Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #89

[MrsWatson]

BBM: THAT's what I say! If he was innocent, why lawyer up?!

To protect his right to privacy since his DNA is being cited in a murder case that he likely had nothing to do with. Would you want your name easily googled in his situation?

 

[MrsWatson]

I don't think they will have to.

It's probable that all the prosecution has to do is point out that the sample is so limited, that it's going to match millions of people on earth (or whatever it is).

Some of those partial matches are statistically going to be convicted criminals.

To me, it really is as simple as that.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

That they knew the man’s identity is in the Denver gazette article on the letter of intent. The lawyering up piece must have been in a motion so on my way to go find that. Exclusive: Barry Morphew attorneys to sue case investigators for false arrest, defamation | Subscriber-Only Content | denvergazette.com

 

[genuineusa77]

To protect his right to privacy since his DNA is being cited in a murder case that he likely had nothing to do with. Would you want your name easily googled in his situation?

If he is innocent, he has the law to protect him.

 

[MrsWatson]

If he is innocent, he has the law to protect him.

Exactly, including the constitutional right to consult with legal counsel. Nothing nefarious at all about it.

 

[genuineusa77]

Exactly, including the constitutional right to consult with legal counsel.

If you did nothing wrong and you want to spend the money, that would be his prerogative. I don't think most people would.

 

[Boxer]

The dna guy. I can’t recall if that was in the letter of intent or one of the motions…I will see if I can find it and cite it. Regardless it was after the preliminary at some point.

There is an identity for the dash dna?[/QUOTE]

 

[CarefullyTaught]

BM’s fumbling about the pizza and salads as well as where some of the items “probably” were maybe eaten is concerning.

As alleged contact between SM’s phone and her daughters on their Utah road-trip was via text and not live voice or video call, couldn’t the exchange have been made by BM from SM’s phone to the daughters?

Were there witnesses who saw and could confidently positively ID SM in the RR or in the parking lot at Moonlight Pizza on that approximate date/time?

Is there any surveillance video from Moonlight Pizza wherein SM can be positively identified?

We know BM has a “friend” who is not a stranger to wigs.

BM would have had anyone with them and asked the person to take a photo of him (or he could have taken it of himself on timer) in order to help with his alibi and have something to send to the girls. Possibly even a rando who could have touched the (still unfound phone) and glove box such as a homie or drifter.

BM is pretty clearly a narcissist. Odd (and too convenient timing) to take a photo of BM with the pizza box (no salads?) or just put in front of the pizza place. Why would a Mom the day before Mother’s Day send a photo of Dad in front of the pizza place to send to her daughters on their road-trip? What is less interesting than that?

And if BM was as controlling as seems to be the case, why wouldn’t he insist if she was with him that she come into the pizza place with him (that would have helped his alibi quite a bit too if she was witnessed inside).

Apologies in advance if all this has been covered upthread, but first time killers, especially planners/premeditators tend to do a good bit of recon and practicing first.

Willing to bet that BM sedated SM on more then just the occasion immediately prior to her death.

Odd that she never complained about the chipmunk menace to anybody, did she?

Any Roid Rage theories pop up on here yet? BM looked muscular and played HS sports at a time when steroid use among HS athletes was quite widespread. Knew his way around a needle, I’d bet.

I’m assuming SM was already dead or incapacitated at the time BM sent his loving denial that he’d ever cheated on her text to SM’s phone. He likely may/would have been the one who responded back.


IMO/MOO

 

[Boxer]

The dna guy. I can’t recall if that was in the letter of intent or one of the motions…I will see if I can find it and cite it. Regardless it was after the preliminary at some point.

If he is on any way suspected of involvement he can be court ordered to submit DNA.
Or are you saying DNA on the dash Guy's identity has already been established?

 

[MrsWatson]

BBM

The DNA profile, which, according to a Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensic expert was a "match" to a sex offender in Arizona, was discovered from a swab to Mrs. Morphew's glove box shortly after she went missing on Mother's Day Weekend 2020.

The meetings Eytan was referring to happened this summer, but prosecutor Mark Hurlbert denied keeping Morphew's defense team in the dark about their work identifying the DNA profile, "They had this information. There has been no hiding," he said.

Full article

So my question is this: If the defense has had this information all along, why aren't they screaming it from the rooftops? Could it be that the DNA links to someone who is already incarcerated and it would be physically impossible for him to be in CO when Suzanne went missing? Is this just the defense trying to muddy the water? Or since it is just a partial match, that matches so many people including the sex offender, it's meaningless?

 

[Boxer]

That they knew the man’s identity is in the Denver gazette article on the letter of intent. The lawyering up piece must have been in a motion so on my way to go find that. Exclusive: Barry Morphew attorneys to sue case investigators for false arrest, defamation | Subscriber-Only Content | denvergazette.com

So this article appears to say that the forensic DNA on the dash belongs to a known sex offender.

And in addition, the forensic sample from the RR dash is a partial match to 3 unsolved sex assaults.

A partial match means the dash DNA contributor is excluded from those 3 sex assaults, but that they were committed by a relative.

 

[Boxer]

"Partial match" means the forensic DNA sample was found to have a relative in the database. In other words, the DNA sequence "partially matches."


A partial match is not a degraded or incomplete DNA sample.

 

[CarefullyTaught]

That the BM text to SM phone denial about BM’s fidelity to her gaslighting about SM’s “crazy thoughts” about him being untrue and responding in a hypothetical way — all about the same time as the flurry of facebook friend requests mostly to men and password reset attempts as well as the creepy pizza photo of BM text from SM’s phone suggests that BM had gained access to SM’s phone enough to know SM suspected he was having an affair but couldn’t figure out who with.

Why text your wife about something so personal and core to the relationship rather than reassure her in person and have a face to face especially if you’re supposed to be traveling together, sleeping in the same bed, and your adult daughters are away on a road trip, plus it’s not like chipmunks are going to eavesdrop on their conversation?

It seemed like a real time text non denial denial BM sent from his own phone to SM’s phone while he was simultaneously reading SM’s texts and trying to figure out who SM was having her affair with.

All the wanna go for a hike stuff — apart from raising the hair on the back of everyone’s neck — and the romantic replies about where and spa chemicals just seem like not even putting much in to it.

Was SM awake by then? Or were those all BM or BM and an accomplice with SM’s phone working both sides too?

 

[nyvictoria]

But the DNA was found in the victims car. How did it get there? Unless perhaps she brought her vehicle to a full service car wash, that might explain it, or unless there is a police report of a theft from her vehicle, that might explain it. But the touch DNA--how likely is it that she touched something that the sex criminal touched, and then transferred it to her glove box?

The biggest issue with this particular DNA is that, from what we’ve heard, it is a partial profile. We don’t know that this DNA matches anyone. The Defense has made allegations that it belongs to a sexual criminal in another state. If this DNA is not a full profile, it can’t be proven that it belongs to anyone.

We all come in contact with DNA from other people every day. People can leave DNA from shed skin cells and sweat on just about everything they touch. If I go to the grocery store and touch the keypad on the credit card reader, I might pick up DNA from a person who used it before me. If I then go into my car and open the glove box, that DNA can be transferred to my glove box. It doesn’t mean that person was in my car.

I understand the jury will require an explanation. The fact that you have questions about its origins demonstrates why the State will have to be very thorough in rebutting what ever the Defense will come up with. IMO eventually the courts will have to decide just how much touch DNA can be admitted without any corroboration. In this case, it’s just a bright red herring.

This is a pretty good article on touch DNA:

Touch DNA. What is it? Where is it? How much can be found? And, how can it impact my case? | Ryan Forensic

 

[nyvictoria]

I'm pretty confident that Suzanne's entire vehicle and home were thoroughly checked forensically. They were there for several days, IIRC. What makes you think her vehicle wasn't checked?

I think it was too. If they swabbed the glove box, they likely did a thorough job with the rest of the car.

 

[nyvictoria]

Something we discovered on the McStay case is there is an emerging industry of taking partial or degraded DNA, and then pretending that must be the DNA of the "real killer", even where there is no proof it is related to the case, and isn't linked to any tangible suspect.

It's kind of like the reverse of the latest science to match degraded or mixed samples to a known suspect but here you link it to no one in particular

That’s why IMO the courts will eventually have to put limits on touch DNA. It can literally come from anywhere. In this case, it’s only a partial profile, which makes is even less relevant. A court would never accept a partial profile as a match. The only thing it might be useful for is elimination but that doesn’t apply here.

I’ll give the defense props for really muddying the waters with this. If we have questions, imagine how they can confuse a jury. I really think the State has to try to get it excluded somehow but IANAL and I don’t know on what basis they might be able do that.

 

[nyvictoria]

BBM: THAT's what I say! If he was innocent, why lawyer up?!

Likely because he’s a criminal and it’s his first instinct. Although, I have to say (and I’m not a criminal) that if LE called me asking about my DNA being left at a crime scene, I’m lawyering up too.

 

[nyvictoria]

"Partial match" means the forensic DNA sample was found to have a relative in the database. In other words, the DNA sequence "partially matches."


A partial match is not a degraded or incomplete DNA sample.

I don’t know if that’s true. I thought the sample had “limited genetic material” which I took to mean it was only a partial sample (not all 13 alleles)

All of the discussion here tells me that the State is going to have to tighten this up and go out of its way to explain this to the jury. There’s a lot of room for interpretation and confusion.

 

[TIGER0822]

I see we're talking about the mine shafts again. From the Google Earth Case Map:

View attachment 330174

The yellow lines are ATV trails. Mine locations are based on ArcGIS data. I want to point out that there are three known shafts behind PP, but Barry tells Grusing there are only two.

Oh wow! That is very interesting

 

[TIGER0822]

BM may have used a tranq dart on SM which would

Would the defense suggest that this frequency of activity is so absurd that is must indicate faulty sensors? Or possibly Bermuda Triangle-ish or solar flare activity which would account for BM's phone pinging similarly?

Great catch! I can only imagine the hay day the defense will have with this. Sigh!