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

[Beans]

This person was asking if Suzanne traveled to any location where the sex offender committed sexual assaults.

Ignoring the issue that this sex offender is apparently not a complete match to the DNA found in her vehicle, her vehicle wasn't even in Phoenix in the first place.

Suzanne would have flown there.

Oh hang on, I understood it that the DNA was a match to an unknown sex offender that had committed crimes in those 3 locations - it just isn’t a match for the man they initially thought it could be?

 

[kkdj]

This person was asking if Suzanne traveled to any location where the sex offender committed sexual assaults.

Ignoring the issue that this sex offender is apparently not a complete match to the DNA found in her vehicle, her vehicle wasn't even in Phoenix in the first place.

Suzanne would have flown there.

Huh! For some reason I have always thought the DNA got in her car because he was in her car in Colorado. Like maybe a mechanic or someone she drove to their property to work on it.

 

[kkdj]

Remember Elizabeth Smart's family had a homeless guy work on their property.
That's kinda how I saw the DNA of a criminal on her glovebox. She picked up someone to work on the property and his DNA (or related) just happens to be that of a SO.
Everything points to Barry tho, imo.

 

[MassGuy]

Oh hang on, I understood it that the DNA was a match to an unknown sex offender that had committed crimes in those 3 locations - it just isn’t a match for the man they initially thought it could be?

It's really confusing, as the reporting is all over the place. The phrases "partial profile" and "partial match" have been used.

I can't imagine they have 3 partial profiles from 3 sexual assault cases. I image they have a solid sample.

The sample in the car may be a partial profile, but we don't know how strong that sample is.

So that person could merely be a distant relative of the person who committed the assaults, and completely innocent (he worked on Suzanne's car or something).

Here's an article:

Investigators found male DNA on the glovebox in Suzanne Morphew’s car that corresponds with partial DNA profiles found in three unsolved sexual assault cases in different states, a Colorado Bureau of Investigation agent testified Tuesday.

The partial DNA profile developed from the glovebox DNA matched with profiles developed in unsolved sexual assault cases in Chicago, Pheonix and Tempe, CBI Agent Joseph Cahill confirmed during questioning by Barry Morphew’s defense attorney Iris Eytan.

Barry Morphew murder case: DNA found in Suzanne Morphew’s car matches partial samples from unsolved sex assaults

 

[Boxer]

It's really confusing, as the reporting is all over the place. The phrases "partial profile" and "partial match" have been used.

I can't imagine they have 3 partial profiles from 3 sexual assault cases. I image they have a solid sample.

The sample in the car may be a partial profile, but we don't know how strong that sample is.

So that person could merely be a distant relative of the person who committed the assaults, and completely innocent (he worked on Suzanne's car or something).

IIRC its a partial match, so a relative of someone in CODIS.

 

[Boxer]

Partial Matches
Overview
A partial match occurs when a Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) search is conducted and the results clearly show that the offender profile is not the source of the crime scene profile (also referred to as a forensic profile), but the possibility does exist that a close biological relative of the offender might be the source of the crime scene profile.1
Partial Matches • Overview


So the glove compartment sample is a full sample, and is the "forensic sample" and its NOT a match to the sex offender, the man that touched the glove compartment is a relative of the sex offender, and is not in CODIS.

Confusing the jury is one of the defense's
main strategies.

 

[katydid23]

So I just tried an experiment. My cousin and her boyfriend were here to watch football, and after the game I convinced them to watch 48 Hours with me, and said I wanted their opinion of this case.

This couple are both in early 60's and are perfect examples of typical jurors. He is a retired businessman/store owner, she's a retired high school teacher. She taught Social Studies so she was very into this experiment. Joe was less enthusiastic but did go along with it and he did watch the show and had valid feedback.

Unfortunately, at the end, they both agreed that Barry was loathsome, but they were leaning towards 'reasonable doubt' ----mainly because of 2 issues. The DNA in the glove box AND the possibility she ran off.

I was very surprised they believed she may have voluntarily left---but they felt that Barry was such a jerk and the girls were grown, AND Barry seemed so close to 'his girls' ---they wondered if she felt left out and went to start a new life. It surprised me because I never thought a reasonable person would believe that---but these 2 people are intelligent and reasonable.

The DNA---I understand why that threw them a bit. The way the show depicted it, does make it appear as though a level 3 sex offender was in her passenger seat. HOPEFULLY the prosecution can clarify that for the real jury.

We did have Pizza and a few beers, so that might have affected their decisions...

 

[Rolo]

Partial Matches
Overview
A partial match occurs when a Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) search is conducted and the results clearly show that the offender profile is not the source of the crime scene profile (also referred to as a forensic profile), but the possibility does exist that a close biological relative of the offender might be the source of the crime scene profile.1

So the glove compartment sample is the "forensic sample" and its not match to the sex offender, the man that touched the glove compartment is a relative of the sex offender, and is not in CODIS.
Such a high profile case is worth a work up to eliminate the defense exploiting it.

Thank you for this explanation. I think it will be critical that this information is very clearly explained to the jury. Misunderstandings about this could certainly sink the prosecution’s case.

 

[MassGuy]

So I just tried an experiment. My cousin and her boyfriend were here to watch football, and after the game I convinced them to watch 48 Hours with me, and said I wanted their opinion of this case.

This couple are both in early 60's and are perfect examples of typical jurors. He is a retired businessman/store owner, she's a retired high school teacher. She taught Social Studies so she was very into this experiment. Joe was less enthusiastic but did go along with it and he did watch the show and had valid feedback.

Unfortunately, at the end, they both agreed that Barry was loathsome, but they were leaning towards 'reasonable doubt' ----mainly because of 2 issues. The DNA in the glove box AND the possibility she ran off.

I was very surprised they believed she may have voluntarily left---but they felt that Barry was such a jerk and the girls were grown, AND Barry seemed so close to 'his girls' ---they wondered if she felt left out and went to start a new life. It surprised me because I never thought a reasonable person would believe that---but these 2 people are intelligent and reasonable.

The DNA---I understand why that threw them a bit. The way the show depicted it, does make it appear as though a level 3 sex offender was in her passenger seat. HOPEFULLY the prosecution can clarify that for the real jury.

We did have Pizza and a few beers, so that might have affected their decisions...

I can definitely see how the DNA would have thrown them.

I'm also sure that if they were aware of any number of the dozens of facts that were left out, they wouldn't feel that way.

I gotta admit though, I am slightly disappointed in you for missing a golden opportunity. If you were around earlier, you would have seen that we were encouraging people to conduct experiments to recreate on the (apparent) nail injuries on Barry's arm.

Would it have been asking too much to fake strangle your friend during a football viewing/true crime party?

Where's your commitment?!

 

[LinasK]

I can definitely see how the DNA would have thrown them.

I'm also sure that if they were aware of any number of the dozens of facts that were left out, they wouldn't feel that way.

Unrelated to the evidence, but knowing that Barry cast a ballot in her name after Suzanne's "disappearance" tips the scales for me. He did it.

 

[MassGuy]

Unrelated to the evidence, but knowing that Barry cast a ballot in her name after Suzanne's "disappearance" tips the scales for me. He did it.

Rules weren't made for Barry. That voting thing is a prime example of his ignorance and arrogance.

It doesn't tell you who killed Suzanne, but it does tell you a lot about the man who killed her.

 

[Seattle1]

They did use the word vent, but I'm wondering if they meant "lint trap."

That second investigator seemed to find it pretty easily.

Thinking back, I think it may have been the defense that used the term dryer vent vs lint trap when they were trying to insinuate that the investigator planted the sheath evidence. MOO

 

[Kemug]

Would it have been asking too much to fake strangle your friend during a football viewing/true crime party?

Where's your commitment?!

 

[katydid23]

I can definitely see how the DNA would have thrown them.

I'm also sure that if they were aware of any number of the dozens of facts that were left out, they wouldn't feel that way.

I gotta admit though, I am slightly disappointed in you for missing a golden opportunity. If you were around earlier, you would have seen that we were encouraging people to conduct experiments to recreate on the (apparent) nail injuries on Barry's arm.

Would it have been asking too much to fake strangle your friend during a football viewing/true crime party?

Where's your commitment?!

Oh Darn, I replied too quickly and missed the best part of your post. YES, I wish I had thought about that nail injury re-creation sooner.

It would have been perfect timing, because Joe is a Niners fan and he was in my living room cheering and pumping his fists---and this is Ram'S House ! It would have been easy to do a fake strangle at that moment...way too easy....

 

[katydid23]

Thinking back, I think it may have been the defense that used the term dryer vent vs lint trap when they were trying to insinuate that the investigator planted the sheath evidence. MOO

Yes, I remember that. And I was hoping the prosecution was going to clarify that in re-cross but they didn't. It was left out there so it is still up for debate now.

 

[Niner]

Oh Darn, I replied too quickly and missed the best part of your post. YES, I wish I had thought about that nail injury re-creation sooner.

It would have been perfect timing, because Joe is a Niners fan and he was in my living room cheering and pumping his fists---and this is Ram'S House ! It would have been easy to do a fake strangle at that moment...way too easy....

Go Rams tonight!! And I know who @MassGuy is rooting for!
I'd rather have the 49ers play the Rams then the Bucs - we've beat you before!

 

[Megnut]

Changes nothing but I now think Suzanne was in the house proper when Barry arrived home. And as he was trying to gain entry, she was trying to lock exterior doors. IMO he was trying to find a way. All those lose papers may have been the only sign of a disturbance, till the door jamb.

If Suzanne locked the sliding doors, the front door, that would leave the breezeway door -- and by then her only choice would've been an attempt to barricade herself in the bedroom. She may have grabbed her phone, charger and all, if it was charging in the kitchen. Or it may have been charging in the bedroom and he grabbed it from her.

Doesn't probably change anything, just a nuance to being chased, if she was running to lock herself in, first the house, then the bedroom, and he was racing to gain entry, ultimately to both.

JMO

 

[Monty Ma]

Thinking back, I think it may have been the defense that used the term dryer vent vs lint trap when they were trying to insinuate that the investigator planted the sheath evidence. MOO

Didn't the defense also try to say that per the bodycam video of the investigator that they could HEAR what sounded like the investigator dropping the dart sheath? In other words, they tried to say he planted it by dropping it inside the dryer and the sound would be the sheath hitting the inside (drum) of the dryer. I'm not trying to say that it was planted, I'm just saying that if it was found in the vent or lint trap that will need to be made clear to the jury in order to shut down the defense claim of it being planted.

And yes, this sheath turned out to be larger that what I was picturing based on previous descriptions.

 

[Monty Ma]

Aside from the sunglasses, I'm curious about the items on the front seat of the Range Rover. Didn't they use the Range Rover for Moonlight pizza Friday night including eating pizza in the Range Rover? I find it odd that the Camelback and the other items would have found their way to the front seat after pizza. Did Barry sit in the back seat during this outing? Suzanne's bike would've been in the far back at this time also, right?

IMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Didn't the defense also try to say that per the bodycam video of the investigator that they could HEAR what sounded like the investigator dropping the dart sheath? In other words, they tried to say he planted it by dropping it inside the dryer and the sound would be the sheath hitting the inside (drum) of the dryer. I'm not trying to say that it was planted, I'm just saying that if it was found in the vent or lint trap that will need to be made clear to the jury in order to shut down the defense claim of it being planted.

And yes, this sheath turned out to be larger that what I was picturing based on previous descriptions.

Yes they did insinuate that it was planted and then prosecution countered with “he might have dropped it” but did not document. I always thought it was very small but if it was several inches long I struggle why they didn’t find it during the first search of the dryer. If prosecution sticks to the dart theory they will need to get on top of these two questions during cross.