Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #65 *ARREST*

[Scootie98]

I was unable to listen in during the last hearing where this pen was mentioned, but wasn't it said at the time by BM's attorney that it was Suzanne's pen? I mean, if it was Barry's pen and they knew it, can they just bald faced lie this way, to the judge? (I don't follow too many court cases so I'm honestly not sure if this is a thing, or if this is definitely not a thing).

Semantics could be a factor.....If Suzanne was using the pen awares...is it her pen? If unawares, is it her pen? From what I gather, the defense made the reference to the pen being Suzanne's, but I don't recall the prosecution doing so. Since this is discovery, not the trial...and evidence is still being processed and introduced....I don't think the prosecution found it necessary to question or challenge at this point in time. Maybe they did or will. Didn't Jeff Lindsay say he just found out about the pen the day before? If that is the case...it can hardly be established that the pen was processed completely as far as content, origin, etc...Again, there are still questions about this pen that will be answered down the road...including its origin and full complement of participating users.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Semantics could be a factor.....If Suzanne was using the pen awares...is it her pen? If unawares, is it her pen? From what I gather, the defense made the reference to the pen being Suzanne's, but I don't recall the prosecution doing so. Since this is discovery, not the trial...and evidence is still being processed and introduced....I don't think the prosecution found it necessary to question or challenge at this point in time. Maybe they did or will. Didn't Jeff Lindsay say he just found out about the pen the day before? If that is the case...it can hardly be established that the pen was processed completely as far as content, origin, etc...Again, there are still questions about this pen that will be answered down the road...including its origin and full complement of participating users.

Since the prosecution seemed unaware that there was an enhanced recording my assumption was they don't know much about the pen or what's on it. I have to believe that the defense has some idea of what was in the original unenhanced recording, wanted the enhanced recording and knew that Suzanne was using the pen and not their client.

 

[Scootie98]

Since the prosecution seemed unaware that there was an enhanced recording my assumption was they don't know much about the pen or what's on it. I have to believe that the defense has some idea of what was in the original unenhanced recording, wanted the enhanced recording and knew that Suzanne was using the pen and not their client.

Yet, it was seized by LE into evidence, no? If that is the case..how is it that the defense is so much more informed about the contents of the pen than the prosecution is? Some things just don't seem to align entirely with conventional wisdom, here. I, for one, have nothing but questions about this pen business. I can see the defense attempting to set the narrative, on the one hand, while the prosecution is coy, on the other, at this early stage of "the pen".....Since it entered the equation quite late in the process, apparently, looks like the ink's not dry....pun intended.

 

[CGray123]

I was unable to listen in during the last hearing where this pen was mentioned, but wasn't it said at the time by BM's attorney that it was Suzanne's pen? I mean, if it was Barry's pen and they knew it, can they just bald faced lie this way, to the judge? (I don't follow too many court cases so I'm honestly not sure if this is a thing, or if this is definitely not a thing).

I really doubt that E&N would risk the loss of credibility with Judge Murphy that would come from misrepresenting the facts to make their argument, let alone the risk that they could be cited for an ethical lapse. Here's the Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct that seems to apply (MOO) (the appended comments are interesting but too many to post):

BBM

Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal

As amended through Rule Change 2018(4), effective March 15, 2018

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

Cite as RPC 3.3

 

[Scootie98]

I really doubt that E&N would risk the loss of credibility with Judge Murphy that would come from misrepresenting the facts to make their argument, let alone the risk that they could be cited for an ethical lapse. Here's the Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct that seems to apply (MOO) (the appended comments are interesting but too many to post):

Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal

As amended through Rule Change 2018(4), effective March 15, 2018

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

Cite as RPC 3.3

Can you define "Suzanne's pen"? At least in terms the defense could have used?

A. Suzanne acquired the pen.
B. Suzanne used the pen knowingly.
C. Suzane used the pen, either knowingly or unknowingly
D. Suzanne acquired and used the pen, knowingly.

 

[CGray123]

Can you define "Suzanne's pen"? At least in terms the defense could have used?

A. Suzanne acquired the pen.
B. Suzanne used the pen knowingly.
C. Suzane used the pen, either knowingly or unknowingly
D. Suzanne acquired and used the pen, knowingly.

I agree with you to the extent that there are many unanswered questions about this pen, that I expect will come out in the preliminary hearing if the pen is an important piece of the story.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Yet, it was seized by LE into evidence, no? If that is the case..how is it that the defense is so much more informed about the contents of the pen than the prosecution is? Some things just don't seem to align entirely with conventional wisdom, here. I, for one, have nothing but questions about this pen business. I can see the defense attempting to set the narrative, on the one hand, while the prosecution is coy, on the other, at this early stage of "the pen".....Since it entered the equation quite late in the process, apparently, looks like the ink's not dry....pun intended.

Because the defense is going through every page of information they have received with a fine tooth comb.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Because the defense is going through every page of information they have received with a fine tooth comb.

Strange IMO, that they would allocate so much (presumably expensive) resource in doing this, yet not for a techy expert to access the evidence itself

 

[10ofRods]

Yet, it was seized by LE into evidence, no? If that is the case..how is it that the defense is so much more informed about the contents of the pen than the prosecution is? Some things just don't seem to align entirely with conventional wisdom, here. I, for one, have nothing but questions about this pen business. I can see the defense attempting to set the narrative, on the one hand, while the prosecution is coy, on the other, at this early stage of "the pen".....Since it entered the equation quite late in the process, apparently, looks like the ink's not dry....pun intended.

Can you say more about why you think this? Sounds the opposite to me. Prosecution was able to actually play and make audible the contents of the pen to a "consequential witness." Defense says they can't hear the pen at all? The only way the defense likely knows anything about the contents is through an interview with the "consequential witness." IOW, second hand information, perhaps regarded as important by said witness, but that wasn't stated. Just that the "consequential witness" listened through headphones.

That was basically a ProTip for the defense: Use headphones with this particular recording.

Obviously, the defense wants to hear whatever it is that this "consequential witness" heard - but to me it's blatantly obvious that the prosecution has heard the entire pen material, but the defense is complaining it's inaudible-ish to them or that they can't get the audio off the pen at all.

My only question is that, since the pen is obviously in evidence itself, when the defense has access to it (which they must, by law) do they get to take it to their own audio people? I hope they're careful with it. Or, do they send their own audio person to the evidence room (that's what I would expect to happen, the pen stays put in the Courthouse/LE evidence locker and its examination is carefully supervised).

Maybe the defense just needs to bring headphones next time.

<modsnip - no link>

If Suzanne did not record herself, and the other party to the recording was not the person recording, then it would be against the law in CO to do it - and to use it as evidence, IMO.

If the other party was doing the recording with the pen, then why in the world would it be called "Suzanne's pen" by anyone? And if that other party was spying on Suzanne, without her consent (or the consent of the party to whom she was speaking), then that, again, is illegal.

Either the person recorded on the pen was a party to the conversation/intended recipient of the messages (and therefore, it wasn't used as a "spy pen" or the person using the pen (Suzanne) was recording conversations and messages intended for herself, to whom she was a party (and therefore legal in CO). (IMO)

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Can you say more about why you think this? Sounds the opposite to me. Prosecution was able to actually play and make audible the contents of the pen to a "consequential witness." Defense says they can't hear the pen at all? The only way the defense likely knows anything about the contents is through an interview with the "consequential witness." IOW, second hand information, perhaps regarded as important by said witness, but that wasn't stated. Just that the "consequential witness" listened through headphones.

That was basically a ProTip for the defense: Use headphones with this particular recording.

Obviously, the defense wants to hear whatever it is that this "consequential witness" heard - but to me it's blatantly obvious that the prosecution has heard the entire pen material, but the defense is complaining it's inaudible-ish to them or that they can't get the audio off the pen at all.

My only question is that, since the pen is obviously in evidence itself, when the defense has access to it (which they must, by law) do they get to take it to their own audio people? I hope they're careful with it. Or, do they send their own audio person to the evidence room (that's what I would expect to happen, the pen stays put in the Courthouse/LE evidence locker and its examination is carefully supervised).

Maybe the defense just needs to bring headphones next time.

<modsnip - no link>

If Suzanne did not record herself, and the other party to the recording was not the person recording, then it would be against the law in CO to do it - and to use it as evidence, IMO.

If the other party was doing the recording with the pen, then why in the world would it be called "Suzanne's pen" by anyone? And if that other party was spying on Suzanne, without her consent (or the consent of the party to whom she was speaking), then that, again, is illegal.

Either the person recorded on the pen was a party to the conversation/intended recipient of the messages (and therefore, it wasn't used as a "spy pen" or the person using the pen (Suzanne) was recording conversations and messages intended for herself, to whom she was a party (and therefore legal in CO). (IMO)

Exactly as you say. Thanks for clearing things up @10ofRods. Facts in evidence at the recent hearing are getting too muddied by speculation IMO.

 

[Scootie98]

Can you say more about why you think this? Sounds the opposite to me. Prosecution was able to actually play and make audible the contents of the pen to a "consequential witness." Defense says they can't hear the pen at all? The only way the defense likely knows anything about the contents is through an interview with the "consequential witness." IOW, second hand information, perhaps regarded as important by said witness, but that wasn't stated. Just that the "consequential witness" listened through headphones.

That was basically a ProTip for the defense: Use headphones with this particular recording.

Obviously, the defense wants to hear whatever it is that this "consequential witness" heard - but to me it's blatantly obvious that the prosecution has heard the entire pen material, but the defense is complaining it's inaudible-ish to them or that they can't get the audio off the pen at all.

My only question is that, since the pen is obviously in evidence itself, when the defense has access to it (which they must, by law) do they get to take it to their own audio people? I hope they're careful with it. Or, do they send their own audio person to the evidence room (that's what I would expect to happen, the pen stays put in the Courthouse/LE evidence locker and its examination is carefully supervised).

Maybe the defense just needs to bring headphones next time.

And, as to the content of the pen, it seemed clear to me from context that Suzanne had recorded a conversation between herself and another person, plus 15 voicemail messages.

If Suzanne did not record herself, and the other party to the recording was not the person recording, then it would be against the law in CO to do it - and to use it as evidence, IMO.

If the other party was doing the recording with the pen, then why in the world would it be called "Suzanne's pen" by anyone? And if that other party was spying on Suzanne, without her consent (or the consent of the party to whom she was speaking), then that, again, is illegal.

Either the person recorded on the pen was a party to the conversation/intended recipient of the messages (and therefore, it wasn't used as a "spy pen" or the person using the pen (Suzanne) was recording conversations and messages intended for herself, to whom she was a party (and therefore legal in CO). (IMO)

Who besides the defense referred to the pen as Suzanne's? If Barry was spying on Suzanne...would that surprise you? I mean....its not like he was voting for her or anything...right?

 

[Seattle1]

Semantics could be a factor.....If Suzanne was using the pen awares...is it her pen? If unawares, is it her pen? From what I gather, the defense made the reference to the pen being Suzanne's, but I don't recall the prosecution doing so. Since this is discovery, not the trial...and evidence is still being processed and introduced....I don't think the prosecution found it necessary to question or challenge at this point in time. Maybe they did or will. Didn't Jeff Lindsay say he just found out about the pen the day before? If that is the case...it can hardly be established that the pen was processed completely as far as content, origin, etc...Again, there are still questions about this pen that will be answered down the road...including its origin and full complement of participating users.

The July 22 court hearing was to address Motions by the defense specific to alleged Discovery violations. Once we understood the nature of the hearing, I did not expect and did not hear the prosecution discuss any specific details regarding Discovery other than procedural issues and their response to non-compliance allegations.

During the hearing, I recall the spy pen was addressed at least twice by the defense: first, to advise the court that they wanted the FBI enhanced audio version, and second to explain why the audio was critical to this case: SM recorded herself speaking on the phone to an individual, SM recorded herself listening to messages from the individual, and there's a consequential witness that listened to the enhanced audio version with the FBI.

From comments by the defense, it seemed clear to me that SM was using her spy pen, aware of what she was doing with the pen, and SM preserved the audio recording on the spy pen (i.e., did not delete), which audio is now part of Discovery for this case. I expect the same will likely be confirmed during the August preliminary hearing where the prosecution will present sufficient evidence to bound BM over for trial. MOO

ETA: Profiling Evil produced a youtube show where the July 22 hearing is playing in the background, and defense comments re. SM's spy pen is available for all to listen and decide for themselves.

 

[al66pine]

Prosecutor Lindsay Learns of Spy Pen. When?

.... Didn't Jeff Lindsay say he just found out about the pen the day before? If that is the case...it can hardly be established that the pen was processed completely as far as content, origin, etc..

@Scootie98 bbm sbm
Not disagreeing w you re what Lindsay said, as I did not hear it.
Maybe LE or Dist. Atty's investigator had spy pen itself in hand waaay before hearing?
If so, maybe forensic reports re fingerprints or DNA were not completed until day before hearing? Or the transcripts or FBI-enhanced recording? (iiuc, done by the State?)
If so, is it possible Lindsay personally did not receive these spy pen-related pieces of evd until the day before hearing? A stretch? Yes, absolutely. Likely, nope imo.

Just thinking of possibilities to explain what seems to be a discrepancy re evd. myct.

 

[SouthAussie]

My guess is that Jeff Lindsay is fully aware of the spy pen recordings - as the recordings have been submitted as evidence - but was not aware that they were FBI enhanced recordings that he likely listened to.

With the massive amount of data involved in this case, it would seem to me that the prosecutorial office is more concerned about the content of the evidence, than how the evidence was enhanced so that it could be clearly heard by LE and be played to a 'consequential witness'.

Sometimes I think we get the prosecutorial office and the LE investigators mixed up in our heads, as if prosecutors know (or remember) every detail about how the evidence was enhanced to be heard/read/seen - when it was the LE investigators job to gather and review potential clues, decide what is evidence, and present enough substantial evidence for charges to be laid.
With a nod from the prosecutor that 'yes, you now have enough evidence for us to prosecute the suspect'.

 

[Scootie98]

I think I am coming to terms with the fact that the real Suzanne Morphew, and the real Barry Morphew...are not the same people who I have constructed in my own mind and imagination. Suzanne was likely more outgoing and self-determined than I give her credit for...and Barry is likely not as strategic and temperamental as I think he was.....One thing is for sure...point being...these two are probably alot different people in real life than I have coI have never been exposed to a case that was globally captivating as this story is. Maybe that is because Alexandria, Indiana is in my back yard.....idk.

Can you say more about why you think this? Sounds the opposite to me. Prosecution was able to actually play and make audible the contents of the pen to a "consequential witness." Defense says they can't hear the pen at all? The only way the defense likely knows anything about the contents is through an interview with the "consequential witness." IOW, second hand information, perhaps regarded as important by said witness, but that wasn't stated. Just that the "consequential witness" listened through headphones.

That was basically a ProTip for the defense: Use headphones with this particular recording.

Obviously, the defense wants to hear whatever it is that this "consequential witness" heard - but to me it's blatantly obvious that the prosecution has heard the entire pen material, but the defense is complaining it's inaudible-ish to them or that they can't get the audio off the pen at all.

My only question is that, since the pen is obviously in evidence itself, when the defense has access to it (which they must, by law) do they get to take it to their own audio people? I hope they're careful with it. Or, do they send their own audio person to the evidence room (that's what I would expect to happen, the pen stays put in the Courthouse/LE evidence locker and its examination is carefully supervised).

Maybe the defense just needs to bring headphones next time.

<modsnip - no link>

If Suzanne did not record herself, and the other party to the recording was not the person recording, then it would be against the law in CO to do it - and to use it as evidence, IMO.

If the other party was doing the recording with the pen, then why in the world would it be called "Suzanne's pen" by anyone? And if that other party was spying on Suzanne, without her consent (or the consent of the party to whom she was speaking), then that, again, is illegal.

Either the person recorded on the pen was a party to the conversation/intended recipient of the messages (and therefore, it wasn't used as a "spy pen" or the person using the pen (Suzanne) was recording conversations and messages intended for herself, to whom she was a party (and therefore legal in CO). (IMO)

I just don't think Barry would care much about the legality of recording another person.....after all, he votes for others....murders others....Whats the harm in a little unlawful eavesdropping? The personality type of BM and SM just seems to be a contrast....that, when I try and associate a "spy pen" to one or the other...it would always come up heads....Its Barry. He was the controller, the dominant one...the one who handled everything financial, or heavy or difficult...Barry runs the show. That is why I am having such a hard time buying into the idea that this is "Suzanne's pen". But then again....I don't personally know either one of them......

 

[tmar]

Thanks Puzzles.
I searched MSM for info on it and I could find nothing .
I thought surely somebody here knows...
If he was becoming more paranoid and controlling as he grew older, it would fit.
If SM had really become afraid and was planning an exit but needed evidence he intended to harm her, she may well have purchased one..

I wish I could see his face when he learned of it's existence..
But that face is the last thing he wants anybody to see since she disappeared.

Has there been any talk of a plea deal - shorter sentence in return for full disclosure of the location of her body?

BBM above.
Could it just be vanity?
When younger, BM looked better, as we all have.

When we compare our appearance, when younger, probably we aren't as 'gorgeous'.
So public photos would expose the 'ugly' man (due to his actions) to all.
I hope, he has deteriorated due to the constant nagging in his head, causing stress +++: mistakes I MADE.

 

[kittythehare]

BBM above.
Could it just be vanity?
When younger, BM looked better, as we all have.

When we compare our appearance, when younger, probably we aren't as 'gorgeous'.
So public photos would expose the 'ugly' man (due to his actions) to all.
I hope, he has deteriorated due to the constant nagging in his head, causing stress +++: mistakes I MADE.

No doubt a deterioration has occurred.
My gut was that he wanted to avoid being recognised by other 'victims' and that was the reason he wanted to keep a low profile.
If , for example he had been abusing other women but not using his real name and they suddenly recognised him and came forward to LE. That is my imagination and pure speculation.

 

[Seattle1]

If my memory serves me correctly...didn't Melinda say that Suzanne and Barry's marriage (or relationship) was deteriorating in the last several years...or words to that affect? I am not tech savvy...but I think she said this in an interview.....its a dynamic that is in play here. I would appreciate anyone's help...

Memory can be a funny thing when it comes to hearsay and/or the opinion of others. I think this is a good example given that Melinda has since softened her story.

I really think we're best served to wait for evidence presented at the preliminary which is almost here!

JMO

 

[seekingjustice**]

Perhaps BM bought the spy pen as a gift for SM. She would have been unware that the pen was recording her calls and also recording played back voice mails. If that's the case then I can see why the pen would be referred to as 'SM's pen'.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Strange IMO, that they would allocate so much (presumably expensive) resource in doing this, yet not for a techy expert to access the evidence itself

Because it is the prosecution’s burden ultimately not a defendant. Since it is the state pressing the charges there are specific burdens they bear. The judge was exceedingly fair in his advice to have the tech people talk to each other but ultimately it is that states job to deliver the files in a readable format.