Barry was very big on appearances. He questioned Suzanne about her telling others of their marital problems, and he refused to speak of divorce. I do believe that a lot of this may be based on his religious beliefs, coupled with his own views on roles in marriage. No one leaves Barry. No one could ever seek love elsewhere, when they had him. He would never want the outside world to know that his wife did not find him to be enough. It almost sounds like he bragged about their sexual encounter on Saturday to investigators, how wonderful it was. I think Suzanne was a possession to him, someone not on his level in his mind. He provided, and she was supposed to acquiesce to his demands. When she balked this time, he realized she really was planning her exit. So he stealthily became the hunter, and did what was necessary to ensure that no one would know the truth. Suzanne’s money didn’t hurt either.
Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 #81 *arrest*
- Thread starter Mysti88c
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,185
- Reaction score
- 463,642
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,791
- Reaction score
- 18,371
I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted that they will be informed and listened to but not that they have a "say" as a determining factor.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,791
- Reaction score
- 18,371
I'm still getting the vibe that it was just a marriage heading for the rocks...good times...bad times...normalcy....things that aren't "normal". And normal or not there are couples that sleep together to put it delicately before, during and even after a divorce.
.
Last edited:
victims have no legal authority in sentencing, as far as I can tell. They have a right to be heard. What is interesting in this case is that Victims MM1 and MM2 may well have a far different statement to make regarding sentencing, if it comes to that, than say, AM. The contrast may result in an uncomfortable climate in the courtroom.
I would speculate that any sex between SM and BM for months would amount to a pacifier for BM, and would be to serve that specific purpose.
sk716
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 1,567
- Reaction score
- 24,895
I'm not sure that he did. Barry is a narcissistic sociopath. Was it the FBI he told that he thought she might be having an "emotional affair"? What does a guy like Barry know of an emotional affair? I think the first he knew of someone else was between the 6th and the 9th. He's a cheater, so it's only natural that he probably accused her of cheating constantly, but there is a difference between that kind of irrational jealousy and actually believing she had someone else. Suzanne worked hard to keep that affair a secret even from her closest friends.
I concede that he may have seen something while the Bobcat blade got changed. I can't come up with any other explanation for dialing her phone eleven times in quick succession.
Victims' Input?
Rights afforded to victims – definitions*
FIRST
“(d) The right to be heard at any court proceeding:....
(III) At which the court accepts a negotiated plea agreement;
(IV) At which a person accused or convicted of a crime against the victim is sentenced or resentenced…” bbm
SECOND
“(e) The right to consult with the prosecution after any crime against the victim has been charged, prior to any disposition of the case, or prior to any trial of the case, and the right to be informed of the final disposition of the case; …” bbm
I read those two provisions {{{ w. a bit of interpretation}}} as saying:
First, victims may "be heard in at a court proceeding, in which judge accepts a "negotiated pleas agreement."
........... {{ Imo, victims may speak on the court record at those court proceedings.}}
Second, victims may consult w prosecution.
........... {{ Imo, victims may consult w prosecution, after someone is charged w crime, and before disposition or trial, but not on court record.}}
My2ct.
_________________________________________________
* Current through 2021 Legislative Session 2021 "Section 24-4.1-302.5 - [Effective 9/7/2021]
Section 24-4.1-302.5 - [Effective 9/7/2021] Rights afforded to victims - definitions, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4.1-302.5 | Casetext Search + Citator
@Momofthreeboys sbm for focus I'm curious if you agree that these two victims' rights provisions under CO VRA quoted verbatim and linked below are the ones applicable to the victims' input issue. And if you do not agree, I'm curious to know which statutory provisions you believe do apply. Thx in adv.
Rights afforded to victims – definitions*
FIRST
“(d) The right to be heard at any court proceeding:....
(III) At which the court accepts a negotiated plea agreement;
(IV) At which a person accused or convicted of a crime against the victim is sentenced or resentenced…” bbm
SECOND
“(e) The right to consult with the prosecution after any crime against the victim has been charged, prior to any disposition of the case, or prior to any trial of the case, and the right to be informed of the final disposition of the case; …” bbm
I read those two provisions {{{ w. a bit of interpretation}}} as saying:
First, victims may "be heard in at a court proceeding, in which judge accepts a "negotiated pleas agreement."
........... {{ Imo, victims may speak on the court record at those court proceedings.}}
Second, victims may consult w prosecution.
........... {{ Imo, victims may consult w prosecution, after someone is charged w crime, and before disposition or trial, but not on court record.}}
My2ct.
_________________________________________________
* Current through 2021 Legislative Session 2021 "Section 24-4.1-302.5 - [Effective 9/7/2021]
Section 24-4.1-302.5 - [Effective 9/7/2021] Rights afforded to victims - definitions, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4.1-302.5 | Casetext Search + Citator
Last edited:
@IRBHTX You said,
"You have touched upon another reason why I question this judge's stated rationales. For him to insist that the Media Consortium (MC) must provide a means to protect the daughters from intimidation, harassment or abuse beyond what the MC motion states as the norms for victim protection seems really out of bounds to me.
Future courts can cite this case as reasonable proof to withhold AAs based on the same rationales, which would be absurd in my view.
When the media in their motion
gave a list with citations of all the normal protections available to victims under the law,
the judge did not even address them.
He made a blanket statement that since redaction was impossible at the time (in his view - I believe the MC's reasoning vacated this), the release of the AA would require the media to find a way to protect the daughters. Short of that, the AA is sealed.
Whatever he is protecting the daughters from must be an extremely substantial danger for him to hide behind how onerous redaction is as proof of how nothing can be done to protect the daughters until that is accomplished.
To me his reasoning is circular and illogical. Perhaps there is a valid basis for that? Maybe that is his intent? I believe none or almost none of that AA will ever see the light of day whether or not BM is bound over.
Please be gentle in any response. Not being a lawyer, I am sure my reasoning has its faults. But I am also sure that appalling others by doubting this judge is not one of them.
JMHO"
Each substantive paragraph in your criticism of Judge Murphy contains what can be gently described as at least one misleading misrepresentation of the statements actually made in the documents to which the post refers. I have bolded them for reference.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you quoted the actual documents in your analysis - either it would make a more convincing argument to those of us who disagree, or it would give you reason to reflect on the possibility that your doubts about the judge may not be well founded.
Rule 55.1 requires the judge to articulate one or more "substantial interests" (not an "extremely substantial danger") that justify withholding all or part of a court document from public view. The word "substantial" means, in this context, real and important.
Judge Murphy cited two interests which are independent of each other, not linked as you suggest. There is nothing to "hide behind."
The first interest is practical and related to the fact that the judge is not a robot: he needs time and meaningful input from the parties to do the complex and important job of redacting a 130 page AA - balancing the public's right to know with other substantial interests such as the defendant's interest in preparing a defense. Everyone experienced in legal proceedings understands the reality he is facing, and that this is a real and important interest.
The MC's argument misconstrued the judge's statements (as advocates will) and cited cases related to the defendant's interest in a fair trial. These were not, as you describe them, "a list with citations of all the normal protections available to victims under the law." The cases cited were "pretrial publicity" cases, in which a defendant argued that his Constitutional rights to due process and to a trial before a fair and impartial tribunal were adversely affected. Contrary to your statement, the judge did respond to these citations: he pointed out that since these Constitutional rights were not among the substantial interests he relied on in his decision, their rulings were not applicable or controlling.
I challenge you to identify in the judge's original decision or his denial of the MC motion for reconsideration "...a blanket statement that since redaction was impossible at the time ..., the release of the AA would require the media to find a way to protect the daughters." I find no such statement.
The second substantial interest relied on by Judge Murphy as justification for temporarily withholding the affidavit was his Constitutional responsibility to treat victims of crime with respect and to protect them from intimidation, harassment, abuse, etc. In denying the MC's motion, he pointed out that the alternative remedies they suggested were reactive - they could provide sanctions for criminal offenses, but they would not fulfill the obligation to protect the daughters, which he understood to be his responsibility. He remained convinced that there was no less restrictive alternative for this purpose than temporarily sealing the affidavit.
Also contrary to your statement, this decision does not set a legal precedent that can be relied on by other courts. Only decisions of appellate courts can do that. Moreover, the facts of this case are extraordinary. Judge Murphy's rationale, tailored to those facts, is unlikely to be used again in our lifetime.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if they are mistaken (as I am, often enough).
"You have touched upon another reason why I question this judge's stated rationales. For him to insist that the Media Consortium (MC) must provide a means to protect the daughters from intimidation, harassment or abuse beyond what the MC motion states as the norms for victim protection seems really out of bounds to me.
Future courts can cite this case as reasonable proof to withhold AAs based on the same rationales, which would be absurd in my view.
When the media in their motion
gave a list with citations of all the normal protections available to victims under the law,
the judge did not even address them.
He made a blanket statement that since redaction was impossible at the time (in his view - I believe the MC's reasoning vacated this), the release of the AA would require the media to find a way to protect the daughters. Short of that, the AA is sealed.
Whatever he is protecting the daughters from must be an extremely substantial danger for him to hide behind how onerous redaction is as proof of how nothing can be done to protect the daughters until that is accomplished.
To me his reasoning is circular and illogical. Perhaps there is a valid basis for that? Maybe that is his intent? I believe none or almost none of that AA will ever see the light of day whether or not BM is bound over.
Please be gentle in any response. Not being a lawyer, I am sure my reasoning has its faults. But I am also sure that appalling others by doubting this judge is not one of them.
JMHO"
Each substantive paragraph in your criticism of Judge Murphy contains what can be gently described as at least one misleading misrepresentation of the statements actually made in the documents to which the post refers. I have bolded them for reference.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you quoted the actual documents in your analysis - either it would make a more convincing argument to those of us who disagree, or it would give you reason to reflect on the possibility that your doubts about the judge may not be well founded.
Rule 55.1 requires the judge to articulate one or more "substantial interests" (not an "extremely substantial danger") that justify withholding all or part of a court document from public view. The word "substantial" means, in this context, real and important.
Judge Murphy cited two interests which are independent of each other, not linked as you suggest. There is nothing to "hide behind."
The first interest is practical and related to the fact that the judge is not a robot: he needs time and meaningful input from the parties to do the complex and important job of redacting a 130 page AA - balancing the public's right to know with other substantial interests such as the defendant's interest in preparing a defense. Everyone experienced in legal proceedings understands the reality he is facing, and that this is a real and important interest.
The MC's argument misconstrued the judge's statements (as advocates will) and cited cases related to the defendant's interest in a fair trial. These were not, as you describe them, "a list with citations of all the normal protections available to victims under the law." The cases cited were "pretrial publicity" cases, in which a defendant argued that his Constitutional rights to due process and to a trial before a fair and impartial tribunal were adversely affected. Contrary to your statement, the judge did respond to these citations: he pointed out that since these Constitutional rights were not among the substantial interests he relied on in his decision, their rulings were not applicable or controlling.
I challenge you to identify in the judge's original decision or his denial of the MC motion for reconsideration "...a blanket statement that since redaction was impossible at the time ..., the release of the AA would require the media to find a way to protect the daughters." I find no such statement.
The second substantial interest relied on by Judge Murphy as justification for temporarily withholding the affidavit was his Constitutional responsibility to treat victims of crime with respect and to protect them from intimidation, harassment, abuse, etc. In denying the MC's motion, he pointed out that the alternative remedies they suggested were reactive - they could provide sanctions for criminal offenses, but they would not fulfill the obligation to protect the daughters, which he understood to be his responsibility. He remained convinced that there was no less restrictive alternative for this purpose than temporarily sealing the affidavit.
Also contrary to your statement, this decision does not set a legal precedent that can be relied on by other courts. Only decisions of appellate courts can do that. Moreover, the facts of this case are extraordinary. Judge Murphy's rationale, tailored to those facts, is unlikely to be used again in our lifetime.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if they are mistaken (as I am, often enough).
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,791
- Reaction score
- 18,371
@CGray123 I agree with your interpretation. Given what we did learn from the preliminary fwas further confirmation for me that the judge made a wise decision both in terms of what may not be admissible but the sheer number of potential witnesses that could have been adversely affected prior to the current point in time had the AA been released. Sealing it only increased speculation of the public trying to read between the lines which still continues, but in long run does no real harm and the witnesses have the weight of the ruling continuing to some extent to protect them.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 4,115
- Reaction score
- 38,564
Just a thought -- I wonder if she was doing their taxes that week as well. Or preparing for that. (remember tax filing deadline was extended in 2020 due to covid).
IIRC they owned multiple rental homes, the income from which would complicate their taxes ("complicate" = my personal opinion). Would she call their joint taxes "doing Barry's books?" I think possibly, yes, given the control he seemed to hold in their relationship.
MOO
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,185
- Reaction score
- 463,642
It's long been the typical procedure in Colorado criminal courts for Judges to withhold the AA from public release until the conclusion of the PH, a decision I support. I think this case is a perfect example of why releasing the AA on May 18, 2021 (date charges filed) was unthinkable! BM hadn't even hired his defense team E & N yet! MOO
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,945
- Reaction score
- 201,206
And to put it not so delicately, sometimes one party is coerced or forced, as well.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 12,093
- Reaction score
- 160,522
I think the neighbor JR rang the red flags first. She and Suzanne had a habit of sharing morning coffee. I do believe Suzanne might have shared her intention of a divorce on and even before May 6th. I would hope they were offered protection as a witness, I'd be terrified of BM out on the prowl.
Since Suzanne was a beginner biker, there is no way she would head up dramatic inclines IMO. Big red flag.
BM not responding to the 2 LE calls the evening she went missing. Never looked around for her when he got to Puma Path, didn't try and call her phone. Big red flags.
BM was busier throwing red flags than an official during college game days.
MOO
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,791
- Reaction score
- 18,371
Hmm hard to say. I guess personally I would think she would say I'm doing (my husband's books) but say I'm working on our taxes.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 12,093
- Reaction score
- 160,522
Right back at you, Happy New Year.
Here's a scenario I've been considering due to what appears to be a lack of forensic evidence at the house:
She texts him to bring hot tub stuff
She is changed out of her suit (that's why it's in the bedroom) and into the shorts and string top (he claims this is what she was wearing)
She is standing near the hot tub when he pulls in - does she know / hear him pulling in? if not, she is cleaning the hot tub thinking all is normal
He pushes her with force into the hot tub and drowns her there
Body moved to cooler and driven to it's ultimate location
--
the crack in the doorframe was done earlier - and this action precipitated her text to her sister about his becoming more violent.
In one text message Suzanne told SO, “says he loves me and can’t handle the pain from me not giving him the love he needs. Does not mention all the damage he’s done to me. Physically, mentally.”
In later text she wrote, “Told him I’m done. That I need peace. Not sure what’s next” and “He tries to use money as a tool and the girls. I didn’t take the bait.”
Barry Morphew In Court: Investigator Says Suzanne Morphew Was Having Affair When She Disappeared
(Note, changed BFF to initials)
BBM
As many of us thought - the communication with the BFF is going to tell the tale....
IMO
She texts him to bring hot tub stuff
She is changed out of her suit (that's why it's in the bedroom) and into the shorts and string top (he claims this is what she was wearing)
She is standing near the hot tub when he pulls in - does she know / hear him pulling in? if not, she is cleaning the hot tub thinking all is normal
He pushes her with force into the hot tub and drowns her there
Body moved to cooler and driven to it's ultimate location
--
the crack in the doorframe was done earlier - and this action precipitated her text to her sister about his becoming more violent.
In one text message Suzanne told SO, “says he loves me and can’t handle the pain from me not giving him the love he needs. Does not mention all the damage he’s done to me. Physically, mentally.”
In later text she wrote, “Told him I’m done. That I need peace. Not sure what’s next” and “He tries to use money as a tool and the girls. I didn’t take the bait.”
Barry Morphew In Court: Investigator Says Suzanne Morphew Was Having Affair When She Disappeared
(Note, changed BFF to initials)
BBM
As many of us thought - the communication with the BFF is going to tell the tale....
IMO
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 4,115
- Reaction score
- 38,564
Do we know this? I only was aware of the one time. I sure hope it's true though.
Same here. But I'm going to guess neither of us are in an oppressed /abusive relationship with a controlling narcissist.
Barry would need some basis for thinking "she might be having an "emotional affair"". What would he form that basis from, if not information he had uncovered? The only other source would be Suzanne or a third party who knew about it. I think Barry was playing coy with the subject...the FBI was evaluating his reaction very carefully, imo. I agree with you he wouldn't know what that means....Nor would he accept any type of an affair, up to and including a sexual one. His admission about an emotional affair tells me that Barry makes a distinction between a physical affair and a non-physical affair....I think he wanted to give the impression that he considered an emotional affair one that was less serious (and wouldn't trigger murder). I think he was disingenuous about the subject...jmo.
It was said in court that JR and Suzanne sometimes had coffee.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 66
- Guests online
- 1,951
- Total visitors
- 2,017