Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w prejudice* #104

Status
Not open for further replies.
2 years 3 months is a lot of patience. I'm heading to Salida area end of Sept for an event. I'm going a day early to search and check out the Puma Path area etc. I'll be on my ebike, goes off road and on trails easily. Im hoping this case will be headed to trial with remains located by then, but if not do any sluethers have a particular area pinpointed as highly probable. I know some members have done extensive research and would love to here your thoughts.
This is wonderful for you to take time from enjoying your trip to do this. Stay safe and I hope we have good news before then. Maybe you could talk to some of the locals and see what their thoughts are now about the investigation and about LS. I’m curious.
 
My thoughts are, that Suzanne is either located on the PP property or very close nearby and it must be accessible by foot.
It would take a lot of hubris to place her on their property and not fear getting caught but that’s Barry. I’ve thought much the same but he apparently hid her very well.

Of course though, there’s the evidence of him moving his truck and her car and the doors shutting and opening. Why did he do that and where did he go?
 
2 years 3 months is a lot of patience. I'm heading to Salida area end of Sept for an event. I'm going a day early to search and check out the Puma Path area etc. I'll be on my ebike, goes off road and on trails easily. Im hoping this case will be headed to trial with remains located by then, but if not do any sluethers have a particular area pinpointed as highly probable. I know some members have done extensive research and would love to here your thoughts.
Maybe check out Garfield Mine, or at least the turnaround spot off of Rt 50


 
This was during the Omicron wave time which saw many public orgs struggle with service levels.

I think what is different to your UK experience is that in the US it seems to be common practice to miss discovery deadlines (see Gitana's comments on this in a previous thread)

So you have a level of bureaucratic incompetence in an organisation, mixed with the big O, and DA gameplay, and likely you have a prosecution which misses deadlines of habit dealing with chaos of people off sick etc

I was shocked in the McStay case (my first big US trial) how both sides submitted expert evidence only days before the witness took the stand, which was already during the trial.

US is strange.
^^BBM

Specific to Colorado Courts, the timeline for Discovery for both criminal and civil cases is governed by Colorado Rule of Criminal [Civil] Procedure Rule 16 which provides as follows:

Part V. Time Schedules and Discovery Procedures
[..]

(b) Time Schedule.

... In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown.

While Rule 16 for criminal procedure is very clear in defining the maximum deadline at not less than 35 days before trial, the statute further gives the court the authority to alter this time by a motion of either party.

(4) For good cause, the court may, on motion of either party or its own motion, alter the time for all matters relating to discovery under this rule.

In this case, let us be reminded that it was the defense that motioned to alter this deadline and the court granted the motion.

While it's undisputed that the prosecution failed to meet the altered discovery dates, let us also be reminded that the defense failed to meet these discovery dates as well!

The only difference here is that, unlike the defense, the prosecution never motioned for the court to impose sanctions against the defense for this violation.

More important is that if at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, besides the court ordering such party to permit the discovery inspection of materials not previously disclosed; grant a continuance; prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed; or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances, the statute provides that the least restrictive sanction is favored by the courts.

“Similarly, in serving the purpose of deterrence, we have stated that ‘the court should impose the least severe sanction that will ensure that there is full compliance with the court’s discovery orders.'”

And where dismissal is considered a drastic remedy, clearly the punishment in this case (i.e., eliminating all the prosecution's critical experts) far exceeded the deadline crime (months prior to the trial) by the prosecutor.

(In my experience, the actual statutory deadline of 35 days max prior to the trial date established the spirit of the rule here, and unless either party can in good faith declare their side was harmed by a late submittal-- esp. two months before the trial date, pressing for discovery violation sanctions by either side is generally not done-- and certainly not at the level witnessed in this case). MOO


 
Last edited:
Naturally, I can’t speak for DN, but IE being portrayed as “wildly emotional” + “over the top” + “can’t get a word in edgewise” sums it up for me :p!
All MOO, of course!
And "Over the Top" motions pushing for sanctions for discovery violations from the right judge certainly proved effective for IE, but the aftertaste of winning at any cost can sour the best relationships. JMO
 
From their original bios you could see that while they had common interests but Dru Nielsen had other different interests in her bio. My guess is she wanted a partnership in a larger firm with more diverse clients and diverse litigation and perhaps more $$. I agree they did seem to compliment each other with their styles for their joint practice.
^^BBM
E & N had a great 7-year run together and I think they will always be strong advocates for each other. But not every lawyer wants to be the face of a politically based firm.

I disagree about DN's career goals here. She's been practicing law for 25+years, has already made a name for herself, and doesn't need feeders. I'm recalling from links that are now removed from the old E&N site, that she's the wife of another attorney, and mother of more than a couple of children which probably influenced her decision to return to a traditional firm established by her mentors. JMO

 
I can't decide if Barry locked down his truck overnight but hid Suzanne farther away (couldn't have been me, I was anchored to PP all night) or if he barried her nearby, certain his Broomfield alibi would suffice.

So why did he lock down the truck? To prove he was home all night? Some other reason?

I do think Barry could've hiked with his Yeti to a secondary vehicle which would've created him a whole different starting radius.

I don't believe he turned around at Garfield on Sunday morning. His verb tense was off. As I recall, "I would have [turned]..." So what was he doing???? Lost half hour, lost 14 miles. He dodged, with the elkibi, but I don't buy it. It wasn't 14 miles for a helmet toss and turnaround. So what was he doing????

High on my list -- the burn site, a mine, an animal den, a burial pod, very close to PP.

JMO
 
Haddon, Morgan, and Forman is a terrific firm with a great track record. But why would DN leave her own terrific firm, and why now? Very interesting to speculate that the BM case had something to do with it. No way to know, of course.
From looking at their respective LinkedIn pages (https://www.linkedin.com/in/drunielsen/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/iriseytan/) , I would say that they now have different interests going forward. Iris wants to concentrate her efforts on prosecutorial misconduct, which, I would hazard a guess, does not generate any fee income (which all firms rely on) and Dru wants to continue defending. They would have had to wind up their firm to enable Dru to have equity to become a partner at HMF.
 
Haddon, Morgan, and Forman is a terrific firm with a great track record. But why would DN leave her own terrific firm, and why now? Very interesting to speculate that the BM case had something to do with it. No way to know, of course.
Maybe they had a difference of.... conscience.

You can be a great defense attorney and represent your clients fiercely without resorting to untruths, misrepresentation, mischaracterization, fabrication, high drama and parking lot PDAs.

If EI actually goes after prosecutorial misconduct, outside of individual cases she's defending, I'll lose my dollar bet.

IMO she's grandstanding for the court of popular opinion. Her "product" is tenacity. It's a good look for future business to look like she's taking on all that is unjust. Sound bites bring in business.

Behind closed doors, I bet more than a dollar that lawyers like EI warn their daughters about men like BM. They know guilty when they see it.

Let me say again, I respect a rigorous defense. Our justice system relies on it. But rigorous doesn't mean dishonest.

Both sides (prosecution and defense) should be officers of the court, defenders of the law, seekers of the truth.

Otherwise, it's not justice.

JMO
 
It would take a lot of hubris to place her on their property and not fear getting caught but that’s Barry. I’ve thought much the same but he apparently hid her very well.

Of course though, there’s the evidence of him moving his truck and her car and the doors shutting and opening. Why did he do that and where did he go?
He was sleeping!
 
2 years 3 months is a lot of patience. I'm heading to Salida area end of Sept for an event. I'm going a day early to search and check out the Puma Path area etc. I'll be on my ebike, goes off road and on trails easily. Im hoping this case will be headed to trial with remains located by then, but if not do any sluethers have a particular area pinpointed as highly probable. I know some members have done extensive research and would love to here your thoughts.

One thing I might suggest is head out to Fooses lake, bring a chair, coffee or lunch and just reflect on the surroundings, it's going to be beautiful with possibly peak fall colors. Imagine being in that area and having only a couple of hours to make a body completely disappear, then imagine doing that possibly in darkness all the while leaving no trace.

Take your bike and if you can go down the road to the driveway, maybe rubber neck at whatever you can see from the road down towards the house(don't enter the driveway or stay to long :) ). While at the end of the driveway looking down it, turn your head 90 degrees to the right then pan back east, the mountain after the first valley you see is the mountain with the mine shafts on it, that has quite a bit of speculation. Imagine heading 3/4 of the way up that mountain (on a pack trail) in the time that it could have happened, then dispose of a body in a way that will not be found. To get to that trail it is the first little road/trail you go by on the right before the driveway, it leads to the campground where the mountain trailhead is that heads up to the mine on the side of the mountain. Even if your acclimated to the elevation, it's another 1,000' feet up (the collapsed mine elevation is about 9,900'). Bike the trail and see if you can still find the pack trail heading up to the mines, take note of the creek you go over and imagine it during snow melt. Also, imagine you only have a couple of hours ... leaving no evidence.

If it's your first time in the Maysville/Monarch area I would recommend just checking things out and get a feel for the area, I think it is still pretty tough to nail down a spot to go look at, especially with the couple of years that has passed. IMO, you may come away with the thought there is no way this could not have been planned. IMO, I don't think it's coincidental they were home alone that weekend, it was more convenient. Set your trip meter on the vehicle and drive the mileage he did, take a look at that turn around at the Garfield mine. Toss an old phone out the window while turning around and find it, that might give you a search radius if that's where it is.

On a side note, Bike the Colorado trail there south of the lake, it's gorgeous, but it also gets up to 12k feet fairly quick so take caution and remember you have to go back down. North of 50 is just as good. Alltrails has some maps of the biking in that area as well as the trail leading to the campground from Puma Path.

Maybe take a drive making the stops that he did at the times that he did and thi. Sure this area is remote and vast, but you have a time frame, Mother's day weekend(crowded), right after/during snow melt, etc. That vastness could equal the vast number of possibilities as to what happened, and you also have Barry thrown in all that(IMO).

IMO she is fairly close to the PP house, possibly a worksite, and or relocated. The movements, stops, noises could all be disposal of evidence. Think about it if it was an oh moment. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a poacher and knew what to do.

I wish it would be possible to run into the daughters ex boyfriend and have a beer and pizza while chatting. It wouldn't hurt to chat with local bartenders during dinner as well.

I don't think it is as easy as, what are some spots to search, but could be used to narrow down some of your own opinions and develop some search area ideas and theories to throw out here.

Just some ramblings and personal opinions.
 
I can't decide if Barry locked down his truck overnight but hid Suzanne farther away (couldn't have been me, I was anchored to PP all night) or if he barried her nearby, certain his Broomfield alibi would suffice.

So why did he lock down the truck? To prove he was home all night? Some other reason?

I do think Barry could've hiked with his Yeti to a secondary vehicle which would've created him a whole different starting radius.

I don't believe he turned around at Garfield on Sunday morning. His verb tense was off. As I recall, "I would have [turned]..." So what was he doing???? Lost half hour, lost 14 miles. He dodged, with the elkibi, but I don't buy it. It wasn't 14 miles for a helmet toss and turnaround. So what was he doing????

High on my list -- the burn site, a mine, an animal den, a burial pod, very close to PP.

JMO
Elkibi, lol !
Awesome new vocabulary
 
2 years 3 months is a lot of patience. I'm heading to Salida area end of Sept for an event. I'm going a day early to search and check out the Puma Path area etc. I'll be on my ebike, goes off road and on trails easily. Im hoping this case will be headed to trial with remains located by then, but if not do any sluethers have a particular area pinpointed as highly probable. I know some members have done extensive research and would love to here your thoughts.

You might stop by the Vino Salida Wine Bar and Restaurant for refreshments and a chat while you’re in town. Based upon some comments by locals, and in my opinion only, BM was a regular there several times a week before and after SM went missing. I’ve heard the waitresses and bartenders are all quite familiar with him. ;)

JMO
 
^^BBM

Specific to Colorado Courts, the timeline for Discovery for both criminal and civil cases is governed by Colorado Rule of Criminal [Civil] Procedure Rule 16 which provides as follows:

Part V. Time Schedules and Discovery Procedures
[..]

(b) Time Schedule.

... In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown.

While Rule 16 for criminal procedure is very clear in defining the maximum deadline at not less than 35 days before trial, the statute further gives the court the authority to alter this time by a motion of either party.

(4) For good cause, the court may, on motion of either party or its own motion, alter the time for all matters relating to discovery under this rule.

In this case, let us be reminded that it was the defense that motioned to alter this deadline and the court granted the motion.

While it's undisputed that the prosecution failed to meet the altered discovery dates, let us also be reminded that the defense failed to meet these discovery dates as well!

The only difference here is that, unlike the defense, the prosecution never motioned for the court to impose sanctions against the defense for this violation.

More important is that if at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, besides the court ordering such party to permit the discovery inspection of materials not previously disclosed; grant a continuance; prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed; or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances, the statute provides that the least restrictive sanction is favored by the courts.

“Similarly, in serving the purpose of deterrence, we have stated that ‘the court should impose the least severe sanction that will ensure that there is full compliance with the court’s discovery orders.'”

And where dismissal is considered a drastic remedy, clearly the punishment in this case (i.e., eliminating all the prosecution's critical experts) far exceeded the deadline crime (months prior to the trial) by the prosecutor.

(In my experience, the actual statutory deadline of 35 days max prior to the trial date established the spirit of the rule here, and unless either party can in good faith declare their side was harmed by a late submittal-- esp. two months before the trial date, pressing for discovery violation sanctions by either side is generally not done-- and certainly not at the level witnessed in this case). MOO




Thanks for this @Seattle1

It really seems (and confirmed by the Judge's own comments) that this was mostly just bureaucratic "business as usual" stuff, more than any attempt to gain advantage or worries about the reports

It even seems they had the expert content, they just hadn't done the work of getting everything to the defence.
 
A comment in passing

I like to listen to the Podcast of former SDNY US Attorney Preet Bharara

He was talking about the affidavit to support a certain well known search warrant, and stated that in his experience such affidavits typically run to dozens if not scores of pages - just for a search warrant.

Got me thinking about the AA again - which after all, is only to support an arrest - perhaps this was only unusual for Colorado practice?
 
A comment in passing

I like to listen to the Podcast of former SDNY US Attorney Preet Bharara

He was talking about the affidavit to support a certain well known search warrant, and stated that in his experience such affidavits typically run to dozens if not scores of pages - just for a search warrant.

Got me thinking about the AA again - which after all, is only to support an arrest - perhaps this was only unusual for Colorado practice?
My understanding of the AA length/breadth here is that they are typically more concise and less detailed than search warrant affidavits because they are usually followed by an additional probable cause finding, like a preliminary hearing (or a grand jury, but less so in Colorado).

The linked handout seems to acknowledge the same. MOO

 
A comment in passing

I like to listen to the Podcast of former SDNY US Attorney Preet Bharara

He was talking about the affidavit to support a certain well known search warrant, and stated that in his experience such affidavits typically run to dozens if not scores of pages - just for a search warrant.

Got me thinking about the AA again - which after all, is only to support an arrest - perhaps this was only unusual for Colorado practice?
I must admit, that I have not seen many arrest affadavits, but those I have seen (e.g. CW and KA) have been a few pages at most. I think a lot of the content in BMs AA wasn't actually needed and should not have been included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
4,431
Total visitors
4,623

Forum statistics

Threads
592,464
Messages
17,969,302
Members
228,774
Latest member
truecrime-hazeleyes
Back
Top