Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 #80 *arrest*

[dkryder]

You're right about this aspect of the AA. I think the judge will redact all statements he believes are inadmissible because they were obtained in violation of BM's Constitutional rights. Also, he will redact statements not made in the preliminary hearing, that are irrelevant to the finding of probable cause. He may redact some hearsay statements that are not within the scope of an exception, but regardless of any rules of evidence, he will probably not redact anything that the public has already heard in the preliminary hearing - and that's a lot.

So then the judge just needed more time to get redactions done? He's had since May to accomplish that. So if he couldn't get it done in the prior 3 months to the PH what's changed to allow him to do it in the 3 weeks since the PH? According to him there was some big issue that prevented redactions to the 130 page AA. Any idea what that issue is? And if he does allow a redacted AA release which only has what was in PH does that satisfy the public's right to know? Thanks.

 

[Wenifred]

Anyone else thinking BM chose a piece of clothing for tracker dogs that didn't belong to Suzanne?

moo

Or something she never actually wore?

 

[CGray123]

So then the judge just needed more time to get redactions done? He's had since May to accomplish that. So if he couldn't get it done in the prior 3 months to the PH what's changed to allow him to do it in the 3 weeks since the PH? According to him there was some big issue that prevented redactions to the 130 page AA. Any idea what that issue is? And if he does allow a redacted AA release which only has what was in PH does that satisfy the public's right to know? Thanks.

Since inadmissible hearsay is nothing more than gossip, the public doesn't have a right to know at all, IMO. The government shouldn't be in the business of spreading gossip.

If evidence is obtained unfairly in violation of a defendant's Constitutional rights, how is it fair to issue an order suppressing it from the jury's eyes and ears, then turn around make it available to the general public?

At the very least, in both cases the potential unfairness to the defendant in a case outweighs the public's right to know. JMO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

So then the judge just needed more time to get redactions done? He's had since May to accomplish that. So if he couldn't get it done in the prior 3 months to the PH what's changed to allow him to do it in the 3 weeks since the PH? According to him there was some big issue that prevented redactions to the 130 page AA. Any idea what that issue is? And if he does allow a redacted AA release which only has what was in PH does that satisfy the public's right to know? Thanks.

If it is not admissible under law then I would posit that there is no “public right to know.” We know from the judges motion that there inadmissable information in that lengthy AA. There were numerous challenges even during the preliminary to 403B. If the AA is opened I have every belief it will be considerably trimmed. I think we heard the jist of the prosecutions case but there will be more of the actual interviews in a released AA.

 

[Wenifred]

The leaving of the house as a control maneuver is different than just having your irritating husband be gone. Of course, there's initial relief. But if you live with an abusive, controlling, ATM-card holding man, your mind goes many places. What is his plan? His scheme? What will he do next? Will he get into an explosive quarrel in town with some other person? Will he come back and not speak for a few days? What's he going to do to you?

It's interesting to me (and this was my. only personal experience as well), that most women do not take these opportunities to leave, themselves. The financial control is a big part of that - the woman thinks she can squirrel away some money for the "next time" he tantrums out of the house. Leaving for "days" at a time is a serious tactic in a marriage (esp. if your spouse has no way of getting hold of you). Women fear that if they do leave, they'll never get back into the house and will not have enough funds to survive, much less hire a lawyer.

That's when women finally start reaching out to family members...



True, but if you pay cash for a burner, and register the initial SIM under a fake name with a fake address, well, that's what keeps local LE's digital crimes investigators so busy. One would first have to know that Barry even had such a device. If it is purchased for cash, just what, exactly about the IME1 number would lead further than the door of the business (or booth or swap meet) where it was purchased??

I Completely agree. I experienced this myself in my marriage prior to divorce. My own previous relationship had many similarities to this one, which is why it has grabbed my attention in the first place.
Also, If Barry was the one who sent the text to JL impersonating SM, how would her supposed selfie she sent be explained?

 

[Boxer]

Or something she never actually wore?

Excellent.
Of course, asking for his help was counter productive.

 

[Seattle1]

So then the judge just needed more time to get redactions done? He's had since May to accomplish that. So if he couldn't get it done in the prior 3 months to the PH what's changed to allow him to do it in the 3 weeks since the PH? According to him there was some big issue that prevented redactions to the 130 page AA. Any idea what that issue is? And if he does allow a redacted AA release which only has what was in PH does that satisfy the public's right to know? Thanks.

The court does not operate in a vacuum. Redactions require the agreement of each party and any differences settled by the court. I believe including 7 days post expiration of the sealed AA for release is to accommodate their efforts. I recall this was discussed during an earlier hearing. MOO

 

[CGray123]

Does it ever happen that the defense approaches the prosecutor and says "my client wants to make a deal?"

Yes. I should have been clearer but I was trying to stay in the context of the prior post, which said that BM would be angry with his attorneys if they approached him with a deal and that he would never take a deal.

However, Barry, having heard his attorneys' assessment of the case against him, could decide that he is open to a negotiated plea and sentence arrangement and ask his attorneys to negotiate. The attorneys would tell them how they plan to approach the DA and get his consent to the plan. If they want to open negotiations with a specific offer, BM would have to approve it in advance.

 

[Quiet Time]

Yes. I should have been clearer but I was trying to stay in the context of the prior post, which said that BM would be angry with his attorneys if they approached him with a deal and that he would never take a deal.

However, Barry, having heard his attorneys' assessment of the case against him, could decide that he is open to a negotiated plea and sentence arrangement and ask his attorneys to negotiate. The attorneys would tell them how they plan to approach the DA and get his consent to the plan. If they want to open negotiations with a specific offer, BM would have to approve it in advance.

Wouldn't SM's family have to agree to a plea deal too?

Or at least have a say so about it?

 

[Bluebythec]

Yes. I should have been clearer but I was trying to stay in the context of the prior post, which said that BM would be angry with his attorneys if they approached him with a deal and that he would never take a deal.

However, Barry, having heard his attorneys' assessment of the case against him, could decide that he is open to a negotiated plea and sentence arrangement and ask his attorneys to negotiate. The attorneys would tell them how they plan to approach the DA and get his consent to the plan. If they want to open negotiations with a specific offer, BM would have to approve it in advance.

Thank you. So if, for instance, the judge decides there's enough to go forward to trial is it possible for his attorneys to approach BM and say that they think they should try to negotiate a deal or does the offer have to come from him?

 

[DellaC]

I'm just throwing this out there. I asked my Colorado nephew if folks shoot chipmunks where he is (Steamboat Springs), and he said, "Yep. That's a thing." It turns out they are considered varmints by some folks. They can do a lot of damage. There are even youtube videos of chipmunk eradication. From arrowexterminators.com:

Are Chipmunks Harmful?
Despite their innate cuteness, chipmunks are still pests that can damage gardens, flood basements and cause walls and slab structures to collapse.

In an effort to prevent their incisors from overgrowing, chipmunks are known to chew wires, pipes, insulation, and flooring, and damage personal property like furniture, clothing, pictures, boxes and other stored items.
​

BM may have claimed to be picking off chipmunks on May 9, but I think he was acting squirrelly.

 

[Scootie98]

Just thinking about the statement Barry made to his daughters when he informed them that Suzanne had been in an affair. Barry played the "forgiving husband"....telling the daughters that Suzanne's sin (affair) was no worse than any other sin. ....That struck me, because I think Barry feels the same way about murder. Sure, its a sin, but no worse than any other sin. So while Barry was pretending to encourage his daughters to forgive their mother.....in reality, he was rationalizing his own sin in his own mind ...murder...to convince himself that it is just another sin...no better or worse than any other. Very consistent with "if anyone is saved because Suzanne disappeared"....to paraphrase.

 

[marylamby]

People can get their parole transferred to another location or state but yes they petition for the transfer. Another way it can happen is to set less frequent parole meetings and then the parolee just returns to the state to meet with the probation officer.

Thanks, I'll look up CO law.

 

[Scootie98]

Thanks, I'll look up CO law.

There is an "interstate compact" system...a process where states request transfers of a parolee to other states...its a process that is approved in advance of a parolee moving. It takes time...some states are much quicker than others in getting the red tape completed. It normally takes 1 to 3 months to get approval. The residence moving to has to be checked out to see if its legit, job offers verified, etc....

 

[carolmaria]

Just thinking about the statement Barry made to his daughters when he informed them that Suzanne had been in an affair. Barry played the "forgiving husband"....telling the daughters that Suzanne's sin (affair) was no worse than any other sin. ....That struck me, because I think Barry feels the same way about murder. Sure, its a sin, but no worse than any other sin. So while Barry was pretending to encourage his daughters to forgive their mother.....in reality, he was rationalizing his own sin in his own mind ...murder...to convince himself that it is just another sin...no better or worse than any other. Very consistent with "if anyone is saved because Suzanne disappeared"....to paraphrase.

Yep. Sin leveling. In many of those types of church circles, it’s a thing. I observe it in some New Age-y communities, too. “Nothing really happened, because she’s home with the Divine.” Okay, done with the rabbit trail!

 

[marylamby]

There is an "interstate compact" system...a process where states request transfers of a parolee to other states...its a process that is approved in advance of a parolee moving. It takes time...some states are much quicker than others in getting the red tape completed. It normally takes 1 to 3 months to get approval. The residence moving to has to be checked out to see if its legit, job offers verified, etc....

Sounds like the only possible verdict should be life without parole.

 

[marylamby]

Yep. Sin leveling. In many of those types of church circles, it’s a thing. I observe it in some New Age-y communities, too. “Nothing really happened, because she’s home with the Divine.” Okay, done with the rabbit trail!

Screw that, IMO. Separation of church and state. This is a court of law and should be respected as such.

 

[10ofRods]

Hypothetically possible, but your previous comment delt with the FBI being unable to trace a phone after simply inserting a new sim. Which is incorrect. They could easily trace it. Establishing ownership is another issue which was not part of your original scenario. Although I think establishing ownership wouldn't be that difficult based on whom the owner ended up calling and references to whom was called prior to any sim swap . Your mileage may vary

For instance, Barry has a burner he used to call his crew. Just check Barry's crew phones for similar numbers. Both before and after a sum swap. Most of his crew prolly would have fingered him anyway.

It was one in a series of posts (I think, I post in several forums).

I was speaking of my own experience in cases here in California. The device information is only as good as the seller of the device. There's a vast exchange of devices, SIMS, etc, in all sorts of ways - especially in Mexico, which is why many people go to Mexico. Barry and Suzanne went to Mexico several times. Obviously, unlimited alcohol is one draw (probably not for the Morphews), but others go for pain meds, alternative cancer treatments - and burner phones (and a bunch of other stuff - such as burner iPads).

Burners can be used legitimately. But once a person learns how easy it is to get them, they can also be used illicitly (and it's best to keep that usage to a minimum). FBI can trace the device - but time and again, the place where it was sold/distributed does not lead to an actual human individual (IME as a forensic anthropologist).

I'm not going to walk people through the process again, btw.

 

[sk716]

I’m just jumping off your post @10ofRods because I feel like the lay of the land may not be quite what people think it is.

Per the attached Google Maps image, the Arkansas river runs behind PP. But PP is south of the river. So what lies directly across the river from PP is the neighbors’ properties, the access road to those houses and the campground, and, of course, Route 50 itself.

I’ve also added a topo map to show just how crazy the elevation gets north and south of the river. Each heavy topo line represents 200’ of elevation change. Those slopes are steep for a bobcat or an ATV (let alone a novice mountain biker). If he took SM up, he didn’t take her up very far.

And I agree with you, I’m convinced that if SM is nearby, she’s not too far from the river and probably as close to the campground as he dared to go. And I don’t think he used the bobcat, I think he put her in a stereotypical shallow grave. If not, then I believe he took her someplace much further away.

MOO.

Edited for spelling.

View attachment 311522View attachment 311523

The path from the campground/RV park over to Monarch is heavily hiked and biked and runs right behind the PP property. If he had dumped her that close, she would have been found in the first few days.

 

[10ofRods]

Sounds like the only possible verdict should be life without parole.

From your lips to the Court's ears.

I'm here to form a support group if not.