Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #59 *ARREST*

[Cindizzi]

From last September regarding the 3 areas searched

Suzanne Morphew - Chaffee County Sheriff


With the private search by Andrew Moorman concluding on September 29, 2020, the Suzanne Morphew Missing Person Investigative Task Force, consisting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 11th Judicial District Attorney’s Office and the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office provides a recap of the search for Suzanne over the last several days, and since she went missing on May 10, 2020.

As reported previously, the law enforcement team responded to collect several pieces of possible evidence found by the searchers across the county, and will continue to follow-up to determine if there is any connection to Suzanne’s disappearance.

Also this week, members of the law enforcement task force responded to the report of human remains trained dogs “alerting” on three separate properties in Chaffee County. To clarify, none of these properties are owned by members of the Morphew family. One of the locations investigated by the task force was along the Arkansas River in the county.The dog handler used on that private property was interviewed by our team and explained that the dogs did not “alert” to anything on the property but did show interest. Our law enforcement team obtained consent from the property owner, and after further investigation, including working with the private human remains dogs on the property, it was determined this was not a viable lead in this case.

A second property near the Morphew home was also investigated after the same dog team alerted to an area on that private property. Our investigation team, immediately upon being notified, secured the scene and provided around the clock security until investigators from the Chaffee County Sheriff’s office, FBI and CBI arrived. This location of interest on the private property, with the consent of the property owner, was investigated extensively by members of the task force, and found to have no evidentiary significance to the case.

A third location was also identified in unincorporated Chaffee County near Salida on private property where a different pair of human remains dogs alerted. Also, once alerted, our team responded immediately and secured the property providing security around the clock. This morning our team, along with the FBI and CBI, and with consent of the property owner, excavated this location and once again, nothing of evidentiary value to the Suzanne Morphew case was located.

 

[Seattle1]

I'll also add another data point to my previous points on why LE believes the gun is the murder weapon. The illegal gun charge is the fourth charge listed among the five charges contained in the charging complaint.

^^RSBM
I disagree that LE believes or is alleging that a short rife is the murder weapon. Charge 4 in the Criminal Complaint is a possession charge:

COUNT 4: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON, C.R.S. 18-12-102(3) (F5){30011}

I believe if SM was believed murdered by a gunshot, the charges would include both assault with a deadly weapon charge and crime of violence charge pursuant to applicable C.R.S.

MOO

 

[Derph]

First time posting here but I've lurked since the Arias Trial. I don't often agree with some of the things posted here but I'll do my best to post clear thoughts and my logic to what I post.

Regarding the gun. I don't think it was the murder weapon.

First, BM is an avid hunter and gun guy. A sawed off-shotgun, and that is what I believe the gun is, makes an awful mess and LOUD noise. Not only would you have to contend with a lot of blood splatter but you would also have a lot of pellets to account for. A shotgun shell contains multiple projectiles. IF he was using say Double 00 buck shot that's at least 12-15 pellets a lot more if it was a smaller gauge. Furthermore, once fired from a short barrel the spread of the projectiles opens up a larger pattern in the air than a long barrel. Even at close range you could still find pellets that don't hit the target. That's taking a lot of chance that some pellets miss, go through or bounce off/ricochet into the the surrounding area of the crime scene. An experienced gun person would know this and look for a different option. One that is less messy, loud and leaves the less potential for evidence.

Furthermore, and I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't there be another charge on top of possessing an illegal firearm? A further charge of not only possessing an illegal firearm but also using that firearm to commit a crime or homicide would be tacked onto the charges. That's another felony on top of the one for just possessing it. If the DA was packing charges onto the AA I would think that that charge would be more serious and carry more weight. If they had the murder weapon, I think that would have been added to the charges. The way that the charge is worded leads me to believe that the firearm in question was found during a search hence just the possession charge.

 

[MsBetsy]

I've got to say, I simply never envisioned BM using a gun to kill SM, in spite of all the hunting talk.

Maybe I unconsciously started believing early on that there was a strong element of pre-meditation, not a sudden snap. It just seems like BM had other options.

I wonder if LE asked BM for a list of his firearms - and if any were missing. If BM failed to mention the SBR, whether or not it was legal, that would clearly raise alarm bells with his wife missing when it turned up later.

Re: places the dogs alerted but nothing was found. I'm speculating that SM's remains might have been moved around. That could leave a scent but no sign of excavation and no physical evidence.

Well, we still don't know if the gun was the murder weapon. He's been charged with possession but we don't know if it was used in the crime. It's probably hard to tell from the crime scene if a gun, knife or other object was used especially if he cleaned up. The only other way I can think of for them to know is if BM told someone. Or maybe if they found a bullet (or pieces) with her blood on it. Imo

 

[TKG]

First time posting here but I've lurked since the Arias Trial. I don't often agree with some of the things posted here but I'll do my best to post clear thoughts and my logic to what I post.

Regarding the gun. I don't think it was the murder weapon.

First, BM is an avid hunter and gun guy. A sawed off-shotgun, and that is what I believe the gun is, makes an awful mess and LOUD noise. Not only would you have to contend with a lot of blood splatter but you would also have a lot of pellets to account for. A shotgun shell contains multiple projectiles. IF he was using say Double 00 buck shot that's at least 12-15 pellets a lot more if it was a smaller gauge. Furthermore, once fired from a short barrel the spread of the projectiles opens up a larger pattern in the air than a long barrel. Even at close range you could still find pellets that don't hit the target. That's taking a lot of chance that some pellets miss, go through or bounce off/ricochet into the the surrounding area of the crime scene. An experienced gun person would know this and look for a different option. One that is less messy, loud and leaves the less potential for evidence.

Furthermore, and I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't there be another charge on top of possessing an illegal firearm? A further charge of not only possessing an illegal firearm but also using that firearm to commit a crime or homicide would be tacked onto the charges. That's another felony on top of the one for just possessing it. If the DA was packing charges onto the AA I would think that that charge would be more serious and carry more weight. If they had the murder weapon, I think that would have been added to the charges. The way that the charge is worded leads me to believe that the firearm in question was found during a search hence just the possession charge.

Welcome! Great first post, we are happy to have you here.

 

[genuineusa77]

He said it "sounds" like Barry did "unimaginable" things to her body. I don't know how he could know that he dismembered her. He keeps mentioning Barry "skinning" animals, but that doesn't necessarily mean he mutilated the body. I don't know why he spends so much time speculating about this when he hasn't read the AA yet.

That sounds like sensationalism

 

[Skigh]

I honestly think he waited to hire the attorney's because he didn't want to pay high powered ones if it wasn't necessary. Once his PD read the AA to him I believe he thought, I just might have to use MY MONEY (right) to pay for a lawyer. I imagine he's pretty pissed at Suzanne for this. It totally screwed up plans in his warped simple mind. Those small town police couldn't possibly be as smart as the great BM. Wrong BM, so very wrong. JMO

I think BM could almost have been arrogant enough to think he could conduct his own defence as he thought there was no evidence to show any thing to prove his guilt. I think he must have been shocked to read what has been discovered.

 

[genuineusa77]

When will we see the AA? Was it mentioned the 27th?

 

[Nikynoo]

The True Believers -
How Iris Eytan and Dru Nielsen Create Magic—And Not Guilty Verdicts

Super Lawyers - Colorado 2017 - page18

Thanks for this. I think BM has made a very good choice. It sounds like his team will shake a lot of trees. Lets' see what falls out!

 

[Nikynoo]

I could totally see BM hiring a woman attorney for gender-specific reasons. For starters, he's all about appearances. I'll bet he thinks it would look good for him to have a woman attorney in a case that involves a woman victim, domestic violence, female witnesses, a woman neighbor, a woman DA..... And BM is such a guy guy. He really MIGHT be playing a woman card to help his case....

What may be more interesting is how BM will take advice and orders from a woman. Not well, methinks.

I somewhat disagree - anyone would follows orders if their life depended on it. Have you read the resume's of the lawyers? I think that gives some insight as to what message BM is trying to convey.

 

[Error505]

I’m not at home . I saw it this morning before I left. He discussed the Maya Millet case and then the new charges for BM. When I get home this evening I will link it for you.

Thank you, I’ve got it @IRBHTX linked it. Have a great day.

 

[Skigh]

I somewhat disagree - anyone would follows orders if their life depended on it. Have you read the resume's of the lawyers? I think that gives some insight as to what message BM is trying to convey.

It is late here in England,so I might not be fully alert,so could you please make it clear what message you think BM is trying to convey.

 

[EggSalad]

First time posting here but I've lurked since the Arias Trial. I don't often agree with some of the things posted here but I'll do my best to post clear thoughts and my logic to what I post.

Regarding the gun. I don't think it was the murder weapon.

First, BM is an avid hunter and gun guy. A sawed off-shotgun, and that is what I believe the gun is, makes an awful mess and LOUD noise. Not only would you have to contend with a lot of blood splatter but you would also have a lot of pellets to account for. A shotgun shell contains multiple projectiles. IF he was using say Double 00 buck shot that's at least 12-15 pellets a lot more if it was a smaller gauge. Furthermore, once fired from a short barrel the spread of the projectiles opens up a larger pattern in the air than a long barrel. Even at close range you could still find pellets that don't hit the target. That's taking a lot of chance that some pellets miss, go through or bounce off/ricochet into the the surrounding area of the crime scene. An experienced gun person would know this and look for a different option. One that is less messy, loud and leaves the less potential for evidence.

Furthermore, and I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't there be another charge on top of possessing an illegal firearm? A further charge of not only possessing an illegal firearm but also using that firearm to commit a crime or homicide would be tacked onto the charges. That's another felony on top of the one for just possessing it. If the DA was packing charges onto the AA I would think that that charge would be more serious and carry more weight. If they had the murder weapon, I think that would have been added to the charges. The way that the charge is worded leads me to believe that the firearm in question was found during a search hence just the possession charge.

An important distinction is that the charge is for possession of a Short Rifle, not a short shotgun. There is a difference, although both are illegal in CO. A Short Rifle shoots bullets not buck shot.

What weapons are illegal in Colorado? (18-12-102 CRS)

 

[Seattle1]

That sounds like sensationalism

Unfortunately, these are the type of examples that defendants use to petition the court for keeping documents sealed, change of venue, etc. Right or wrong, many subscribers including WS followers believe the statements are true even without an official release. I do think CM is close to the family --AM specifically but I don't believe that authorities are taking risks with the sealed information. Court sealed documents mean documents are sealed to everybody. MOO

 

[Boxer]

@MsBetsy took the words out of my mouth in the post under yours.

I'll add, we know they found a SBR. We don't know when it came into Barry's possession, if it was a modified gun or factory, if it was a sawed off shotgun or a rifle (although I am assuming it is a rifle since a sawed off shotgun is not a rifle at all) or if it was used in a crime. He's charged with possessing it.

MOO a guess and a prediction.
It's a Indiana legal AR15 SBR.
Then he didn't register it when he moved, it was missing during the SW, and now found.
MOO
Hid it because it wasn't registered correctly for CO.
Thought it wasn't on any current lists.
When asked about it, maintained it was stolen to cover that he did not register it.

 

[Nikynoo]

It is late here in England,so I might not be fully alert,so could you please make it clear what message you think BM is trying to convey.

Also in the UK I think BMs message is "I didn't do it".
Taken from Eytan Nielsen | Iris Eytan
"Most recently, her work as counsel in the jury trial of Tom Fallis caught the attention of the national and international media. Mr. Fallis was wrongfully charged with the murder of his wife."

 

[al66pine]

First time posting here but I've lurked since the Arias Trial....
... the murder weapon, I think that would have been added to the charges. The way that the charge is worded leads me to believe that the firearm in question was found during a search hence just the possession charge.

@Derph sbm Welcome to W/S.
Re your thoughts about "short rifle" which is basis for "possession of dangerous weapon" charge, agreeing w you. Or at least not clear to me that LE/prosecutor has positively concluded that that gun was used in causing SM's death. Could a final ballistics report still be pending? Anyone?
(Yes, afawk, no remains have been located or recovered. Not yet).
my2cts.

 

[SouthAussie]

Maybe they added it because the crime was particularly cruel or inhumane? They may have evidence of past abuse leading up to the murder as well. Imo

I can think of 3 things off the top of my head.

"Working with domestic abuse meetings"
"I'm afraid this is domestic abuse" (said by brother)
"She said she was scared" (said by sister)

And as he is charged with her murder, that alone is domestic abuse (domestic violence). imo

 

[NuttMegg]

Another reason I doubt that a "short" rifle was used is that the bullet would have gone through her and would have carried body matter out with it, and would probably have left residue around. I still don't believe he used a gun at all, but a smaller caliber hand gun could have killed her and left all damage, and the bullet, inside her body. Also even though we know it wasn't a sawed off shotgun he is charged with possessing, a shotgun could have used a slug, a single huge type of bullet as opposed to "shot", pellets.

I don't think there is any questioning the terminology they use. Ie rifle vs shotgun.

 

[SouthAussie]

My comment really wasn't directed at you so I apologize if it seemed personal. I have just seen so many comments on this thread since they were hired and wanted to offer another perspective.

I understand your perspective. I don't see people say "Oh he hired two male attorneys" in any cases.

He hired two people who were available, who have got someone else off on wrongful conviction, who specialise in cases like this, and who were willing to take the case.