Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #114

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
it’s a tricky area IMO. LS already filed charges that flat out say BM murdered his wife with animal tranqs. that’s pretty evil so i am not sure she added much if anything.

this is kind of why i think the state should say nothing other than we’ve charged this guy and thanks for all the hard work.

the difficulty is these days that we have defence teams out their trying to contaminate the jury pool with conspiracies while the state is not supposed to say anything.

MOO
Let's hope this goes by way of a grand jury indictment, and less opportunity for both MSM and pressure to comment.
 
“Mr. Morrissey's comments would be allowed in Colorado. He was responding to harassing and prejudicial statements against witnesses in the pending case, as permitted by CRPC Rule 16(c) (see comment 7).”
Well DA Morrissey ( who did I mention is said to be under federal investigation ) started off as you say but went way beyond that with many many many other comments later in his rant. IMO.
I respectfully disagree. I listened to the whole conference. 100 percent of the comments by Morrissey defended the integrity of participants against specific public attacks on witnesses and attorneys. Again, in these extraordinary circumstances the Rule would permit a Colorado attorney to respond.

Moreover, the US Attorney's Office and Morrisey's office both denied that Morrisey or any member of his office was the target of an investigation.

The defense in the case to which you refer (Commonwealth v Reed) resembles very much the "balls to the wall" style employed by Eytan in the Morphew case, complete with public accusations of prosecutorial and police misconduct with a side of witness intimidation using a blogger (who has been charged) and another side of staged public protest. The judge (who was also attacked for lack of integrity) was having none of it: she dismissed all the motions and the trial is proceeding. Reports have it that the defendant confessed to killing her boyfriend.

I have no idea what the verdict will be, but I'm calling it another "Eyetan defense case".

** For youngsters, "Balls to the wall" is an idiom for maximum effort. Pilots flying through the thicket of AA fire and SAM missiles in North Vietnam would, after dropping their ordinance, push the four levers controlling jet thrust to the forward firewall, thundering over treetops and buildings toward the South China Sea at Mach 1.5 or faster. The levers were topped by balls, hence the planes were were "balls to the wall" on their way back home.
 
Her second transgression was not to understand that the reporter she was dealing with was a snake. That her comments were not going to be off record. She did not read the situation clearly or understand the value of alliances. The reporter made a choice that he should regret forever, to put his scoop and his career before Justice for a baby and publish what Linda said “off record”.
I call that bottom feeding. Some might call it strategic and/ or capitalizing on an opportunity which of course it is for this one reporter but where’s the right or wrong or greater good? The choices we make shape our lives.
Win at all costs and let a killer go free?
^^rsbm

Adding more injury to this form of dirty journalism, the defense for the baby mother who had also been charged for lesser offense, immediately (August) Motioned to Dismiss her charges for "Outrageous Government Conduct," based on LS statements. So here we are, two criminals set free, yet neither defendant has ever acted to seek LS's "outrageous statements" about themselves removed! Guess it wasn't as offensive to them as the dismissing trial Court wants us to believe. In the social media era of no publicity is bad publicity and clicks for dollars are king, I wouldn't be surprised if both aren't somehow profiting from this ill gotten footage today. JMO
 
Last edited:
I suppose Barry could kill himself. Fotis Dulos did. Somehow I can’t imagine BM doing that. I think he would rather spend every last dollar on his high priced lawyer. Fotis didn’t have money, only the illusion of it.
I propose we have some light learning, as in "...lightening things up".

The current doldrums are wearing, and so... - block the looming metaphor :eek:! - ...I shall now take one oar in an attempt to escape this tangling sargassum...
___________________________________

So, what happens if Iris up and quits?
Were she to simply walk away - I can conjure a slew of good reasons, [read: "positives" FOR HER], - what powers-that-actually-are can compel her to return?
___________________________________

At least a second stroke is called for, lest I row in circles. Which is a lighten-up success of sorts. I suppose.
 
** For youngsters, "Balls to the wall" is an idiom for maximum effort. Pilots flying through the thicket of AA fire and SAM missiles in North Vietnam would, after dropping their ordinance, push the four levers controlling jet thrust to the forward firewall, thundering over treetops and buildings toward the South China Sea at Mach 1.5 or faster. The levers were topped by balls, hence the planes were were "balls to the wall" on their way back home.
Incontrovertible.
And earnest personal appreciation for your enlightenment...
...inasmuch as we on USS HALSEY (DLG-23) at NSAR (Northern Search and Rescue) in Tongkin Gulf were positioned there (12/70-4/71) to race and recover ditching aircrew to complete "their way back home"...
 
With the notoriety of this case and all eyes being on it, my hope would be that the second time around with BM arrested the state of Colorado will give this case what it needs.

IE weaponised this in her media statements and civil suits to pretend Grusing and team lied about the evidence to cruelly trick BM into unconstitutional admissions, and then it all fell apart at trial time so they didn't discover the evidence.

Let's hope this goes by way of a grand jury indictment, and less opportunity for both MSM and pressure to comment.

Let's say in round two, BM is recharged by a grand jury indictment, and from @waldojabba 's lips to God's ear, the 12th Judicial District will have an influx of $$ to shore up its infrastructure to withstand a storm.

What do you think we can expect from an IE led team under BM defense 2.0?

IE's renowned defense strategy pursuant to an arrest/charge by Information & Complaint has been long practiced and perfected but it's also the default since a criminal grand jury indictment in Colorado is so rare.

Calling on @waldojabba with Eastern case experience and prosecution under a criminal grand jury indictment. Under indictment, does the defendant just move on to an evidentiary hearing within 21 days of their first appearance?

IMO, no AA, no preliminary, would be a huge loss to IE after each were so successfully weaponized during BM defense 1.0 to frustrate the prosecution.

Off the top of my head, all that comes to mind is IE claiming the GJ is withholding evidence and/or the GJ transcript incomplete, possibly Motioning to vacate the indictment and seek to replace it with a prelim hearing. I know a preliminary hearing is not a constitutional right so don't know how effective that fight would be. I think Mark Redwine tried this argument and it fell flat. MOO

O/T-- following the OK murders of the mother and visitation supervisor and about spit my tea over OK's discovery rule, that begins with...

Technically a defendant is not entitled to any discovery prior to the preliminary hearing...!

In OK, essentially, the defense is only entitled to the State making the law enforcement reports available for inspection, at least 5 days prior to the preliminary hearing.

You read it correctly, DA's Office doesn't even have to provide the defense copies of discovery (but they will for a fee).

Discovery for the prelim does not include any physical evidence which may exist at the time. Sometimes district attorneys will provide copies of photographs and interviews to a defendant prior to the preliminary hearing, but they are not required to do so.

Given the parties have nine (9) months from the initial appearance of the defendant to set the preliminary hearing, that can make for a long wait for only the police reports!

 
Last edited:
Incontrovertible.
And earnest personal appreciation for your enlightenment...
...inasmuch as we on USS HALSEY (DLG-23) at NSAR (Northern Search and Rescue) in Tongkin Gulf were positioned there (12/70-4/71) to race and recover ditching aircrew to complete "their way back home"...
Thank you for your service!
 
Let's say in round two, BM is recharged by a grand jury indictment, and from @waldojabba 's lips to God's ear, the 12th Judicial District will have an influx of $$ to shore up its infrastructure to withstand a storm.

What do you think we can expect from an IE led team under BM defense 2.0?

IE's renowned defense strategy pursuant to an arrest/charge by Information & Complaint has been long practiced and perfected but it's also the default since a criminal grand jury indictment in Colorado is so rare.

Calling on @waldojabba with Eastern case experience and prosecution under a criminal grand jury indictment. Under indictment, does the defendant just move on to an evidentiary hearing within 21 days of their first appearance?

IMO, no AA, no preliminary, would be a huge loss to IE after each were so successfully weaponized during BM defense 1.0 to frustrate the prosecution.

Off the top of my head, all that comes to mind is IE claiming the GJ is withholding evidence and/or the GJ transcript incomplete, possibly Motioning to vacate the indictment and seek to replace it with a prelim hearing. I know a preliminary hearing is not a constitutional right so don't know how effective that fight would be. I think Mark Redwine tried this argument and it fell flat. MOO

O/T-- following the OK murders of the mother and visitation supervisor and about spit my tea over OK's discovery rule, that begins with...

Technically a defendant is not entitled to any discovery prior to the preliminary hearing...!

In OK, essentially, the defense is only entitled to the State making the law enforcement reports available for inspection, at least 5 days prior to the preliminary hearing.

You read it correctly, DA's Office doesn't even have to provide the defense copies of discovery (but they will for a fee).

Discovery for the prelim does not include any physical evidence which may exist at the time. Sometimes district attorneys will provide copies of photographs and interviews to a defendant prior to the preliminary hearing, but they are not required to do so.

Given the parties have nine (9) months from the initial appearance of the defendant to set the preliminary hearing, that can make for a long wait for only the police reports!

I looked it up a couple months ago and I recall in Colorado the transcripts of the grand jury are due to the defendant within 30 days.
 
We know the full details of the autopsy, and that the results provided a smoking gun that no one thought existed, let alone would be found.

While we don’t know if those items found will be helpful, they’re not necessary to end any debate as to Barry’s guilt.

His attorneys tells us how desperate Barry’s situation is, by claiming that caffeine proved she had a coffee on Mother’s Day (not how it works), and gaslighting about the clothing recovered proving that she dressed herself that morning (not biking clothing, and you couldn’t say who dressed her, much less she dressed herself),

Iris did not dispute the presence of BAM, a chemical Barry owned, recently claimed to have used, and admitted to possibly disposing of. A chemical the prosecution long based their theory of the case around.

Instead, she claims a rancher or hunter used that chemical on a woman whose husband was the only one with motive, means, and opportunity.

You have a chemical used in a murder that almost certainly has no precedent in the history of American justice, and some other guy did it?

It is just a coincidence their marriage was collapsing, and Suzanne had just asked for a divorce.

It is just a coincidence that Suzanne went dark forever when Barry returned home that Saturday afternoon, breaking all known patterns.

It is just a coincidence that Suzanne’s phone last pinged when Barry was leaving that Sunday morning.

It is just a coincidence that Barry’s phone and truck show activity when he claimed to have been sleeping.

It is just a coincidence that Barry left the house over 12 hours early, for a job he couldn’t work, at a place he didn’t need to be that day.

It is just a coincidence that Barry pulled a Fotis Dulos, making 5 trash dumps.

It is just a coincidence that Barry lied about his movements, claiming he traveled back and forth from the wall all day, when he went there once for mere minutes, and spent the rest of the day in his hotel room.

It is just a coincidence that before Barry should have known any crime was committed, he lied to the Ritters about where he was and who he was with.

I could go on and on with these, but my point is that this case is simple in regards to who did it.

It’s a high profile, career making case for Anne Kelley, and all the pieces are there. There are obviously things that are going to delay the process (volume of evidence, making sure you have the resources, etc).

Personally, I believe the only way there’s not a round two is if Barry suddenly drops dead before then.
Mic dropped...No additional posts are required on this case after this one- unless we are celebrating his conviction.
 
And I think the available defence challenges are similar to those of a preliminary.
I looked it up a couple months ago and I recall in Colorado the transcripts of the grand jury are due to the defendant within 30 days.
Helping out with a link.

 
Let's say in round two, BM is recharged by a grand jury indictment, and from @waldojabba 's lips to God's ear, the 12th Judicial District will have an influx of $$ to shore up its infrastructure to withstand a storm.

What do you think we can expect from an IE led team under BM defense 2.0?

IE's renowned defense strategy pursuant to an arrest/charge by Information & Complaint has been long practiced and perfected but it's also the default since a criminal grand jury indictment in Colorado is so rare.

Calling on @waldojabba with Eastern case experience and prosecution under a criminal grand jury indictment. Under indictment, does the defendant just move on to an evidentiary hearing within 21 days of their first appearance?

IMO, no AA, no preliminary, would be a huge loss to IE after each were so successfully weaponized during BM defense 1.0 to frustrate the prosecution.

Off the top of my head, all that comes to mind is IE claiming the GJ is withholding evidence and/or the GJ transcript incomplete, possibly Motioning to vacate the indictment and seek to replace it with a prelim hearing. I know a preliminary hearing is not a constitutional right so don't know how effective that fight would be. I think Mark Redwine tried this argument and it fell flat. MOO

O/T-- following the OK murders of the mother and visitation supervisor and about spit my tea over OK's discovery rule, that begins with...

Technically a defendant is not entitled to any discovery prior to the preliminary hearing...!

In OK, essentially, the defense is only entitled to the State making the law enforcement reports available for inspection, at least 5 days prior to the preliminary hearing.

You read it correctly, DA's Office doesn't even have to provide the defense copies of discovery (but they will for a fee).

Discovery for the prelim does not include any physical evidence which may exist at the time. Sometimes district attorneys will provide copies of photographs and interviews to a defendant prior to the preliminary hearing, but they are not required to do so.

Given the parties have nine (9) months from the initial appearance of the defendant to set the preliminary hearing, that can make for a long wait for only the police reports!


IE will need a much bigger table to pound.

Mountain lion, out.
Gone girl, out.
The three sex offenders living in her glove box, out.

I suppose we might see IE brew up a second secret lover who is also a local rancher with access to BAM...

But that is fraught with problems.

For one, it didn't happen. So there's that.

But Barry railroaded himself.

He has said he was with Suzanne from mid-afternoon Saturday until 5 am on Sunday. He says they were having such a perfect day they agreed to put their phones down. Really? Suzanne agreed to that? With two daughters on a road trip, one a minor? And she didn't want to pick it back up in the morning either? Maybe she asked Barry if he'd take it to work with him or drop it off in a creek for her, not like it was her lifeline or anything, her connection to friends in Indiana, Moormans, her daughters, JL, back-up when biking.

So apparently IE's rancher predicted Suzanne would be alone and without a phone. Had to be Sunday, of course, because coffee.

While Barry's off not doing a job, throwing away his own precious BAM, dirtying up some shovels for no apparent reason, and then hanging out in a hotel room, almost like he's waiting for a call, a call to spring into action.

Never has a random rancher been so lucky that an innocent husband would frame his own self so fully.

Sadly, if Barry can still afford her, she'll think of something. Anything to derail the autopsy report, undermine CAST and Berla reports, tighten up the time to make it appear that Moffat was a bridge too far for Barry, and pray for a distracted jury she can confuse.

Static drift is not a SODDI defense....

I think that leaves her right where she was before-- with a strategy to Barry the Prosecution in motions.

If the 12th District goes by way of a grand jury, she won't get discovery until after, and this time, her client IMO won't be given bail he can attain. Back to stripes. She'll clamor for a speedy trial, then steer for the reeds....

The Prosecution will be ready for her this time.

JMO
 
LS failed to hold BM to account and according to posters on this thread, on a pretty clear cut case. Ultimately, LS is the reason that justice has not been served for Suzanne
Yes, I’m up to speed with the thread and understand where LS failed. That said, I believe several other factors were in play that led to the collapse of the original case against BM.

I have also posted that I am glad LS is off of the case in the interest of seeing justice brought for Suzanne. LS losing her law license won’t help put Barry behind bars. I will support the new DA, as I did the previous one, to get it done.

Ready to move forward and leave behind the hand-wringing over who was at fault.

Justice for Suzanne.

jmo
 
IE will need a much bigger table to pound.

Mountain lion, out.
Gone girl, out.
The three sex offenders living in her glove box, out.

I suppose we might see IE brew up a second secret lover who is also a local rancher with access to BAM...

But that is fraught with problems.

For one, it didn't happen. So there's that.

But Barry railroaded himself.

He has said he was with Suzanne from mid-afternoon Saturday until 5 am on Sunday. He says they were having such a perfect day they agreed to put their phones down. Really? Suzanne agreed to that? With two daughters on a road trip, one a minor? And she didn't want to pick it back up in the morning either? Maybe she asked Barry if he'd take it to work with him or drop it off in a creek for her, not like it was her lifeline or anything, her connection to friends in Indiana, Moormans, her daughters, JL, back-up when biking.

So apparently IE's rancher predicted Suzanne would be alone and without a phone. Had to be Sunday, of course, because coffee.

While Barry's off not doing a job, throwing away his own precious BAM, dirtying up some shovels for no apparent reason, and then hanging out in a hotel room, almost like he's waiting for a call, a call to spring into action.

Never has a random rancher been so lucky that an innocent husband would frame his own self so fully.

Sadly, if Barry can still afford her, she'll think of something. Anything to derail the autopsy report, undermine CAST and Berla reports, tighten up the time to make it appear that Moffat was a bridge too far for Barry, and pray for a distracted jury she can confuse.

Static drift is not a SODDI defense....

I think that leaves her right where she was before-- with a strategy to Barry the Prosecution in motions.

If the 12th District goes by way of a grand jury, she won't get discovery until after, and this time, her client IMO won't be given bail he can attain. Back to stripes. She'll clamor for a speedy trial, then steer for the reeds....

The Prosecution will be ready for her this time.

JMO
What about the defense getting the transcripts of the GJ within 30 days?
Other than that, perfect scenario.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,388
Total visitors
1,529

Forum statistics

Threads
599,277
Messages
18,093,671
Members
230,836
Latest member
a_renee
Back
Top