Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #63 *ARREST*

[al66pine]

Bribe a Witness, or a Diff. Crime?

Not an attorney, but the way I read the statute, all it requires is for the person who offers the bribe to know that a crime had been committed or was likely to be committed. If GD and TN were induced by Barry to offer a bribe, and Barry knew there was a crime - it's against the law....
Note that the charges are against Barry - who knew there was a crime, as alleged in the charges themselves....

Sorry if I've lost track of crim charges as I may be following too many cases. But re ^ bbm, iirc, BM was not charged w bribing a witness,* but w a different CO. crime, Attempt to Influence a Public Servant.** Wasn't it eight total, LEOs & a prosecutor's investigator?

@10ofRods sbm bbm Agreeing, if BM committed homicide and offered a "benefit" to MG, as a potential witness, and his intent was to influence her to provide false testimony or to withhold testimony, etc. then yes, seems CO statute* re bribing a witness* applies. Not commenting about possible Bribery of Witness charges of nephew NT or buddy GD, as I do not have sufficient info of their convo's w. MG. Nor enough about BM's convo's w them. my2ct.
________________________________
* Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-703. Bribing a witness or victim
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-8-703 | FindLaw
** Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-306. Attempt to influence a public servant
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-8-306 | FindLaw

 

[Boxer]

Ol’ Jondaba predicts a plea bargain.

Yes.
That is a big possibility, trials are unpredictable.
Life is a big consequence. Some lesser sentence but a sure thing might be acceptable.

 

[CGray123]

Section 2a can't really define MG though, since at the time of the confrontation with TN and GD, it had not yet been established there was any crime.

Suzanne was still just "missing" and there hadn't been any charges against BM yet.

I could be way off base but it seems it would have had to be already established that a crime had taken place, for MG to have any knowledge of facts relating to it.

I'd be curious to hear what any of our verified lawyers have to say. Can you be considered a witness to a crime before it's even been established there was a crime?

ETA: I don't think either GD or TN could even be charged with anything, since they never did threaten, bribe, intimidate, etc. (that we're aware of). All that we know that was said, was "you have rights, you don't have to give CBI your phone". That's definitely not a bribe or a threat.
‘I’m not the other woman’: Second contractor speaks out about Suzanne Morphew investigation | FOX21 News Colorado

You raise an excellent point, and you may be right.

But I don't see such a restriction set out explicitly in the statute. If I were a prosecutor I would have a problem with an interpretation of the statute that left a perp free to bribe, intimidate, or retaliate against a witness right up to the point where charges were filed. If that's the case, the statute serves very little purpose IMO.

On reflection, I tend to agree with @MassGuy, that BM's termination of MG after she told GD and TN she was cooperating with LE was an act of retaliation. If so, I wonder if LE at least had a chat with the guys about accomplice or conspiracy charges, and flipped them.

I, too, would love to hear from our criminal law folks, what their take might be.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Catching up now but wanted to comment, JP and MG both cooperated with LE, iirc MG had 5 interviews with LE (I’ll look for the link and post) But I’m sure at some point LE asked them not to discuss the investigation. I don’t think LE was worried about “witness tampering” as much as they would be concerned with cooperation in the ongoing investigation. I have a “hunch”
TN was informed he could possibly being considered “an accessory after the fact” if he was assisting BM. LE wanted cooperation from all parties concerned. The only one we are aware of not cooperating is the upstanding, loving, Christian husband, BM. My 2cents MOO.

The only thing we know for fact was from Spezze press conference when he said Barry was cooperating and he (LE) hoped Barry would continue to cooperate. I have to assume at some point LE stopped talking to Barry and Barry stopped talking to LE.

 

[MassGuy]

You raise an excellent point, and you may be right.

But I don't see such a restriction set out explicitly in the statute. If I were a prosecutor I would have a problem with an interpretation of the statute that left a perp free to bribe, intimidate, or retaliate against a witness right up to the point where charges were filed. If that's the case, the statute serves very little purpose IMO.

On reflection, I tend to agree with @MassGuy, that BM's termination of MG after she told GD and TN she was cooperating with LE was an act of retaliation. If so, I wonder if LE at least had a chat with the guys about accomplice or conspiracy charges, and flipped them.

I, too, would love to hear from our criminal law folks, what their take might be.

I think that regardless of if their actions were in fact criminal, law enforcement still had a word with them in regards to this.

The timing makes sense, as the family spokesman quickly went dark.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

You raise an excellent point, and you may be right.

But I don't see such a restriction set out explicitly in the statute. If I were a prosecutor I would have a problem with an interpretation of the statute that left a perp free to bribe, intimidate, or retaliate against a witness right up to the point where charges were filed. If that's the case, the statute serves very little purpose IMO.

On reflection, I tend to agree with@MassGuy, that BM's termination of MG after she told GD and TN she was cooperating with LE was an act of retaliation. If so, I wonder if LE at least had a chat with the guys about accomplice or conspiracy charges, and flipped them.

I, too, would love to hear from our criminal law folks, what their take might be.

BBM.
I wonder if MG could sue Barry for retaliation and unlawful termination. I’m not familiar with employment law, but it would seem unlawful to be fired by your employer for your cooperation in a law enforcement investigation.

 

[10ofRods]

Bribe a Witness, or a Diff. Crime?
Sorry if I've lost track of crim charges as I may be following too many cases. But re ^ bbm, iirc, BM was not charged w bribing a witness,* but w a different CO. crime, Attempt to Influence a Public Servant.** Wasn't it eight total, LEOs & a prosecutor's investigator?

@10ofRods sbm bbm Agreeing, if BM committed homicide and offered a "benefit" to MG, as a potential witness, and his intent was to influence her to provide false testimony or to withhold testimony, etc. then yes, seems CO statute* re bribing a witness* applies. Not commenting about possible Bribery of Witness charges of nephew NT or buddy GD, as I do not have sufficient info of their convo's w. MG. Nor enough about BM's convo's w them. my2ct.
________________________________
* Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-703. Bribing a witness or victim
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-8-703 | FindLaw
** Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-306. Attempt to influence a public servant
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-8-306 | FindLaw

Attempts to influence can include bribes. We don't know which of the sections of that charge are applicable here. And I was using shorthand, because my point has nothing whatsoever to do with exactly what Barry did.

Barry has yet to be charged with "bribing a witness." But he could be, is my point, given what MG has to say. I do not think the fact that he sent 2 people to talk to her (and intimidate her?) before he was charged with a crime would keep that charge from being brought.

Sorry if I was unclear, but given what we know about MG, it is possible Barry could face further charges. I wonder if MG was even mentioned in the AA, btw. I think there were fears for her safety. But I also believe she talked to LE more than once and is crucial to the timeline.

Anyway. - yes, it would be a separate charge, but IMO, trying to bribe or intimidate a witness to a crime that a person knows they committed...is a crime. You can't murder someone, intimidate a witness, and then say, "But no one knew at the time that I was a murderer!"

I don't think the law in CO works that way.

 

[SouthAussie]

I would expect any deal to be contingent upon Barry producing Suzanne’s body. I think Suzanne’s family would be amenable to that, as long as it called for whatever prison time they believe to be sufficient.

First though, the DA would have to offer such a deal. I think there may be decent odds of that occurring.

I don’t see Barry taking such a deal however.

I agree. Noting, however, that this may all change if Suzanne's remains are stumbled on prior to the trial, by an innocent party somewhere.

If Suzanne is discovered by then, I think that might change the direction of everything. BM may be begging for a plea deal, if Suzanne is found.

 

[Chelly]

I agree. Noting, however, that this may all change if Suzanne's remains are stumbled on prior to the trial, by an innocent party somewhere.

If Suzanne is discovered, I think that might change the direction of everything. BM may be begging for a plea deal, if Suzanne is found.

I often think BM got very lucky in disposing of SM or he did a good job of planning and preparing the location in advance.

 

[Whitneyh]

As @GordianKnot said, Barry's paw prints are all over this (lmao!).
Why fire her? Why not send the check in the mail?
Know what I think? I think the timestamps of their communications alone may contradict BM's statements to LE and that may not be the end of what he wanted suppressed. What innocent man does that?

I think he took his SIM card out of his phone and thought he was safe not realizing other's people’s communications could be revealed and would reveal where he was or was not. He is such a narcissist he did not think MG would hand over her phone – I think it jams up his timeline. Same thing with his daughters, much of why he doesn’t want that AA out is because he can’t control the narrative from County Jail and they will finally know what happened.

 

[SouthAussie]

I often think BM got very lucky in disposing of SM or he did a good job of planning and preparing the location in advance.

I suspect that if LE had to arrest BM in haste - which is very possible, if he was planning on leaving - that LE could still be following up on clues and quietly searching for Suzanne.

 

[MassGuy]

I suspect that if LE had to arrest BM in haste - which is very possible, if he was planning on leaving - that LE could still be following up on clues and quietly searching for Suzanne.

There’s a decent chance they have more to work with at this point.

Following his arrest, I’m sure his devices were seized and analyzed. He wouldn’t be the first person to give up the location of a body inadvertently.

 

[JosieMae]

We can only guess at this stage, as we have yet to see the AA. We’ll be able to make an educated guess as to their strategy once the preliminary hearing is over, and we actually know what the evidence is.

For sure, the defense will try to keep as much evidence out as they can. My guess is they ultimately go with a “general denial” defense, casting doubt on the evidence against Barry.

I can’t fathom Barry ever admitting any degree of culpability here, as doing so would also require that he produce Suzanne’s body.

That ain’t gonna happen.

ITA.

And the old incompetent-LE-framed-me defense will be a bit harder to choreograph with 3 agencies involved - the Sheriff's Office, the CBI, and the FBI.

 

[al66pine]

Which Statute?

....But I don't see such a restriction set out explicitly in the statute. If I were a prosecutor I would have a problem with an interpretation of the statute that left a perp free to bribe, intimidate, or retaliate against a witness right up to the point where charges were filed. If that's the case, the statute serves very little purpose IMO. I, too, would love to hear from our criminal law folks, what their take might be.

@CGray123 sbm bbm CO.'s Bribery of Witness statute being discussed here relates to a person offering a "benefit" to a witness or victim.
CO also has a crim statute relating to the offense of Intimidating a Witness. Based on my quick read of it, seems to have an ambiguity similar to the bribery statute --- when does a person become a witness for purposes of this statute?

_____________________________________
Criminal Code § 18-8-704. Intimidating a witness or victim
"(1) A person commits intimidating a witness or victim if, by use of a threat, act of harassment as defined in section 18-9-111 , or act of harm or injury to any person or property directed to or committed upon a witness in any criminal or civil proceeding;... a person he or she believes has been or is to be called or who would have been called to testify as a witness in any criminal or civil proceeding or a victim of any crime;..." sbm bbm
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-8-704 | FindLaw

 

[al66pine]

....Anyway. - yes, it would be a separate charge, but IMO, trying to bribe or intimidate a witness to a crime that a person knows they committed...is a crime. You can't murder someone, intimidate a witness, and then say, "But no one knew at the time that I was a murderer!"
I don't think the law in CO works that way.

@10ofRods sbm bbm
Agreeing w you, but I think ---
a certain someone sitting in Chaffee County jail may think it works that way.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I wonder if MG could sue Barry for retaliation and unlawful termination. I’m not familiar with employment law, but it would seem unlawful to be fired by your employer for your cooperation in a law enforcement investigation.

I don’t think she was an employee. I think Barry hired labor as needed for each job like day laborers type situation. So “fired” was probably more like “you are never working for me again.”

 

[Momofthreeboys]

ITA.

And the old incompetent-LE-framed-me defense will be a bit harder to choreograph with 3 agencies involved - the Sheriff's Office, the CBI, and the FBI.

I am not expecting this to be the tactic. Depending on what their investigators uncover will most likely determine the strategy. By now they know or should know everything LE had or has. If evidence is thin that connects Barry to the murder they have a few other angles I think. That is why people are fervently hoping they have what it takes.

 

[al66pine]

@Momofthreeboysposted: I don’t think she was an employee. I think Barry hired labor as needed for each job like day laborers type situation. So “fired” was probably more like “you are never working for me again.”

@Momofthreeboys
Yes, agreeing, iirc MG's comments about her work for BM, technically she was not an employee. Likely no "wrongful termination" case. my2ct.

OTOH, slander/defamation case for being called a "meth head"?
If true (I have no idea), may be a defense.

 

[Whitneyh]

I am not expecting this to be the tactic. Depending on what their investigators uncover will most likely determine the strategy. By now they know or should know everything LE had or has. If evidence is thin that connects Barry to the murder they have a few other angles I think. That is why people are fervently hoping they have what it takes.

I don’t think they have a lot of physical evidence connecting him to the crime I think it’s going to be a case of electronic communications and heavy on family dynamics that will tell a story. This case reminds me a lot of Jason Young case In Raleigh NC

 

[marylamby]

@Momofthreeboys Looks like your response to the post above yours got inserted into it. Still time to edit.

Yes, agreeing, iirc MG's comments about her work for BM, technically she was not an employee. Likely no "wrongful termination" case. my2ct.

OTOH, slander/defamation case for being called a "meth head"?
If true (I have no idea), may be a defense.

I wonder if he paid by check or cash. In NY, if you're hired as an independent contractor, you're still required to report earnings, as is the person who hired the 'employee'. The check would state 'for services rendered'.
He called at least three people meth heads. Hope the all sue him.