Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #93

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
@LaurenScharfTV

#BarryMorphew motions hearing is now in Fremont County. The judge ruled the evidence about prior domestic violence statements from #SuzanneMorphew to her friend Sheila Oliver will not be permitted in the murder trial in May. Text messages will be though.
2:47 PM Feb 10

BBM
 
Was MM1 or 2 ever friends with SO or her daughter, I can't recall if this was brought up, I think it was. Did they ever mention the wedding and being with Suzanne for it? I know it was virtual but a pretty decent moment to be in your best friends wedding that I would think SM's daughters may have wanted to see? I know the virtual weddings, funerals and get togethers sure have changed the thinking / excitement of being there; but Covid lockdown was pretty fresh at that point as well.
 
Love Never Fails said:
So according to this article, the judge also denied Barry’s own words to Agent Grusing that he clipped Suzanne’s nose and that it bled. I am perplexed by the judge’s decision.
Click to expand...
I believe BM's evidence was presented to the court where it shows BM was responding to a question by Agent Grusing that was prefaced that there are texts between SM and SO revealing that you physically pinned SM, etc. and BM responded with his own version of that incident (clipping her nose, denied ever restraining SM). IMO, that's the grey area the Judge is referring to where the prosecution didn't present the evidence in a manner where it was admissible. MOO
 
Cindizzi said:
Absolutely. She’s a rat and a liar. If SM can’t trust with her with news of her secret affair, why should we trust her ?
( these are not my thoughts! My interpretation of what Defense will portray). JMO
Click to expand...

I strongly believe JL and Suzanne made a pact to tell no-one about their affair
So I very much hope JL will have found his balls by the time the trial begins and confirm that they both made a promise that they would not tell a single soul about their affair and Suzanne abided by that .
 
Seattle1 said:
I believe BM's evidence was presented to the court where it shows BM was responding to a question by Agent Grusing that was prefaced that there are texts between SM and SO revealing that you physically pinned SM, etc. and BM responded with his own version of that incident (clipping her nose, denied ever restraining SM). IMO, that's the grey area the Judge is referring to where the prosecution didn't present the evidence in a manner where it was admissible. MOO
Click to expand...
Thanks Seattle. The article did not go into that detail. Just said the judge denied Grusing testimony of Barry’s words that he clipped Suzanne. I am concerned the prosecution is presenting the evidence in such a slack way that the judge is finding a way to exclude it and rule for the defense. I don’t know the law like you do so thank you for the correction.
 
Seattle1 said:
LE recovered the old blade from the mechanic at DSi (I think he's referred to as Crib)?? It would not be difficult for an expert to confirm the blade needed replacement. A shop mechanic typically works on Saturday because it makes good business sense-- you don't want to take equipment away from a billable project or weekday hours and the mechanic will testify to the same (i.e., industry practice).

I believe somewhere in conversations between BM and Crib when talking about the attachment for sale BM asked if he had time to change the blade and he suggested noon. I also recall BM calls Crib on Saturday to tell him he's running late and will be there around 1 pm. This is from memory of months ago so it's MOO.
Click to expand...

If this is true and he was supposed to go at noon, I'd question what the rush to get home was? To look for a week old dead turkey? So urgent that he was 90 minutes late to do a work thing? That could go badly for the defense as well. Something was so important in the woods he was late for a scheduled appt. Did you text that while he was out wandering? Oh and he lied to LE about that turkey expedition at first claiming he was having lunch and sun bathing. For a man so set on is work, seems odd he's need to be late for an appt especially when he was down close to that shop already working when he suddenly need to go home and look for a dead turkey, just to turn around and drive the 15 minutes back to get that blade replaced.
 
Hoss569 said:
Was MM1 or 2 ever friends with SO or her daughter, I can't recall if this was brought up, I think it was. Did they ever mention the wedding and being with Suzanne for it? I know it was virtual but a pretty decent moment to be in your best friends wedding that I would think SM's daughters may have wanted to see? I know the virtual weddings, funerals and get togethers sure have changed the thinking / excitement of being there; but Covid lockdown was pretty fresh at that point as well.
Click to expand...

From SM's photos and captions of the photos, I believe SO and SM gave birth to their daughters around the same time, and that MM1 and SO's daughter were definitely childhood friends. SO makes reference to SM being like a second mother to her daughter and how SM would never miss her wedding-- albeit virtual attendance.

IMO, there's some underlying tension in the family between MM1 and SM (caused by BM's triangulation) where events like the camping trip on MDW were the decision of MM1 and where MM2 was just along for the ride -- not wanting to miss the opportunity she'd never have on her own. We see this in MM1 not seeing SM when she dropped her sister off, not making it home on Sunday at a reasonable hour, and MM1 stating that she never intended to spend the night at PP on Sunday. But a mother's love wasn't going to stop SM from hoping and trying -- right down to preparing for MM1 to change her mind. I've seen red flags here between SM and MM1 since day one but it's just my opinion.

To be clear, I hold BM responsible for any friction here (by triangulation), and MM1 is another victim.
 
NEW MORPHEW TRIAL DATE: Court wrapped up. The judge changed Barry Morphew’s trial date. It’s now set for April 29-June 3. Barry is accused of murdering his ex-wife Suzanne Morphew. Suzanne went missing in Salida in May 2020. Barry’s next court date is Feb. 24. @KOAA
https://twitter.com/cwinderkoaa/status/1491911852166688769?s=21
 
So the defense says there is no mention of abuse in SO texts with Suzanne.. yet they claim the prosecution hasn't turned over Suzanne's cell info.. wasn't that part of the issue? The prosecution has it, but the defense does not. So how do they know the nature of every text that SM and SO sent each other?

I also wouldn't be surprised that they didn't text about the physical abuse. He had already taken her phone once to go through it. I am sure they reserved those conversations to phone calls vs texts that couldn't be read later by him.
 
Gardenista said:
I'm actually surprised they are allowing the text messages in. There is a similar kind of case right now, WI vs Jensen, that has made it all the way to SCOTUS. In the WI case, the victim wrote a letter saying if anything happened to her, to look at her husband. She gave the letter to her neighbor. It was admitted at trial, the conviction was overturned on appeal and they've been fighting over it ever since. IANAL, but I think it's kind of the same. The gist of it is it's a violation of the 6th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Allowing text messages that go to SM's state of mind is admissible under the rules of evidence. In Judge Murphy's summary of finding probable cause, he references the texts between SM and SO that showed SM was fearful of BM and didn't want to be alone with him. I believe the case you reference where the victim points blame at the husband would not be admissible.
 
justtrish said:
So the defense says there is no mention of abuse in SO texts with Suzanne.. yet they claim the prosecution hasn't turned over Suzanne's cell info.. wasn't that part of the issue? The prosecution has it, but the defense does not. So how do they know the nature of every text that SM and SO sent each other?

I also wouldn't be surprised that they didn't text about the physical abuse. He had already taken her phone once to go through it. I am sure they reserved those conversations to phone calls vs texts that couldn't be read later by him.
Click to expand...
Suanne's phone has not been recovered. I can't keep straight what E&N say they have and haven't gotten yet.

The Judge did order the State to turn over Suzanne's RR info and data from Suzanne's ICloud account in 14 days.

EBM: Clarification
 
Cindizzi said:
I just snipped a little bit of what the Judge said today.
There is much more


Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com



"It's a unique case," said Judge Ramsey Lama from the bench during the motions hearing Thursday morning.

Lama spent nearly half an hour detailing to the courtroom filled with lawyers, Barry's daughters, and journalists his method for determining whether or not to grant the prosecution's motion to allow the information to be admissible during the trial.

"The court does not find that the people have met their burden under Spoto. (People v. Spoto, 1990) The motion is denied," Lama said shortly after noon.

Lama said that under Colorado law, the information presented by prosecutors could not be admitted in the way it was presented to the court Thursday.

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.
Click to expand...

This evidence of BM's prior physical abuse of SM would seem hard to get in, whether SO testifies or not:

Here is the Spoto test for admission of evidence of prior bad acts (BBM):

"Read together, these rules require a four-part analysis to determine whether evidence of prior acts is admissible. First, we must ask whether the proffered evidence relates to a material fact, i.e., a fact "that is of consequence to the determination of the action." CRE 401; Carlson, 712 P.2d at 1021. If it does, we proceed to the second question: is the evidence logically relevant, i.e., does it have "any tendency to make the existence of [the material fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?" CRE 401; Carlson, 712 P.2d at 1021. If the evidence is logically relevant, we then must determine whether the logical relevance is independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad character, which would then be employed to suggest the probability that the defendant committed the crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity with his bad character. See CRE 404(b); Imwinkelreid § 2.18. Finally, if the proffered evidence survives the first three parts of the analysis, we must assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. CRE 403; Carlson, 712 P.2d at 1022."
 
justtrish said:
So the defense says there is no mention of abuse in SO texts with Suzanne.. yet they claim the prosecution hasn't turned over Suzanne's cell info.. wasn't that part of the issue? The prosecution has it, but the defense does not. So how do they know the nature of every text that SM and SO sent each other?

I also wouldn't be surprised that they didn't text about the physical abuse. He had already taken her phone once to go through it. I am sure they reserved those conversations to phone calls vs texts that couldn't be read later by him.
Click to expand...
They aren’t saying there’s NO texts showing abuse.
They said there’s no texts showing specific acts of prior alleged acts of abuse such as BM shoving SM into a closet and holding a gun to his head. Since SO told LE this in an interview, there are no texts with dates and times to back up SM telling her that and when and what led up to it.
JMO
Hopefully we’ll hear more soon about what WILL be allowed.
 
Seattle1 said:
From SM's photos and captions of the photos, I believe SO and SM gave birth to their daughters around the same time, and that MM1 and SO's daughter were definitely childhood friends. SO makes reference to SM being like a second mother to her daughter and how SM would never miss her wedding-- albeit virtual attendance.

IMO, there's some underlying tension in the family between MM1 and SM (caused by BM's triangulation) where events like the camping trip on MDW were the decision of MM1 and where MM2 was just along for the ride -- not wanting to miss the opportunity she'd never have on her own. We see this in MM1 not seeing SM when she dropped her sister off, not making it home on Sunday at a reasonable hour, and MM1 stating that she never intended to spend the night at PP on Sunday. But a mother's love wasn't going to stop SM from hoping and trying -- right down to preparing for MM1 to change her mind. I've seen red flags here between SM and MM1 since day one but it's just my opinion.

To be clear, I hold BM responsible for any friction here (by triangulation), and MM1 is another victim.
Click to expand...


I agree. I have always found it strange the girls were not involved in the wedding since they would have grown up with the bride.

What better way to spend mother's day than dressing up and being mum and daughters together virtually attending their mum's closest friend's daughter's wedding.

Do we know why the daughters were so delayed in returning from their trip?If they really were due home at noon what caused them to be so delayed that they did not return until nearly 12 hours after that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 145 more.
Total: 1,989 (members: 146, guests: 1,843)

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
1,843
Total visitors
1,989
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,307
Messages
18,185,520
Members
233,309
Latest member
Rachael529
Back
Top