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

[Momofthreeboys]

Why didn't Murphy simply refuse to sign the warrant in the form it was in? Was he obligated to, if it met the threshold, despite about 80 pages of extraneous detail?

He may have just skimmed it or he may have trusted law enforcement that they had enough. The person presenting the affidavit is swearing that the information is true and the judge is supposed to sign if he sees presumptive information.

BBM. I tend to agree with much of your criticism and wish all motions, exhibits, responses, and decisions were posted on the court website when they are filed. The open records law does not currently require this, but I see no legal reason to require a request before release. I am giving the court the benefit of the doubt by assuming the limited posting on the website relates to a resource issue.

As to the bolded statement, transcripts are not court records or any other form of public record unless they are filed with the court by a party. Even if they were, any restriction on their use could not have been made by the court without a written order explaining why (there is no such order).

I believe the use restriction most likely would have been imposed by the court reporter - I speculate that she claims the copyright and wants a share of Plunder's revenue if they are used as clickbait. "Fair use" she can't restrict, but publication she can.

I haven't decided were I will come down on streaming court proceedings live in real time. The "circus atmosphere" that continues to concern the SCOTUS has only grown more poisonous in the age of social media and extreme partisanship. I wouldn't want ranting conspiracy theorists who invent facts, or "vivid" personalities like NG, or clickbait artists of any stripe to have any influence over the judge or jury in proceedings involving any of my fellow citizens, let alone me or my loved ones. Until I can have confidence that won't happen, I will not support routine live streaming of court hearings.

If not live, I like video as a trial artifact.

 

[CGray123]

Why didn't Murphy simply refuse to sign the warrant in the form it was in? Was he obligated to, if it met the threshold, despite about 80 pages of extraneous detail?

IMO Murphy conscientiously studied the AA but had no authority to redact it when it was submitted to him signed by LE.

What he signed was the arrest WARRANT, not the AA. The AA was sufficient for that purpose.

In light of the new records disclosure rule, CRCrP 55.1, he tried to create a redaction process, affording the DA and the defense an opportunity to advise him so that he could issue the explanatory order required by the new rule. Neither the DA nor the defense offered meaningful input IMO. The DA whiffed on the opportunity to avoid a change of venue issue, and the defense wanted anything probative suppressed.

But I still have no good answer why Judge M, who seemed so conscientious, knowledgeable, and strategic in his other actions, failed to make the redactions on his own before releasing the AA. As I have said, I speculate he thought he could make the issue go away in the jury selection process. Maybe also, redaction on his own would consume time that he didn't have and/or create issues he wanted to avoid. Not satisfactory IMO, but it's a rational explanation.

 

[MassGuy]

Page 72, I can't believe I missed this!

Barry was shown a picture of the locations around the Morphew house of Suzanne's phone activity at 4:10 AM and 4: 15 AM on May 10, 2020. He said, "Well, if she did that, I have no idea that it went anywhere but the house, but if you was to ask me, I'd say, 'It was at the house the whole time."'

That's incredibly important if they can prove that to be true, as that's the time Barry was certainly preparing to leave (his 4:30 wake up lie, notwithstanding).

They're both supposed to be in bed sleeping, yet his truck and phone is active in the driveway, and Suzanne's phone is moving when she and Barry are fast asleep.

Then her phone powers down minutes later.

Just another data point that puts a dagger in Barry's narrative.

 

[FromGermany1]

"SA Grusing talked about mine shafts and Barry shifted in his chair. The possibility was posed to Barry that she could not be seen in one of those, also considering the staging of the bike and helmet. Barry said, "If that is the case, then why wouldn't we have as many thousands of Agents as they've said has been on this case, why don't we have thousands of people doing a grid search, looking for any, anything that could be -a dig site, a bury site, a piece of clothing?" Page 92.

bbm
Interesting, that he even mentioned "a piece of clothing". Why should a perp take down his victim's clothing before letting her disappear? Because to avoid possible future identification? IF the perp did so, then he wouldn't have strewn it out in the open, one would think. Better to dump it at 5 different dumpsters far away in Broomfield. No dig site, no bury site, no piece of clothing would have been found during a grid search - and Barry knew it very well. IMO

 

[katydid23]

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

"Eytan, Fisher-Byrialsen and Hollis claimed that investigators intentionally omitted DNA evidence from the car that belonged to an Arizona sex offender. Investigators also found his DNA in Suzanne Morphew's bike, helmet, car and bedsheets.

...snipped....

And, they claim, the prosecutors withheld 'exculpatory evidence' from the court during the preliminary hearing charging Barry for Suzanne's murder. Further details on what that evidence is have yet to be shared, although defense previously accused prosecutors of omitting DNA evidence from disclosure.

If that evidence had been available at the time, Barry's defense attorneys, Iris Eytan and Hollis Whitson, 'it is certain that probable cause would not have been found.' "


What the heck? When did anyone find that 'glove box DNA' on her bike, her helmet and her bedsheets? I have never read anything of the sort.

And what evidence was withheld that would make him instantly walk free?

 

[katydid23]

Many marriages fail over money arguments and/or infidelity. I have a pretty solid marriage but many of the arguments are about money - I'm conservative and my H is a risk taker. We kept our "investment/savings" money separate for several decades LOL it was the only way or our marriage probably would have failed. Now we're too old and tired to argue I can say in my opinion that I agree: however her disappearance turns out, whoever it turns out did it, it was about money.

As to the bolded above---
If someone killed her over money, who else would that be, other than her spouse? Nothing of value was stolen. The only person who gained financially was Barry.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Page 72, I can't believe I missed this!

Barry was shown a picture of the locations around the Morphew house of Suzanne's phone activity at 4:10 AM and 4: 15 AM on May 10, 2020. He said, "Well, if she did that, I have no idea that it went anywhere but the house, but if you was to ask me, I'd say, 'It was at the house the whole time."'

That's incredibly important if they can prove that to be true, as that's the time Barry was certainly preparing to leave (his 4:30 wake up lie, notwithstanding).

They're both supposed to be in bed sleeping, yet his truck and phone is active in the driveway, and Suzanne's phone is moving when she and Barry are fast asleep.

Then her phone powers down minutes later.

Just another data point that puts a dagger in Barry's narrative.

Good find MassGuy. Guess he was carrying Suzanne's phone with him while preparing to leave? I wonder where he disposed of that phone.

 

[Love Never Fails]

As to the bolded above---
If someone killed her over money, who else would that be, other than her spouse? Nothing of value was stolen. The only person who gained financially was Barry.

My take on what the Op was saying is that Barry hired someone to get rid of Suzanne for him.

 

[katydid23]

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?

About that glove box DNA---why does the DM article say this:
Barry Morphew's lawyers ask judge to drop murder case against Colorado husband | Daily Mail Online

"Eytan, Fisher-Byrialsen and Hollis claimed that investigators intentionally omitted DNA evidence from the car that belonged to an Arizona sex offender. Investigators also found his DNA in Suzanne Morphew's bike, helmet, car and bedsheets. "


Does anyone remember any mention of that glovebox DNA being on the bike, the helmet and the bedsheets?

 

[katydid23]

My take on what the Op was saying is that Barry hired someone to get rid of Suzanne for him.

Right, but he would still be guilty of the crime, either way.

 

[Megnut]

About that glove box DNA---why does the DM article say this:
Barry Morphew's lawyers ask judge to drop murder case against Colorado husband | Daily Mail Online

"Eytan, Fisher-Byrialsen and Hollis claimed that investigators intentionally omitted DNA evidence from the car that belonged to an Arizona sex offender. Investigators also found his DNA in Suzanne Morphew's bike, helmet, car and bedsheets. "


Does anyone remember any mention of that glovebox DNA being on the bike, the helmet and the bedsheets?

AA Pp 44(46) & 45(47)

I daresay the defense is making stuff up.

JMO

Colorado Judicial Branch - Chaffee - Cases of Interest - People of the State of Colorado v. Barry Lee Morphew

 

[Spartygirl]

Oh, fer Soddi's brother Pete's sake, how desperate are they? Another partial match that is so loosely associated with a person who was never at PP it can't even be developed as a lead but thr defense is going to try put pants and a shirt on it. Ha!

It gives me great confidence, however, in the conviction ahead. The defense has nothing.

Laughable.

In the saddest, unlaughing way.

JMO

It is sad and pitiful ... the defense has nothing, they have to know their client is guilty so they just keep throwing things out there to see what sticks.
This is all they have ... they have nothing else.

While Bare spends all that $$ hoping something sticks, but it just keeps sliding down the wall. (no pun intended LOL)

 

[katydid23]

AA Pp 44(46) & 45(47)

I daresay the defense is making stuff up.

JMO

Colorado Judicial Branch - Chaffee - Cases of Interest - People of the State of Colorado v. Barry Lee Morphew

It really seems like they are making that up.

It shocked me at first---to think that a sexual predator's DNA would be found on her bedsheets and bike and bike helmet and in her RR.
And how did no one mention it before? It would have made me pause and take another look at this case if that claim was true.


Isn't the judge going to call them out on making such an outrageous claim? Or is this just bad reporting?

 

[katydid23]

I think I recall touch (partial) DNA on Suzanne's bike and from near a daughter's bed.

Probably a match to Any Friend of Barry's who stayed at the house! Even if it was a full DNA sequence, it probably wouldn't get a hit!!! Unless the Morphew's friends were hit criminals!

LE doesn't get DNA swabs from everybody!

Could well belong to friends --

JMO

In the Daily Mail article, they say it is all the same DNA from the same 'sexual predator.' Which is much more exculpatory than having several random types of touch DNA in all 4 of those places.

 

[MassGuy]

In the Daily Mail article, they say it is all the same DNA from the same 'sexual predator.' Which is much more exculpatory than having several random types of touch DNA in all 4 of those places.

Lol I saw this article the other night, and I laughed--hard. It's a total disaster.

They've aggregated previous reporting, horribly interpreted those court documents, and screwed it all up as usual.

This is something they've done consistently here, and something they've done in past cases (they completely screwed up the reporting regularly in the Berreth case).

Nothing to see here, although Barry's attorneys will certainly be happy.

The glove box DNA is not the same as the unidentified DNA found in other areas, which many cases have.

Especially when you're talking about touch DNA.

 

[MassGuy]

Watching a past episode of 20/20, and former DA Matt Murphy had a great quote. "The suspect has just lied to them, and for an innocent man, there's no reason to lie about anything."

Later in the episode, a legal analyst says that once a jury catches an accused person in a lie, it's difficult for them to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to anything else.

Let's hope that holds true here, as Barry didn't tell one lie, but countless provable ones.

 

[MemPat]

Watching a past episode of 20/20, and former DA Matt Murphy had a great quote. "The suspect has just lied to them, and for an innocent man, there's no reason to lie about anything."

Later in the episode, a legal analyst says that once a jury catches an accused person in a lie, it's difficult for them to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to anything else.

Let's hope that holds true here, as Barry didn't tell one lie, but countless provable ones.

One of my favorite quotes and I agree that Barry's jury will see this from the get-go! They're going to need sunglasses to hide their skeptical eye-rolls.

 

[MassGuy]

My favorite:

That's what it seems like Barry supporters just don't understand. He had no reason to lie about a single damn thing, and he lied about everything.

That alone tells you he did it.

 

[katydid23]

That's what it seems like Barry supporters just don't understand. He had no reason to lie about a single damn thing, and he lied about everything.

That alone tells you he did it.

His lies about him using the 'drug dart' will make it hard for the defense to dismiss the use of the dart. He already admitted to using them. Why would he do that if he really never used them for anything?

 

[MassGuy]

His lies about him using the 'drug dart' will make it hard for the defense to dismiss the use of the dart. He already admitted to using them. Why would he do that if he really never used them for anything?

Exactly. First he claims that he never used it in Colorado, and doesn't know the name of the reversal agent.

Then he claims to have used it twice that previous month to cut the antlers off deer as a trophy. Insanity and illegality aside, deer don't have antlers that time of year (or certainly not ones you'd want).

Garbage nonsense. Only a moron would buy that.