CO - BARRY ARRESTED AGAIN - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #119

[waldojabba]

We don't know. From what I can gather, the defense can request to interview a particular witness, but that witness does not have to comply. Apparently this one did, and wanted access to their testimony prior to meeting with the defense.

I don't have the slightest clue who this could be. Anyone from Shoshona to Barry's military buddy, and everyone in between (could be someone we've never heard of too).

So my question about this is : If the D asks a P witness, who has testified at the GJ to meet with them, are they obligated to do so?

I am going to assume it is at the discretion of the witness ( obvi P would advise ) but ianal and have no true idea if that is the case - it just seems fair/common sense

As @MassGuy says we have no real way of knowing but
I'll speculate
If I look at the black out of the name - it looks to be sixteen spaces long - altho my eyesight at the end of the day is not the best and if I have mis counted tell me and I will report myself .

For arguments sake I am assuming fifteen letters with a space between. This leaves out hyphenated names etc - hardly fool proof ...

If I look at the black out in #4 name is 16 letters including a space / the next is three letters ( his or hers)/the next is two letters ( so it has to be he since she is three letters) So we know its a man.

The name Jonathan Grusing fits the bill.
He is also a witness who I think would have no problem agreeing to a meeting with the D and may even relish the opportunity

Just wild speculation but Interesting to think about

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

So my question about this is : If the D asks a P witness, who has testified at the GJ to meet with them, are they obligated to do so?

I am going to assume it is at the discretion of the witness ( obvi P would advise ) but ianal and have no true idea if that is the case - it just seems fair/common sense

As @MassGuy says we have no real way of knowing but
I'll speculate
If I look at the black out of the name - it looks to be sixteen spaces long - altho my eyesight at the end of the day is not the best and if I have mis counted tell me and I will report myself .

For arguments sake I am assuming fifteen letters with a space between. This leaves out hyphenated names etc - hardly fool proof ...

If I look at the black out in #4 name is 16 letters including a space / the next is three letters ( his or hers)/the next is two letters ( so it has to be he since she is three letters) So we know its a man.

The name Jonathan Grusing fits the bill.
He is also a witness who I think would have no problem agreeing to a meeting with the D and may even relish the opportunity

Just wild speculation but Interesting to think about

JMO

Correct, that's my understanding. This witness would be within their rights not to speak to the defense at all, but I guess it's not uncommon for some of them to agree.

If it is Grusing it does make sense. It can help to expose defense strategy before trial.

 

[Seattle1]

https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/People%27s%20Unopposed%20Motion%20for%20Limited%20Release%20of%20Grand%20Jury%20Materials_Redacted_Redacted.pdf

In Colorado, the majority of criminal cases do not involve empaneling grand juries at all. Prosecutors usually decide whether or not to charge criminal suspects following a police investigation: They simply follow the standard complaint and information process.

Though in serious or high-profile cases, the District Attorney’s Office may prefer to let a group of regular citizens – the grand jury – make the charging decisions.

Given the rarity, the link below is a good refresher on the difference between the witnesses called by the State during a preliminary hearing (where the trial judge determines if there is probable cause to prosecute the defendant), and witnesses called by the Prosecutor and/or subpoenaed by the Grand Jury. (Colorado grand juries have 12 people. Nine of the grand jurors (called a “quorum”) must vote to indict for the suspect to get charged).

"Grand Juries" & "Indictments" in Colorado - How It Works

A Grand Jury in Colorado consists of 12 to 23 citizens summoned to investigate suspected criminal activity. If a majority find probable cause, they will indict.

www.shouselaw.com

 

[Puzzles8]

So my question about this is : If the D asks a P witness, who has testified at the GJ to meet with them, are they obligated to do so?

I am going to assume it is at the discretion of the witness ( obvi P would advise ) but ianal and have no true idea if that is the case - it just seems fair/common sense

As @MassGuy says we have no real way of knowing but
I'll speculate
If I look at the black out of the name - it looks to be sixteen spaces long - altho my eyesight at the end of the day is not the best and if I have mis counted tell me and I will report myself .

For arguments sake I am assuming fifteen letters with a space between. This leaves out hyphenated names etc - hardly fool proof ...

If I look at the black out in #4 name is 16 letters including a space / the next is three letters ( his or hers)/the next is two letters ( so it has to be he since she is three letters) So we know its a man.

The name Jonathan Grusing fits the bill.
He is also a witness who I think would have no problem agreeing to a meeting with the D and may even relish the opportunity

Just wild speculation but Interesting to think about

JMO

Really good and interesting deduction on the number of characters in the name! And I'll bet you're right!

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

​

Really good and interesting deduction on the number of characters in the name! And I'll bet you're right!

JMO

I can't think of a better witness to present evidence to the grand jury than Mr. Grusing. Actually, any jury. JMO

 

[Niner]

Monday, March 30th:
*Status Conference Hearing (@ 1:30pm MT) - CO – Suzanne Renee Moorman Morphew (49) (missing May 10, 2020, did not return from bike ride (supposedly), Maysville, Chaffee County; CBI agents located human remains [Morphew’s remains were found weathered & dirt covered clothing items, which are believed to be her bicycle clothes & one “weathered bullet.”] (dry bones found in a shallow grave (3 ft deep)) scattered (across a large swath of sagebrush-dotted prairie estimated to be around 75 yards) in a dry field of sagebrush & natural grasses (on east side of Saguache County) in the area of Moffat in Saguache County (which is 45 miles south of Salida) on State Hwy 17 & near mile marker 103 at County Road R on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023 during an unrelated investigation (CBI was searching for 55-year-old Edna Quintana who had gone missing in the region on May 3, 2023) . The El Paso County Coroner’s Office identified the remains as Suzanne Morphew (dental records & her cancer port) on Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2023. - *Barry Lee Morphew aka Lee Moore (53 @ time of crime/57 when re-arrested/now 58) indicted & charged (6/18/25) & rearrested (on 6/20/25 in Gilbert, AZ) & arraigned (1/12/26) with 1st degree murder after deliberation. Surety Bond @ $3M; $300K for surety/cash bond. Plead not guilty (1/12/26). Out on bond with GPS monitor & house arrest. Surrendered his passport. Alamosa County
Trial set to begin on 10/13/26. (thru 11/20/26).
Judge Amanda Hopkins presiding. Alamosa DA Anne E. Kelly & Boulder County Special Deputy DA Frederick H. Johnson. Defense attorneys David Beller & Jane Fisher-Byrialsen.
Link to documents filed: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/node/13869
Case & court info & appeal info from 5/10/21 thru 3/4/26 reference post #575 here:
https://websleuths.com/threads/co-b...-o-prejudice-found-in-2023-119.753296/page-29
3/5/26 Docket update: Defendant Morphew's response to Motion to intervene & for Order to show cause & temporary restraining Order filed 2/20/26. [The defendant has no position on the matter]. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/si...and for Order to Show Cause and TRO .docx.pdf
3/6/26 Docket update: Motion to Withdraw as public defender counsel filed by Jamie Keairns [witness/client conflict: Conflict persists as stated in 7/9/25 motion]. 3/9/26 Docket update: Order re: Appointment of Counsel [David Beller & Jane Byrialsen] at State expense other than the Public Defender in a criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding filed by Judge Amanda C. Hopkins.
3/9/26 Update: In court Monday for status conference, Judge Hopkins said she is treating the request as three separate orders: a motion to intervene, a temporary protection order & an order to show cause. Hopkins added that she doesn’t know if the children have a legal standing to intervene, and if they don’t, the other two motions are moot. Anne Kelly, DA for Alamosa County & prosecutor on the case, said she believes the issue can be resolved “without a hearing at all.” And that once she responds to the filed motion, it might be resolved. She said this is an argument between the parties. David Beller, Morphew’s attorney, said Barry takes no legal stance on Macy & Mallory’s motion but says he is a father “willing to support his girls.” Judge Hopkins said, “To a certain extent, I agree with Ms. Kelly, I could rule on the motions. (But) these young ladies are the victims of the crime. We have a Victims’ Rights Act in Colorado. While this particular issue does not fall within the act, I will most certainly give them the opportunity to be heard.” Motion to intervene hearing on 3/30/26 @ 1:30pm. Judge: we will start that day with a status conference concerning the issues that were brought up by council today. Motions hearing on 7/6 thru 7/10 @ 9am.
3/18/26 Docket update: Intervenors' Motion to withdraw Motion to Intervene & for Order to show cause & temporary restraining Order filed by Mallory & Macy Morphew by attorney Roberta M. Neislanik. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/si...'s Motion to Withdraw Motion to Intervene.pdf Only status conference hearing will be held on 3/30/26 @ 1:30pm.
3/24/26 Docket updates: Order Granting Motion re Limited Release of Grand Jury materials redacted. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/si... Release of Grand Jury Materials_Redacted.pdf
People's Unopposed Motion for Limited Release of Grand Jury Materials redacted. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/si...of Grand Jury Materials_Redacted_Redacted.pdf

 

[Love Never Fails]

Monday, March 30th:
*Status Conference Hearing (@ 1:30pm MT) - CO – Suzanne Renee Moorman Morphew (49) (missing May 10, 2020, did not return from bike ride (supposedly), Maysville, Chaffee County; CBI agents located human remains [Morphew’s remains were found weathered & dirt covered clothing items, which are believed to be her bicycle clothes & one “weathered bullet.”] (dry bones found in a shallow grave (3 ft deep)) scattered (across a large swath of sagebrush-dotted prairie estimated to be around 75 yards) in a dry field of sagebrush & natural grasses (on east side of Saguache County) in the area of Moffat in Saguache County (which is 45 miles south of Salida) on State Hwy 17 & near mile marker 103 at County Road R on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023 during an unrelated investigation (CBI was searching for 55-year-old Edna Quintana who had gone missing in the region on May 3, 2023) . The El Paso County Coroner’s Office identified the remains as Suzanne Morphew (dental records & her cancer port) on Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2023. - *Barry Lee Morphew aka Lee Moore (53 @ time of crime/57 when re-arrested/now 58) indicted & charged (6/18/25) & rearrested (on 6/20/25 in Gilbert, AZ) & arraigned (1/12/26) with 1st degree murder after deliberation. Surety Bond @ $3M; $300K for surety/cash bond. Plead not guilty (1/12/26). Out on bond with GPS monitor & house arrest. Surrendered his passport. Alamosa County
Trial set to begin on 10/13/26. (thru 11/20/26).
Judge Amanda Hopkins presiding. Alamosa DA Anne E. Kelly & Boulder County Special Deputy DA Frederick H. Johnson. Defense attorneys David Beller & Jane Fisher-Byrialsen.
Link to documents filed: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/node/13869
Case & court info & appeal info from 5/10/21 thru 3/4/26 reference post #575 here:
https://websleuths.com/threads/co-b...-o-prejudice-found-in-2023-119.753296/page-29
3/5/26 Docket update: Defendant Morphew's response to Motion to intervene & for Order to show cause & temporary restraining Order filed 2/20/26. [The defendant has no position on the matter]. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/2026-03-05 10-10-07 Response to Motion to Intervene and for Order to Show Cause and TRO .docx.pdf
3/6/26 Docket update: Motion to Withdraw as public defender counsel filed by Jamie Keairns [witness/client conflict: Conflict persists as stated in 7/9/25 motion]. 3/9/26 Docket update: Order re: Appointment of Counsel [David Beller & Jane Byrialsen] at State expense other than the Public Defender in a criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding filed by Judge Amanda C. Hopkins.
3/9/26 Update: In court Monday for status conference, Judge Hopkins said she is treating the request as three separate orders: a motion to intervene, a temporary protection order & an order to show cause. Hopkins added that she doesn’t know if the children have a legal standing to intervene, and if they don’t, the other two motions are moot. Anne Kelly, DA for Alamosa County & prosecutor on the case, said she believes the issue can be resolved “without a hearing at all.” And that once she responds to the filed motion, it might be resolved. She said this is an argument between the parties. David Beller, Morphew’s attorney, said Barry takes no legal stance on Macy & Mallory’s motion but says he is a father “willing to support his girls.” Judge Hopkins said, “To a certain extent, I agree with Ms. Kelly, I could rule on the motions. (But) these young ladies are the victims of the crime. We have a Victims’ Rights Act in Colorado. While this particular issue does not fall within the act, I will most certainly give them the opportunity to be heard.” Motion to intervene hearing on 3/30/26 @ 1:30pm. Judge: we will start that day with a status conference concerning the issues that were brought up by council today. Motions hearing on 7/6 thru 7/10 @ 9am.
3/18/26 Docket update: Intervenors' Motion to withdraw Motion to Intervene & for Order to show cause & temporary restraining Order filed by Mallory & Macy Morphew by attorney Roberta M. Neislanik. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Intervenor's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Intervene.pdf Only status conference hearing will be held on 3/30/26 @ 1:30pm.
3/24/26 Docket updates: Order Granting Motion re Limited Release of Grand Jury materials redacted. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Order Granting Motion re Limited Release of Grand Jury Materials_Redacted.pdf
People's Unopposed Motion for Limited Release of Grand Jury Materials redacted. Link: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/People's Unopposed Motion for Limited Release of Grand Jury Materials_Redacted_Redacted.pdf

Thanks Niner.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Will today’s hearing decide if Suzanne’s remains will be released to the M&M’s? Or is it only to determine whether their wishes can be heard and considered in court?

TIA

 

[Niner]

Will today’s hearing decide if Suzanne’s remains will be released to the M&M’s? Or is it only to determine whether their wishes can be heard and considered in court?

TIA

Actually they withdrew that motion on 3/18/26 [see my post above for that date]. So just a status conference on Suzanne's murder is happening.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Actually they withdrew that motion on 3/18/26 [see my post above for that date]. So just a status conference on Suzanne's murder is happening.

That’s awesome! Thank you @Niner

 

[Megnut]

What do we suppose will happen today?

Will the Defense stomp their feet and pound tables? Will they push for contuances?

Will we get clues into their defense strategy? More and more, I'm seeing defendants who have zero hope of acquittal going all in on the evidence. Admitting to it. But drawing up absurd, alternate explanations.

Self-defense (GerhardtKonig who allegedly attempted to murder his wife but injecting her with anesthetic and shoving her of a cliff, currently at trial)
Panic and coverup after partner's "suicide" (BrianWalshe, convicted of murdering his wife, dismembering her and disappearing her remains)

Static drift won't save Barry. He confirmed the cellphone data with his chipmunk nonsense. So what new explanation will they try to sell? Suzanne accidentally fell on his shorts and a syringe accidentally overdosed her?

I expect there will be a defense like this. One the rewrites the incontrovertible evidence and turns Suzanne into the villain and Barry into the victim. Outrageous. But I fear it's coming.

May Suzanne's voice be heard. She wanted a divorce, she wanted to get a place of her own until the youngest child graduated, she wanted to live life on her own terms, a victory after surviving cancer twice.

I imagine her journal would be a trove of evidence of what she had endured and what she hoped for, going forward.

Welp. That's gone. Why would she burn that up?

Welp welp. And pray tell, what explanation could he defense concoct? If he's only responsible for 'abuse of the corpse', who torched her journal? WHY would her journal have been torched?

I predict were in for some revolting story telling. Or a save-face plea.

Suzanne deserved the truth. Justice demands it.

I hope we get it.

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

A brief eight-minute status conference was held March 30 for Barry Morphew with 12th Judicial District Court Chief Judge Amanda Hopkins. There was not a hearing held regarding the release of the late Suzanne Morphew’s remains to her children, Macy and Mallory Morphew, as requested during the March 9 status conference.

During the March 30 conference, Hopkins heard from David Beller, representing Morphew, and Anne Kelly, 12th Judicial District Attorney.

Beller said he anticipates being able to file motions in advance of April 13. He advised the court that the defense is anticipating filing Shreck motions relating to experts. In other states, Shreck motions are called Daubert motions. According to Thomson Reuters practical law, Daubert motions are “a type of motion which seeks to exclude the presentation of an expert’s testimony to a jury.”

Kelly said there was nothing additional from the People that the court should be aware of, and said that communication with Morphew’s defense has been “very strong.”

A virtual status conference check in was scheduled for 1 p.m. May 19.

Morphew defense voices plans for Shreck motions

Barry Morphew's status conference on murder charges, defense plans to file motions, and updates on the release of Suzanne Morphew's remains.

www.themountainmail.com

 

[steeltowngirl]

Schreck motion, eh?
Now I’m gonna picture BM as Shrek, the ogre.

 

[Megnut]

A brief eight-minute status conference was held March 30 for Barry Morphew with 12th Judicial District Court Chief Judge Amanda Hopkins. There was not a hearing held regarding the release of the late Suzanne Morphew’s remains to her children, Macy and Mallory Morphew, as requested during the March 9 status conference.

During the March 30 conference, Hopkins heard from David Beller, representing Morphew, and Anne Kelly, 12th Judicial District Attorney.

Beller said he anticipates being able to file motions in advance of April 13. He advised the court that the defense is anticipating filing Shreck motions relating to experts. In other states, Shreck motions are called Daubert motions. According to Thomson Reuters practical law, Daubert motions are “a type of motion which seeks to exclude the presentation of an expert’s testimony to a jury.”

Kelly said there was nothing additional from the People that the court should be aware of, and said that communication with Morphew’s defense has been “very strong.”

A virtual status conference check in was scheduled for 1 p.m. May 19.

Morphew defense voices plans for Shreck motions

Barry Morphew's status conference on murder charges, defense plans to file motions, and updates on the release of Suzanne Morphew's remains.

www.themountainmail.com

Shreck/Daubert, call it what you like, Defense Team, but JonnyGrusing is going to have his day. The experts, the evidence, it's coming in on a skidsteer.

Good to know they're afraid of it though.

They should be.

It's going to barry him.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

Schreck motion, eh?
Now I’m gonna picture BM as Shrek, the ogre.

View attachment 655780

The only Shrek motion coming to mind is his bottom burp.

 

[Ontario Mom]

A brief eight-minute status conference was held March 30 for Barry Morphew with 12th Judicial District Court Chief Judge Amanda Hopkins. There was not a hearing held regarding the release of the late Suzanne Morphew’s remains to her children, Macy and Mallory Morphew, as requested during the March 9 status conference.

During the March 30 conference, Hopkins heard from David Beller, representing Morphew, and Anne Kelly, 12th Judicial District Attorney.

Beller said he anticipates being able to file motions in advance of April 13. He advised the court that the defense is anticipating filing Shreck motions relating to experts. In other states, Shreck motions are called Daubert motions. According to Thomson Reuters practical law, Daubert motions are “a type of motion which seeks to exclude the presentation of an expert’s testimony to a jury.”

Kelly said there was nothing additional from the People that the court should be aware of, and said that communication with Morphew’s defense has been “very strong.”

A virtual status conference check in was scheduled for 1 p.m. May 19.

Morphew defense voices plans for Shreck motions

Barry Morphew's status conference on murder charges, defense plans to file motions, and updates on the release of Suzanne Morphew's remains.

www.themountainmail.com

"seeks to exclude the presentation of an expert’s testimony to a jury."

There's only one reason I can think of that the defense might seek to exclude that.
And that reason is the most obvious - the expert testimony would point the finger directly at Barry Morphew.
This seems like criminal defense 101.

jmo

 

[MassGuy]

"seeks to exclude the presentation of an expert’s testimony to a jury."

There's only one reason I can think of that the defense might seek to exclude that.
And that reason is the most obvious - the expert testimony would point the finger directly at Barry Morphew.
This seems like criminal defense 101.

jmo

My guess is this has to do with the BAM testing, the anthropological stuff, body movement, etc.

Good luck.

 

[K9Enzo]

Yeah, I think the defense is going after the toxicology, the expert witness who will explain the BAM to a jury. Having that thrown out would be significant. Not sure how they would be successful in that quest and what the judge would have to consider? IMO

 

[Megnut]

My guess is this has to do with the BAM testing, the anthropological stuff, body movement, etc.

Good luck.

Facepalm. That makes complete sense!

I can't wait to hear the argument. "Please, Your Honor, suppress this expert testimony on the grounds that.... it's true. And true, it makes Lee Barry Morphew Moore look really bad.

 

[MassGuy]

Yeah, I think the defense is going after the toxicology, the expert witness who will explain the BAM to a jury. Having that thrown out would be significant. Not sure how they would be successful in that quest and what the judge would have to consider? IMO

I just hope we get access to these filings when the time comes.