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

[CGray123]

In the original post by @CGray123 the following bolded statement is incorrect:
"If the judge wants to continue to withhold public access, he must explain why and set a new date when public access will be allowed. He has followed Colorado law (and Constitutional Law) to the letter so far, and I expect he will continue to do so. Even the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition seems to agree: no appeal of his original order limiting access to the AA was filed."

See attached proof that it was "appealed." And the judge responded. I don't think either the MSM motion or the judge's response ever made it to the public docket. Haven't looked lately though.

I have ongoing concerns about the lack of redaction and release of the AA in a timely manner. If BM is not bound over on Sept. 17, we will never know what evidence LE has except for that released in the prelim.

Even if BM is bound over, I do not think the judge will release the AA unless ordered to do so by a higher court. Whatever he is protecting from public view must be very explosive - potentially more so than the known facts surrounding this murder, which I already find shocking.

Just my speculation & MOO.

When Judge Murphy issued his original order (6-4-2021) restricting public access to the AA, he afforded the Media an opportunity to respond to his decision. He said on page 5:

"With regard to the Media Consortium's response, the Court will allow the Media to respond to this order to the extent issues are raised that they did not address in their Response."

The media took this opportunity and filed a response and request for reconsideration on June 16, 2021 which the judge denied on July 16, 2021. This is the document you describe - incorrectly - as an "appeal."

The Media's Response and Request for Reconsideration was not an appeal to a higher court to reverse Judge Murphy's opinion, which was my (correct) usage of the word "appeal". The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition's article describing Judge Murphy's decision to deny the Motion for Reconsideration made no reference to any such appeal to a higher court, and I have found no such appeal on the Colorado Supreme Court's docket. I infer that the Colorado FOIC decided that there was little likelihood of a favorable precedent from the CSC, and folded their cards.

As I pointed out correctly, There is no appeal pending of the order of June 4, 2021.

However, that order also provides, on page 6:

"Before the expiration of this Order the Court will consider further requests or argument as to why or why not this order should continue and in what form."

There is still latitude under the law for the judge to withhold the affidavit. However, IMO there would be no viable reason to withhold any AA statements that were testified to in the preliminary hearing, all of which are quite explosive IMO. The judge has been following the law scrupulously at every point so far. So, I am as certain as I can be that the judge will issue a redacted affidavit, with explanations within 7 days after the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, as per his original order.

 

[CGray123]

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

Or at least have a say so about it?

Those who qualify as victims under the Colorado Victim Rights Act would have the right, among others:

"To be present and heard regarding bond reduction or modification, a subpoena for the victim’s records, acceptance of a plea agreement, sentencing or modification of a sentence, any request modification to the “no contact” provision or criminal protection order or the petition for expungement;"

 

[Tortoise]

I'm a bit confused about the truck reset / reboot at 5:30pm if he didn't go anywhere. Is it possible he did use the truck and the reset was to erase that journey, or was he just trying to hide the fact that he was at home all that time?

The fact he said he was out, possibly tried to get away with saying he was at DSI until they showed him proof that was earlier, and then saying he was at Salida Stove and Spa, could mean he was out and thought they might have proof he'd been seen, just trying to hide where exactly he was out. The prosecution didn't counter his claim to have been at SS&S by saying the truck telematics ruled it out, why would the defense keep on insisting he was there, knowing the prosecution said the truck didn't move?

 

[Deleted member 222031]

When Judge Murphy issued his original order (6-4-2021) restricting public access to the AA, he afforded the Media an opportunity to respond to his decision. He said on page 5:

"With regard to the Media Consortium's response, the Court will allow the Media to respond to this order to the extent issues are raised that they did not address in their Response."

The media took this opportunity and filed a response and request for reconsideration on June 16, 2021 which the judge denied on July 16, 2021. This is the document you describe - incorrectly - as an "appeal."

The Media's Response and Request for Reconsideration was not an appeal to a higher court to reverse Judge Murphy's opinion, which was my (correct) usage of the word "appeal". The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition's article describing Judge Murphy's decision to deny the Motion for Reconsideration made no reference to any such appeal to a higher court, and I have found no such appeal on the Colorado Supreme Court's docket. I infer that the Colorado FOIC decided that there was little likelihood of a favorable precedent from the CSC, and folded their cards.

As I pointed out correctly, There is no appeal pending of the order of June 4, 2021.

However, that order also provides, on page 6:

"Before the expiration of this Order the Court will consider further requests or argument as to why or why not this order should continue and in what form."

There is still latitude under the law for the judge to withhold the affidavit. However, IMO there would be no viable reason to withhold any AA statements that were testified to in the preliminary hearing, all of which are quite explosive IMO. The judge has been following the law scrupulously at every point so far. So, I am as certain as I can be that the judge will issue a redacted affidavit, with explanations within 7 days after the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, as per his original order.

I understand your valid point about my use of the word "appeal." I do think the Media Consortium motion & the judge's rejection of it are important to the new requirements of Rule 55.1, to Colorado law in general and to this case. While the judge may be scrupulous in your view, I respectfully disagree.

I am not a lawyer but I do feel that despite my limited knowledge of law, my expectations of the judge are reasonable and questioning his actions or lack thereof is appropriate. Can't wait to see what he decides on Sept. 17 and what his reasoning is.

See attached re: giving public access to the Media Consortium motion and his response. If I am looking in the right place, neither has been docketed. How else can the judge release them to the public except to docket them?

MOO

 

[swedeheart]

Regarding prelim transcripts, where do we stand right now? Is there some way to add a feature to the thread for donations? Should be easy to raise $321 and end some speculation with the exact words of LE in court. I would donate.
@jondaba - Please weigh in here.
Thanks!

I haven't caught up with the last 5 pages, so I don't know the status on this, but just wanted to let you know I'm in!

 

[marylamby]

Oh, I get the why but why then, if he was so adept at surveillance would he leave his home so vulnerable. Not to mention, if a TURKEY or MOUNTAIN LION or DEER or BEAR or CHIPMUNK were to enter his own property, wouldn't he want to know about it? Wouldn't that be monetary lapse of judgement?

I just want to add that I absolutely meant 'monetary' and not momentary. It was a play on words. There's money to be had on deer heads/antlers, bear skins and taxidermy.

 

[Seattle1]

I understand your valid point about my use of the word "appeal." I do think the Media Consortium motion & the judge's rejection of it are important to the new requirements of Rule 55.1, to Colorado law in general and to this case. While the judge may be scrupulous in your view, I respectfully disagree.

I am not a lawyer but I do feel that despite my limited knowledge of law, my expectations of the judge are reasonable and questioning his actions or lack thereof is appropriate. Can't wait to see what he decides on Sept. 17 and what his reasoning is.

See attached re: giving public access to the Media Consortium motion and his response. If I am looking in the right place, neither has been docketed. How else can the judge release them to the public except to docket them?

MOO

If I remember correctly, the Media Consortium made both their motion and the Judge's response public prior to the Judge unsealing them, pursuant to Rule 55.1. OP accessed the same to attach the snapshot here so I don't understand the complaint. Perhaps contacting the court clerk may answer why the unsealed docs have not been docketed on the public site. MOO

ETA: add link
Judge rejects media consortium’s request to reconsider sealing of Barry Morphew arrest affidavit - Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

 

[swedeheart]

I don't have a gut feeling where she is but I feel that it would be foolish for him to put her on his property since that could more directly tie him to her disappearance. If she is on the PP property, then she is hidden to the extent that he confidently feels she will not be found and was very comfortable to sell the property rather than monitor or guard it for years to come.

I'm not a BM supporter, but in fairness I feel that too much was made of him protecting his property during the search. It was perhaps over the top for him to have a gun slung over his shoulder, but to have a barricade at driveway and to have eyes and cameras on the property was reasonable. He had 7 or 8 acres (I believe) to watch and couldn't watch it all. There's no telling what kind of misguided bad apples could have shown up for the search and ended up on his property. It's easy for searchers to look at a map and see where property lines are but difficult when walking the terrain. My impression also was that he informed the searchers that they were getting close to the property line and they had not actually entered his property. I'm glad that he did eventually let Andy, searchers and dogs on the property.

That's what Sharon Garrison's husband thought, too, yet he buried her in their yard, 6 feet down, where she was missed by scent dogs. He was also working on a "landscaping project" at the time. This was also a Colorado missing persons case, out of Breckenridge. There was a secret recording (by her), and a bike involved, too. Crazy story. I came across an episode of "The Devil Speaks" about this case titled "Lake of Lies." I was stunned at the (possible) similarities to the Morphew case. You can watch the episode on Discovery +. Her husband is scheduled to be released on parole in 2024.

Sharon Garrison Murder: Who Killed Her? Where is Chuck Garrison Now?

 

[sk716]

I like visual aids, too, @sk716. @Trackergd and I have always thought that area was where BM brought her body. A power line parallels the back road to the RV park. It would be easy enough to start down the road on an ATV, then go over to the power line cut, follow that for a while, then veer off up into the mountains that way.
Few folks would use that road at night. If BM traveled along that road with no headlights, it would be easy enough to pull off if he saw headlights from another vehicle. Once he was off road and up into the mountainside, he’d be scot free.

I think he could have gotten a little higher up, he had about three hours to get where he put her and back down to the house. He wouldn't have needed to dig, just know of abandoned animal dens big enough to stuff a body into.

 

[sk716]

Is this the peak where Barry was laying on the ground? That is certainly an event demanding evaluation.

I haven't seen that pic. Will check the timeline and see if I can find the pic.

 

[Seattle1]

I haven't seen that pic. Will check the timeline and see if I can find the pic.

I recall AM recounting how/when the photo of BM was taken and I think it's probably available on PE.

 

[sk716]

I obviously missed this along the way -- where exactly is this hiking/biking trail relative to Puma Path and the Ritter's home?

When I looked on google maps for the Colorado Trail, I see it heading north from the trailhead at hwy 50, but I don't see the route on the south side of the highway.

It hooks over a bit. As far as I can find this is the easiest way to see where the trail runs. https://coloradotrail.org/trail/guidebooks-and-maps/

 

[Pink2017]

I think the absence of evidence is evidence in this case. Things that should exist, and don't are not accidental. Suzanne's phone going dark as soon as Barry arrived home, and continuing throughout the evening and night, while he is "with her" should not exist. Barry will not take the stand. But, how much questioning about this dark period did LE get Barry to talk about? How many calls were made to Suzanne, and went unanswered? Was Barry's phone active during times it wasn't on airplane mode? Then, why his phone but not hers? Why did Barry sit in the hotel room for 4 and a half hours after moving the work project up a full 24 hours to "get it ready" after working 11 minutes? Again, he's in the room with no activity when there should be activity to support the expedited work project. The prosecution willl need to school the jury that the absence of evidence is evidence, when things should exist and don't.

Mounting evidence. Patterns count.

 

[Pink2017]

That's what Sharon Garrison's husband thought, too, yet he buried her in their yard, 6 feet down, where she was missed by scent dogs. He was also working on a "landscaping project" at the time. This was also a Colorado missing persons case, out of Breckenridge. There was a secret recording (by her), and a bike involved, too. Crazy story. I came across an episode of "The Devil Speaks" about this case titled "Lake of Lies." I was stunned at the (possible) similarities to the Morphew case. You can watch the episode on Discovery +. Her husband is scheduled to be released on parole in 2024.

Sharon Garrison Murder: Who Killed Her? Where is Chuck Garrison Now?

Of all the points, the primary being where is SM? In agreement, BM has lived a lifetime around "the hunt, the ...." his knowledge in it gives him cover. He understands at an expert level how to avoid.... (fill in the blanks).

 

[sk716]

I posted this here:
CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #73 *ARREST*

"And we learned from the Unmasked podcast that BM was obsessive about looking at his cameras and trail cams - something important with these cameras IMO
Courtesy @Ontario Mom
31:22
“something that one of the co-workers of
barrie told me uh when i interviewed them
they said that he was constantly
checking his game cameras and his
cameras at the home
and so when i had heard that you know
the surveillance cameras at his home weren't working
i mean obviously in the courtroom we
found out i mean we don't know who
you know the defense is saying suzanne
pulled the plug on the cables
um but it's like
it i mean that's something that these
co-workers who worked with him every
single day said that he was constantly checking and
so for them to not be working is very interesting”

THANK YOU! I was starting to feel crazy but I remembered about him obsessively checking them on his phone.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

When Judge Murphy issued his original order (6-4-2021) restricting public access to the AA, he afforded the Media an opportunity to respond to his decision. He said on page 5:

"With regard to the Media Consortium's response, the Court will allow the Media to respond to this order to the extent issues are raised that they did not address in their Response."

The media took this opportunity and filed a response and request for reconsideration on June 16, 2021 which the judge denied on July 16, 2021. This is the document you describe - incorrectly - as an "appeal."

The Media's Response and Request for Reconsideration was not an appeal to a higher court to reverse Judge Murphy's opinion, which was my (correct) usage of the word "appeal". The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition's article describing Judge Murphy's decision to deny the Motion for Reconsideration made no reference to any such appeal to a higher court, and I have found no such appeal on the Colorado Supreme Court's docket. I infer that the Colorado FOIC decided that there was little likelihood of a favorable precedent from the CSC, and folded their cards.

As I pointed out correctly, There is no appeal pending of the order of June 4, 2021.

However, that order also provides, on page 6:

"Before the expiration of this Order the Court will consider further requests or argument as to why or why not this order should continue and in what form."

There is still latitude under the law for the judge to withhold the affidavit. However, IMO there would be no viable reason to withhold any AA statements that were testified to in the preliminary hearing, all of which are quite explosive IMO. The judge has been following the law scrupulously at every point so far. So, I am as certain as I can be that the judge will issue a redacted affidavit, with explanations within 7 days after the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, as per his original order.

I agree unless the potentially rare occurrence where he doesn't move this case forward. If that happens I believe he will keep the AA sealed.

 

[sk716]

I recall AM recounting how/when the photo of BM was taken and I think it's probably available on PE.

Still hunting it. If I can find it we can compare it to other pics of those mountains.

 

[justtrish]

Shorter Plunder video talking about Suzanne's inheritance and money from the court Transcripts

After listening to the longer Plunder video about Suzanne's conversations about Barry with Sheila and then this one talking about her inheritance, I think so much more was said in in the court than what has been tweeted and reported. Since so much of this is establishing patterns and getting background and the little details, it's so easy to miss the full feeling of the courtroom when we just get tweets. I think it was CLEALY established that he was controlling and her conversations with Shelia for the past 2 years before she went missing make that very clear! Also, not only was her inheritance used in the house, but also investing in silver.

 

[10ofRods]

Those who qualify as victims under the Colorado Victim Rights Act would have the right, among others:

"To be present and heard regarding bond reduction or modification, a subpoena for the victim’s records, acceptance of a plea agreement, sentencing or modification of a sentence, any request modification to the “no contact” provisiont or criminal protection order or the petition for expungement;"

So we can expect to see consultation with both daughters.

The way I read the CO VRA is that only the daughters would qualify (unless Suzanne had set up a will leaving some of her estate to her siblings or other relatives). I find it highly improbable that Suzanne did that.

 

[sk716]

I want to drop this here because it matters to the timeline. Sunset on May 9th was at 8:03pm.

The hikers and bikers seem to clear the trails around sunset so Barry would not have been able to put her on the four wheeler and head out until the sun was down.