Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #86

[Megnut]

Let's get back to what Barry thinks he does best -- hunting and working.

Since the person who touched Suzanne's glove box and is related to someone who commit a series of crimes but is not connected to this case didn't kill Suzanne, let's not waste our time there.

We have reason to believe that Barry had a loaded tranquilizer dart, had his .22 in hand on 5/9.

I should think Barry considers himself to be a good shot.

Something he's done many a time. A tranqsman.

How'd he do it with deer? Whether to round up for his game farm or to harvest antlers--

Load the dart -- presumably with enough tranquilizer to sedate, not kill. Aim for what? Muscle mass? Then what? Wait 'em out while they spiral? Then what? Gussy them up for transport? Hog tie? And what if one dies? You know, too much sedative, by design or error, what then? Pretty sure no one wants a BAM burger of poisoned venison... so what next? Dig a deep hole and couch 'em? Throw 'em in the big carrion bin behind the Walmart in Salida?

Did he bundle 'em up, dead or alive, to make them easier to transport? Didn't Andy say Barry could carry an elk for two forevers? Over his shoulder like a nice scarf? That'd have to be a GUTTED elk, no? So what was his procedure? Remember his raccoon-skinning business as a kid, pet raccoon no matter -- no nonsense, no room for favoritism or emotion, just a task at hand.

The questions that remain:

Either he used the dart or didn't.
Either it sedated her or killed her.
If it sedated her, did he wait patiently for the sedative to take effect or barrel after her?
Once sedated, did he restrain her? For control or convenience?
Did he use a cooler? As a temporary holding place? as a handy carrier? as a coffin?
Did Suzanne die close to 2:47.... or 8 hours later? Or somewhere in between? Was Barry busier between 2pm and 8pm or 10pm and 3am?

Did she meet the same fate as his beloved raccoon?

You follow enough of these cases you see patterns.

People do what they know.

JMO

 

[nyvictoria]

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1458222975258402823?s=21

Judge Patrick Murphy has denied the defense motion about the violation of pretrial publicity saying there needs to be an affidavit. He said there needs to be a lot more detail than one sentence.

I’m liking this judge more and more. I hope he doesn’t disappoint at trial.

 

[Bluebythec]

This motion was never going anywhere. It's just more evidence - as if we need more - that the defense is burning through BM's money with motions he expects to see, as a follower of "true crime" that have no chance.

It will be kinda funny if all these pre-trial hearings eat up all the money and he ends up with a public defender for the actual trial!

 

[nyvictoria]

What the ….
This anchorwoman called BM a “ widower “ …

 

[K9Enzo]

Prosecutors May Call 500 Witnesses Against Barry Morphew in Presumed Murder of Wife Suzanne, Documents Reveal

Thank you for posting. I might be alone in my opinion on this one - but it's hard for me to be impressed by this number. None of them, presumably, are a witness to SM's murder (right - there's no one?). Many will be investigators with investigative facts - very good & crucial. The majority I'm assuming are going to say BM's a jerk, a tightwad, creepy, unethical business man, etc. Not sure how impactful that really is to a jury. IMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

That is accurate I think for a journalist...a widower is someone who has lost their spouse but has not remarried. It is odd as it presumes Suzanne is deceased...but my guess is pretty much everyone thinks she is deceased. She couldn't say "former husband of" as could imply they were divorced so I think her choice of descriptor is probably the most accurate given it is a journalist so would be writing on presumption of innocent per journalistic ethics.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Thank you for posting. I might be alone in my opinion on this one - but it's hard for me to be impressed by this number. None of them, presumably, are a witness to SM's murder (right - there's no one?). Many will be investigators with investigative facts - very good & crucial. The majority I'm assuming are going to say BM's a jerk, a tightwad, creepy, unethical business man, etc. Not sure how impactful that really is to a jury. IMO

Which won't be allowed as it is character assassination and not allowed at trial or some of them could have reported information that would be considered hearsay. Most of them will not be on the final witness list, but since they were interviewed or approached by LE must be contained in that particular list of potential witnesses. As we get closer to trial and through the motions we'll probably be better able to "guess" who the actual witnesses are.

 

[sk716]

How do you draw a conclusion from this? It takes at least two dots to make even a partial connection....Here...there is one...partial DNA on a vehicle. If that person works for the state's forensic division....they have issues.

Pretty sure she'll be seeking other employment soon.

 

[nyvictoria]

That is accurate I think for a journalist...a widower is someone who has lost their spouse but has not remarried. It is odd as it presumes Suzanne is deceased...but my guess is pretty much everyone thinks she is deceased. She couldn't say "former husband of" as could imply they were divorced so I think her choice of descriptor is probably the most accurate given it is a journalist so would be writing on presumption of innocent per journalistic ethics.

Technically, yes but why not just use his name? IMO the descriptor ‘widower” has an air of sympathy associated with it, which he’s certainly not deserving of, convicted or not.

 

[sk716]

That is accurate I think for a journalist...a widower is someone who has lost their spouse but has not remarried. It is odd as it presumes Suzanne is deceased...but my guess is pretty much everyone thinks she is deceased. She couldn't say "former husband of" as could imply they were divorced so I think her choice of descriptor is probably the most accurate given it is a journalist so would be writing on presumption of innocent per journalistic ethics.

As a student of journalism back when there were still journalistic standards, everything about that headline is anathema to journalism. Widower implies that it's something that just happened to Barry. Widowers are to be pitied for women are supposed to outlive men. Barry has been arrested and CHARGED with her murder. He is not a victim by anyone's standards but his own.

"Accused Wife-killer Barry Morphew Appears in Court." This is the absolute most appropriate headline.

"Grandstanding, Taxpayer Money Wasting Defense Attorney Gets Shut Down by Annoyed Judge." Would be my editorialized go to. Man I miss writing headlines.

 

[sk716]

Does the Prosecution EVER provide the Defense with their working memoes? Think how voluminous that would be! All their inter-office communication!

Gosh, this seems like circus without a pony.

Pounding the cymbals --

JMO

It's really hard to pay attention to the dead body in the room when the rest of the room is on fire.

#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[10ofRods]

Let's get back to what Barry thinks he does best -- hunting and working.

Since the person who touched Suzanne's glove box and is related to someone who commit a series of crimes but is not connected to this case didn't kill Suzanne, let's not waste our time there.

We have reason to believe that Barry had a loaded tranquilizer dart, had his .22 in hand on 5/9.

I should think Barry considers himself to be a good shot.

Something he's done many a time. A tranqsman.

How'd he do it with deer? Whether to round up for his game farm or to harvest antlers--

Load the dart -- presumably with enough tranquilizer to sedate, not kill. Aim for what? Muscle mass? Then what? Wait 'em out while they spiral? Then what? Gussy them up for transport? Hog tie? And what if one dies? You know, too much sedative, by design or error, what then? Pretty sure no one wants a BAM burger of poisoned venison... so what next? Dig a deep hole and couch 'em? Throw 'em in the big carrion bin behind the Walmart in Salida?

Did he bundle 'em up, dead or alive, to make them easier to transport? Didn't Andy say Barry could carry an elk for two forevers? Over his shoulder like a nice scarf? That'd have to be a GUTTED elk, no? So what was his procedure? Remember his raccoon-skinning business as a kid, pet raccoon no matter -- no nonsense, no room for favoritism or emotion, just a task at hand.

The questions that remain:

Either he used the dart or didn't.
Either it sedated her or killed her.
If it sedated her, did he wait patiently for the sedative to take effect or barrel after her?
Once sedated, did he restrain her? For control or convenience?
Did he use a cooler? As a temporary holding place? as a handy carrier? as a coffin?
Did Suzanne die close to 2:47.... or 8 hours later? Or somewhere in between? Was Barry busier between 2pm and 8pm or 10pm and 3am?

Did she meet the same fate as his beloved raccoon?

You follow enough of these cases you see patterns.

People do what they know.

JMO

To me, it seems obvious that the point of sedation (if it occurred), is to transport the victim off the property to a distant, wild location, so that no evidence is left at the house.

No matter what, he'd have had to be both stupid and insane to dismember her in any way, as the chances of him keeping all evidence of that off his person are very low. Remember, he doesn't know exactly when he'll be caught - or with what. Transporting an apparently sleeping woman in the passenger side of a truck or older Rover would not arouse much suspicion (and he could have bailed on that outing if anyone stopped him).

He wouldn't want to do anything bloody at the disposal site, either, as it would have transferred to his vehicle. I am assuming they did forensics on all the vehicles present.

I guess we all see different patterns, but I think BM planned this pretty carefully. I do think he found a place where he knew wild animal scavenging would be possible, but where the body was obscured from any overhead view by brush. A place that would have been consistent with her being found and his "bike ride" story (she was disoriented, wandered off). So it's within 5 miles of Puma Path.

But it wasn't bloody, IMO. Too many risks, too much evidence to be found. One microscopic drop of her blood on any of his vehicles...he'd have faced a very different legal situation than what he's in now. Sure, he's capable of brutality toward living things, but I believe he stilled loved her (in his mind) and that he very very much loves his own self and his own freedom.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

It was interesting because it felt off to me also...but all we had were texts from non-legal media people - I wonder if they were off their game because the intent was to have the former prosecutor up front and when the webx had technical issues it threw her off the rhythm of the presentation. But there was a continuation to Dec. 14 so we'll see what happens then. The motions were all tabled from early summer and things have morphed also which made it feel off...the judges response about being "old" motions felt odd since he was the one who tabled them to after the preliminary to begin with. I did not get the impression that they were attempting to "confuse the issue"....the issue was clear - defense feels that prosecution held back information and were less than truthful during the preliminary. I got the impression that they weren't able to present well yesterday for some reason...bad day or JL getting bumped to another day or responses they weren't expecting...we'll probably never know. And maybe they will rewrite the motions as well as add the affidavit to the complaint regarding the gag order prior to the 14th. They seem to have the detail.

I personally would hope the factual and legal content of what is presented has more weight than how slick the presentation style is.

Maybe it was lack of preparation but I think their arguments were just flimsy and Judge Murphy saw through it.

They really did fall flat on their faces on this occasion IMO, whatever the reason.

 

[sk716]

Thank you for posting. I might be alone in my opinion on this one - but it's hard for me to be impressed by this number. None of them, presumably, are a witness to SM's murder (right - there's no one?). Many will be investigators with investigative facts - very good & crucial. The majority I'm assuming are going to say BM's a jerk, a tightwad, creepy, unethical business man, etc. Not sure how impactful that really is to a jury. IMO

I haven't had a chance to pick over the list yet, the majority will be tech and forensic experts. They have to put them on the list, it doesn't mean they intend to call them all, just that they can because all of them can provide information relevant to the prosecution of the murderer of Suzanne Morphew.

A big chunk are the LE that worked the case. They way we do the chain of evidence now, so many people have to be available to say that they picked up X item, put X item in an evidence bag, and entered the evidence bag into the case record. What we saw in the PH was E&N purposefully asking the wrong experts questions. They can't pull that crap at trial.

So yeah, huge long list of names, no big deal. There are about five names Barry does not want to see called as witnesses and one of them is his daughter. If the State puts MM2 on the stand after SO, Barry's toast. MH2 just bolsters their testimonies.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I haven't had a chance to pick over the list yet, the majority will be tech and forensic experts. They have to put them on the list, it doesn't mean they intend to call them all, just that they can because all of them can provide information relevant to the prosecution of the murderer of Suzanne Morphew.

A big chunk are the LE that worked the case. They way we do the chain of evidence now, so many people have to be available to say that they picked up X item, put X item in an evidence bag, and entered the evidence bag into the case record. What we saw in the PH was E&N purposefully asking the wrong experts questions. They can't pull that crap at trial.

So yeah, huge long list of names, no big deal. There are about five names Barry does not want to see called as witnesses and one of them is his daughter. If the State puts MM2 on the stand after SO, Barry's toast. MH2 just bolsters their testimonies.

I actually can't imagine prosecution putting his daughters on the stand...it has all the possibilities of backfiring on them. They might do it...this prosecution defies description for me.

 

[Seattle1]

https://www.fox21news.com/wp-conten...blic-Documents-Sept-2021-thru-Oct-15-2021.pdf

Points of interest from the Sept-Oct 15, 2021 batch:

Pg 38/141.

BM's 2020 Ford F350 and the contents were seized on May 5, 2021. (This is the truck BM purchased in June 2020 after SM vanished). Truck valued at $80,000. Per the defense motion, the contents of the truck included BM's work tools and $6,000 cash. Gives new meaning to Barry being the ATM!

Pg 56/141.

Contrary to DA's belief, Mr. Morphew does not pay rent at a Poncha Blvd address, nor has he ever spent the night at this address. This is SD's.

Pgs 66/141, 126-128, and 129-131.

Going back to the June 2 hearing and Eytan's allegations of discovery violations by the prosecutor, she made several including how BM's US Constitutional rights were being violated because of issues the defense was having with the discovery or lack of. At that time, I recall Judge Murphy citing that in his court, Colorado Rule Crim P. 16 governed, and the court had no authority to require what Eytan was requesting.

Pg 133/141.

Judge Murphy (again) advises the defense the court lacks authority to require the prosecution to create and produce and inventory discovery. The court further denied the defense request for the prosecutor to provide an inventory of Brady material as not allowed under Rule 16.

Pg 134/141.

Seems the parties were under the misconception that the court had ordered their pleadings filed as suppressed (i.e., not available to the public). Confirming the court never made this order, and all future pleadings are presumed to be public or protected. The clerk of the court was to change all suppressed motions to "public."

Not sure why the court site still has not been updated with the case files.

 

[waldojabba]

Suzanne Morphew's married lover will be forced to take the stand during Barry Morphew's trial | Daily Mail Online
EXCLUSIVE: Barry Morphew's new girlfriend, two daughters and missing wife Suzanne's married lover are among list of witnesses set to take the stand when he goes on trial for murder in May

 

[waldojabba]

I actually can't imagine prosecution putting his daughters on the stand...it has all the possibilities of backfiring on them. They might do it...this prosecution defies description for me.

As far as M&M testifying:
Hard to tell about a lot of things from where we sit today.
With the trial scheduled for May we have plenty of time for “shifting sands “
Time passes, things evolve, new things come to light.
High tension wears away and can fray the fabric of relationships.
We can only wait and see IMO

 

[OldCop]

Technically, yes but why not just use his name? IMO the descriptor ‘widower” has an air of sympathy associated with it, which he’s certainly not deserving of, convicted or not.

Just like in the days following SM’s disappearance he was referred to by the family spokesperson as, “The Husband”. Funny how he gets disassociated from his own name.

 

[waldojabba]

I personally would hope the factual and legal content of what is presented has more weight than how slick the presentation style is.

Maybe it was lack of preparation but I think their arguments were just flimsy and Judge Murphy saw through it.

They really did fall flat on their faces on this occasion IMO, whatever the reason.

BBM Totally agree @HongKongPhooey -I also believe they had nothing of substance. As far as substance vs style I aslo totally agree that substance should always win the day.But that is in a perfect world.
In what I see in my world, style and presenatation matter for effective communication. Maybe less so with a judge who understands the law and has the written motions and can see the merit or lack of in those motions. But IMO Style and presenation will definitley be important with the jury at trial.