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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
K9Enzo said:
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
Click to expand...
I honestly have to question this assertion by the Judge that the case “lacks evidence” unless, he’s only referring to direct evidence because there’s a truck load full of circumstantial that points directly at BM. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. I hope the prosecution takes the time in their opening statement to educate the jury on the types of evidence and the value of circumstantial evidence. Come to think of it, they should reiterate this in their closing argument.
 
susiQ said:
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.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. Unfortunately physicality was mentioned only once, I think, by Suzanne but I can't recall if it was text or hearsay that Barry inflicted emotional and physical abuse....when she expressed that she feared she did not elaborate what her fears were. She could have been afraid of many things unrelated to domestic violence...getting kicked out of the house, having her medical insurance cut off, Barry taking her car, cutting off her access to money - all those sorts of games divorcing couples play sadly. There just wasn't "enough" first hand information. Some posters relied on the teen's comment but his comment implied they argued like many couples do and that divorce had "come up". People argue and divorce all the time without one spouse killing another. I don't think the judges ruling "negates" anything else they have. The idea of domestic violence was never a charge to begin with. I think it was easy to grab onto and speculate about their history but there just wasn't much there for prosecution to work with hence their reliance on characterization and behavioral analysis. My gut is that if they would have had some forensic evidence that she was deceased and it was tied directly to Barry I think he might have allowed it...but without a body, a weapon or mode of death and all that the characterization/behavioral analysis is going to be on the chopping block at trial. And absolutely I think the judge was going to impose some sanctions so this was a palatable sanction that forces prosecution to stick with the circumstantial evidence that they have. If he killed her and they prove it that is violence of the highest kind.
 
Cindizzi said:
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."
Click to expand...
This makes so much more sense, when taking the entire quote into consideration.
 

Attachments

  • CFE77034-013F-4BD6-814A-7ED60D27C0F3.jpeg
    CFE77034-013F-4BD6-814A-7ED60D27C0F3.jpeg
    86.5 KB · Views: 264
"Not proven" verdict?
Kemug said:
I guess I was liking a possibility of "Not proven" as a verdict, so that at least if Barry isn't found guilty, he would still not be found innocent, and would have to wear that for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...
@Kemug
Thanks for your post which meshes w my thoughts/guesses about rationale "not proven" verdict in criminal trials in Scotland.

From my earlier post you responded to:
I can see a potential social detriment to defendant who may live w a dark cloud over his reputation, of not being found not guilty.
 
I’d imagine Suzanne’s siblings aren’t too happy about the Judge’s ruling about the exclusion of DV, experts testifying at trial, etc. What’s next? Is the DC going to ask for BM/SM cell phones and BM truck data be ruled inadmissible? If that happens and the Judge rules in favor of the DC, it would be a big blow to the state’s case imo as the phones/truck digital forensics are huge pieces of damning evidence against BM. I really hope that doesn’t happen. But let’s say it does, what would be left- BM’s statements to LE which reveal the lying, liar he is, his many inconsistencies/changing stories in addition to all the other circumstantial evidence that leads right to him. Staged bike, staged helmet, Suzanne’s missing journal, are all things that no abductor/predator would have any reason/motive to do. The staged Broomfield alibi and important witness testimony at trial, especially the testimony of SA Grusing. So there’s still plenty of damning circumstantial evidence for the jury to listen to, evaluate and put together that connects/leads right to BM as the responsible perpetrator even without the phones/truck digital data evidence.

Having said that, IMO Suzanne’s digital footprint ceasing forever coinciding with BM arriving home Saturday afternoon is so important/huge for the jury to hear. Again, no idea if DC has asked/motioned for the digital data be ruled inadmissible, just thinking ahead as wouldn’t be surprised at all if the dynamic duo aka E&N request/motion for this important data to be dismissed. I put nothing past team BM/E&N.
Anyway, *IF* E&N requests it and *IF* the Judge rules in their favor/rules digital data inadmissible, I really cannot see this happening but then again not feeling 100% confident with this Judge, I’m hoping the prosecution would still be able to mention/weave into their opening statement that both SM and her digital footprint ceased to exist after the defendant arrived home on Saturday afternoon 5/9/20, SM never seen or heard from again.

The Gone Girl is absolutely absurd. To think SM would leave her cherished daughters and everyone else she dearly loved behind only taking her journal with her and nothing else- purse, ID, bible etc., etc., and staged her bike/helmet, trying to frame BM for her disappearance/murder. No, just no.

IMO, SM’s journal missing is a huge piece of evidence against BM. Whether he burned it in the fireplace, dumped it on one of the trash runs in Broomfield, buried it, whatever means he used to get rid of it, he’s the only person with motive to get rid of that journal. IMO he got rid of SM’s journal of her innermost thoughts and raw emotions which likely reflected poorly on him, to essentially ‘silence’ SM’s documentation of those things destroyed/got rid of it to ensure it was unrecoverable. Just as he got rid of Suzanne herself to silence her forever, hid her so well to ensure she too was unrecoverable.
Suzanne and her journal Destroyed. Silenced. Discarded. For eternity.

Staged bike. Staged helmet. Staged alibi. Only one person had the means, motive, opportunity and something to gain by silencing Suzanne forever, the defendant BM. Let’s hope 12 competent, critically thinking people aka the jury, carefully evaluates each piece of the evidence presented and with the prosecution’s help, in the end
able to put all the pieces together and complete the puzzle of what this really actually was-
Intimate Partner Homicide, and convict BM on all charges.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE

ETA-clarity
 
Last edited:
mrjitty said:
I agree it's unclear, but I am assuming the content of SMs texts can go to the jury, but no witness is allowed to interpret them.

For instance, SO is not allowed to testify as to her understanding of what was said in various mediums due to the hearsay /prejudicial limitations.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that?

From what we've heard reported from the last few hearings, it sounds very much like the judge has excluded them. By default her texts would be excluded as hearsay unless the prosecution manages to include them using one of the exceptions. The fact that it's a text doesn't matter, a text is still an out of court statement.

But even beyond that, it sounds like the judge has found that any texts mentioning domestic violence are also excluded on 403/404 grounds. So I really doubt the jury is going to see those.
 
DeDee said:
I wonder if there is a link to how many times Barry killed an animal in the wild, which must be over a thousand kills, yes or no, to the ability to kill his wife.

Each time he tracked then shot an animal, it was for Barry to skin, use as a rug, or cut off the antlers. I spied a lovely bird, a stuffed pheasant perhaps, on one of shelves in the PP main living area. So he's killing during every season that's open, right? For most of his life, so much so he's become more at home in the wild hunting and tracking and killing. He's comfortable with killing and skinning and sawing.

Did all of those years of killing living beings, trapping defensive animals, in the wild, soften the blow, at all, in any way, did all that planning and patience, make it easier for Barry to end his wife's life since he has been killing living animals since he was 7yo.?
.
Click to expand...
I wonder if he ate what he hunted and killed such as deer. He likes steak so it seems, but is it venison or beef or something else?
 
susiQ said:
I get sad when I hear of BM shooting chipmunks. We have one here at the house and every year he/she digs his way out from under our concrete porch in the spring and pitches out dirt and gravel into the garden. Then he fills it in and comes out somewhere else piling up some more dirt and gravel. We can actually see the depressions where he’s been digging under the asphalt. It never occurred to me to shoot him. It can’t even be the same chipmunk because we’ve been here for 27 years! Then there’s the chippies at the lake running to and fro. Nope, never thought of shooting the little critters. The grandchildren and I throw them some nuts and berries. I guess we’re not killers, like Barry. I’m not against people hunting for food, but killing just for the sake of killing, I don’t understand.

When I think of a chipmunk revenge, I envision the scene in Monty Python’s In Search of the Holy Grail. You know, the “rabbit” scene, except it’s a chipmunk coming at Barry. :p:D
Click to expand...

I get that certain rodents can be a nuisance, get a yard/barn cat. At one house we had moles in part of the yard and an entire section became like a tiger trap for ankle snapping. Really the only time in my life I wanted to call an exterminator for an outside problem. Started letting the cat that wanted out back out and the problem cleared up on it's own. We don't have chipmunks in my area, I doubt a couple would be too much trouble, but I can see them becoming an issue if you were overrun. For that to happen you would have to have run off all of the native predators.

Personally, I imagine John Rambo Chipmunk suiting up for battle. Little red bandanna, ammo belts ...
 
There is absolutely no evidence that anyone saw, touched or was otherwise in the company of Suzanne Morphew after her husband was. There is ample evidence that he was the last person to see her and was in her company while she was proven to be alive.
 
fcavanaugh said:
I’d imagine Suzanne’s siblings aren’t too happy about the Judge’s ruling about the exclusion of DV, experts testifying at trial, etc. What’s next? Is the DC going to ask for BM/SM cell phones and BM truck data be ruled inadmissible? If that happens and the Judge rules in favor of the DC, it would be a big blow to the state’s case imo as the phones/truck digital forensics are huge pieces of damning evidence against BM, imo. I really hope that doesn’t happen. But let’s say it does, what would be left- BM’s statements to LE which reveal the lying, liar he is, his many inconsistencies/changing stories and all the other circumstantial evidence that leads right to him. Staged bike, staged helmet, Suzanne’s missing journal, are all things no abductor would have any reason/motive to do. The staged Broomfield alibi and important witness testimony. So there’s still plenty of damning circumstantial evidence for the jury to listen to, evaluate and put together that connects/leads right to BM as the responsible perpetrator even without the phones/truck digital data evidence.

Having said that, IMO Suzanne’s digital footprint ceasing forever coinciding with BM arriving home Saturday afternoon is so important/huge for the jury to hear. Again, no idea if DC has asked/motioned for the digital data be ruled inadmissible, just thinking ahead as wouldn’t be surprised at all if the dynamic duo (E&N) request/motion for this important data to be dismissed. I put nothing past team BM/E&N.
Anyway, *IF* E&N requests it and *IF* the Judge rules in their favor/rules digital data inadmissible, I really cannot see this happening but then again not feeling 100% confident with this Judge, I’m hoping the prosecution would still be able to mention/weave into their opening statement that both SM and her digital footprint ceased to exist after the defendant arrived home on Saturday afternoon 5/9/20, SM never seen or heard from again.

The Gone Girl is absolutely absurd. To think SM would leave her cherished daughters and everyone else she dearly loved behind only taking her journal with her and nothing else- purse, bible, ID, etc., etc., and staged her bike/helmet, trying to frame BM for her disappearance/murder. No, just no.


IMO, SM’s journal missing is a huge piece of evidence against BM. Whether he burned it in the fireplace, dumped it on one of the trash runs in Broomfield, buried it, whatever means he used to get rid of it, he’s the only one with motive to get rid of that journal. IMO he got rid of SM’s journal of her innermost thoughts and raw emotions which likely reflected poorly on him, to essentially ‘silence’ SM’s documentation of those things and destroyed/got rid of it to ensure it was unrecoverable. Just as he got rid of Suzanne herself to silence her forever, hid her so well to ensure she too was unrecoverable.
Suzanne and her journal Destroyed. Silenced. Discarded. For eternity.

Staged bike. Staged helmet. Staged alibi. Only one person had the means, motive, opportunity and something to gain, the defendant BM. Let’s hope 12 competent, critically thinking people aka the jury, carefully evaluates each piece of the evidence presented and with the prosecution’s help, in the end
able to put all the pieces together and complete the puzzle of what this was- intimate partner homicide and convict BM on all charges.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE
Click to expand...
Barry has no alibi. He was not where he told LE he was during specific periods of time; nor doing what he reported to LE he was doing...and that can be proven. He was the last person known to have been in Suzanne's company prior to her disappearance and since. That has already been proven. He has no alibi.
 
jakat said:
I wonder if he ate what he hunted and killed such as deer. He likes steak so it seems, but is it venison or beef or something else?
Click to expand...
Venison if cooked right, is amazing! Also, much more nutritious than grain fed cattle. My understanding is that it should be cooked low temp and slow for best results. I can’t see Barry throwing a venison steak on the barbi and it being done in 15 minutes. You’d need a really good set of china choppers for that! :). Or veneers? :p
 
susiQ said:
Venison if cooked right, is amazing! Also, much more nutritious than grain fed cattle. My understanding is that it should be cooked low temp and slow for best results. I can’t see Barry throwing a venison steak on the barbi and it being done in 15 minutes. You’d need a really good set of china choppers for that! :). Or veneers? :p
Click to expand...

Agreed. Deer "steak" isn't really a thing. I do wonder how much meat Barry wasted over the years? He doesn't seem to me the kind of man that respects the animal enough not to waste it. More the kind to just take his trophy and go.

A trick from a dear (:)) family friend is to soak venison in milk for a couple of hours, cuts the gaminess and the lactic acid helps tenderize the meat. Her venison BBQ was delightful, kind of like a really nice brisket.
 
Last edited:
Expert Witness Testimony; Shreck Hearing?
Cindizzi said:
...added for March 30th, this is for a Shreck hearing...what that means below. 4 witnesses will be discussed at that hearing...
Click to expand...
@Cindizzi sbm Thx for your informative post re Shreck hearing, in which judge uses CO's four point test to determine whether expert testimony is reliable & relevant.

cfe77034-013f-4bd6-814a-7ed60d27c0f3-jpeg.336164


Point 4 ^ refers to another rule of evidence I've added below.
"Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
________________________
Colo. R. Evid. 403
^ Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time, Colo. R. Evid. 403 | Casetext Search + Citator
 
O.Incandenza said:
Why do you assume that?

From what we've heard reported from the last few hearings, it sounds very much like the judge has excluded them. By default her texts would be excluded as hearsay unless the prosecution manages to include them using one of the exceptions. The fact that it's a text doesn't matter, a text is still an out of court statement.

But even beyond that, it sounds like the judge has found that any texts mentioning domestic violence are also excluded on 403/404 grounds. So I really doubt the jury is going to see those.
Click to expand...

The texts are going to be admitted. What was disallowed was SO testifying to Suzanne verbally telling her about abuse (hearsay). Any DV expert testimony has also been disallowed because so far, there is no timestamp for physical abuse. As long as there is a timestamp on the text and it's origin is not in question, they will be admitted.

I want to clarify that I think Lama has a very narrow view of domestic violence. Many modern people recognize controlling behaviors as abuse, clearly this Judge doesn't, Murphy did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 694 (members: 200, guests: 494)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
494
Total visitors
694
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,283
Messages
18,237,293
Members
234,331
Latest member
Mizz_Ledd
Back
Top