Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #102

[mrjitty]

I disagree. I don't believe anyone on a jury would be willing to wink at BM's murder of SM. BM's knowledge that SM committed adultery is not a good reason to kill his spouse of 26 years and the mother of his two children. There are no good reasons to murder your spouse. The solution for unfaithfulness in marriage is divorce, not murder. Only a monster would think otherwise, IMO.

I am saying the defence is giving a wink to the jury

i.e. being realistic, even a juror with sympathy for the defence case, is likely to be troubled by the accused's highly suspicious behaviour. The defence cannot acknowledge that out loud, but must be aware of it.

This is why IE stresses so much that the accused has been badly treated. She's is providing the rationalisation to acquit, even if you think he likely did it.

 

[mrjitty]

I really think the DA needs some additional help piecing the time line and evidence into a convincing narrative. Barry is not smart enough to pull off an unsolvable crime. His work crew and other associates have to know more than we know.

IMO you don't need to be smart to pull off an unsolvable crime. No Stone Unturned documented multiple Colorado cases where bodies were dumped in unsophisticated ways, yet took years to find. In each case, LE knew who did the crime.

 

[mrjitty]

iirc it was mentioned that a little duck/duct tape could be used to modify the .22 so it could shoot the Tranq darts - anybody else recall that?

I am unclear whether this evidence refers to the .22 or the "inoperable" tranq gun

I think there are two different potential guns under discussion?

 

[mrjitty]

I disagree about “book in the fireplace” and think that is speculation by LE and not circumstantial as they cannot pinpoint when the Morphews had the fire in the fireplace or that a book/journal was actually burned and would be “staging”. Same for the door jam crack…speculation not circumstantial as they cannot pinpoint when it occurred.

With respect - this is the exact fallacy I am talking about.

The prosecution would seek to establish the following facts

Suzanne had a diary
The diary is missing
A book of some kind was found burned in the fireplace.

These facts are circumstantial evidence, not speculation.

First the jury must consider whether these facts are proven. If they are, the prosecution would invite the jury to infer a further fact - in light of all the other evidence considered together, that the book that was burned in the fireplace, is the book.

This is a simplified example, as there are more than 3 facts that suggest this staging - e.g. the deletion of texts

But what the jury is not allowed to do, is speculate away each individual fact that is established in isolation.

Otherwise you get into a situation where there are a dozen suspicious facts pointing to staging, but you speculate each one away in individually because it happened at some other time or some other way.

 

[mrjitty]

Funny, after furiously texting on the way home, he is suddenly bored, leaves his truck door open, inviting rodents of all types to come live in his rolling trash can, and immediately starts running through the house shooting at chipmunks with a .22.
Randomly a .22 bullet is found laying on the bedroom carpet.

RSBM - Exactly,

This is why all the established facts must be considered together, instead of speculating answers for each one.

 

[Seattle1]

I am unclear whether this evidence refers to the .22 or the "inoperable" tranq gun

I think there are two different potential guns under discussion?

According to LS's tweet, I understood tape was required for the tranquilizer gun due to the condition of BM's dart gun.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509257469226217472

As for using the .22 to fire tranq darts, I recall that it was SA Grusing that introduced this theory during the PH, and probably why I'm surprised that the prosecution suddenly backtracked this information, implying that Grusing was incorrect about the capacity to fire a tranquilizer dart.

Here's Grusing on the stand:

A Grusing: So when Agent Harris and I, through our process of speaking with Mr. Morphew we were disclosing parts of our evidence with him to figure out what happened to Suzanne. I did disclose to him that it looked like his cell phone from 2:44 to 2:47 was moving around outside of the house. I believe this was the February 28th interview.

He says, “I shoot chipmunks.” I said well tell me what that means. He goes I’m running around the house shooting chipmunks. And I’m paraphrasing at this time because it’s a back and forth. He said, “I’ve shot 85 chipmunks.”

I asked him if he used a .22 caliber. At that point I had known — and I had not disclosed to Mr. Morphew yet that we found a tranquilizer dart cap in the dryer and I knew from Chaffee county that a .22 cartridge would fire. So when he was talking about running around the outside of the house I asked him if it was a .22 that he used and he said yes, it was.

Still Missing - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #94

Do we have any additional info regarding the house viewing in Salida? I would love to know what the realtor had to say about the conversation there. Haven't read any information regarding realtor comments from May 2020 house viewing(s). However... 11/3/20 CBI Agent Graham spoke with Cara and...

www.websleuths.com

 

[Seattle1]

I disagree about “book in the fireplace” and think that is speculation by LE and not circumstantial as they cannot pinpoint when the Morphews had the fire in the fireplace or that a book/journal was actually burned and would be “staging”. Same for the door jam crack…speculation not circumstantial as they cannot pinpoint when it occurred. ^^bbm

The prosecution would seek to establish the following facts

Suzanne had a diary
The diary is missing
A book of some kind was found burned in the fireplace.

These facts are circumstantial evidence, not speculation. ^^rsbbm

Hear, hear, @mrjitty!

I'm having a deja vu moment because I think I recently had this conversation-- demonstrating how Judge Murphy cited the very same circumstantial evidence when explaining he found probable cause to bound BM over for trial:

In his detailed explanation of his finding of probable cause Judge Murphy pointed out that while there is no body, the facts appear to point that Suzanne Murphew is deceased, not missing or hiding:

• No one has heard or seen her since May 9, 2020, despite huge media coverage…she has not been sighted or found, and she used her phone a lot.
• Her camelback and sunglasses were in her car and she always rode her bike with them.
• She was a stay-at-home mother to raise her kids and had no outside source of income from which she could hide money to use it to disappear.
• She had received an inheritance, but it was used to buy the home. (Morphew had said that “he was Suzanne’s ATM” indicating he was in control of the money.)
• She always had her bible, her journal, and the book “The Courage to Change” together. But her journal was missing and evidence of the journal was found burned in the fireplace.
• Her purse, driver’s license, credit cards, and cash were left.
• Most important, added Murphy, she was a dedicated and caring mother. “This is not in dispute … she said ‘Once Macy is gone – I won’t be able to do it’…. it would make little sense that she would absent herself from her kids’ lives, or of the rest of her family or friends.”

Suzanne Morphew Murder to Proceed to Trial, Barry Morphew Bail set at $500,000 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

On Friday afternoon, Sept. 17, a series of decisions by District 11 Judge Patrick Murphy set the course of the murder trial for Barry Morphew, in the

arkvalleyvoice.com

 

[HongKongPhooey]

RSBM - Exactly,

This is why all the established facts must be considered together, instead of speculating answers for each one.

I totally agree with this. It is relatively easy to speculate one thing away if you are so determined. But to speculate a whole pile away would be foolish, IMO.

 

[waldojabba]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509257469226217472

Thank you @Cindizzi for finding that clip about the tranq gun being operable with duck tape !

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Thank you @Cindizzi for finding that clip about the tranq gun being operable with duck tape !

Yes, should clarify that the reference was to the tranquilizer gun which forensics showed had not been fired recently. I think the issue of whether you can fire a tranquilizer dart from a .22 is still an open issue, with anecdotal reports that it can and cannot be used. I don't know that we would know if there is another trial someday what the basis will be for that proceeding. But that prosecution team will have the knowledge gained from the dismissed trial to work with.

 

[CGray123]

I disagree. I don't believe anyone on a jury would be willing to wink at BM's murder of SM. BM's knowledge that SM committed adultery is not a good reason to kill his spouse of 26 years and the mother of his two children. There are no good reasons to murder your spouse. The solution for unfaithfulness in marriage is divorce, not murder. Only a monster would think otherwise, IMO.

I agree that there is no good reason to kill your spouse. However, sometimes juries seem to sympathize with a defendant, and mitigate his punishment based on "reasons" or justifications that don't seem to fit into any normal affirmative defense, such as self defense or insanity.

A former prosecutor I know told me about a murder case prosecuted by his office, in which a man who bludgeoned to death his wife after telling another man he was planning to do it was acquitted of manslaughter instead of murder 1. He had confessed to the murder and the evidence was overwhelming for each element of the murder 1 charge.

The defense was allowed to offer evidence of the woman's extraordinarily abusive and controlling nature, the many years of physical and emotional abuse she inflicted on her husband, and its psychological effect. They were also granted instructions for second degree murder and manslaughter. The defense offered no insanity defense, but the jury apparently accepted the argument that the defendant was psychologically unable to use reason to control his actions. The jury refused to hold him fully accountable for what he had done, but convicted him of the lowest charge. The case developed a legendary status among Colorado LE, who referred to it as the "Adams County Divorce."

BM did not raise a diminished capacity defense, and I agree that SM did nothing similar to BM that would contribute to a similar result.

But prosecutors still believe the Adams County jury may have applied its own sense of justice (wink) to reach the above result - within the law as instructed. It happens.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I agree that there is no good reason to kill your spouse. However, sometimes juries seem to sympathize with a defendant, and mitigate his punishment based on "reasons" or justifications that don't seem to fit into any normal affirmative defense, such as self defense or insanity.

A former prosecutor I know told me about a murder case prosecuted by his office, in which a man who bludgeoned to death his wife after telling another man he was planning to do it was acquitted of manslaughter instead of murder 1. He had confessed to the murder and the evidence was overwhelming for each element of the murder 1 charge.

The defense was allowed to offer evidence of the woman's extraordinarily abusive and controlling nature, the many years of physical and emotional abuse she inflicted on her husband, and its psychological effect. They were also granted instructions for second degree murder and manslaughter. The defense offered no insanity defense, but the jury apparently accepted the argument that the defendant was psychologically unable to use reason to control his actions. The jury refused to hold him fully accountable for what he had done, but convicted him of the lowest charge. The case developed a legendary status among Colorado LE, who referred to it as the "Adams County Divorce."

BM did not raise a diminished capacity defense, and I agree that SM did nothing similar to BM that would contribute to a similar result.

But prosecutors still believe the Adams County jury may have applied its own sense of justice (wink) to reach the above result - within the law as instructed. It happens.

It happens but I like to believe more often than not juries get it right. Unfortunately though 100+ threads and thousands of posts really all we've been able to discuss is what we learned from LE/prosecution and very little from defense so I can't really assume how a future trial would be structured or if anyone on a potential jury would feel empathy for Barry.

 

[CGray123]

It happens but I like to believe more often than not juries get it right. Unfortunately though 100+ threads and thousands of posts really all we've been able to discuss is what we learned from LE/prosecution and very little from defense so I can't really assume how a future trial would be structured or if anyone on a potential jury would feel empathy for Barry.

ITA that juries get it right - in the overwhelming majority of cases they hear. Study after study have shown that juries decide cases based on the strength of the evidence.

But @mrjitty is also right. BM's defense has tried hard to present a public image of BM as an innocent man railroaded by an out of control prosecutor, supported by investigators who were blinded by tunnel vision. It's a common defense, and it works in rare instances. Since the initial filing was never tried, we don't know how successful IE would have been in court. However, she has been spectacularly unsuccessful in selling that argument to the public at large, and she acknowledged as much to ABC.

If the case is investigated, prepared and handled properly going forward, BM's chances of selling this argument to a jury will be diminished. I have confidence in Sheriff Spezze and his team. I have less confidence in the DA, so in that sense I agree that we can only speculate about how a future charge might be prosecuted and defended.

 

[Diddian]

For those interested to see what one looks like: Here is a link to a sales listing for a specialized 22 cal shotgun-style rifle that shoots Pneu-Darts. The gun has a separate 50 cal barrel which contains the dart and the charge that shoots the dart. (Scroll down past first 4-5 listings to get to full size listing of dart gun.)

Dart Gun 22 caliber Pneu Dart : 960127231

Buy a This is a dart gun made for animal control or capture. This gun uses a dart and drug prescribed by y for sale by Tmiller0459 on GunsAmerica.com the best online marketplace for buying and selling semi auto pistols, firearms, accessories, and collectibles : 960127231

www.gunsamerica.com

 

[CGray123]

For those interested to see what one looks like: Here is a link to a sales listing for a specialized 22 cal shotgun-style rifle that shoots Pneu-Darts. The gun has a separate 50 cal barrel which contains the dart and the charge that shoots the dart. (Scroll down past first 4-5 listings to get to full size listing of dart gun.)

Dart Gun 22 caliber Pneu Dart : 960127231

Buy a This is a dart gun made for animal control or capture. This gun uses a dart and drug prescribed by y for sale by Tmiller0459 on GunsAmerica.com the best online marketplace for buying and selling semi auto pistols, firearms, accessories, and collectibles : 960127231

www.gunsamerica.com

There are many air powered dart guns like this on the market, and I believe the specifically described, inoperable (w/o tape) dart gun found at PP was one of these. I think the investigators theorized early on that a working air powered dart gun was among the articles BM disposed of in Broomfield.

But @Momofthreeboys is right: no one has shown a regular .22 rifle that could shoot a tranq dart using blank ammunition. IIRC, the .22 short barrel gun BM gave Grusing was not in operating condition. So, one way or another, I am still looking for the operable .22 that either BM or SM could have been loading in the PP master bedroom.

I don't recall any other .22 rifle or handgun described as recovered in the AA, although BM admitted he used one regularly to shoot chipmunks as @Seattle1 reminded us. Are the warrants and related evidence recovered on a website somewhere?

 

[Curiousobserver]

ITA that juries get it right - in the overwhelming majority of cases they hear. Study after study have shown that juries decide cases based on the strength of the evidence.

But @mrjitty is also right. BM's defense has tried hard to present a public image of BM as an innocent man railroaded by an out of control prosecutor, supported by investigators who were blinded by tunnel vision. It's a common defense, and it works in rare instances. Since the initial filing was never tried, we don't know how successful IE would have been in court. However, she has been spectacularly unsuccessful in selling that argument to the public at large, and she acknowledged as much to ABC.

If the case is investigated, prepared and handled properly going forward, BM's chances of selling this argument to a jury will be diminished. I have confidence in Sheriff Spezze and his team. I have less confidence in the DA, so in that sense I agree that we can only speculate about how a future charge might be prosecuted and defended.

No doubt in MOO that BM did this but you've got the situation summed up here pretty well. BM would have sat in court with his 2 daughters in visible support of him. The prosecution would present a case that is entirely circumstantial. Although in totality there is no reasonable way all the events could not add up to his guilt, the defense will be successful in poking holes in at least some of the evidence and at some undetermined point the threshold of reasonable doubt could be crossed.

I think we have to admit that this is a provable but very difficult case even if all of the experts were allowed to testify. It all depends on who got on the Jury.

Expensive defense attorneys are expensive for a reason, they are good at it.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

No doubt in MOO that BM did this but you've got the situation summed up here pretty well. BM would have sat in court with his 2 daughters in visible support of him. The prosecution would present a case that is entirely circumstantial. Although in totality there is no reasonable way all the events could not add up to his guilt, the defense will be successful in poking holes in at least some of the evidence and at some undetermined point the threshold of reasonable doubt could be crossed.

I think we have to admit that this is a provable but very difficult case even if all of the experts were allowed to testify. It all depends on who got on the Jury.

Expensive defense attorneys are expensive for a reason, they are good at it.

True and what actually would be admitted as circumstantial evidence. We talk about every single thing that was in the arrest affidavit but we all know that not everything that was in the arrest affidavit would be admissible at an actual trial...we can sorta figure out what was hearsay and what was characterization but it is mentally difficult to go back and tell the story eliminating that "stuff" which is what the prosecution will have to do.

 

[mrjitty]

ITA that juries get it right - in the overwhelming majority of cases they hear. Study after study have shown that juries decide cases based on the strength of the evidence.

But @mrjitty is also right. BM's defense has tried hard to present a public image of BM as an innocent man railroaded by an out of control prosecutor, supported by investigators who were blinded by tunnel vision. It's a common defense, and it works in rare instances. Since the initial filing was never tried, we don't know how successful IE would have been in court. However, she has been spectacularly unsuccessful in selling that argument to the public at large, and she acknowledged as much to ABC.

If the case is investigated, prepared and handled properly going forward, BM's chances of selling this argument to a jury will be diminished. I have confidence in Sheriff Spezze and his team. I have less confidence in the DA, so in that sense I agree that we can only speculate about how a future charge might be prosecuted and defended.

In some respects the defence's job is to create the permission structure for a not guilty verdict.

So if you can show the prosecution has been unfair or unjust, and maybe it was all an accident because they had a fight that went wrong, and yeah he probably did it but can we really be absolutely sure etc etc etc ....

I once read an excellent study about this sort of thing in rape cases, where you may get an acquittal even if the juror thinks the accused is guilty, where they feel some kind of sympathy for the accused, or can be made to judge the victim.

 

[mrjitty]

There are many air powered dart guns like this on the market, and I believe the specifically described, inoperable (w/o tape) dart gun found at PP was one of these. I think the investigators theorized early on that a working air powered dart gun was among the articles BM disposed of in Broomfield.

But @Momofthreeboys is right: no one has shown a regular .22 rifle that could shoot a tranq dart using blank ammunition. IIRC, the .22 short barrel gun BM gave Grusing was not in operating condition. So, one way or another, I am still looking for the operable .22 that either BM or SM could have been loading in the PP master bedroom.

I don't recall any other .22 rifle or handgun described as recovered in the AA, although BM admitted he used one regularly to shoot chipmunks as @Seattle1 reminded us. Are the warrants and related evidence recovered on a website somewhere?

IMO the lack of an operable or fired dart gun is actually much worse for the defence.

The accused claimed to have shot deer from the breezeway in april, and said you'd find darts in the yard.

No gun and no drugs is a huge problem with that.

 

[mrjitty]

I totally agree with this. It is relatively easy to speculate one thing away if you are so determined. But to speculate a whole pile away would be foolish, IMO.

This is what annoys me most about the DV ruling.

DV is not predictive of murder, because murder is a rare event

However given a murder, you are dealing with a completely different data set. The Judge seemed to overlook that - as so often happens.