Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #98

[Boxer]

This came out during the campaign IIRC, but voters who hate "the government" (even though in a democracy, we collectively are the government) seem to be irrationally drawn to candidates whose integrity is highly questionable.

One of my concerns has been that the judges of the 11th Judicial District are quite aware of both Stanley's integrity issues and her much-less-than-distinguished legal career, and are inclined to be skeptical of her decisions. We see this skepticism very clearly in Judge L's decision on venue. I see her overt involvement in the prosecution as problematic, and I hope she simply stays away from the hearings and trial.

Hadn't thought of that. That is plausible, I have been wondering why she is not in court every step of the way.
I want her to succeed, and wishing her luck.
Was glad when she brought the charges forward.
Now it's show time, and she has drawn hard a defense in E&N.

 

[Boxer]

I think most cars have a lot of touch DNA as well. Where as homes get cleaned often, counters, doorknobs, walls even get wiped down and likely even more so in Suzanne's house with cancer treatments and COVID keeping everyone home for 2 months before this, I feel like she was likely to really have kept at least common areas cleaned. Who wipes down the inside of their glove box? I mean really I can't think of a single time I have wiped inside my glove box. I have been pulled over and handed what is inside my glove box to LE, I have gotten an oil change where strangers were inside my car turning on and off blinkers and whatever else they do. I am sure the sales people before I bought my car opened and closed the glove box because a manual for the car comes inside there. I just think it's ridiculous that this is where the "stranger DNA" was found and that is enough to derail this case to make someone believe that a strangers DNA in her glove box inside her garage means that person is somehow the one that took her, staged a bike, didn't steal anything else, just her and her phone with it's charger. If even one other thing was out of place, her purse gone or cards thrown about, same DNA on the door handles and on her purse, or the doorknob of the house, or gosh anywhere in the house, the bedroom the night stand near where the phone charger would be plugged in... anything.. but it isn't because that DNA is just not relevant.

Was this DNA inside the glove box? I thought the sample was on the outside.
I dont have tine to drill down right now.
But inside ope s up the whole issue of touch transfer DNA. From papers to everything else that has ever been in there.

 

[justtrish]

I agree you got her grievances about her marriage down or at least what trail she left...with the exception of their comingled money. That was her decision entirely as she choose the PP home and knew what the price was so comingled in order to make that move. Perhaps she "thought" they could sell and close quickly on Indiana, but that didn't happen...I would hazard a family court judge has heard it all over the years of listening to divorce grievances...but is often said divorces don't often end up with murder. Prosecution has to climb that hill...not that they had a rocky marriage. I don't think one person disagrees with the fact their marriage was on the rocks.

I'm curious though how the Indiana house got to be sold the way it did. Wasn't it a different type of sale, not just straight forward? Then in the fall of 2019 she was texting I believe SO and said she couldn't leave because of money and hoped the sale of the Indiana house would be done in January. I really would love to know how that all happened. Did she move to Colorado believing the sale of the Indiana house would be much quicker and then it wasn't. Was Barry on the promising end of that home selling quickly and her having the money back. Did it keep getting put off and become a sorta hold on Suzanne to have that leverage to keep her? We don't really see any of their communications about that just the texts to SO about that being the hold up for her the year before. Then we know the house didn't sell in Jan, but instead June after she was gone and he conveniently had went to court to be allowed to go ahead with the sale.

If their relationship was rocky for many years and she received that inheritance during the rocky time, I definitely can see wanting to keep that separate. In a relationship where there is no known issues, it wouldn't likely be typical to not share inheritance or any money left to one person. I know in my marriage what we have is ours. If I received a lump sum, it wouldn't be ours, if he got a bonus or something it is ours. We discuss and spend as if it is ours. If our relationship was on the rocks, I could see beginning to see some separation of assets as a protection for not being left out dry. I sorta feel that could be what was going on. Maybe money left her was supposed to be for a specific purpose.. we don't know for sure, but I think if he was controlling with money, it seems normal for her to want to separate that money left to her to protect herself so she could have a way out vs him having it and her being stuck unable to leave (which is exactly what happened here)

 

[justtrish]

Some couples that's ALL they fight over - money. IMO

Money issues are not a root problem though. Trust, lack of respect, addictions, etc. Those things cause money issues. It seems to be a symptom of some other issue. If Suzanne felt safe in her marriage would they have needed to fight about money? If Barry never did things with money without talking to her would they fight about it? So I question if it was money that truly was the issue or was it Suzanne feeling left out of decisions about money, was money used to control and therefore create insecurity and fights? When we look at this deeper than it's just about money, it really shows how break down in other areas leads to fights about money. She didn't feel safe with him, she needed that money to leave him, he knew that and used it to keep her. He also used it to guilt her. You have a RR, this nice house, you don't work, so basically I provide this and you still aren't happy. I feel emotions just typing this out. This is so much more than one spouse is a spender and the other is a saver and they fight about that.. this is Barry wants to hold money over her head so she won't leave him. If only things were different for her. If she had a way to leave and not need her money back from the sale of the house. If she didn't feel conflicted about divorce, about staying until the girls were out of the house, etc.

This isn't meant to be directed at you. Just as I read this comment my mind started racing. When a couple only fights about money, there is usually something else fairly big under the surface they are avoiding saying/fighting about and instead all that angst and emotion just goes to money money money.

 

[CGray123]

It couldn't be that Judge RL is trained as and previously had a career as a defense lawyer? It has to be that DA LS is problematic?

Evidence allowed should follow the rule of law and not depend on the faults or biases of these two. Judge PM is the one who should be sanctioned for allowing the flimsiness of partial DNA "evidence" to put a man charged with 1st degree murder back on the street.

Lack of proof evident presumption great hinging on that one thing is truly where this started going off the rails.

Before Cahill testifies, he needs a mental health evaluation. He is the most unfit person in this entire case. And that was true even before he carelessly shot himself.

JMO

What I can say about my own view is this: if I were a judge looking at Stanley's professional history, I'd be skeptical. That's MOO.

If you read Judge L's decision on venue, he is very critical of Stanley's press conference in violation of court orders, which insinuated BM's guilt because he exercised his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. These were not the kind of mistakes one would expect from an experienced prosecutor with a strong sense of professional responsibility.

Judge L focused on the prejudicial effect of the extraordinarily lengthy AA, which contained much inadmissible evidence, into a small community with an understandably intense interest in SM's disappearance. This, too, was a self-inflicted wound to the prosecution that a prosecutor with a strong sense of professional responsibility would have taken steps to avoid.

Both these misjudgments by Stanley were prominent factors leading Judge L to believe that the citizens of Chafee county - the people most affected by the crime against SM - could not sit in judgement of the accused BM.

I haven't seen any indication that either Judge L or Judge M - both of whom got their trial experience as public defenders - are viewed by attorneys, witnesses, victims or the public as biased in favor of the defense. According to the Colorado Jury Commission, both were highly rated and recommended for retention by lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Judge M was re-elected in 2016 with nearly 70 percent of the vote. If you have a factual basis for your suggestion that they are unfairly prejudiced against the prosecution, I'd be interested to see it.

Prosecutor Hurlburt has acknowledged that his mis-handling of the DNA issue in the PH led to Judge M's mistaken conclusion about its significance.

I doubt the prosecution will call Cahill, but the defense might. Whether he needs professional help or not, I agree that he has been an albatross around the neck of the prosecution.

 

[justtrish]

Was this DNA inside the glove box? I thought the sample was on the outside.
I dont have tine to drill down right now.
But inside ope s up the whole issue of touch transfer DNA. From papers to everything else that has ever been in there.

Reading the tweets from the preliminary hearing here http://www./preliminary-hearing-tweets/ and again thank you @sk716

I see some of the tweets saying ON the glove box and some saying IN the glove box. I'll go check out Plunders video's of the court transcripts and see what wording was used. I guess either way it still doesn't change my view. A predator wouldn't get DNA on the outside of the glove box and nowhere else. Not the car door handle, inside the car anywhere. I mean how? Just touch that one area and nowhere else?

 

[FromGermany1]

What if BM made sure, NOT selling the Indiana home, when Suzanne was still alive? As long as he didn't, there was no money to pay Suzanne back, who had invested her inheritance money into the PP home.
We know, the marriage was already on the edge before they moved to CO in 2018.
I can imagine, he found a solution, how he could delay the sale of the IN home for some (not so short) time. For example by renting the IN home to some relative or friend or to whomever and NOT selling it to a potencial buyer. Suzanne he could have told a "nice" story about, what was going on with their old home; he is practised in lying as we know. Certainly he had some "supporters", who could have confirmed his story (and who themselves maybe heard a different story from Barry).

IF that was the case, that he intentionally betrayed Suzanne with tricks like this, it shows even more premediation in my eyes. He wanted to get a hold on her $ 4-500.000, no matter what. The next step after that would have been to get rid of her, if she (and her money) wouldn't want to stay with him "til the end". MOO

 

[Love Never Fails]

Based on the remaining little bit of voice of Suzanne that Barry didn't silence, it's clear to me that Suzanne did not comingle her money. She agreed to loan it to Barry who said he would pay her back. His boasts of what he could earn in a summer. Was she supposed to grovel to get her money back?

Yes, at divorce, the law might be harsh. Comingled by choice and comingled by fraud may be treated the same in a court of law, but Suzanne didn't get a chance to fight that battle or learn that hard lesson.

What she had was a husband who, based on what we can gather, convinced her to front her inheritance for PP with the promise and expectation of having it returned in full.

What we don't know is what tactics he used to effect that arrangement.

We also have no proof that Suzanne picked that home. We only know that's what she told her sister. At a time when Suzanne was trying to take a bad marriage and lean into a fresh start. It's entirely possible and equally probable IMO that she wasn't ready to invite scrutiny into her marriage. That is not unique to her.

As for the house, if Suzanne did any choosing, we don't know what she had for actual choices. As simple as between two listings or as complex as between a house, any house and Barry threatening suicide.

Listen, Suzanne, you know I love you. You can trust me. When have I ever been untrustingworthy? We can get the house and I'll pay you back. You don't want the girls to grow up in a plain house. I'm going to pay it back, I can make a million dollars this summer. I pay people back. 100%. My whole life I pay people back.

Suzanne didn't divorce Barry in 2018 (from his own mouth, we know he wouldn't even discuss it. Which is CONTROL. Stonewalling is abusive.).

She moved to Colorado. Left family and friends and her support system behind.

She mothered her children, battled cancer, kept a home, made an impression locally, provided her security toward that fresh start with the declared stipulation it be returned -- she wasn't demanding a civil contract with Barry, she was trusting a moral one. He said he would...

What did Barry do, toward a fresh start?

I think it's safe to say one party in that marriage had no intention of changing, and when the other one realized it, she began to change, no longer willing to let another person subvert her free agency.

He didn't like it one bit.

Ballsy.

So he made good on his promise. Marriage is for life and he loved her to death.

Only it was never love of her.

JMO

He didn’t just snowball Suzanne. We have to remember he snowed her dad also and borrowed a huge sum of money from him. I can hear that conversation.
“ You know I love your little girl. Our marriage is for life. She’s an angel to me. I want to buy the best home for her.”
How could Mr. Moorman say no?

 

[Skigh]

He didn’t just snowball Suzanne. We have to remember he snowed her dad also and borrowed a huge sum of money from him. I can hear that conversation.
“ You know I love your little girl. Our marriage is for life. She’s an angel to me. I want to buy the best home for her.”
How could Mr. Moorman say no?

I can also imagine Barry telling him Suzanne picked out the house herself and although he (Barry) thought it was above their budget he could not deny her her dream home especially after battling cancer again....

 

[MountainDad]

I am puzzled as to why Barry is allowed to live so close to his Puma Path home. The ankle bracelet is proven unreliable in that area. If Suzanne was buried, or hidden in that area, does that open the possibility up that Barry could check on conditions, further conceal, or tamper with the site.
Is there ever a circumstance where the person out on bail is not allowed to reside in close proximity to the alleged crime scene?
Also, Does anyone know why the trespassing charges were dropped against Barry's girlfriend?

 

[Megnut]

I don't know more ways to say this: you don't have free will when you live with someone willing to murder. You become trapped. Financially, emotionally. Sometimes physically, most times psychologically.

We're not talking about hordes of marriage that crumble and end with divorce.

We're talking about subtle and not so subtle manipulation and control, over time, a pattern of DV that tragically often isn't discovered/identified until after DV ends in HDV (homicidal domestive violence).

IMO:

It is a abusive to slam on the brakes.
It is designed to scare and intimidate.
It is abusive to stonewall.
It is abusive to demand sex.
It is abusive to all parties to draw minors into adult conflict.
It is abusive to control finances (negotiating finances where one partner is in charge is different than one person appointing himself the ATM)
It is abusive to refuse a requested divorce. That is not love.
It is abusive to lie, cheat, steal -- made worse by demanding forgiveness.
It is abusive to deflect, gaslight, cast shame.
It is abusive to threaten to withhold financial support/insurance.

And any and all of those things aren't less abusive or not-abusive just because the perpetrator doesn't see them that way.

I've not heard of too many controllers who believe themselves to be controlling. As in, I didn't hit her. She got her nose in front of my hand.

Suzanne was trapped.

Prior to MDW 2020, we might've had a lively debate about when and whether her situation rose to the threshhold of DV (I know which side I'd have been on), but after the events of MDW, how can it be denied?

She was controlled to the end.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

All of this is just more hyperbole by E&N. They literally have no other defense of BARE so this is all they can do to try and gain any traction in the court of public opinion.

We have no idea of the State's case in chief at this point. It might have appeared lacking and disjointed during the PH (intentionally so I believe ), but I can bet they've got it nailed down tight by now.

They are well aware of the tactics used by the Defense, and with all the civil trials pending and bad publicity LE has gotten from trampling on poor innocent BARE's rights, I have every faith the State will be laser focused to present a case that will prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

BARE IS guilty; nothing else points to anyone or anything else no matter how hard E&N spin it. I think 12 jurors will be able to see that also.

#Justice4Suzanne

MOO

I think the prosecution has to keep it simple -- present the evidence in a clear and concise manner, and the jurors will get it-- just as we did. I agree with the State that they clouded the DNA issue during the PH trying to introduce (DNA) alleles without an expert. The right DNA expert at trial can make this happen -- erase any reasonable doubt.

 

[BDAJAG]

Used in its informal definition: "insincere talk; nonsense"

Well thank you!
Don't know why I didn't google right out of the box, except...well, it's personal and irrel. here. Only after I received help did I open my standby: Webster's Collegiate. And there it was: "noun, def 2".

But

 

[al66pine]

Falsehoods? Impeach Witnesses. Part 1.

Just found this -Barry Morphew's lawyers ask judge to drop murder case against Colorado husband | Daily Mail Online

@MaisieBella Thx for your post. From link:
"These falsehoods and cover-ups are already prejudicing Mr. Morphew's ability to litigate his motion to dismiss, they will inevitably find their way into the trial as the credibility of these prosecutors and law enforcement officers is challenged,' they wrote in their motion." bbm

Seems defense is saying: Your Honor, we think some state's witnesses will lie on the stand, so you should dismiss the case. (I have not read the motion itself. Anyone have a link pls?)

At trial, if defense thinks a state's witness on direct-examination is testifying falsely, seems imo defense should then at that time do some heavy duty cross-examination of that witness, to (try to) impeach him/her on one or more of several bases. Those bases, coming right up.
my2ct.

*Witness impeachment - Wikipedia

 

[al66pine]

Falsehoods? Impeach Witnesses. Part 2.
Gen'ly in US, not specific to CO. Rules of Evidence, from good old Professor Wiki.*

"Party may impeach a witness in the US by introducing evidence of any of the following..."

Bias. Examples = "witness's blood relationship to a party" or "his financial stake in the outcome of the litigation."
Inconsistent statement. Same witness' "...prior statements that are inconsistent with his current testimony at trial." Applies when prior stmt made by same witness, out of court or in prior proceedings.
Character. "... demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness...by reputation or opinion testimony.... a witness's credibility cannot be bolstered, only impeached." bbm
Prior conviction. "...for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement... a misdemeanor or a felony. If ... not involving dishonesty or false statement,... only for felonies; misdemeanors are inadmissible."
No extrinsic evidence. (read wiki link)
Competency. "Witness lacked requisite mental capacity." Or "witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have..." Ex. = Witness "could not see from where he was."
Contradiction. "... contradict their own testimony during the present proceeding." Different from ^ "Inconsistent Statement."
(mostly my bolding)

Also at wiki link, info about "Bolstering and rehabilitating" a witness.
my2ct
___________________________
*Witness impeachment - Wikipedia

 

[Spartygirl]

I wouldn't be surprised if a search (or more) was conducted in areas of interest in Indiana even.

Off topic but this might be of interest to some. Look what CO passed last year. Wild. I'm sure dog teams will be faced with this at some point. Interesting. IMO

Remains of first Colo. person to undergo body composting laid out | 9news.com

Oh My Heavens...what did I just read there ?!?!?!?

That is indeed wild.
And...no thanks. ( at least for me LOL ) **

 

[Spartygirl]

I did the research many threads ago, it boils down to with the volume of garbage involved even on a grid search it's virtually impossible to locate the evidence. There was a case in CA (I think), LE knew the body went into a trash can,which garbage truck picked it up, and which grid it was dropped in... they never recovered the body. Too much garbage, too many smells.

In a smaller dump it would be doable, but the bigger the municipal area the more garbage. Barry's choice to dump the evidence in Broomfield was probably more calculated than I've ever given him credit for.

I understand what you are saying but there have been bodies, parts of bodies, and other evidence found in Garbage dump landfills.
I am a bit disappointed LE/investigators did not further search.
One case, the searchers were searching landfill for up to 9 weeks. Yes, it is a tedious effort, but well worth it knowing things were dumped in Broomfield, IMO

 

[Cindizzi]

The Defense Motions and exhibits that have been reported on in the media the past couple of days have finally been uploaded to the Court site today March 25, 2022.
They are listed under the date they were filed- March 8, 2022.

Colorado Judicial Branch

As I’ve mentioned before, I have never seen this weird pattern of documents not being accessible to the Public in a timely fashion in ANY Colorado Court case. Ever.

I think these latest Motions referencing texts and emails and LE notes from 2020, very early in the case are the Defense trying to confuse and inflame public opinion .
I hate to say that it seems to be working.
I woke up today and as I had my coffee I checked Twitter for the latest on BM like I usually do.
The first 3 search results were stories about the latest Motions by the Daily Mail, the NY Daily News and Crime Online.
I didn’t click on any of them, but thought Well that’s when you know there’s some wild accusations being made.
Headline grabbing stuff that’s easily misconstrued.
JMO

Ugh, I haven’t given up on Justice being done.
But might have to step away for awhile.
As I type this, I turned on my television to Dateline and it’s an unrelated case I’ve never heard of. I head a woman say “ It was never about the truth, it was about them winning the case”.
Sorry for rambling.

 

[mrjitty]

Edited to correct trail to trial.. gets me when my fingers are typing faster than my brain is thinking.. lol

I am wondering if they are just focused on the trial and not at all concerned with all the defenses motions. If they are confident in their case and see through what the defense is doing with these motions (grasping at straws), then why even bother to be focused on these distractions? I think the defense could be trying to busy the prosecution with these motions hoping they have less focus on the actual trial. What might be seen as slow to respond is just the prosecution not putting all their time into that mess and instead working on the case they will be presenting in about a month.

Yes - this is a take I have posted before.

The discovery issues are likely to be a mix of bureaucratic incompetence (i.e. SNAFU) and simple lack of priority. The prosecution does not care if the defence wants to keep going on a huge fishing expedition about the CODIS hits.

 

[mrjitty]

It's worth remembering how prosecutors use DNA to convict people in murder cases.

They don't scour every surface of crime scenes looking for some DNA. The focus is on surfaces the killer has likely touched, so that they can rule the suspect into a scene or object (e.g the murder weapon).

For example, finding other peoples DNA in BM's truck is meaningless in the case because it's not the crime scene, and you expect to find such DNA. The same logic applies to SM's vehicle, and indeed MM2's vehicle. It's only probative if you find the DNA of someone who shouldn't be there.

So the defence is trying to use a logic that would be laughable if the prosecution tried it.