Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #97

[Ontario Mom]

#Update to #BarryMorphew hearings.

Morning was a lot of discussion about jury selection and how they plan to choose a jury.

They hope to have a jury sat by May 6th with opening arguments starting May 9th.

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502022760582713355?s=21

Does anyone else find the date sadly ironic? 2 years to the day (most likely) from when Barry murdered Suzanne.

 

[Warwick7]

Yep! Random murderers are not concerned with a persons journal. If it is always there and then it isn't, I think it's relevant. The things that are missing are her phone AND charger, her journal, and her. So she ran away with her phone and charger, but never used them again? Took her journal, but not her purse. Staged her bike and helmet somehow.. maybe she hitchhiked and tossed it out the window. Every scenario for the missing things just doesn't equal a random abduction. Her girls knew she had a journal, but Barry "didn't even know she had one"

Every single one of these little things that could possibly be explained away, can't just be taken out of the equation. There are way to many of them. If it were one or two things that could be coincidence or just unexplained sure maybe that would be silly to introduce them, but there are SO MANY here and they all can't just be coincidence. It all leads to Barry. All of it. It is evidence that will hold up in court. It is powerful when presented all together. His behavior, the missing items, her lack of communication, her powerful words via text and those recordings. She is speaking loudly and so is Barry.

BBM
Excellent post.
"Took her journal, but not her purse."

Also "took her journal not her Bible." Which is simply nonsense.

 

[CGray123]

Other than that, there was argument about prosecutors violating court orders and missing deadlines again.

Judge Lama was frustrated about endorsement of a few witnesses on the prosecution side.

He said the endorsement of these witnesses clearly violate my order. #BarryMorphew

One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."
https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502024877066260486?s=21
https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502024877066260486?s=21

RBBM.

So do I understand correctly that Judge L believes there's a lack of evidence of domestic violence? Or, is he saying there's a lack of evidence overall? If the latter, his comment would suggest to me that he is considering dismissing the case. I would consider this an astounding abuse of his judicial discretion if it happens, and encourage the voters to remove him from the bench at the next election.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Individual pieces of evidence in the case do not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In other words the prosecution can introduce evidence of the existence/destruction of the diary, and the jury will ask itself what facts it believes have been established, and what inferences to draw from them. These facts and inferences do not need to be proven to BARD standard.

Sure they can but how many times can they get away with presenting something that is circumstantial and has plausible alternatives before a jury starts to wonder? I still stand by my opinion that a winnable trial for prosecution means they keep the scope narrow, to the point, and use what they have for which there is no plausible alternative. They know they have gaps, the judge told them they have gaps...I just don't think exposing the gaps is in their best interest of a winning the state's case. For instance here's a theory....Suzanne herself got rid of her phone, maybe she thought she'd bring it so she grabbed the charger, left her "stuff" in the car as she couldn't use it, grabbed her journal to bring with her and got picked up by someone on Sunday. I'm not suggesting I personally believe in the gone girl theory...just pointing out that there are unknown and unresolved pieces of this case that aren't necessary to the case and could cause a juror to say "wait a minute". So it becomes not so much "can prosecution" introduce this or that but whether it is smart winning strategy to do so.

 

[BDAJAG]

Funny! I guess I should call him Bear?? He kills bears . I’ll stick with Bare .

With regard to whether he’ll strike a plea deal? Bare would commit suicide before he would do that and I think I posted upthread that he’d NEVER kill himself because he loves himself too much! So, I guess my answer is, “no.” He will never admit he did it and make a plea deal. If I’m wrong, I’ll have my crow baked this time.

<vrc^bm>

NEVER! ABSOLUTELY! 1000% ! NO WAY! !
{oops... Morphreudian slips there}

While I now risk subjecting a mental malaise upon the membership, Born-free/As-free-as-the-wind-blows- Barry will never risk confinement.
Ergo:

• No plea deal(s);
• No risk of conviction on the principal charge;
• Nor risk of conviction as to any lesser included offence(s) under the principal charge.

So then/now what??
Everyone here has been most indulgent and very patient. Thank you. I'll drone no further...

 

[JosieMae]

IMO this is structural.

The legal rules and societal attitudes operate in a way that protects abusers.

This drove me to distraction in the Pistorius case. You had witnesses describing a fight, a woman locked in the toilet having written texts that she was afraid of her killer, and then she was found with her brains splattered on the wall ...

... and the judge finds its "a normal loving relationship"

The fact is, no way of a woman complaining about DV seems to be acceptable. Recently the wife of a football star released footage of her own abuse and rape by her domestic partner, and people still said she was doing it wrong. But you really have to go to these lengths to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately in this case, we can see the DV apologists hard at work once again - e.g the media coverage.

Whoops where's my wife? It's all a great mystery!

Yes. Tragic as Suzanne’s case is, in the end, it's yet one more DV homicide. And so the river of blood continues its flow ...

 

[Momofthreeboys]

RBBM.

So do I understand correctly that Judge L believes there's a lack of evidence of domestic violence? Or, is he saying there's a lack of evidence overall? If the latter, his comment would suggest to me that he is considering dismissing the case. I would consider this an astounding abuse of his judicial discretion if it happens, and encourage the voters to remove him from the bench at the next election.

Ashley said in a later tweet that the judge meant overall. I think she misinterpreted. I think he was referring to the lack of evidence of domestic abuse. And DV was never a charge...it was a sentence enhancer and in my opinion if anything it goes to motive more than to the murder. If it was allowed it opens up to analysis of Suzanne's behavior during arguments which comes way to close to victim blaming for my taste and something the daughters could provide and might provide should they feel strongly their dad was being unjustly accused of something not accurate. I'm OK if they steer clear of "how did they fight" and all that marital ugliness the past two years they got plenty with the divorce arguments.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BBM
Excellent post.
"Took her journal, but not her purse."

Also "took her journal not her Bible." Which is simply nonsense.

Not taking her Bible was telling to me and why I personally eliminated the theory, although it fits and unless she kept very special notations in her Bible it is something easily replaced on the flip side.

 

[Scootie98]

RBBM.

So do I understand correctly that Judge L believes there's a lack of evidence of domestic violence? Or, is he saying there's a lack of evidence overall? If the latter, his comment would suggest to me that he is considering dismissing the case. I would consider this an astounding abuse of his judicial discretion if it happens, and encourage the voters to remove him from the bench at the next election.

MOO.....the lack of officially documented DV in the case...i.e. no calls to police by SM..no protective orders initiated, etc...is why a DV expert is left out. However, the contradictory evidence will be allowed...SM's texts and recordings to friends and JL, compared to BM's statements to LE about the marriage. BM's deletion of derogatory marital texts, etc. concealing problems. These contradictions will incriminate him without a DV expert testifying.

 

[Cindizzi]

Judge limits expert witnesses


Cañon City – Prosecutors in the murder trial against Barry Morphew were dealt a setback in Fremont County District Court Thursday. Saying he found a “pattern of neglect” by prosecutors, Judge Ramsey Lama granted defense motions to limit expert testimony.

The judge sanctioned the prosecution for failing to meet their obligations in a timely manner to provide Morphew’s defense attorneys with detailed reports on prosecution witnesses. Morphew is set to stand trial in Cañon City in early May in connection with the disappearance of his wife, Suzanne, who has never been found.

 

[FromGermany1]

An excellent summation to the question if the arrest was coming too soon so bringing it forward. It was sooner than a few Agents wanted the arrest to be. Otherwise, it has no bearing on their investigation and conclusion that Barry disappeared his wife on Mother's Day Weekend.

To believe Suzanne rode her bike Sunday morning, one must believe she was alive when Barry ate the steak on one dinner plate and then they made love the evening before going to sleep.

The evidence, according to Suzanne's SM presence, and lack thereof, shows that she drops off the earth around 2:45pm Saturday, the 9th. Barry's truck telematics are so very busy Saturday night. The dogs' hits on any thing has been discounted, per the CCSD website.

Before Barry drives his truck out of the driveway, headed to Broomsfield at 4:30am, before he spots the antlers on the Moose at Garfield, so he turns in that direction near where Suzanne's blue bike helmet was found after Suzanne was missing for Day Four but before Barry did all of that, first thing he had to get rid of Suzanne's body somewhere.

#BarryWhereIsSuzanne

bbm + bbm red
Actually "too soon" was Barry's vocabulary, we wondered about. Now we have to wonder even more.

 

[DizzyB]

The defense is earning their money, working diligently to exploit every angle and disallow evidence. That’s their job, and they are very good at it. Innocence and a not guilty verdict are two different things.

 

[Megnut]

Let's face it. If Suzanne staged a bike ride, she'd have done a credible job of it.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Sure they can but how many times can they get away with presenting something that is circumstantial and has plausible alternatives before a jury starts to wonder? I still stand by my opinion that a winnable trial for prosecution means they keep the scope narrow, to the point, and use what they have for which there is no plausible alternative. They know they have gaps, the judge told them they have gaps...I just don't think exposing the gaps is in their best interest of a winning the state's case. For instance here's a theory....Suzanne herself got rid of her phone, maybe she thought she'd bring it so she grabbed the charger, left her "stuff" in the car as she couldn't use it, grabbed her journal to bring with her and got picked up by someone on Sunday. I'm not suggesting I personally believe in the gone girl theory...just pointing out that there are unknown and unresolved pieces of this case that aren't necessary to the case and could cause a juror to say "wait a minute". So it becomes not so much "can prosecution" introduce this or that but whether it is smart winning strategy to do so.

The usual approach is to introduce enough circumstantial points in the web that speculating away every individual element becomes implausible. Of course you can make up plausible or implausible explanations for every piece of evidence in the case. But at some point the coincidences become too many.

This is why a missing journal is important, when viewed with everything else.

my 02s

 

[susiQ]

I sure would have liked if a DV expert had been allowed to speak to the physical and emotional violence BM imposed on SM, but I still believe a jury will be able to put the pieces together and recognize how unhealthy the relationship was. We, or at least most of us here, believed BM killed her long before we knew all the details of this train wreck of a marriage. There is SO much circumstantial evidence that in MHO screams BM killed her. I don’t think the judge disallowing a DV expert will negate all the rest of the evidence.

 

[K9Enzo]

RBBM.

So do I understand correctly that Judge L believes there's a lack of evidence of domestic violence? Or, is he saying there's a lack of evidence overall? If the latter, his comment would suggest to me that he is considering dismissing the case. I would consider this an astounding abuse of his judicial discretion if it happens, and encourage the voters to remove him from the bench at the next election.

Your question was asked to reporter Ashley Franco as well. She responded the case as a whole lacking evidence. IMO

https://twitter.com/AshleyKKTV/status/1502029818493243407?s=20&t=TbF97THSkca__cSh5FubQw

 

[DeDee]

An excellent summation to the question if the arrest was coming too soon so bringing it forward. It was sooner than a few Agents wanted the arrest to be. Otherwise, it has no bearing on their investigation and conclusion that Barry disappeared his wife on Mother's Day Weekend.

To believe Suzanne rode her bike Sunday morning, one must believe she was alive when Barry ate the steak on one dinner plate and then they made love the evening before going to sleep.

The evidence, according to Suzanne's SM presence, and lack thereof, shows that she drops off the earth around 2:45pm Saturday, the 9th. Barry's truck telematics are so very busy Saturday night. The dogs' hits on any thing has been discounted, per the CCSD website.

Before Barry drives his truck out of the driveway, headed to Broomsfield at 4:30am, before he spots the antlers on the Moose at Garfield, so he turns in that direction near where Suzanne's blue bike helmet was found after Suzanne was missing for Day Four but before Barry did all of that, first thing he had to get rid of Suzanne's body somewhere.

#BarryWhereIsSuzanne

Upon reflection on this post, I find two glaring errors that must be corrected.

Due to the way Barry says the word, as transcribed in the AA, he has me typing it as Broomsfield but it isn't Broomsfield because it is Broomfield. Why does Barry add an s?

It wasn't a Moose that caught Barry's eye. Instead, it was a family of Elk. My apologies to the Moose.

#BarryWheresSuzanne
.

 

[Megnut]

Lion: lions are messy. It would've been obvious.

Gone Girl: Suzanne disappeared herself, and bereft, Barry decided to frame himself for murder. Alibi-ing Suzanne for all day and night 5/9-10, vacating the house for absolutely no reason on 5/10, save a lot of lying about where he was and what he was doing there. Ludicrous.

Abduction: why would Barry frame himself with telemarics, airplane mode, an illegitimate alibi if he was innocent?

There is just no alternative that stands up against the blizzard of activity that points only at Barry.

JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Your question was asked to reported Ashley Franco as well. She responded the case as a whole lacking evidence. IMO

https://twitter.com/AshleyKKTV/status/1502029818493243407?s=20&t=TbF97THSkca__cSh5FubQw

I saw AF’s response yesterday and I firmly believe she misinterpreted what the Judge meant. JMO
It would be outrageous for a Judge to make a statement like that in my opinion.
I think he absolutely meant evidence of prior DV when I read the entire statement she’s quoted the Judge on.
JMO

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502025238661402628?s=21
One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."

 

[K9Enzo]

I saw AF’s response yesterday and I firmly believe she misinterpreted what the Judge meant. JMO
It would be outrageous for a Judge to make a statement like that in my opinion.
I think he absolutely meant evidence of prior DV when I read the entire statement she’s quoted the Judge on.
JMO

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502025238661402628?s=21
One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."

Thank you - I hope you're right. It did seem like a odd general sweeping comment to me. IMO