Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #62 *ARREST*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think the excuse of assisted suicide is feasible for trial. It sounds like a good defense, on paper, but if there is physical evidence (blood, bone, tissue) that Suzanne is no longer living, he’d have to explain why he needed to use violence to assist her with suicide. I can’t see them using any defense for which Barry will have to testify. He may be able to convince his daughters and he may think that he can convince a jury but his attorneys are surely too experienced to ever let him testify. Arrogance never plays well.
 
SM Struggling, Asking BM???
Yes, I said this some threads ago. BM told the girls that Mom did not want to struggle anymore against the brutal pain.... she asked BM to help her end her life ...
@jondaba bbm sbm Possible that BM told the dau's this? Yes. But is that how SM disappeared? If struggling w so much pain that SM wanted to end her life, wouldn't she consider acting alone, for ex, by staging an accidental drug overdose? Then her actions would not leave BM w both religious consequences in the afterlife & legal repercussions on earth?

OTOH, involving BM to assist ---
W religious beliefs factored in, this scenario entails:
1. Both SM & BM agreeing to end her life.
2. Both SM & BM agreeing he will conceal the death as mere absence.
3. Both SM & BM taking actions to end her life.
4. BM taking actions to conceal her remains.
5. BM lying to dau's, SM's & BM's fam, church congregation, friends, neighbors, et al.
6. Leaving ^ fam & others bewildered, w no funeral services, no burial, & no closure.
^^^Numerous sins/transgressions. Religious consequences in the afterlife?^^^

W legal consequences factored in, this scenario entails:
1.- 6. All the above, plus ---
7. BM lying to LE.
8. BM risking CO manslaughter* charge and prison sentence.
9. Dau's (potentially) being left w no parent for some time.
^^^Potential imprisonment for BM.^^^

Even ignoring the illogic of assisting-suicide-at-SM's-request argument, many of BM's stmts & actions undermine that theory. If BM offers it as a "defense" to the state's M-1 case, I doubt the W/S jury here or Chaffee Co. jury IRL would be swayed to a not-guilty verdict.

I could be wrong, my 2ct.
_____________________________________
* Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-104. Manslaughter
"(1) A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:

... (b) Such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide....
(2) Manslaughter is a class 4 felony."

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-104 | FindLaw
 
I don’t think the excuse of assisted suicide is feasible for trial. It sounds like a good defense, on paper, but if there is physical evidence (blood, bone, tissue) that Suzanne is no longer living, he’d have to explain why he needed to use violence to assist her with suicide. I can’t see them using any defense for which Barry will have to testify. He may be able to convince his daughters and he may think that he can convince a jury but his attorneys are surely too experienced to ever let him testify. Arrogance never plays well.
No I doubt they would take this tactic.
 
Great news! Thanks for sharing this.
And I quote, "As the party who is asking this Court to deny the public its presumptive right to access court records, the Defendant bears the burden of showing that public disclosure of each page, each paragraph, each sentence, each word, in the affidavit poses a substantial and real threat to his ability to prepare and present his defense. He has not done so; nor could he.”

"Zansberg noted that prosecutors do not oppose the public release of the affidavit, and he argued there are “multiple adequate and less restrictive means” to protect the safety and well being of the Morphew children.

"The judge’s order, he wrote, excuses both parties in the case and the court from complying with “the clear mandate” in Rule 55.1 to provide the public with a redacted version of the affidavit. While doing so “may be time-consuming or burdensome, there is no suggestion in (Rule 55.1) that its requirements can be suspended or disregarded because the Court and the parties are engaged in performing other (presumably more important) tasks.”

Follow the law & LET US SEE IT, PRONTO!
 
So what happens now? Is the court required to respond? Is there a timeframe? A hearing?
The response is included in a link in the article. I have attached a partial screenshot. Odd that it was filed yesterday but it is not listed on the docket yet? I don't see it there. We can expect a response and/or action from the judge next week, I would think. EBM
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210618-191004.png
    Screenshot_20210618-191004.png
    283.6 KB · Views: 60
So what happens now? Is the court required to respond? Is there a timeframe? A hearing?
I’m not sure but I would imagine that the Court will need to respond JMO. As far as a hearing, I went back and looked at the Judge’s Order filed on June 4 and in the first paragraph it states that according to Rule 55.1 (a) (5) the Court is not required to hold a hearing to rule on the Defense Motion and he didn’t. He already had a response from the Media and the People at that time and he just reviewed them and ruled.
In the next to last paragraph it says “ the Court will consider further requests or argument as to why or why not this Order should continue and in what form”.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf

Now we have the Media response to that ruling filed on June 17 :

https://coloradofoic.org/wp-content...sideration-of-Courts-Order-of-June-4-2021.pdf

Perhaps one of our members with legal experience knows what might happen next?
 
IMO ... I want to read and see the AA so bad, just like many others here(checking in all the time for an update). But, I also want to see justice served without leniency. I don't want to see a high power/expensive lawyer use an early release of the AA to their advantage. I am not sure if that could happen but lets say something in the AA sets off a chain of events that could be detrimental to the case. Hopefully the right decision is made and this is my opinion. I get the arguments on both sides, I would like to know as well and sure we will.

Would releasing the AA early have a detrimental effect on the case or investigation?
 
IMO ... I want to read and see the AA so bad, just like many others here(checking in all the time for an update). But, I also want to see justice served without leniency. I don't want to see a high power/expensive lawyer use an early release of the AA to their advantage. I am not sure if that could happen but lets say something in the AA sets off a chain of events that could be detrimental to the case. Hopefully the right decision is made and this is my opinion. I get the arguments on both sides, I would like to know as well and sure we will.

Would releasing the AA early have a detrimental effect on the case or investigation?
The law comes down on the side of "no." It is public information and in the public interest to release it and can be redacted as needed by agreement of both sides. While the defense may hate it being released & fight it as prejudicial, that interest is not going to stand if the law is applied correctly, which the judge should have done in the first place. There is a strong precedent the CO law depends on: light is better than darkness in an open society, no matter the consequences (which really are not predictable anyway). Right now, darkness protects the defense and their client to an extreme degree. Let there be light. As the response notes, CO criminal courts have a history of denying the public case information. Rule 55.1 was enacted to remedy that. The judge withholding the AA & saying the defendant's right to a fair trial is jeopardized by the public's right to know was ridiculous. JMHO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Director of Investigative News at 9News Denver re-tweeted the CFOIC recent filing with this comment:

Those who physically searched for the missing woman, deserve to know why after a year authorities arrested her husband without finding a body. #transparency

https://twitter.com/nicolevap/status/1405926693332668419?s=21
Definitely. The judge finding redaction too burdensome on both parties and the court is not a reason to withhold the AA under Rule 55.1, since it makes no such exception. See attached screenshots from the media response.
 

Attachments

  • CollageMaker_20210618_225337978.jpg
    CollageMaker_20210618_225337978.jpg
    142 KB · Views: 20
The response is included in a link in the article. I have attached a partial screenshot. Odd that it was filed yesterday but it is not listed on the docket yet? I don't see it there. We can expect a response and/or action from the judge next week, I would think. EBM

I apologize if I missed this, but who is the Defense thinking might “subject Mallory and Macy Morphew to harrassment, abuse or intimidation” if the AA was released? And any idea why they think this?
 
I apologize if I missed this, but who is the Defense thinking might “subject Mallory and Macy Morphew to harrassment, abuse or intimidation” if the AA was released? And any idea why they think this?
There was a discussion here after the judge issued the motion to withhold the AA about the daughters rights as victims because their mother is missing & presumed dead. They have not spoken publicly about the loss of their mother, did not attend the vigils, etc. Once evidence & facts/presumptions in the AA are released, they may find it difficult to avoid the media and have a "normal" life thru no fault of their own. Of course, we don't know what we don't know so the defense concerns & those of the judge may rest on details in the AA only they have seen. MOO - I welcome the insight and feedback from fellow sleuthers!
 
JMO, but I think there could have been a lot of fighting between them going on. I've tried to imagine just why he'd kill the 'love of his life'. Something went wrong. I'm speculating here, but there could have been another woman involved. I get the feeling he wanted everything and the only way he would be able to get it is if Suzanne was gone. So being the selfish coward he is, he made it happen. I bet he never in a million years thought he'd end up in a cement cage.

JMO

While he is in this cage, I hope he becomes extremely depressed, having nightmares as previously he roamed wherever he chose.
Now this creep has 'no say', no control.

He will become a huge piece of lard, revealed to all.
Forget about improvements, made in the past, as lard will cover all.
Yippee.:):):)
 
I apologize if I missed this, but who is the Defense thinking might “subject Mallory and Macy Morphew to harrassment, abuse or intimidation” if the AA was released? And any idea why they think this?

Honestly, this sounds more like Barry's excuse for leaving PP, because the girls were afraid to keep living there (paraphrasing).

He used the girls to discover SM unreachable that Mother's Day morning, then he used them again to justify selling the PP house, and oh, look... now they're being used again, to keep the AA sealed, for their protection.

jmo
 
Honestly, this sounds more like Barry's excuse for leaving PP, because the girls were afraid to keep living there (paraphrasing).

He used the girls to discover SM unreachable that Mother's Day morning, then he used them again to justify selling the PP house, and oh, look... now they're being used again, to keep the AA sealed, for their protection.

jmo
Indeed. Great insight!
 
SM Struggling, Asking BM???
@jondaba bbm sbm Possible that BM told the dau's this? Yes. But is that how SM disappeared? If struggling w so much pain that SM wanted to end her life, wouldn't she consider acting alone, for ex, by staging an accidental drug overdose? Then her actions would not leave BM w both religious consequences in the afterlife & legal repercussions on earth?

OTOH, involving BM to assist ---
W religious beliefs factored in, this scenario entails:
1. Both SM & BM agreeing to end her life.
2. Both SM & BM agreeing he will conceal the death as mere absence.
3. Both SM & BM taking actions to end her life.
4. BM taking actions to conceal her remains.
5. BM lying to dau's, SM's & BM's fam, church congregation, friends, neighbors, et al.
6. Leaving ^ fam & others bewildered, w no funeral services, no burial, & no closure.
^^^Numerous sins/transgressions. Religious consequences in the afterlife?^^^

W legal consequences factored in, this scenario entails:
1.- 6. All the above, plus ---
7. BM lying to LE.
8. BM risking CO manslaughter* charge and prison sentence.
9. Dau's (potentially) being left w no parent for some time.
^^^Potential imprisonment for BM.^^^

Even ignoring the illogic of assisting-suicide-at-SM's-request argument, many of BM's stmts & actions undermine that theory. If BM offers it as a "defense" to the state's M-1 case, I doubt the W/S jury here or Chaffee Co. jury IRL would be swayed to a not-guilty verdict.

I could be wrong, my 2ct.
_____________________________________
* Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-104. Manslaughter
"(1) A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:

... (b) Such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide....
(2) Manslaughter is a class 4 felony."

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-104 | FindLaw

But she wasn't struggling with pain, she was celebrating being cancer free. She had taken her bike in to Salida, to a shop. She was seen purchasing Thai food in the week before she went missing. She was clearly getting ready for another season of biking on the trails behind her house. She was texting happily with her Indiana friend and talking about the next day's wedding.

None of that sounds like a person in that much pain, to me. Her doctors had offered palliative treatments for nausea and for depression (which Barry nixed, according to AM). But pain was not mentioned. Hodgkins Lymphoma doesn't have pain as one of its symptoms, instead it's fatigue, fever and chills (but chemo can make a person nauseous, of course). Still, Suzanne had ended active chemo and was going on maintenance.

I find the entire premise completely unbelievable and I think a lot of jurors would, as well (especially if one of her doctors is called to the stand to explain her disease, her chemo, and where she was in her course of treatment). She was looking forward to Mother's Day with her daughters, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
2,842
Total visitors
2,975

Forum statistics

Threads
600,738
Messages
18,112,728
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top