issue based on new information. Are his comments yesterday about that new effort?

Or, was there a different issue under discussion?

Thanks to @Cindizzi I understand that the hearing set for March 30th is to determine whether experts will be allowed to testify under the Schreck standard, which seems similar to the Daubert standard in Federal courts. Can anyone tell us which experts have been challenged, and by whom? It can't be the DV expert if I understand yesterday's ruling correctly.

I understand the reporters are not lawyers, but the reporting on this hearing left a lot to be desired. MOO.

Yesterday was hard to understand but from what I gleaned in addition to continuing to include an expert witness that would speak to behavior on their witness list which the judge vetoed last week the prosecution wanted to have several investigators deemed as experts so they could opinion on their investigation findings and IE argued that was prosecution trying to get around the judges ruling last week. They will be allowed to testify but not as experts. I am wide open to corrections or better info. This might be behind a paywall.
Judge limits expert witnesses

 

[Love Never Fails]

From the Mountain Mail article: (Judge limits expert witnesses) You can see this without going behind the pay wall.

Cañon City – Prosecutors in the murder trial against Barry Morphew were dealt a setback in Fremont County District Court Thursday. Saying he found a “pattern of neglect” by prosecutors, Judge Ramsey Lama granted defense motions to limit expert testimony.

The judge sanctioned the prosecution for failing to meet their obligations in a timely manner to provide Morphew’s defense attorneys with detailed reports on prosecution witnesses. Morphew is set to stand trial in Cañon City in early May in connection with the disappearance of his wife, Suzanne, who has never been found.

Sooooo, it seems the prosecution still can't get their "stuff" together and as a result there will be no DV expert testimony. Am I reading this right? This is the first trial I have followed. I am assuming the sanctions are a punishment of some sort. Since the prosecution still hasn't given their witness list to the defense team, the judge is punishing the prosecution by ruling that there will be no DV witness testimony?

Not sure the judges decision on DV witness has to do with prosecution being sanctioned. I think those were two separate issues. Reporting from court yesterday was limited at best.
However, I can agree this isn’t good for the prosecution. It’s so black and white for me. He murdered Suzanne. He gets LWOP. That’s just me.