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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Law enforcement really wanted to connect the bobcat to this crime, as three different cadaver dogs hit on it, with one even trying to lay down on the seat.

That sim information seemed to exclude it though, and they'd obviously analyze any possibility of manipulation (changing SIM cards, etc).

Of course we don't know if anything changed after the AA/prelim, but I'm leaning against it being involved.

It's hard to get past those dog hits, as you're talking about three separate dogs.

So I'm not completely excluding the possibility.
I was just reading this in the AA again. I think every time I read the AA, I see new things or think of something in a different way and it just makes me even more angry, determined, something just ugh.

3 different dogs RAN BLINDLY. They hit on something on the trailer AND the Bobcat. All 3 hit on both items. Maybe if one dog only hit on it or they hit on one item but not the other, but all 3 dogs on both items. No coincidence is that great.

The bare footprint in the bucket

Then going back to the theory she is in the water, he mentions to Holly Wilson and her husband that she was possibly in water stuck in a log jam then later saying, she was underwater. This was in the AA on page 58.

Then in the interview Barry did with investigators April 5th 2021 when they asked where they should search and Barry said in the water.
 
Looking back over the DNA section of the AA and Barry and Suzanne's DNA were both found on the inside cushion of her bike helmet. That was the only 2 DNA profiles found there. If a random stranger planted that bike and left the unknown DNA, then why would they not leave DNA on the helmet then also? Did they decide to put on gloves before tossing it on the side of the road? So many little details like this really do not add up. Other scenarios for what happened to Suzanne don't put the pieces together in a logical way and other scenarios don't explain away all the evidence pointing toward Barry.
 
OFF TOPIC - ADMIN NOTE…..
…….but want to be sure you all know:
Mike Morford, podcaster extraordinaire, and fellow WS member, has invited us all to take part in his new podcast CITIZEN DETECTIVE tonight starting in less than an hour!!
Here are the DETAILS:
CITIZEN DETECTIVE Youtube page:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSgvqIuf4-sEF2aDdNGip2w

The WS thread for the case they are discussing tonight:
Rachael Runyon in Sunset, Utah

Please tune in to check it out!*
Starts at 9 pm Eastern.

(
Please do not comment on this thread about this post….go here instead…..
NEW PODCAST PARTNERSHIP w/ MIKE MORFORD
THANKS!
coco
 
Yes people that know him have made that claim. Some snippets of his conversation seem “normal” some are just far out enough that I can’t imagine it isn’t exaggeration. I was bummed because I had hoped that the trial would have delivered the entire conversation as it is difficult to get the context from what was cherry picked for the AA.
Huh? There was no exaggeration when he lied to FBI and other investigators. You know what I’m bummed about? That a murderer walks free and his defenders make excuses.
 
Yes people that know him have made that claim. Some snippets of his conversation seem “normal” some are just far out enough that I can’t imagine it isn’t exaggeration. I was bummed because I had hoped that the trial would have delivered the entire conversation as it is difficult to get the context from what was cherry picked for the AA.
We all continue to hope we will see justice served no matter the outcome. IMO
 
I was just reading this in the AA again. I think every time I read the AA, I see new things or think of something in a different way and it just makes me even more angry, determined, something just ugh.

3 different dogs RAN BLINDLY. They hit on something on the trailer AND the Bobcat. All 3 hit on both items. Maybe if one dog only hit on it or they hit on one item but not the other, but all 3 dogs on both items. No coincidence is that great.

The bare footprint in the bucket

Then going back to the theory she is in the water, he mentions to Holly Wilson and her husband that she was possibly in water stuck in a log jam then later saying, she was underwater. This was in the AA on page 58.

Then in the interview Barry did with investigators April 5th 2021 when they asked where they should search and Barry said in the water.
Makes you wonder what he put in the water, doesn't it?

Whole bunch of baby blue bike clothes all jammed up in the dam?

JMO
 
I'm not sure I'm getting you. The OP asked about BM's DNA on the bike and I answered about BM's DNA. I did not extrapolate to include other people's DNA on the bike.

I do think it's weird that Barry's DNA is only on the seat. If, as he says, he had wrestled the bike out of her car for her on Saturday, I would expect his DNA elsewhere on the bike. I just think this illustrates another one of BM's lies.
^^rsbbm
According to the AA, Barry's DNA was found on the bicycle seat only. His DNA was not found on the bicycle grips, handlebars, or brakes. Kinda weird that it was only on the seat since according to the AA, he said that he pulled Suzanne's bike and helmet out of her vehicle for her sometime on Saturday.

AA
^^bbm

@Tumbleweed, sorry that my response was unclear.

When responding to OP's citation that according to the AA, BM's DNA was limited to the seat, and not elsewhere (i.e., bicycle grips, handlebars, or brakes), and opined it was weird, I did not adequately explain why I did not think it weird-- once reminded about the potential additional contributors from the shop (i.e., mixed sample, compounding DNA analysis). In other words, not all samples are created equal.

It was a different post I clarified how the AA (or PH) reporting a match only on the seat does not necessarily mean this was absolute and final for DNA bicycle evidence, and how by trial, a subsequent scientific DNA test meeting the requirement for DNA evidence, using the mixed sample, might show that BM's DNA was also not be excluded from the bicycle grips, handlebars, or brakes. MOO

ETA:

DNA analysis is complicated and I'll never understand how Judge Lama could justify striking the DNA expert as a penalty for a discovery deadline violation! o_O:eek:o_O

It's nothing like TV!
Did not intend my simple comparison between a single contributor control sample and a mixed sample to be unclear.

Last quarter, we learned that only one-tenth of 1 percent of human DNA differs from one individual to the next, suggesting forensic DNA analysis is roughly 95 percent accurate. Given these finer points of DNA analysis are presented at trial by experts, their reports including terms such as "results for legal purposes," "evidentiary value of DNA," and scientific DNA tests meeting the requirement for DNA evidence, are generally directed at other experts and tend to bypass us.
 
I'm not sure I'm getting you. The OP asked about BM's DNA on the bike and I answered about BM's DNA. I did not extrapolate to include other people's DNA on the bike.

I do think it's weird that Barry's DNA is only on the seat. If, as he says, he had wrestled the bike out of her car for her on Saturday, I would expect his DNA elsewhere on the bike. I just think this illustrates another one of BM's lies.

I do think he staged the bike after he killed her and went to some lengths to avoid leaving any extra DNA on the bike. Maybe he wore some kind of disposable chemical/hazmat suit? I don't think it would have been that hard for him to get one.

As far as other people's DNA on the bike goes, there is unknown DNA on the seat, grips, brakes, and handlebars. As she had just had her bike serviced, I expect that it is the bike repair personnel. For the next go-around, hopefully LE has been able to match it to someone at the bike shop.

JMO.
Actually there must have been prints/DNA of BM on the bike frame, if he pulled the bike from her RR, as he said he had been asked to do by Suzanne. Who is touching only the bike saddle, when he moves a bike?? IMO
Why BM's prints/DNA were at the inside of the helmet, I don't understand. What reason would there be to touch her helmet at all? Loving, helpful husband, that he is/was, did he clear out her car (when he didn't do this even with his own truck! ;)) and grabbed the helmet with his thumb on the inside/fingers on the outside? In the kitsch love movie I can imagine a husband, carefully putting the helmet on his beloved wife's head, wishing her well for her bike trip and passionately kissing her goodbye. But I can't imagine the same scene with BM.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I can think is maybe the bike shop cleaned it because COVID was a big deal in May 2020 and I recall Colorado being one of the first states to really shut things down. So I wonder if the bike was cleaned and the DNA on the bike could be from someone at the shop working on it and Barry used gloves or if he didn't use gloves maybe he grabbed a towel and tried to wipe real quick and missed some spots.
bbm

Always the CAMPING TRIP comes to mind, which then of all times took place, when people should have stayed at home and protected themselves and others from infection.
 
I agree that he'll probably fail in the claim. But part of the reason for that is because the DA cited a need for further investigation as one of the reasons for dismissing the case. So mentioning the future search wasn't irrelevant to the motion to dismiss.

IMO the main issue in these discussions is posters assume that the prosecution must find SM to restart the prosecution, when i suspect only clean hands are needed.

So for example if the prosecution can prove resources expended on an unsuccessful search conducted in good faith, it may well be the charges can proceed again from the beginning.

The prejudice to BM was addressed via dismissal.

IMO Iris realises dismissal was not necessarily a good outcome for the accused, but I believe it is the port the Judge wanted to sail to, which is why the prosecution went that route rather than appeal.
 
I don’t think we know what time of day the bike was dumped just what time it was found by LE.

I was addressing OPs question about the risk of being seen.

If the accused staged the bike, he most likely did it sometime before 4am approx, and on that road the risk is only neighbours. This is also why there was little risk the bike would be found too soon.

It would be found easily if you were looking for it, but otherwise not.
 
I bet if we could have a goosy gander at Barry's historical phone records, his digital footprint only 'strafed' in the direction of the bike one time.

The trouble with airplane mode is, ya gotta remember which mode ya got it in when you gotta be mischiefing.

JMO

Yep.

I've argued before that the detailed digital evidence may well be more powerful than the first pass version at the prelim.

e.g comparison to baseline.

e.g. forensic examination of the telematics, including cloud.

I would love to know for instance, whether the accused deleted the journey data out of Ford app/cloud

I would love to know for instance, whether the accused removed a fuse for the GPS from the truck.
 
Absolutely. Well said @BeckyF.
I mean, he even lied before he was ‘informed’ that Suzanne was “missing”- when he got the call from the Ritter’s and told them he was at the wall working, and digital evidence proves he was really at the hotel when he got that call.

Why on earth, if he were innocent, would he tell a massive lie about his location when he got the call from the Ritter’s?
IMO, trying to sell his (fake) alibi.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
That lie alone should be sufficient to nail him.
 
Law enforcement really wanted to connect the bobcat to this crime, as three different cadaver dogs hit on it, with one even trying to lay down on the seat.

That sim information seemed to exclude it though, and they'd obviously analyze any possibility of manipulation (changing SIM cards, etc).

Of course we don't know if anything changed after the AA/prelim, but I'm leaning against it being involved.

It's hard to get past those dog hits, as you're talking about three separate dogs.

So I'm not completely excluding the possibility.

I am not sure if @sk716 's bobcat data spreadsheet is still available to check any of this but IIRC the defence left out the final bobcat movements from it's selective exhibit.

But i am guessing the bobcat was found exactly where expected, and corroborated by the truck GPS.

I think he just needed it off the truck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
506
Total visitors
631

Forum statistics

Threads
608,337
Messages
18,237,909
Members
234,345
Latest member
Doug1000
Back
Top