Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #103

[Ontario Mom]

Could that have been what Barry was doing when he claimed he was hunting a dead turkey -- picking up spent casings from a gun he planned to rid himself of? A metal detector and a solid hour...

You wouldn't want to call attention to a missing wespon by leaving the spent casings all over the place.

Perhaps hunter Barry's yard was too clean....

JMO

It's been a while so I'm a little fuzzy but, wasn't the dead turkey excuse when he was out where his trail cam was? Turning it on, or turning it off?

I seem to recall an interview with co-workers who claimed Barry was kind of obsessed with his cams and checked on them ALL the time.

I've wondered ever since then, if he was making sure it was off, so there'd be zero video of him messing about out in the woods, on Suzanne's last day alive.

 

[Megnut]

It's been a while so I'm a little fuzzy but, wasn't the dead turkey excuse when he was out where his trail cam was? Turning it on, or turning it off?

I seem to recall an interview with co-workers who claimed Barry was kind of obsessed with his cams and checked on them ALL the time.

I've wondered ever since then, if he was making sure it was off, so there'd be zero video of him messing about out in the woods, on Suzanne's last day alive.

As I recall, LE theorized that Barry was removing/disabling his cameras during that time. All we know for sure is that he wasn't sharing stale veggie soup with Suzanne...

JMO

 

[CGray123]

I'm afraid I need to call on OP's extended family's experience in Colorado law for help here: if the case is refiled with a brand new charge that BM has never been charged with, I believe deciding probable cause either by preliminary hearing or indictment is required for the brand new charge.

But under what authority and/or regulation would the grand jury be of service if in this case, the same charges are refiled in the same District Court, where probable cause was previously found at the preliminary hearing?

And if a grand jury indictment replaces the preliminary hearing, does the grand jury also decide capital offense proof evident presumption great for the purpose of rejecting or granting bail?

Wasn't it the Colorado Supreme Court that decided grand juries are secret and cannot be recorded and therefore prohibited from convening via virtual session? Nonetheless, I don't think this is the DA's decision.

Looking forward to being enlighted by OP's response.

I think I'll owe somebody a fresh-baked pie.

In Colorado, county grand juries are governed by Rule 6, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure.

You're on the right track with these good questions:

First, a new murder charge brought against BM would have to go through all the usual procedural steps. Although an indictment is based on the grand jury's finding of probable cause and could fulfill that hearing requirement, BM could challenge the finding and ask the new judge to review the GJ record. BM could also raise challenges on other grounds, including prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings. If the judge decided the grand jury's finding of probable cause was unfounded or if there were other fatal errors, s/he could dismiss the charge.

I don't see the issue of bail eligibility anywhere in the grand jury's scope of authority. The bail statute and the Colorado Constitution seem to make this a decision for the court.

All the above, by way of saying that preliminary proceedings similar to what we've seen will likely be needed if an indictment were to issue from a grand jury.

The prosecution initiates the grand jury procedure by filing a petition with the Chief Judge, but you're right that it is the chief judge who orders the jury to be convened. He could find the request to be unjustified, at least theoretically. The petition would have to recite that the grand jury's investigative powers (including subpoenas, Rule 6.1) and secrecy are necessary, e.g., to assure the cooperation of witnesses (SD for example).

All grand juries operate in secrecy (see Rule 6.2) but their proceedings are recorded and the transcript is available to the defendant and the court after an indictment is issued. Whether the secrecy of proceedings can be maintained when meetings are conducted remotely via Zoom, WebEx, or similar technology would be an issue for the chief judge to decide. I am not aware of any appellate cases in Colorado that have considered the information on the NDAA website.

If I understand your point correctly, it is that the decision to convene a grand jury is not made lightly by the DA alone, ITA. I hope my prior post did not suggest otherwise. In addition to the procedural steps to be followed, LS will have to be prepared to commit substantial staff time and investigative resources to support the grand jury. Molly Chilson argued in the BE case that she would have to delegate her full time caseload in order to run the grand jury, and that she would need an additional deputy to bear the burden. When the commissioners refused the additional budget, she weighed the likely benefit to the BE investigation against the harm to the DA's office and its existing cases, and decided not to pursue the GJ option at the time.

To the best of my knowledge, that resource issue has not gone away. We'll see if DA LS can make it happen where Chilson did not, and how the public reacts either way.

Colorado attorney H. Michael Steinburg's website has a lot of readable information generally about criminal law, and the site has a page on grand juries that is particularly rich.

 

[Seattle1]

If the DA recharges BM will it be in the original county of Chaffee or would it start in Fremont County?
Just curious! TIA!

My understanding is the case would be filed in Chaffee. It would be the defense's decision whether or not to move for a change of venue. MOO

 

[GatorFL]

"Unprofessionalism on the part of LE?"

This was a tremendous investigation that involved some incredible organizations, that put in a tremendous amount of man hours.

We had the premier body finding organization in the world (Necrosearch International), scientists, digital experts, countless search organizations, and legendary FBI profiler Jonny Grusing of Henthorn and Redwine fame.

Just a staggering amount of investigative work in the hardest type of murder case there is.

There are untold numbers of killers walking free who happened to get one thing right: they successfully disposed of a body.

Through the better part of a year, they put all the pieces together, and brought a killer to the verge of confessing (immunity).

Because of that we know why Suzanne was killed, when she was killed, where she was killed, and have a good idea how she was killed.

Most importantly, we know WHO killed her.

Barry may be living his best life right now, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation itself.

Every victim should be so lucky as to see even a fraction of the effort that went in here.

So I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I would add in the prosecutorial team who went against the investigator's pleas to not charge Barry; the prosecutorial team who missed multiple deadlines and had numerous witnesses barred from the trial; the prosecutorial team who dismissed the charges because of their own ineptitude and the district attorney who was subsequently suspended for missing her CE hours. All of the above part of LE and all unprofessional. It certainly mitigates the professionalism of LE involved in this case overall. In fact the prosecutorial team may have doomed this case forever.

 

[CGray123]

Not being American, I don't know a lot about its law. My no doubt ignorant opinion is that the above action of not allowing those expert witnesses is reprehensible, should be illegal, and should be reversed, with the judge being censured at the least. How can this be justice? It makes me very angry. MOO MOO etc

In the US as in Australia, the concept of justice is partly procedural, applying the principle that the right person must be convicted. Blackstone's ratio (summary: it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer) arises from a history of tradition and jurisprudence going back centuries in Britain, Ireland, and many other places.

I disagreed with Judge L's decisions but thought they'd be sustained on appeal. I was surprised when respected prosecutor Dan May suggested otherwise, and (mildly and respectfully) criticized DA LS's decision to ask for dismissal.

I have thought about it since, and my speculation is this: DA LS and her team came to believe that even if the appellate court lifted the sanctions on some or all of the evidence, there was a risk some of the important evidence would be excluded based on the unresolved suppression motions. The key to reducing that risk is location and analysis of SM's remains. This assessment tipped the balance in the decision whether to appeal or dismiss. MOO.

 

[Seattle1]

In Colorado, county grand juries are governed by Rule 6, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure.

You're on the right track with these good questions:

First, a new murder charge brought against BM would have to go through all the usual procedural steps. Although an indictment is based on the grand jury's finding of probable cause and could fulfill that hearing requirement, BM could challenge the finding and ask the new judge to review the GJ record. BM could also raise challenges on other grounds, including prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings. If the judge decided the grand jury's finding of probable cause was unfounded or if there were other fatal errors, s/he could dismiss the charge.

I don't see the issue of bail eligibility anywhere in the grand jury's scope of authority. The bail statute and the Colorado Constitution seem to make this a decision for the court.

All the above, by way of saying that preliminary proceedings similar to what we've seen will likely be needed if an indictment were to issue from a grand jury.

The prosecution initiates the grand jury procedure by filing a petition with the Chief Judge, but you're right that it is the chief judge who orders the jury to be convened. He could find the request to be unjustified, at least theoretically. The petition would have to recite that the grand jury's investigative powers (including subpoenas, Rule 6.1) and secrecy are necessary, e.g., to assure the cooperation of witnesses (SD for example).

All grand juries operate in secrecy (see Rule 6.2) but their proceedings are recorded and the transcript is available to the defendant and the court after an indictment is issued. Whether the secrecy of proceedings can be maintained when meetings are conducted remotely via Zoom, WebEx, or similar technology would be an issue for the chief judge to decide. I am not aware of any appellate cases in Colorado that have considered the information on the NDAA website.

If I understand your point correctly, it is that the decision to convene a grand jury is not made lightly by the DA alone, ITA. I hope my prior post did not suggest otherwise. In addition to the procedural steps to be followed, LS will have to be prepared to commit substantial staff time and investigative resources to support the grand jury. Molly Chilson argued in the BE case that she would have to delegate her full time caseload in order to run the grand jury, and that she would need an additional deputy to bear the burden. When the commissioners refused the additional budget, she weighed the likely benefit to the BE investigation against the harm to the DA's office and its existing cases, and decided not to pursue the GJ option at the time.

To the best of my knowledge, that resource issue has not gone away. We'll see if DA LS can make it happen where Chilson did not, and how the public reacts either way.

Colorado attorney H. Michael Steinburg's website has a lot of readable information generally about criminal law, and the site has a page on grand juries that is particularly rich.

Thanks, @CGray123. I've never followed a case in Colorado where the defendant was charged by grand jury indictment. And for the expedition of justice, I'm glad that the majority of criminal cases in Colorado follow the standard complaint and information process.

I've long had the following reference bookmarked, more specifically that defendants indicted by a grand jury are not entitled to a preliminary hearing, which primarily served as the basis for my inquiry as to what purpose a grand jury would serve for a refiled case where probable cause was previously found by a preliminary hearing.

"Grand Juries" & "Indictments" in Colorado - How It Works

A Grand Jury in Colorado consists of 12 to 23 citizens summoned to investigate suspected criminal activity. If a majority find probable cause, they will indict.

www.shouselaw.com

In Colorado, the majority of criminal cases do not involve empaneling grand juries at all. Prosecutors usually decide whether or not to charge criminal suspects following a police investigation. They simply follow the standard complaint and information process.

But in serious or high-profile cases, the District Attorney’s Office may prefer to let a group of regular citizens – the grand jury – make the charging decisions.

A grand jury can be county-wide, judicial district-wide, or statewide depending on which court has jurisdiction and the type of offense. State grand juries typically hear matters involving:

• racketeering and organized crime;
• crimes occurring in multiple judicial districts; or
• other complex cases under the state Attorney General‘s authority.

Note that defendants indicted by grand jury are not entitled to a preliminary hearing, which is where the trial judge determines if there is probable cause to prosecute the defendant. This is because grand juries and preliminary hearings serve the same purpose – deciding whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed a crime. Defendants prosecuted through the standard complaint and information process – and not a grand jury – are entitled to a preliminary hearing. [bbm]

 

[MassGuy]

I would add in the prosecutorial team who went against the investigator's pleas to not charge Barry; the prosecutorial team who missed multiple deadlines and had numerous witnesses barred from the trial; the prosecutorial team who dismissed the charges because of their own ineptitude and the district attorney who was subsequently suspended for missing her CE hours. All of the above part of LE and all unprofessional. It certainly mitigates the professionalism of LE involved in this case overall. In fact the prosecutorial team may have doomed this case forever.

We're talking about law enforcement, not the prosecution; those are completely separate things.

<modsnip>

 

[CGray123]

Headline 2 months ago:​

"Authorities say they are "close" to finding Suzanne Morphew's body but need to wait for snow to melt; charges against husband dismissed"​

When we will hear that the authorities have found SM's body? Because if they were "close" to finding SM's body 2 months ago--have they already found SM's body? Or is evidence of unprofessionalism on the part of LE?

Authorities hint they know location of Suzanne Morphew's body: "She is in a very difficult spot," says prosecutor

With no shortage of bizarre clues, "nothing is what it seems" in the investigation into Suzanne Morphew's untimely disappearance.

www.cbsnews.com

I don't expect to hear from LE until they announce the arrest of BM. CCSO and FBI offered very little information in their announcements during the investigation. Some information came out indirectly, through press interviews with the Moorman family and some witnesses. Some was inevitable: you can't dig up a construction site in a small town without attracting a lot of attention.

However, this time I think LE will avoid sharing the status of the investigation with people outside the need to know circle, lest the information trigger press interest.

(1) They'll want to learn what they can from SM's remains before even considering any public disclosure that she has been found.

(2) They'll want to complete all avenues of investigation, have all forensic reports in hand, and organize the case this time before the arrest, learning the lessons of 2022.

(3) They'll want to keep the case in Chaffee the next time around, and the passage of time will be their friend in that respect if they can keep out of the media limelight.

(4) They'll want to have a trusted and committed legal team in place, and this will involve difficult decisions about resources and yes, politics.

(5) They'll want to avoid altering BM that his arrest is imminent, for obvious reasons.

It seems reasonably likely that these issues will take years, not months, to resolve. I hate to say it, but the next time we hear press coverage of this case may be during the 2024 campaign for district attorney. I could be wrong: if IE files an ethics complaint with the Supreme Court and public disciplinary action is taken, the press will certainly renew its interest in the status of the investigation. If BM files a civil case, the press will follow it. But I consider these potential developments unlikely.

For these reasons, I draw no inferences about the case against BM from the absence of a headline saying SM has been found.

 

[justtrish]

Didn’t he also refer to himself as Suzanne’s ATM? This would lead me to believe there was some abuse/control of finances. Didn’t he use her need for health insurance against her? She had fought cancer twice and he told her that she would lose her health insurance benefits. He denigrated her use of CBD to treat the side effects she experienced due to chemotherapy. Wasn’t there also information about how he used the daughters against her in marital arguments?

I’m not a DV expert, but in my opinion I consider these behaviors to be abusive.

It's sad that often these behaviors are seen as okay and because there isn't bruises and explosive blow ups that this isn't abusive. This is often WORSE because people don't feel they can say anything because others aren't going to see this as abusive. This type of behavior makes people feel crazy, like is it me or is this okay? It isn't okay. It also can tear away at the person slowly over time and they just don't see it as abusive until something like this happens or an extreme escalation happens when they decide not to take it anymore.

 

[justtrish]

It's been a while so I'm a little fuzzy but, wasn't the dead turkey excuse when he was out where his trail cam was? Turning it on, or turning it off?

I seem to recall an interview with co-workers who claimed Barry was kind of obsessed with his cams and checked on them ALL the time.

I've wondered ever since then, if he was making sure it was off, so there'd be zero video of him messing about out in the woods, on Suzanne's last day alive.

This was the afternoon of that Saturday. He told his co worker he was going home to "make the wife happy". Barry and Suzanne had texted back and forth about a hike and then he said no, I'm coming home. He then came home, but didn't park IN the driveway, GPS shows he was parked just before the driveway starts and his phone was pinging around by the creek. He originally told LE was went home to have veggie soup with Suzanne. Then when told about the pinging phone down by the creek, he said he was looking for the week old turkey his daughter had shot. He then left to go get the Bobcat blade replaced. I don't even think he saw Suzanne during this time he was supposed to be home "making her happy". It's hard to say what he was really doing during that 2 hour time frame.

 

[CGray123]

"Unprofessionalism on the part of LE?"

This was a tremendous investigation that involved some incredible organizations, that put in a tremendous amount of man hours.

We had the premier body finding organization in the world (Necrosearch International), scientists, digital experts, countless search organizations, and legendary FBI profiler Jonny Grusing of Henthorn and Redwine fame.

Just a staggering amount of investigative work in the hardest type of murder case there is.

There are untold numbers of killers walking free who happened to get one thing right: they successfully disposed of a body.

Through the better part of a year, they put all the pieces together, and brought a killer to the verge of confessing (immunity).

Because of that we know why Suzanne was killed, when she was killed, where she was killed, and have a good idea how she was killed.

Most importantly, we know WHO killed her.

Barry may be living his best life right now, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation itself.

Every victim should be so lucky as to see even a fraction of the effort that went in here.

So I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I find no fault at all with the professionalism of the investigation.

But there's good reason to question whether the case should have been filed and BM arrested before reports were completed and assembled, etc. It seems like they were hoping SM would be found last fall, which is odd since DA and Sheriff testified early this year that there was no urgency to file the case. Why could they not have waited, found SM, got the case together, and arrested BM this summer instead of last?

Someone has suggested that Spezze pressed for the arrest on the anniversary of SM's disappearance, so in that sense LE may have contributed to the premature filing. But the decision was Stanley's to make, and it was the wrong one, in retrospect.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

It's sad that often these behaviors are seen as okay and because there isn't bruises and explosive blow ups that this isn't abusive. This is often WORSE because people don't feel they can say anything because others aren't going to see this as abusive. This type of behavior makes people feel crazy, like is it me or is this okay? It isn't okay. It also can tear away at the person slowly over time and they just don't see it as abusive until something like this happens or an extreme escalation happens when they decide not to take it anymore.

I don’t understand some posters’ confusion about whether or not there was abusive and violent behavior on the part of Barry. Barry DISCLOSED to LE investigators that he hit Suzanne on the nose during an argument. The suspect HIMSELF admitted to violent behavior.

 

[justtrish]

I don’t understand some posters’ confusion about whether or not there was abusive and violent behavior on the part of Barry. Barry DISCLOSED to LE that he hit Suzanne on the nose during an argument.

I believe that incident happened in Colorado, I'd be willing to bet the abuse maybe non physical was ongoing from long before that. People don't recognize it until it's physical. It's sad.

 

[MassGuy]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

We are talking about the investigation prior to arrest, of which Linda Stanley took no part.

In late April the FBI interviewed Barry one final time, and submitted the results of their investigation shortly thereafter.

It was at that point that the DA's office had the ball, not before.

 

[Seattle1]

I don't even think he saw Suzanne during this time he was supposed to be home "making her happy". It's hard to say what he was really doing during that 2 hour time frame.

^^rsbm
That's also how I remember Saturday's events @justtrish-- except I think BM or his vehicle made an appearance of some sort because SM did tell JL that BM "left again."

And if SM was outside sunbathing, she could have simply heard BM's renowned diesel engine.

 

[justtrish]

^^rsbm
That's also how I remember Saturday's events @justtrish-- except I think BM or his vehicle made an appearance of some sort because SM did tell JL that BM "left again."

And if SM was outside sunbathing, she could have simply heard BM's renowned diesel engine.

You might be right! I will look up the AA again and see what I can find. I recall this was also the time when he tried calling her many times. I think someone had made a map that showed where his truck was with GPS coordinates and then there were the phone calls and texts and I remember he called her when he was driving to the Bobcat place. I remember thinking why did he need to call her if he was just home.. then he called many more times. Then, when returning home the texts saying on my way home and "did you leave". My recollection could be off some, but I think there was definitely something odd with what he was doing in those hours and it's my personal opinion that he already set in motion what hew as going to do to Suzanne. He was prepping something, hiding something, turning off cameras on his property, something was going on in those 2 hours that would show premeditation. Maybe he was spying on her. It all makes me sick to think about. No matter what she was doing in those hours, she didn't deserve what he did to her.

 

[CocoChanel]

ADMIN NOTE:

A generalized debate about the pros/cons of antidepressants is OFF TOPIC.
I believe most of you know that, and those that didn’t - you know now.

Do not be baited into an argument like this by a single post that was obviously a violation of TOS. PLEASE REPORT IT INSTEAD and MOVE ON. And, after Reporting it, for
pete’s sake, don’t quote it and reply to it. We are grateful for the Report. We are not happy if you reply to a post you report.

Thanks for helping us out by watching out for these things!

 

[Megnut]

While Barry wasn't hunting a rancid turkey, IMO Suzannne was communicating with JL. If memory serves me, Barry parked his overloud truck at a distance from PP. IMO he was hiding from her, in stealth mode (something not unfamiliar to him). Removing/disabling trail cams does make sense, especially if he'd been monitoring them all morning while at the beachsite and had seen everything he needed to see. IMO easily Suzanne could've walked toward the creek within range of a trail cam but more likely he had one aimed at the hot tub, for a lot of disturbing reasons. Saw what he saw and made up his mind.

IMO whatever Barry was doing during that hour, he didn't want Suzanne to know he was there, doing it.

Been doing it his whole life, setting a trap --

JMO

 

[GatorFL]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

We are talking about the investigation prior to arrest, of which Linda Stanley took no part.

In late April the FBI interviewed Barry one final time, and submitted the results of their investigation shortly thereafter.

It was at that point that the DA's office had the ball, not before.

I like to view law enforcement broadly. From the first people on the scene to the final people involved until the case has a disposition. Again, the Attorney General is the highest law enforcement official in the country. So I'll group LS and her team in the law enforcement description. If you don't want to you don't have to. JMO