Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 #100 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice*

[mrjitty]

Feels like crazy over reach here.

The thing about expert witnesses was as sanctions for discovery violations.

I'd love to know on what basis they are applying to have all this other stuff excluded.

 

[MrsWatson]

Feels like crazy over reach here.

The thing about expert witnesses was as sanctions for discovery violations.

I'd love to know on what basis they are applying to have all this other stuff excluded.

Doesn't the defense need some sort of legal basis to request these exclusions?

 

[Scootie98]

@MountainDad I think Grusing was able to profile Barry enough to understand that he was NEVER going to confess. He did tell us nearly exactly what he did by telling half truths with the lies. He inserted animals in place of Suzanne.. he explained away his actions (never denying them) by having an explanation for why he was where he was during specific times. He didn't shut down and refuse to speak. The investigators presented much of it as they just needed to clear him, but these things aren't adding up, at which point Barry continued to try to make excuses and possible reasons other than incriminating himself of course. While he was trying to make himself look like the good guy he did just the opposite. I fully believe that Barry would never have confessed and lawyering up in his mind was like admitting he did it. Grusing knew enough about Barry's type of personality that he knew he'd never just admit it. He felt he had them all tricked.. he was so sly and so smart he could get away with it and they played into that just enough to keep him speaking and every time he did, he shared just a little more.

I also think if we had a body it would have been much easier/more likely for Grusing to just be firm and demanding. Without one they still have no clue what they are dealing with so keeping him talking could have shed light inadvertently on where he put her, which was likely a goal because conviction might be easier if they found her body. All they could do was show Barry that he was lying and his own actions were suspicious.. each interview they learned just a little more. I think Grusing did things in a calculated way and I trust he is an expert that has shown he has a history of reading people and talking to them in a way that gets answers and convictions.

We may have read 1-2 hours of what was said in all of the interviews. We don't know that he didn't push him harder and we don't know everything that was said.. we have a small fraction of it.

As a profiler...Grusing, imo, knew that Barry's character and makeup is very self-absorbed, and egocentric. The "breaking of bread" is interesting. Barry is the kind of person who would only "feed" someone if he thought he was going to get something in return. I think he picked his hunting buddies based upon what they could do for him. It wasn't about simply comraderie or friendship. As for the steaks...Barry expected something in return for "feeding" Grusing...the steak, in his mind, wasn't free, nor was the hospitality. So, when he was surprised and "crushed" when Grusing lowered the boom...it was the reality check that he was getting nothing in return for his investment. He practiced "quid pro quo" on both the professional and personal level...You know....we men only need sex...give us that, and we are good to go. What we give in return for it is just the cost of doing business....per Barry, of course.

 

[Scootie98]

@MountainDad I think Grusing was able to profile Barry enough to understand that he was NEVER going to confess. He did tell us nearly exactly what he did by telling half truths with the lies. He inserted animals in place of Suzanne.. he explained away his actions (never denying them) by having an explanation for why he was where he was during specific times. He didn't shut down and refuse to speak. The investigators presented much of it as they just needed to clear him, but these things aren't adding up, at which point Barry continued to try to make excuses and possible reasons other than incriminating himself of course. While he was trying to make himself look like the good guy he did just the opposite. I fully believe that Barry would never have confessed and lawyering up in his mind was like admitting he did it. Grusing knew enough about Barry's type of personality that he knew he'd never just admit it. He felt he had them all tricked.. he was so sly and so smart he could get away with it and they played into that just enough to keep him speaking and every time he did, he shared just a little more.

I also think if we had a body it would have been much easier/more likely for Grusing to just be firm and demanding. Without one they still have no clue what they are dealing with so keeping him talking could have shed light inadvertently on where he put her, which was likely a goal because conviction might be easier if they found her body. All they could do was show Barry that he was lying and his own actions were suspicious.. each interview they learned just a little more. I think Grusing did things in a calculated way and I trust he is an expert that has shown he has a history of reading people and talking to them in a way that gets answers and convictions.

We may have read 1-2 hours of what was said in all of the interviews. We don't know that he didn't push him harder and we don't know everything that was said.. we have a small fraction of it.

As a profiler...Grusing, imo, knew that Barry's character and makeup is very self-absorbed, and egocentric. The "breaking of bread" is interesting. Barry is the kind of person who would only "feed" someone if he thought he was going to get something in return. I think he picked his hunting buddies based upon what they could do for him. It wasn't about simply comraderie or friendship. As for the steaks...Barry expected something in return for "feeding" Grusing...the steak, in his mind, wasn't free, nor was the hospitality. So, when he was surprised and "crushed" when Grusing lowered the boom...it was the reality check that he was getting nothing in return for his investment. He practiced "quid pro quo" on both the professional and personal level...You know....we men only need sex...give us that, and we are good to go. What we give in return for it is just the cost of doing business....per Barry, of course.

Yep. I have a feeling this thing is over. Like put a fork in it over. It’s nauseating to even say that.

While it appears that the judge is "verticalizing the climb" for the prosecution....this is not over. I do have some degree of confidence that the prosecution, over the course of 2 years, has sharpened the lens on their electronic and physical evidence...as well as structuring and articulating Barry's statements, timelines and behaviors. If their preparation has been focused on formulating a clear, understandable and reasonable presentation of the circumstantial evidence...I'd say the odds are better than even for a conviction. JMO.

 

[WildOrchid]

I hope you’re right but I do not share your optimism about the prosecution. They seem like a haphazard team that cannot even walk straight because all of their collective shoelaces are tied together in a knot. Just MO. Suzanne deserves better.

 

[MountainDad]

Wonder what Barry said when confronted on his lies about Saturday night? Or Was he ever confronted? From what I've read he was allowed to lie without being questioned.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Wonder what Barry said when confronted on his lies about Saturday night? Or Was he ever confronted? From what I've read he was allowed to lie without being questioned.

He obfuscated as usual. Only one plate in the dishwasher after a steak dinner for two? Well, they shared one plate, of course. His phone forensics say more than words about that night.

When confronted with his phone's movements after he returned home Saturday afternoon and admitted having a gun in his hand. He said oh, I shoot chipmunks. I've killed 85 (because a body count proves so much?).

Read the AA. It's all there. Plus there is much, much more we are not yet privy too.

MOO

 

[O.Incandenza]

Doesn't the defense need some sort of legal basis to request these exclusions?

Yes, the list that was posted was just the ROA. There's a separate motion for each of those items containing the defense's legal reasoning.

 

[justtrish]

As a profiler...Grusing, imo, knew that Barry's character and makeup is very self-absorbed, and egocentric. The "breaking of bread" is interesting. Barry is the kind of person who would only "feed" someone if he thought he was going to get something in return. I think he picked his hunting buddies based upon what they could do for him. It wasn't about simply comraderie or friendship. As for the steaks...Barry expected something in return for "feeding" Grusing...the steak, in his mind, wasn't free, nor was the hospitality. So, when he was surprised and "crushed" when Grusing lowered the boom...it was the reality check that he was getting nothing in return for his investment. He practiced "quid pro quo" on both the professional and personal level...You know....we men only need sex...give us that, and we are good to go. What we give in return for it is just the cost of doing business....per Barry, of course.

ugh seeing that written out makes me feel sick for Suzanne all over again. It's really sad that she lived with that type of man. Even if that is the truth and "men" need sex.. in a healthy marriage I think a wife and husband have mutual respect and understanding of each others needs. Not that a wife doing x means a man does y.. but there is a natural give and take with the needs/wants of each person. It seems Barry just assumed Suzanne just needed his money and him to provide and she just provided him the sex and all was good. Now the defense will make her out to be a money hungry, cheating, liar. I see her just needing/wanting to be seen, to be loved for her ideas and what she brings to the family and tot he world. Barry operated as if his marriage was a transaction. Maybe after facing a life threatening illness later in life, Suzanne realized there was so much more to life and so much more she wanted. Barry just never progressed past the cave man mentality and when threatened he resorted to acting like a cave man.. when his life as he knew it was threatened, he killed the "threat". I think every relationship he had seems transactional as you said, what can you do for me thinking. I do this, you do that and we are all good.

 

[Cindizzi]

Doesn't the defense need some sort of legal basis to request these exclusions?

I wish we could read the actual Defense Motions!
I notice they are Motions In Limine which are different than Motions to Suppress.
I’m still researching all this and IANAL.
Here is a definition of Motion In Limine:

Motion in limine - Wikipedia

 

[WingsOverTX]

I wish we could read the actual Defense Motions!
I notice they are Motions In Limine which are different than Motions to Suppress.
I’m still researching all this and IANAL.
Here is a definition of Motion In Limine:

Motion in limine - Wikipedia

We need a lawyer to weigh in.

Both types of motions limit admissible evidence. Looks like in limine is due to perceived prejudice while suppression is due to proven misconduct.

Since the facts in evidence are quite prejudicial when seen from the defendant's fearful perspective, I can understand their point of view.

But his unforced statements and data from phones, truck, etc. should be preserved and argued before the jury.

IANAL either and would like to know how these motion tactics - because they are tactical IMO - have been used in other murder cases.

MOO

 

[crhedBngr]

Doesn't the defense need some sort of legal basis to request these exclusions?

IANAL, but yes, one would think so.

JMVHO.

 

[Cindizzi]

We need a lawyer to weigh in.

Both types of motions limit admissible evidence. Looks like in limine is due to perceived prejudice while suppression is due to proven misconduct.

Since the facts in evidence are quite prejudicial when seen from the defendant's fearful perspective, I can understand their point of view.

But his unforced statements and data from phones, truck, etc. should be preserved and argued before the jury.

IANAL either and would like to know how these motion tactics - because they are tactical IMO - have been used in other murder cases.

MOO

I don’t know if @Alethea or @gitana1 have kept up with the case, but perhaps could share some general knowledge of Motions In Limine?
Here’s the list of MIL filed by the Defense:


D-85. Exclude any testimony that BM had the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit murder or that SM did not have the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit suicide or leave her family.

D-84 Exclude recordings and irrelevant testimony of former friends ( EG, HW and spouse, SO and spouse, the Ritters, the Moorman family and others) about their suspicions and hunches.

D-83. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about digital forensics.

D-82 Exclude conversation about immunity.

D-81 Exclude irrelevant material, including clothing found in a community dumpster.

D-80. Exclude evidence of crime shows.

D-79 Exclude irrelevant materials examined or taken from the Morphew home.

D-78. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about a needle sheath cover, pneu darts, Marlin rifle and animal tranquilizers.

D-87. Prohibit any reference to polygraphs as an investigatory tool in this case.

D-89 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about BM’s hunting or firearm skills.

D-88 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about Telematics.

D-90. Exclude pushpin map, diagrams or testimony about alleged locations of cell phones.

D-91. Prohibit improper and unconstitutional comments, questions, statements and arguments.

ETA:

Looks like I missed one.

D-86
Exclude the use of the term no body homicide.

 

[WingsOverTX]

I don’t know if @Alethea or @gitana1 have kept up with the case, but perhaps could share some general knowledge of Motions In Limine?
Here’s the list of MIL filed by the Defense:


D-85. Exclude any testimony that BM had the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit murder or that SM did not have the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit suicide or leave her family.

D-84 Exclude recordings and irrelevant testimony of former friends ( EG, HW and spouse, SO and spouse, the Ritters, the Moorman family and others) about their suspicions and hunches.

D-83. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about digital forensics.

D-82 Exclude conversation about immunity.

D-81 Exclude irrelevant material, including clothing found in a community dumpster.

D-80. Exclude evidence of crime shows.

D-79 Exclude irrelevant materials examined or taken from the Morphew home.

D-78. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about a needle sheath cover, pneu darts, Marlin rifle and animal tranquilizers.

D-87. Prohibit any reference to polygraphs as an investigatory tool in this case.

D-89 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about BM’s hunting or firearm skills.

D-88 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about Telematics.

D-90. Exclude pushpin map, diagrams or testimony about alleged locations of cell phones.

D-91. Prohibit improper and unconstitutional comments, questions, statements and arguments.

ETA:

Looks like I missed one.

D-86
Exclude the use of the term no body homicide.

@Kristin Esq. - Can you help us out?

 

[Kristin Esq.]

@Kristin Esq. - Can you help us out?

I haven't kept up with this case.

However, MIL's are motions that are made before trial to exclude certain evidence. The judge will hear the motions and make a ruling on what evidence is or is not admissible.

ETA: They can also try to preclude certain words or statements that may be inflammatory.

Is that what you want to know, or is there a more specific question?

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Sorry if this has been posted or mentioned - but since I haven't been on this thread - is there a docket for this case that is public?

 

[WingsOverTX]

I haven't kept up with this case.

However, MIL's are motions that are made before trial to exclude certain evidence. The judge will hear the motions and make a ruling on what evidence is or is not admissible.

ETA: They can also try to preclude certain words or statements that may be inflammatory.

Is that what you want to know, or is there a more specific question?

It appears they are trying to exclude 99% of the evidence. See below.

Maybe they are trying to pressure the prosecution to drop the case? I guess that could happen since the prosecution has already filed a motion to reinstate the majority of expert testimony the judge has excluded that they say will gut the case if excluded.

I don’t know if @Alethea or @gitana1 have kept up with the case, but perhaps could share some general knowledge of Motions In Limine?
Here’s the list of MIL filed by the Defense:


D-85. Exclude any testimony that BM had the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit murder or that SM did not have the capacity or personality trait(s) to commit suicide or leave her family.

D-84 Exclude recordings and irrelevant testimony of former friends ( EG, HW and spouse, SO and spouse, the Ritters, the Moorman family and others) about their suspicions and hunches.

D-83. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about digital forensics.

D-82 Exclude conversation about immunity.

D-81 Exclude irrelevant material, including clothing found in a community dumpster.

D-80. Exclude evidence of crime shows.

D-79 Exclude irrelevant materials examined or taken from the Morphew home.

D-78. Exclude evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about a needle sheath cover, pneu darts, Marlin rifle and animal tranquilizers.

D-87. Prohibit any reference to polygraphs as an investigatory tool in this case.

D-89 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about BM’s hunting or firearm skills.

D-88 Exclude any evidence, testimony, arguments and comments about Telematics.

D-90. Exclude pushpin map, diagrams or testimony about alleged locations of cell phones.

D-91. Prohibit improper and unconstitutional comments, questions, statements and arguments.

ETA:

Looks like I missed one.

D-86
Exclude the use of the term no body homicide.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Sorry if this has been posted or mentioned - but since I haven't been on this thread - is there a docket for this case that is public?

Date Len Appearance Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
4/19/22
9:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Pre-Trial Readiness Conference D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/28/22 - Jury selection
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/29/22 - Skreck Hearing
8:00 AM 1Hr IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Motions Hearing D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

4/29/22 - Jury selection continues
8:00 AM 1D MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

5/3/22 - Voir Dire
8:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

thru

6/3/22
8:00 AM 1D IN PERSON MORPHEW, BARRY Jury Trial D222022CR47 Fremont County Division 1

link: Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

 

[Cindizzi]

Lauren has obtained documents and has scheduled a YouTube Live for 1:00 p.m. today ( Mountain Time ).
It’s currently 11:40 a.m.

 

[crhedBngr]

Thanks, @Cindizzi , @WingsOverTX and @Kristin Esq.