CO - BARRY ARRESTED AGAIN - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #118

[TIGER0822]

Touché my dear

MOO

I bet BM had a lot of terrible SM fabricated stories to tell the daughters after SM was killed. The girls may be lead to believe their mother was a vile, drunken hussy who lived an ungodly life. JMO.

 

[New Penny]

I bet BM had a lot of terrible SM fabricated stories to tell the daughters after SM was killed. The girls may be lead to believe their mother was a vile, drunken hussy who lived an ungodly life. JMO.

Absolutely! Planting the seeds of doubt, manipulating. Vile little man! Daughters never stood a chance and could not even grieve their mother, so sad.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

Prosecution goes first. It won't be hard to portray Suzanne in sympathetic terms. Get her cancer, treatment, recovery, broken marriage, affair out in the open. Diffuse anything the Defense would hope to enflame.
This happened because Suzanne wanted out and she was backing down this time. 'Ballsy' he said. No, she was 'confident' I say. Sure of herself. Sure she deserved better. Notably she even told JL it wasn't about him, she didn't plan to go from one man to another. She just wanted to find her way IMO. Recover from BARRY.

That's all important to get out in the open because it's the backdrop for the HDV that occurred on 5/9, the most dangerous time for a woman, leaving an abusive partner.

And hello, it was abusive. Coercive control. A couple incidents of physical violence (that we know of), financial control, stalking, stonewalling, etc, etc. Barry didn't become a new beast on 5/9. He just unleashed it.

JMO

I'm really curious to see what the daughters will testify to. I think the defense will want them to DENY much of what the state tries to say in their narrative. The defense will try to dirty up Suzanne and her affair etc. Will they try to get help from the girls to do that?

 

[Luna20]

I see a workable defense. It appears BAM can be fompounded at home - from three different chemicals, obtained in another state . They are Determined to see one suspect only . SM had multiple affairs. DNA on glove box. I jhope that the prosecutor is great.

A link to “multiple affairs” please.

 

[katydid23]

I watched the video of the Police Officers inside the house with BM, the night SM disappeared. The house was very nice, and well kept, but it gave off dead energy vibe.

The dead energy vibe was probably because of the dozens of dead stuffed animal heads nailed to the walls.

 

[Seattle1]

I'm really curious to see what the daughters will testify to. I think the defense will want them to DENY much of what the state tries to say in their narrative. The defense will try to dirty up Suzanne and her affair etc. Will they try to get help from the girls to do that?

I don't think the daughters will testify because they've already made conflicting statements, and their testimonies can probably be impeached. They best stay seated behind daddy dearest, and remain silent-- save their voice for GMA or the Today Show. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

I have an even easier time picturing Daddy looking at her with his fake sad emoji face saying something along the lines of:

"Honey, I hate to tell you this, but I think you have a right to know. George told me about this one time your mom followed him into the men's restroom and hit on him. Please don't get angry at her for it, though. She was probably drunk at the time, you know how she always drank even though I urged her not to. Point being, if she hit on George, she probably hit on other guys, too, and your mom unfortunately ending up hitting on the wrong guy and he ended up killing her. It's not her fault, though, she didn't deserve to be killed, she just made a mistake, just like we all make mistakes. (Insert fake sad face emoji). If God can forgive her, so should we."

This is exactly the type of thing he'd say.

Cluster B all the way.

JMO.

EXACTLY. And I am afraid we may see at least one of the girls testify for the defense and muddy the waters for their Mom. I think all the gaslighting from Barry has confused them. They believe him because he is Dad.

ETA: Just saw Seattle's reply---trying to talk me off the ledge. Thank You, I didn't realise they had a lot of conflicting statements already. That's good to hear.

 

[Nikynoo]

It seems like a rather foolish strategy since there's no evidence of any other affair that has ever been made public.

Could we say the same for BM? Has evidence of his affairs been made public by LE?

 

[Nikynoo]

Well, if the defense wants to suggest SM had multiple affairs, they’d better bring the receipts, because there’s been no evidence whatsoever supporting that claim.

And LE had all her electronic/phone/digital info, so they’d know. That’s how they found the Liebler twerp.

BBM - actually they didn't - for example, the content of any Whatsapp comms would have been useful, but you need the actual phone for that.

IIRC, it took 6 months for find JL (and conveniently he had disposed of his phone). If they had Suzannes phone, it may have been a different matter, especially as she used Whatsapp and may have accessed other Apps that can be used for hiding communications. Too bad, that the perp disposed of it........

 

[Nikynoo]

Yeah. I think the defense will try to make the jury see SM as someone living a double life. Secretive, risky, and dishonest with those closest to her. They’ll bring up the affair with a married man who had six kids, not to openly attack her of course, but to make jurors question her judgment. They will be walking a tight rope with this though. The defense doesn’t have to prove anything, right? They just need one juror to hesitate. The jurors won’t have followed the case like we have. They will only hear what the court allows. I also fear the oldest daughter will be a defense witness, and will say unflattering things about her mom. I also think there's a risk of the oldest daughter not being likable. Yes, I said it. She’s a wild card for me. The BAM is so damming against BM. It will be interesting to see what both sides present. imo

Yes, I think it highly probable that the defence will go this route, and point the finger as some (possible) (definately unknown) love partner.

 

[Warwick7]

That is not correct. She had 1 affair with 1 man, as far as has been reported.

Correct.
This is all we we have to go on at the moment.

 

[Warwick7]

Could we say the same for BM? Has evidence of his affairs been made public by LE?

Suzanne's own own texts to BM.

 

[DizzyB]

Could we say the same for BM? Has evidence of his affairs been made public by LE?

Prior investigation found no evidence of a BM affair. Plenty of rumors, but that’s it. If the defense wanted to suggest an alternate suspect like a Suzanne lover, okay. But to make her into some hussy that somehow deserved this, that’s another thing.

 

[Nikynoo]

Prior investigation found no evidence of a BM affair. Plenty of rumors, but that’s it. If the defense wanted to suggest an alternate suspect like a Suzanne lover, okay. But to make her into some hussy that somehow deserved this, that’s another thing.

IMO a defence would not do that directly.

However, with information we know via LE at the moment, SM had one affair and BM (the virtuous husband) with no reported affairs. Add into the mix that SM told no one, and the defence could infer that there were other affairs. It really depends on what the defence have to work with, what their investigations have found and what (reliable) witnesses they have. The defence could use the affair info to use against the states witnesses and I’m thinking in particular Suzanne’s best friend, and the line of questioning the defence would follow.

My posts are only to demonstrate where I think the defence thinks the weak spots are in the prosecutions case, it may not be palatable, but the facts of SM and JL are out now and will be dealt with at trial imo.

ETA I would be interested to know when the reoccurrence of SMs cancer occurred, does anyone know? Was it before the move to Colorado?

 

[arielilane]

Sept 2: Next court hearing (status check-in) for the mountain lion, chipmunk, deer, and/or elk who is sitting uncomfortably in a jail cell. lol

 

[Tragg]

I find it difficult to see how evidence of Suzanne's putative "character" as a lusty woman with a habit of seeking sex with multiple partners - in the unlikely event such evidence exists - would be admitted in evidence under the Colorado rules.

The general rule in Colorado is that evidence of a character trait is not allowed for the purpose of proving that a person acted in conformity with the trait on a particular occasion.

The rule has an exception that allows "pertinent" evidence of a victim's character that tends to support the defense offered. The most commons situations involve a victim's propensity for violence, which is pertinent to the self defense argument because it tends to show the defendant had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. In a current case, James Craig attempted to gin up a defense by asking someone to pose as his wife's friend and testify that she was suicidal and probably poisoned herself.

Of course, character evidence can be offered for another purpose, such as to show the person's state of mind or motivation.

Whatever the grounds for admission, the judge must weigh the probative value of the evidence against the potential for jury confusion, unfair prejudice, and so on, as we saw when Stanley's team sought to introduce evidence of Morphew's past abuse of Suzanne.

So, for those who think Morphew's defense will involve attacks on Suzanne's character, please explain:

What will be Morphew's defense?

How would Suzanne's putative character trait of promiscuity be pertinent to that defense?

If such a trait would not relate to the defense, how would it otherwise be relevant?

Why did this character trait never come up in the 11th JD prosecution?

Rule 404

 

[Magic8Ball]

I don't think the daughters will testify because they've already made conflicting statements, and their testimonies can probably be impeached. They best stay seated behind daddy dearest, and remain silent-- save their voice for GMA or the Today Show. JMO.

^^^^^^^ This.

They've both contradicted themselves with conflicting statements, specifically statements they made to LE vs. statements they've made publicly in support of Barry since then.

Both their names were redacted in the arrest affidavit from the initial case, but it's easy to fill in the blanks using the most rudimentary critical thinking skills.

MM2 told LE that BM and SM argued/fought a lot and were "not doing well," that they were in "an unsafe place emotionally" and had discussed divorce. If Jane & Co. tried to call her as a defense witness, any would-be testimony about living in a happy, stress-free home would fall apart completely upon cross-examination. Completely.

MM1 is in an even more precarious position than MM1, IMO. Per the original AA from the first case, MM1 told LE she last spoke to Suzanne "on the night of the 9th."

Who here believes that MM1 spoke to SM "on the night of the 9th?"

JMO.

 

[Nikynoo]

I find it difficult to see how evidence of Suzanne's putative "character" as a lusty woman with a habit of seeking sex with multiple partners - in the unlikely event such evidence exists - would be admitted in evidence under the Colorado rules.

The general rule in Colorado is that evidence of a character trait is not allowed for the purpose of proving that a person acted in conformity with the trait on a particular occasion.

The rule has an exception that allows "pertinent" evidence of a victim's character that tends to support the defense offered. The most commons situations involve a victim's propensity for violence, which is pertinent to the self defense argument because it tends to show the defendant had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. In a current case, James Craig attempted to gin up a defense by asking someone to pose as his wife's friend and testify that she was suicidal and probably poisoned herself.

Of course, character evidence can be offered for another purpose, such as to show the person's state of mind or motivation.

Whatever the grounds for admission, the judge must weigh the probative value of the evidence against the potential for jury confusion, unfair prejudice, and so on, as we saw when Stanley's team sought to introduce evidence of Morphew's past abuse of Suzanne.

So, for those who think Morphew's defense will involve attacks on Suzanne's character, please explain:

What will be Morphew's defense?

How would Suzanne's putative character trait of promiscuity be pertinent to that defense?

If such a trait would not relate to the defense, how would it otherwise be relevant?

Why did this character trait never come up in the 11th JD prosecution?

Rule 404

In answer to your questions
What will be Morphew's defense?

How would Suzanne's putative character trait of promiscuity be pertinent to that defense?
Would it not point to the possibility of another perp?
If such a trait would not relate to the defense, how would it otherwise be relevant?
I don’t quite understand your question, but unless it relates to ‘it wasn’t me’ scenario, it would not.

Why did this character trait never come up in the 11th JD prosecution?
The affair was revealed at the PH? I cannot remember what side (probably prosecution) but that is how we found out about JL. I take it you mean why any other possible affair was not raised at that time and I don’t know the answer to that question. However, listening to his current (danish) lawyers podcast/interview and the mention of G and MM1 has made me wonder of the possibility of other affair partners. I also wonder whether the private investigators unearthed anything (about anyone connected to the case).

 

[Nikynoo]

^^^^^^^ This.

They've both contradicted themselves with conflicting statements, specifically statements they made to LE vs. statements they've made publicly in support of Barry since then.

Both their names were redacted in the arrest affidavit from the initial case, but it's easy to fill in the blanks using the most rudimentary critical thinking skills.

MM2 told LE that BM and SM argued/fought a lot and were "not doing well," that they were in "an unsafe place emotionally" and had discussed divorce. If Jane & Co. tried to call her as a defense witness, any would-be testimony about living in a happy, stress-free home would fall apart completely upon cross-examination. Completely.

MM1 is in an even more precarious position than MM1, IMO. Per the original AA from the first case, MM1 told LE she last spoke to Suzanne "on the night of the 9th."

Who here believes that MM1 spoke to SM "on the night of the 9th?"

JMO.

Would MM1 not be able to prove a call with her phone records?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

SM's phone took no calls after 2:11pm, so that call didn't happen. I would guess or hope MM1 was just misremembering and wasn't already covering for BM.