Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #96

[mrjitty]

No matter what Cahill did, or didn't do wrt his firearm, it doesn't change what BM did and didn't do, in the time surrounding Suzanne's disappearance.

No but it impugns his testimony

 

[MrsWatson]

No but it impugns his testimony

It may impugn Cahill's testimony, but it still can't erase BM's own words in all those interviews, and BM's actions when Suzanne's phone went dark.

 

[K9Enzo]

I admit it's very curious why he lied about whatever really happened there. More fodder for E&I to exploit, unfortunately.

He was probably making a modification to his firearm and did not clear it before beforehand resulting in a negligent discharge. This would be highly embarrassing and careless on his part. Then he lies to his employer. He's done. IMO

 

[Megnut]

It sounds like Cahill discharged his firearm while attempting to remove the unauthorized (illegal?) add-on (pretty ironic because, if I'm understanding it correctly, that's why they're not allowed -- easy to fire accidentally). And he was probably taking it off because of his imminent retirement, when he'd be turning in his service weapon. (Was his retirement previously announced?) Probably told LE he wasn't taking it off but was putting it on. Just bought it. Yeah, sure.

This changes nothing about the ugly facts swirling around BM but his defense will make a hurricane out of it because what else have they got?

Partial DNA that amounted to nothing.

The wallibi is ridiculous.

Honestly, what have they got?

Ecuador? Non starter.

That's why they're so loud about motions and discovery -- to try to drown out BM's deafening guilt.

Won't. Work.

JMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

They are fishing for some kind of defence.

There is real danger for the defence in this approach because they can end up sparking an avalanche of evidence proving how the prosecution eliminated the defence theories.

I experienced this on a recent case where the defence overpromised on shadowy killers in opening, then got killed when Law Enforcement testified

Thank you for the explanation. I’ve been hoping the reason the prosecution has been slack (for lack of a better word) is that they are throwing off the defense and waiting for the actual trial to shine.

ETA: “slack” came from another poster but just seems appropriate.

 

[Scootie98]

I understand questioning the integrity of a CBI Agent involved in a murder investigation, but are the Defense going to try and make the Morphew trial the Cahill trial?


Fremont County plans to send out 1,000 jury summons over the coming weeks with a jury selection process that will likely take several days. The next hearing is scheduled for March 4, where Morphew's defense team said they have already sent out subpoenas to seven people.

On Thursday, Morphew's lawyers told the court the subpoenas include the director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the deputy director of the CBI and the head of the major crimes unit for the CBI.

Mark Furman says Hello.....unfortunately.

 

[jakat]

Your honor, the vending machine downstairs ate my dollar. We move to have the charges against our client dismissed.

It'd be laughable if it weren't just so predictable.

As for the data from Suzanne's RR, they would love to have everyone, anyone believe that data is going to blow the case open, exonerate their cLIEnt.

Which it won't.

If anything, it'll sink him when it shows an open and close of a rear door, in perfect sync with Barry's busy cellphone.

But for now, the hurrinado will blow hard.

There is only one question for the jury, really.

If Suzanne was abducted, mauled, water-gotten, why'd Barry lie about working all day, with workers present?

Oh, Barry.

JMO

Love this post. Hurrinado...Perfect!!

 

[Scootie98]

If I’m understanding correctly from the titbits we had from yesterday….

On one hand, defence are trying to discredit Cahill because of the gun incident (what that has to do with evidence and Barry’s ramblings - well, nothing, basically).

While on the other hand defence are jumping on some alleged comment the same man made about the arrest being premature. As if in this instance, he’s the authority.

and JMO

I think what matters here is that the defense will purposely call Cahill as a witness, in order to shred his credibility...with the purpose of contaminating the credibility of other witnesses, particularly LE witnesses...if not evidence. They will use Cahill as their stereotype sample.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

It sounds like Cahill discharged his firearm while attempting to remove the unauthorized (illegal?) add-on (pretty ironic because, if I'm understanding it correctly, that's why they're not allowed -- easy to fire accidentally). And he was probably taking it off because of his imminent retirement, when he'd be turning in his service weapon. (Was his retirement previously announced?) Probably told LE he wasn't taking it off but was putting it on. Just bought it. Yeah, sure.

This changes nothing about the ugly facts swirling around BM but his defense will make a hurricane out of it because what else have they got?

Partial DNA that amounted to nothing.

The wallibi is ridiculous.

Honestly, what have they got?

Ecuador? Non starter.

That's why they're so loud about motions and discovery -- to try to drown out BM's deafening guilt.

Won't. Work.

JMO

I think that is part of the strategy. Through motions, defense hopes to gut the case of everything speculative or hearsay or characterization or profiling and force the prosecution to prosecute the case based only on facts. That seems to be a good starting position for the defense. People should be tried on facts in our country so from my perspective defense is doing their job. As is frequently pointed out there are facts here based on cell and telematics data and evidence that is known like the bike and the helmet and footage from police cams and highway and business cams. In addition to expert witnesses on data, there are potentially witnesses that knew Barry and/or Suzanne that can maybe bolster the prosecution's case and then cross examination of those witness by defense. The jury will decide if there are no reasonable alternative for those facts. based on what they hear from both sides. The bottom line is the prosecution asked for the arrest and started the clock ticking for trial so they are in control from that perspective. One has to believe internally the team of investigators and prosecution attorneys reviewed and argued through all the possible legal ramifications of what they based their decision to arrest and start the clock ticking at that time. The weakest argument in my opinion from prosecution was that Barry would "bolt"...extradition was always an option if he left the state so prosecution needed to make sure internally they were ready to roll at trial with the evidence they had that could be used. All the power was at prosecution's side to set the stage leading up to the arrest and the preliminary. Now it's defense's turn. For me, that is the beauty of our legal system. And there is plenty of data to suggest that juries do the right thing most of the time. Edited to add: at any time prosecution can stop and dismiss the charges if they feel their case is weak and get a do-over. They know the risk of getting to trial and losing. As a bystander/observer I have opinions, but I am not "they"...they are capable of understanding their case because they are the ones handling the case. The risk is they don't get another shot at Barry. As a observer I have to assume both sides get the importance of the actual trial and will do their best.

 

[NothingSurprisesAnymore]

Unless defense wins the motion to suppress. I count no chicks til they hatch so to speak.

I think Barry's interviews will be played and the totality of the state's evidence showing him to have killed Suzanne is very damning and enough to convict of M1.

My disappointment so far is the subdued vibe of the prosecution. It seems to be almost passive in presentation. Why was the DNA information not better addressed during the hearing? If done so BM might not have been released into the general population.

Maybe I feel this way because of limited direct access to the hearings. We're getting information second hand which can influence perception.

I think the prosecution will resolve whatever internal issues we're not privy to and present its case competently.

I've no doubt the DAs office and LE have worked very diligently in their pursuit of justice for Suzanne.

For that, I thank them.

 

[Niner]

Update docket:

Date Len Appearance Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
3/4/22
9:30 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Motions Hearing D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

3/10/22
10:30 AM1H rIN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Motions Hearing D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/7/22
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Hearing D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/28/22
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/29/22
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Motions Hearing D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/29/22
8:00 AM 1D MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

5/3/22
8:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

thru

6/3/22
8:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

link: Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

 

[Momofthreeboys]

It may impugn Cahill's testimony, but it still can't erase BM's own words in all those interviews, and BM's actions when Suzanne's phone went dark.

I think Barry's interviews will be played and the totality of the state's evidence showing him to have killed Suzanne is very damning and enough to convict of M1.

My disappointment so far is the subdued vibe of the prosecution. It seems to be almost passive in presentation. Why was the DNA information not better addressed during the hearing? If done so BM might not have been released into the general population.

Maybe I feel this way because of limited direct access to the hearings. We're getting information second hand which can influence perception.

I think the prosecution will resolve whatever internal issues we're not privy to and present its case competently.

I've no doubt the DAs office and LE have worked very diligently in their pursuit of justice for Suzanne.

For that, I thank them.

My guess also is they will be played in entirety OR they will only play the interviews that prosecution plans to use. Seems the fair thing to do because we only know the incidences and snips the prosecution introduced into evidence. They are the only interviews for which there will be no direct "witness" testimony since I doubt Barry will take the stand. I think the DA's office got off to a rocky start, but have to assume they have regrouped. They may still be internally trying to find their leader and their voice...you'd have to be a mouse in the corner to know for sure what's up. Titles don't always define "the leader".

 

[justtrish]

If I’m understanding correctly from the titbits we had from yesterday….

On one hand, defence are trying to discredit Cahill because of the gun incident (what that has to do with evidence and Barry’s ramblings - well, nothing, basically).

While on the other hand defence are jumping on some alleged comment the same man made about the arrest being premature. As if in this instance, he’s the authority.

and JMO

I'd say premature is also not saying it's unfounded or that it shouldn't have happened. Premature doesn't mean Barry isn't guilty. Premature doesn't mean anything is wrong with the investigation or evidence they have. It's an opinion and he's entitled to that. The person deciding to issue the arrest warrant must have saw it differently so I'm not sure why that is even a big deal to the defense that an investigator made that comment. I'm sure they made lots of comments and have plenty of opinions that just don't matter in this case.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I'd say premature is also not saying it's unfounded or that it shouldn't have happened. Premature doesn't mean Barry isn't guilty. Premature doesn't mean anything is wrong with the investigation or evidence they have. It's an opinion and he's entitled to that. The person deciding to issue the arrest warrant must have saw it differently so I'm not sure why that is even a big deal to the defense that an investigator made that comment. I'm sure they made lots of comments and have plenty of opinions that just don't matter in this case.

Probably has more value in the civil case or an appeal if either of those happen but defense is getting everything on the record as they should. I have noticed the appeals attorney specialist in present and speaking during these motions hearings.

 

[sk716]

Still nitpicking the AA. Copied this section from @sk716’s excellent timeline:
(Barry Morphew Interview – March 5, 2021 – Part 2)
SA Grusing asked Barry about accounting for mileage when he saw the bull elk, whether he climbed or how he turned around. Barry said, “No, I just turned around.” When asked where, Barry stated, “Garfield, probably the first place that I could tum left in, I just- I didn’t go in and then turn around. I just backed in and went straight to Broomsfield.”
This does not make sense to me. The Garfield road would be on his right as he traveled west on 50.
However, the road where SM’s helmet was found was on his left. He turned left on that road, CR 226, went down away out of sight of Hwy 50, threw out the helmet, and then continued on until he came to 225 near the intersection of 50. He got back on 50 and continued on towards 285 in Poncha Springs where he turned north to head to Broomfield.
He told Grusing he turned left then backed in because he didn’t want to put himself driving right by the helmet’s location. (I think he actually meant to say he backed out, as in a 3 point turn.) MOO

I think he gets himself tripped up a lot when going over this section of Sunday morning. He's just incredibly lucky that we don't seem to have any data for that extra 30 minutes.

Lets go to the parking lights!

Parking Lights Parking Lights On at 2020-05-10 09:49:13 On 5/10/2020 9:49:13 AM UTC 3:49 AM 38.53999 -106.23766 Morphew Residence 2020-05-10 3:49:13 37
Parking Lights Parking Lights On at 2020-05-10 14:10:24 On 5/10/2020 2:10:24 PM UTC 8:10 AM 39.9338 -105.12389 RTD Bus Stop 2020-05-10 8:10:24 38

Barry's Truck Events

There are a lot of weird gaps and glitches in the Parking Light data, presumably a result of mucking with the SYNC system. Missing corresponding On or Off events for the most part. But that bit feels weirdly definitive.

I haven't started converting the System log files yet, but the logs back up the parking data:

So do the door events and Gear shift events.
http://www./the-defenses-exhibits-preliminary-hearing/

All of that to say, he put the truck in drive at PP and the next recorded event is putting it into park at the bus stop.

There are two pull off spots between the helmet and the Garfield turn that would have been large enough for him to make a U-turn, but for whatever reason, he went on to the Garfield turn which was plenty big for him to turn around without changing gears.

I don't think he meant to tell Grusing that he went all the way to the Garfield turn. I think something important went down that steep slope at Garfield that wasn't found and Barry was kind of mad that it wasn't found.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Another little preview of tonight’s Dateline.

I hope we aren’t going to see a lot of victim blaming in this.
EDIT. I hope we aren’t going to see ANY.

https://twitter.com/datelinenbc/status/1496652345639321601?s=21

I think we most certainly will, and I think we're also going to see some big time cheerleading for Barry.
Just watching the trailer video made me feel sick.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Probably has more value in the civil case or an appeal if either of those happen but defense is getting everything on the record as they should. I have noticed the appeals attorney specialist in present and speaking during these motions hearings.

Interesting about the appeals attorney. Is that normal, or do we think they are anticipating a guilty verdict?

 

[sk716]

No but it impugns his testimony

Again, someone/something else the State doesn't need. If they had any intention of calling him at trial, he's off the State's list. Cahill had a partner for all of those interviews and they were recorded. They can't get those interviews tossed, there is another witness who can testify about those interviews.

The defense can go ahead and call him to take swipes at him, but I think that might backfire with the jury. It's rural CO, many of them wouldn't take issue with Cahill's actions. Modifying weapons, legally or not, is pretty common in areas where hunting is popular. If one of them shot themselves in the process, they'd lie about it, too. MOO

 

[Cindizzi]

I wonder which things are “ in between “ true and false to BM’s sister.

Barry Morphew Was 'Frantic' When Wife Suzanne Vanished, His Sister Tells Dateline NBC


MacLachlan also opened up about how Barry has felt in response to allegations that he had something to do with his wife's disappearance and death.

"Incredulous," she tells Morrison in another exclusive clip below. "That's the best word I can think of. It's incredulous, what has happened. This is not him."

She continues, "I often describe, when somebody tells me something they hear on social media, there are some things out there that are true. There are some things out there that are completely false. And there are things that are somewhere in between. But the things that are in between and false have been so hurtful."

 

[sk716]

I think that is part of the strategy. Through motions, defense hopes to gut the case of everything speculative or hearsay or characterization or profiling and force the prosecution to prosecute the case based only on facts. That seems to be a good starting position for the defense. People should be tried on facts in our country so from my perspective defense is doing their job. As is frequently pointed out there are facts here based on cell and telematics data and evidence that is known like the bike and the helmet and footage from police cams and highway and business cams. In addition to expert witnesses on data, there are potentially witnesses that knew Barry and/or Suzanne that can maybe bolster the prosecution's case and then cross examination of those witness by defense. The jury will decide if there are no reasonable alternative for those facts. based on what they hear from both sides. The bottom line is the prosecution asked for the arrest and started the clock ticking for trial so they are in control from that perspective. One has to believe internally the team of investigators and prosecution attorneys reviewed and argued through all the possible legal ramifications of what they based their decision to arrest and start the clock ticking at that time. The weakest argument in my opinion from prosecution was that Barry would "bolt"...extradition was always an option if he left the state so prosecution needed to make sure internally they were ready to roll at trial with the evidence they had that could be used. All the power was at prosecution's side to set the stage leading up to the arrest and the preliminary. Now it's defense's turn. For me, that is the beauty of our legal system. And there is plenty of data to suggest that juries do the right thing most of the time. Edited to add: at any time prosecution can stop and dismiss the charges if they feel their case is weak and get a do-over. They know the risk of getting to trial and losing. As a bystander/observer I have opinions, but I am not "they"...they are capable of understanding their case because they are the ones handling the case. The risk is they don't get another shot at Barry. As a observer I have to assume both sides get the importance of the actual trial and will do their best.

Barry sold all of his real property. He was not buying more in another state. He was not moving to Arizona, he was fleeing.